Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here.

Herman Cain. Herman Cain. Herman Cain.

What is this? I don't even

You have to play the video, I should have mentioned that.

dogma wrote:You have to play the video, I should have mentioned that.

I did.

Oddly enough, the speaker didn't mention "Herman Cain" once.

Did you mislink?

The implication is that Herman Cain is still a legitimate candidate, despite the race being generally thought of as Romney v. Perry.

Poor wit, I guess.

dogma wrote:The implication is that Herman Cain is still a legitimate candidate, despite the race being generally thought of as Romney v. Perry.

Poor wit, I guess.

Indeed.

Before the Iowa primary the conventional wisdom had Edwards against Clinton for the '08 candidate. Romney and Huckabee took the '07 Iowa Straw poll by reasonable margins.

It's almost as if history shows that neither Romney nor Perry will be the eventual nominee.

In my defense, I am being forced to endure student presentations (someone, academically, compared Stalin to Voldemort) so the phrase "Wit's End" carries weight.

But you're right, there is a definite trend toward candidates that can sell themselves as outsiders (that's what I'm drawing from your comment, anyway). Obama and McCain both got nominated on that and, arguably, so did the latter Bush.

If Ron Paul were politically competent he might even have a shot.

dogma wrote:In my defense, I am being forced to endure student presentations (someone, academically, compared Stalin to Voldemort) so the phrase "Wit's End" carries weight.

I don't even...

I don't think Voldemort was socialist... if anything he was elitest- wanting purebloods.. more like Hitler if anything!

Since when was Stalin socialist?

Leaders of totalitarian regimes more often than not differ markedly from their espoused doctrines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:I don't think Voldemort was socialist... if anything he was elitest- wanting purebloods.. more like Hitler if anything!

The problem with using Voldemort as a real world politcial allegory is using Voldemort as a real world political allegory.

Let me spell it out with a 'serious' question, a question which I would not normally ask for a similar reason to what dogma calls 'wits end'.

Which was worse:

1. The Khmer Rouge Year Zero in 1975.
Pol Pot has his organisation frogmarch tghe Cambodian people back from a 20th century society back to a medieval agrarian society. Approximately two million die from hunger, disease, border fighting and extra judicial killing.

2. The destruction of Alderaan by ther Death Star.
Approximately two billion sentient beings died when Moff Tarkin ordered the super laser turned on the peaceful planet.