The Dangers of a Fourth Reich

I didn't say you were a narcissist. Nevertheless, triangulation is one of the markers that point to it.

I should point out that, when I mentioned to my brother that I've been roasted my whole life for 20 out of 21 markers for Asperger's Syndrome, he in turn pointed out "just because you have markers doesn't mean you have the condition. It may just mean you have the markers."

Such an optomist, my brother.

 

Buckle up Dorothy, Trump is gonna win another term.
Not because he deserves it, but because the DNC shafted Sanders again and went with a man blatantly suffering from the onset of dementia.
They would rather lose with a mental deficient than chance winning with a socialist.
Trump will destroy him in debates, it will be embarrassing. To be honest it's tantamount to the DNC being guilty of elder abuse.

 

Why don't you find a quote of mine on here and then link something about narcissism and show me how they relate? I want to learn. When you can't I will know you are just using words you think mean something.

 

The financial crisis we will experience as a result of the Covid19 Virus will most likely cause a never before encountered banking crisis in America and the rest of the world. Could this, as some "experts" predict, cause the EU to really unite and become a power larger than either Russia or the U.S.?

This tribulation could herald the coming of the Fourth Reich or the coming of Christ, depending on whether you're talking to a humanist or a Christian. Either way this will mean the end of the world as we know it.

Being an Atheist I'd prefer the Fourth Reich or else I'll have some serious egg on my face and a lot of explaining to do.

 

The DNC shafted Sanders again? Evidence? I thought it was black voters. Are you a racist? And that man suffering from the onset of dementia--you're confused. The 'Publcans are gonna run him again, so he can finish the job of destroying 'Merica. Ah, Trump is such a stud in debates. Playground bully namecalling--the last one with Hillary with him circling her resembling another in the Jaws flick series. Not everybody loves a bully.

 

Hopefully the world will never repeat the mistakes of the 1930's that allowed Hitler to come to power. I cannot think of any western countries where this could happen today.
Trump may be a bit goofy at times, but I could never even imagine him supporting or condoning mass murder.

 

At the moment, the EU survives by supporting the weaker countries. I feel that lack of countries being able to fund it is more likely to break the EU up.
I feel that the very thought of a military arm of the EU played a large part in the UK voting for brexit. It is a point that no one wants to talk about, but hopefully they have learnt a lesson. France and Germany in a military alliance, just think about it.???

 

Already did that. Evidently you didn't get it. I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you. YOU must be the one to understand, and it never was my responsibility to make you.

 

apparently enough people do.

 

It's not an either or thing. You'll get both--in succession.

 

Are you so certain? That's how much of the democrat party expects things to work.

 

That was succinct. Also quite accurate, in my opinion.

True, but I'm not that keen on following their lead. One of our founding fathers stated , quite accurately, that democracy always leads to despotism. Perhaps republicanism does, too, but that's usually because there have always been despots working feverishly to undermine them by converting them into democracies.

Democracy, however, seems to be custom-designed to do this, and will always ultimately fail for this very reason.

 

Sanders is older. How did the DNC "shaft" him.? He lost those primaries fair and square. It's Biden or Trump. Another term of Trump and there will be little left worth preserving in this country to argue about.

 

"Democracy" meaning? Majority rule? Free elections? "Republic" and "Democracy" are not dichotomous choices, contrary to what you may be reading in the John Birch Society's manual. We can have "Democratic Republics", and a few of them actually are "democratic" and "republics". "Republic" is often equated with "representative democracy", although I think the Founders meant something more than that. When the Founding Fathers wrote about "democracy", they were thinking about the Athenian kind, where people voted directly on policy issues, much like our "State Questions." They foresaw that such a system unbridled could lead quickly to the beggaring of the well-to-do by the riff raff, so they gave us our current convoluted system with its "checks and balances", Bill of Right, and electoral college. And still we get stuck with a dangerous demagogue who is seeking to dismantle the checks and safeguards they put in place. It makes no sense to grouse about the "deep state", on the one hand, while denouncing democracy in the same breath. Your populist hero, who has never had the support of a majority of the American people, is probably the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare.

 

Let's see. On the basis of unfocused's statement that "numerous historians agree with me" you feel confident you can identify "markers" of a narcissist based on "triangulation" (whatever that means) when you indicate you think modern psychology is the bunk? Seems to me that's ample basis for diagnosing you as a troll. "Triangulation" in psychology,"is when a toxic or manipulative person, often a person with strong narcissistic traits, brings a third person into their relationship in order to remain in control." Triangulation: The Narcissist’s Best Play I don't think citing historians as authority qualifies.

But still you're using psychological labels against opponents? Why was the librarian trying to get you, a teenager, to read "Dick and Jane"? A commentary on her assessment of your intellectual level"?

People may not have changed much in the 6,000 years of recorded history, but our knowledge of them and everything else sure has as a result of scientific advances.

As a corrective to your somewhat fractured view of U.S. political history, as I recall, JFK championed and LBJ signed into law the major civil rights legislation of the 1969s. Your indictment of the democrats in the decades following the Civil War is accurate, but you neglect to mention that in the 1960s and 70s, the parties did a switcheroo, with Democrats embracing civil rights and Republicans opting for their "Southern Strategy".

It was Constance Cumbey. I read her book a long time ago, although if I still have it, I'd be hard put to find it. It was a hoot! What a nutjob! Basically using the "guilt by association" methodology to lump everything that didn't fit her narrow religious right worldlview as sinister and Satanic and part of a great conspiracy. I happen to share her antipathy to the New Age Movement, but for an entirely different set of reasons. I'd take anything she says with a grain of salt.

Getting back to the main topic: Is there a real danger of a Fascist takeover in the U.S.? I think there is. All of the main ingredients are there: personalism, centered on a demagogue who thinks he knows more than the experts; Nationalism ("Make 'Murica Great Again"), scapegoating of outgroups (Mexicans, Muslims, Libruls), attacks on the press and the rule of law, and various armed an dangerous bands of brownshirt types ready to follow the leader. What more do we need? Just a spark to set it all off. This is the closest we've ever come. Hope it doesn't happen, but I'm not optimistic.

 

I see no reason to believe Johnson wanted to sign the civil rights act into law. Rather, he knew it would be political suicide for him and other democrats if he failed to. He is credited with a statement after signing it to the effect that "...I'll have those niggers voting democrat for the next xxx years!"

A simple look at the condition of cities run by democrats for long periods of time shows the effects of their policies as being disastrous.

Most Americans I'm aware of, including the overwhelming majority of self-professed republicans, just want those on government payrolls to obey our Constitution and stop making excuses for trying to ignore it as outdated or trying to do an endrun around it.

As for a fascist takeover, I highly doubt that will come from republicans, but I admit there easily could be rinos that we haven't exposed who would love to betray us all. It's just that I grew up surrounded by democrats and THEIR policies and actions, so that's what I'm familiar with. What they said and what they did created lasting negative impressions on me. YOUR mileage may vary.

That bit about "Mexicans, Muslims, Libruls"...? I'm more concerned with those who insist on ignoring our immigration laws, regardless of whether or not they are among these groups. Those who cross into our country illegally are criminals and should be hunted down and removed without ever having the possibility of being allowed to return. Repeat offenders should be summarily shot or hung on the spot and left on display as a warning to others who insist on violating our laws. If you can't obey our immigration laws, why should anyone believe you would obey other laws?

Don't waste my time asking me stupid questions about hypothetical scenarios such as: "So you think that....?" or "What if/about...?"....
I've already said what I think, and I'm not going to waste my time with such endless debates. They're pointless and stir up endless strife.

 

But sign it, he did. You're getting into motives here, but the fact is support for civil rights has ever since been a Democrat thing. Nixon wasn't an environmentalist at heart either, but he created EPA and signed into law more environmental legislation than any other president, just to preempt Edmund Muskie.

Bullshit! Classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Most major cities are run by Democrats, even in deep red states; most major cities have urban problems; therefore, Democrats cause urban problems--Not! Illogical. Anchorage, Boston, Boise, Dallas, Denver, LA, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle, Tucson . I wouldn't want to live there (I'm a small town guy, myself). But they're centers of major industries, home to lots of bright, well-educated and healthy people. Republican are in control of Colorado Springs, El Paso, Fort Worth, Fresno, Glendale, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Mesa AZ, San Diego, Scotstdale--all with their own urban problems.

That would include me, but I and many Americans I'm aware of believe that a document intended to last through the ages has to be interpreted flexibly.

Naw, it'll be the right wing MAGA hat wearers like you whose authoritarian values and reflexes are primed and ready.

Wow! Seig heil!

Wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts or questions.

 

You are compressing a timeline into a single sentence that literally makes no sense when weighed against the actual events. The two major parties did now pull this fictional "switcheroo" so many seem to be claiming. It didn't happen. They're still the same parties. However, there were some aisle-crossers who literally changed parties to save their political hide in their district. But they did not reprogram the parties into swapping any element of their respective charters.

That's a myth that has been blown way out of proportion, just like the smallpox blanket story.

 

It did happen. The Democrats after the Civil War tended to be a party of Southern Johnny rebs and immigrants. During the Depression of the 1930s, FDR was able to put together his remarkable New Deal coalition of strange bedfellows, with Blacks, blue collar whites, ethnic and religious minorities, and Southern white segregationists all together under the same roof. Then came Truman and the aftermath of World War II, when the Democrats embraced the beginnings of Civil Rights and the Dixiecrats broke away. During the sixties came the marches and JFK at least rhetorically embraced the cause of Civil Rights. Until the Civil Rights Act of1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the newly enfranchised African-Americans flocked to the Democrats. it was still possible to speak of the "Solid South" and mean solidly Democrat, but that soon changed. George Wallace ran in '68 on an independent ticket. In the 1970s, Nixon tried with some success to woo the South with his "southern strategy" of judicial appointments. At the same time, the McGovernites and eastern & west coast liberals who controlled the Democratic Party, became increasingly dominated by liberals from the Northeast and West Coast, catering to racial and ethnic minorities. But it was Clinton who delivered the final blow to Southern Democrats. Leading Southern Congressional figures switched sides, so that today the South is pretty solidly Red State Republican. Plenty of aisle-crossers. Those were the meaningful changes. Whatever you mean by "swapping elements of their respective charters" seems to be gobbledygook.
How the South Became Republican: It's About Race - CounterPunch.org
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south
Why Did The South Turn Republican?
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms? | Live Science
How the GOP Went South
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2001&context=honors_capstone
To say "they're still the same parties" in any meaningful way is nonsense.

 

To say they did a magical ideological "swap" is even more ludicrous. It's a product of people wanting to compress events into a neat little package for presentation (especially if it can be made to rhyme or sounds good chanted over and over). And I don't know how you expect anyone to take some of these "sources" as anything beyond hard left echo bullhorns.

I do respect you admitting to "gobbledygook" though. It must be difficult to grasp all of this when your TV has only 1 channel.