[thescourged1]

Nice response, well stated FRiend!

I hadn't really looked at it from a oratorical technique point of view, so your analysis put another light on the subject that I personally find intriguing.

All I'm trying to put forth, is that folks need to keep their wits about them and be analytical, if not cynical. Even I have to keep my enthusiasm in check for The Donald until I see more.

[Ohioan]

The parallels to the Nazi takeover of Germany are particularly relevant, as the Nazis, although they were winning the street war with their ideological Marxist cousins, were ultimately dependent upon the election process to gain apparent legitimacy. Their Bolshevik cousins seized power by force, and then had rigged elections. The Nazis became the dominant party in an election--the last unrigged one.

The mistake many make, is that they do not see either the Communists or Nazis as technicians in the power game, and focus more on their ideological pronouncements rather than what was actually in play in the pursuit of power. The pronouncements in both cases were part of the techniques. There doubtless were some who really believed in the rhetoric, philosophically--as with Lenin's "useful idiots." But the "useful idiots," would never have been able to consolidate a major nation into a monolithic totalitarian Socialist state.