WAIT AND WATCH.....A WARNING

homeagain wrote: AHEM....DID I NOT SAY HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF?

History repeating itself would be another "Kent State" happening during a Second Turning. If you have an example of a similar episode occurring during a Fourth Turning, it is that incident you should be referring to when seeking to bolster the "history repeats itself" mantra, especially since the whole concept of "turnings" is premised on that concept. Every 80 years or so the Union goes through a similar period of events which can be divided into 4 distinct categories . . . High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. This latest Fourth Turning started around 2008 and will run through 2028, the end of Trump's second term. The last Fourth Turning was the period of time between the end of WW I and the end of WW II. The one before that was around the time of the Civil War. The one before that was the Revolutionary War period.

THANK U FOR "CLIFF NOTES' ON THE FOURTH TURNING......MY ANSWER TO U IS THIS....WAIT AND WATCH,BECAUSE WHEN GUNS R PLACES IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO R MACHO OR AFRAID FOR THIER LIFE....THEY DO STUPID AND REGRETTABLE THINGS.....

That summary was for you, so that you understood that I'm aware of what you are referring to with your "Fourth Turning" references, and why it is wholly inappropriate to try and leverage an incident from a Second Turning for a Fourth Turning prophecy.

It's akin to the collectivist penchant for removing a sentence from all of its surrounding substance in an effort to give the sentence a different meaning from the one assigned to it by its speaker.

PrintSmith wrote: That summary was for you, so that you understood that I'm aware of what you are referring to with your "Fourth Turning" references, and why it is wholly inappropriate to try and leverage an incident from a Second Turning for a Fourth Turning prophecy.

It's akin to the collectivist penchant for removing a sentence from all of its surrounding substance in an effort to give the sentence a different meaning from the one assigned to it by its speaker.

I DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THAT STATEMENT,I DO, HOWEVER KNOW,WHEN A GUN IS INVOLVED THE UNFORESEEN CAN AND DOES OCCUR....SPECIFICALLY WHEN THREATEN/INEXPERIENCED WITH FIRE ARMS.....THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED AT KENT STATE....AND U R SAYING IT COULD NOT REOCCUR IN ANOTHER SITUATION?

No, I'm saying that its a poor example to use an incident that occurred during a Second Turning period of time in a Fourth Turning conceptualization when such an incident is just as likely to occur in a Fourth Turning time frame as it is in a First, Second, or Third Turning one. Kent State has not a thing to do with Fourth Turning, it was Second Turning, an Awakening Period, occurrence, and wholly consistent with the happenings during an awakening period, as were the civil rights marches, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK.

A political assassination of the Russian Czar during an Unraveling is not the same as a political assassination of a president during an Awakening. Yes, they are both political assassinations, but they are happening for different reasons, because they happened during different turnings. The same applies to your failed attempt to take a Kent State episode from an Awakening and apply it to a Crisis period.

Predictions are very tough. If that assassin's bullet last year had been one inch more to the right, we would have a very different 2025.

NOT REALLY...VANCE WOULD THEN BE POTUS....ALL THE SAME

homeagain wrote: NOT REALLY...VANCE WOULD THEN BE POTUS....ALL THE SAME

I don't know that. I think Trump has more charisma and experience than Vance.

You presume that Republicans wouldn’t have chosen a new candidate and acted like Democrats in choosing a new candidate outside of a democratic process . . .

constitutioncenter.org/blog/understandin...der-the-constitution


However, this provision was not clear as to whether the vice president was to temporarily fill the role, or whether the vice president actually became the president. Until the 25th Amendment was ratified, presidents and vice presidents operated under the unofficial “Tyler precedent,” set by President John Tyler who assumed the role of president after the death of William Henry Harrison in April 1841. Tyler took the Oath of Office despite questioning from others such as John Quincy Adams who doubted that the vice president became the actual president. It was not until the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that Congress realized the need for constitutional clarity in presidential succession.

The Sections

Sections 1 and 2 of the 25th Amendment gave detail and clarity to the first part of that paragraph from Article II, Section 1. It codified the Tyler precedent and made clear the vice president becomes president “in case of the removal of the President from office or of his death o

IF I AM INTERPRETING THIS CORRECTLY....JFK'S DEATH SOLIDIFIED THE ISSUE.