U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

Think harder.

This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant​ to work.

[rvg]

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP

That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.

[Papewaio]

A two party system is only one step better than a one party system.

Two party systems have a tendency to smother anything that upsets a gravy train. It isn't a system like in law where you have two opposing forces of prosecuter and defender with a judge and jury (arguably a 4 party system).

Two party systems create binary answers to issues, polarizing even simple issues where teamwork makes sense and a very black or white solution set. Have only a hammer and all your problems are nails. Have a two party system and you see through a lens of us vs them.

Some issues in life are that simple, but I'd they are that simple you don't need a specialized leadership to deal with them. You have a specialized leadership to deal with complex problems. Having more then two parties allows voters to more closely vote for a party that represents them the best instead of selecting one out of fear of the other guy.

Most of us wouldn't care how you vote. Except your relationships with foreign nations generally comes across as little more nuanced then "You're with us or against us", have a difference of opinion and it's not a pretty sight.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.

YOU FOOLS

No - it's the Church trying to control the masses.

Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).

What does Presidents dieing in Office have to do with anything? That's only a problem if the VP is a loon from the fringe of the party picked to keep the party cohesive - oh wait.

That's a problem with the current system, not the one it replaced.

A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.

A two-party system is not ideal because...

Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.

...you get this. The natural result of two parties is divergence from the mean while the natural result of multiple parties is convergence on topics of common interest.

He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.

And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.

The video filtered out - it's on the front of youtube, it triggered the protests the way a spark triggers a blowout in a coal mine.

That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.

It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.

[rvg]

It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.

False. Candidates started running in "teams" decades after the amendment was ratified.

[Xiahou]

The Washington Post has put up a timeline of administration statements about the Benghazi attacks and they put forth a motive for why they'd try to hide the fact that it was indeed a terror attack....

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.

I still don't get it. It'd be mind-blowingly stupid to really think they could hide the real progression of events. So did they think they could lessen the fallout by keeping the public on the wrong track for as long as possible? Or are they just mind-blowingly stupid? Or is it something else entirely?

EDIT:
It just keeps getting better and better. Two weeks later, and the FBI still hasn't gotten onsite to investigate anything. Why? Bureaucratic infighting. From CNN:

"They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They've now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi."

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

Meanwhile, anyone including CNN reporters, can stroll thru the site and sift thru whats left apparently without issue.

[Fragony]

Odd, what do Hindu temples have to do with the movie, but in Bangladesh people with culture are attacking them.

Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. Needs different words, moderate muslims should be classified as 'non-radical' instead of 'moderate' as islam is extreme by nature.

[Hax]

Yes, all the Muslims that don't feel like killing people all the time are obviously not real believers!

[rvg]

...people with culture...

I love this term.