Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.

The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.

after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look​ at the change made - look at the double ticket.
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).

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

Ideally you have one party who errs on the side of caution and tradition and common sense, and another that mostly agrees but has ideas about how the world is changing and how the older ideas don't fit anymore. This works as long as you have an ok starting tradition. Essentially you would have all moderates. The important thing in politics is to keep radicals at a minimum. I for one am happy that the "BUILD A WALL ACROSS THE WHOLE BORDER" people and the "HAVING "IN GOD WE TRUST" ON OUR PENNIES IS OPPRESSION" people are kept in positions of minimal leverage.

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.



The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.
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.