Fuzzy_Dunlop

Compromise only "worked" to avoid war, though. It didn't work too well for the slaves. I guess my question really should've been...was slavery so firmly established as a "right" by this point that war was inevitable if slavery in the US was to end? If Buchanan had worked out some new compromise, it wouldn't have been a permanent solution. My guess is that it would've meant a delayed, but bloodier war because of an even stronger sense of entitlement from the South.

I'm not too knowledgeable of Buchanan's role specifically in the events leading up to the war, and I'm not asking this as some attempt to defend him, but so many times I've read something along the lines of "Buchanan consistently ranks at/near the bottom because of his failure to find a compromise to prevent the Civil War".

Was there really a compromise to be had in regard to slavery? What would that have been? Let some states peacefully secede because the whole country couldn't agree on slavery? Set up some legal guidelines/restrictions on slavery if they stay in the Union?

I can't see how anyone in office at that time, Buchanan or not, would've avoided a war without allowing slavery to continue. I'm sure there are Constitutional experts out there that could explain how secession could work when there are significant differences amongst major segments of the population. But the conversation is different when you're talking about inbred rednecks that are willing to die for their "right" to own other people.

So seriously, what compromise was this poor douche supposed to pull out of his ass?

So say we all.

Trump wasn't in the Democratic primary.

And what the fuck does the holocaust have to do with anything?

Who cares who got RFK to run? Let the candidates debate, and let the citizens vote. Why are so many people scared of that concept that no one is talking about the fact that the DNC rigged three consecutive primaries?

I do believe that just about every major issue that this country/world is facing deserves a more nuanced discussion than just the (R) and (D) party platforms. Life is rarely that simple. Wouldn't you like to have had a better idea of where Harris stands on everything and maybe have been questioned and challenged a bit before the convention? Or are you just happy to have a not-Trump candidate that isn't senile?

Then the Dems would have nothing to fear by letting him run in the primary, right? Oh wait...if he got even 1 delegate, they couldn't have just handed the nomination to Harris. There might have been a debate or a vote? The party that's "defending democracy" can't have that, I guess.

And in some instances, both sides actually do the same shit. Can you really not see that since at least Perot, if not McGovern, they've both been doing whatever possible to exclude third parties when they're a threat, or support them when it's convenient?

I bet you think professional wrestling is real too...

I think he's including primaries and VP candidates.

I was going to say the "grab them by the pussy" tape was crossing the line, but yeah, treason as well.

Which election was that?

I did not say the DNC is the state. I am suggesting that the way the two-party system has developed is an indication of a failed state.