That's the point actually.

He wanted them to get more divided.

Deepening the divide increases the chances of civil conflict breaking out.

The right isnt divided though

After what I saw the other night?

And this morning...

I disagree.

A bunch of normies are just appalled there are extremists on our side too

Extremists are like aids, you sleep around you're gonna get it

It shows a really narrow world view

all sides have radicals. the important thing is that the majority speaks louder then them

Reminds me of the revolutionary war

all it took was a 1/3rd to quarter minority going out there and radicalizing

and the result was a conflict that resulted in the first ever recorded instance to Europeans of a colony breaking rank from it's overlord

it doesn't matter if they're not a majority

I would say it's a difference of idealism and realism in that case

Forefathers weren't really radicals for the time

Considering the form of government they wished to emulate

I'd say they were

One where they have a say?

One where they're not ruled by a monarchy but instead are a constitutional republic in a world of imperialist empires run by famalies

That was a secondary plan. Had they gotten represented in parliament there would have been no war

hell, we got support from the French King just because he wanted to jab at Britain after the last war between those 2

War was a logical step

It wasnt radical

It is imperative that action take place

A silent majority isnt a majority it is a bystander

the rights and freedoms we wanted, were radical compared to other places of the time

It is only the acting majority that matters

That is why the left is so powerful

you ever heard the one third rule?

you know

that one where your father or mother takes you on your knee

and tells you the reality of life

that often

one third are going to like you

one third are going to DISlike you

and one third aren't going to give the first damn?

it's that way in politics too

one third are truly left

one third are truly right