And a good point to put in my face, John. I'm not afraid to say what I think, but if I overstep myself, then I gladly take that step back.

In the US, I often see a British manner of thinking, and while the UK definitively contributed to the Enlightenment, particularly in light of power it did not deliver the world enlightenment. Rather, it occupied much of the world for three centuries, not very enlightened.

The US did contribute to the globe's enlightenment, albeit it late in the game. As said, it did not know it had reached top spot after WWI, but then after WW II it took the side of the colonies and their desires to become independent of the European powers. I think that is the best the US has ever done.

But the US held on to the British voting system, perhaps aggravating it by installing a President with royal powers that are limited but available nevertheless. The US President is more powerful than the British monarch, while not letting people get the very representatives they want in parliament/congress.

We are not free here in a two-party system, we are not a free democracy, and it shows in the way people talk, think, and perceive the world.

Yes, I rattle cages because many think there isn't anything wrong with how we think, how we vote, how we are represented, how we move forward.

A two-party system is like having two forms of group-think. There are not enough groups to rattle the cages. We are limited, censored by our British voting system.

That said, Thomas Jefferson was the first to devise a system with proportional representation. If only we had gotten some of it back then. Now, that would have been enlightened.