I concur that it is complicated but also think that it has been a one party system of the Republocrates for a long time.

I was going to post that, but thanks for beating me to it.

Agreed.
Maybe this "experiment" has failed.

E Pluribus Unum.

From many, one.

@KKGator @davknight The problem lies in how many voices becomes one voice. Who's voice is counted versus discarded, our two party system seems to be leading us into a divisive and dangerous culture which may end up crippling the country. A multi party proportional representation system may make more sense than our current system. The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result - not just a plurality, or a bare majority.

@cava I do not understand why I was tagged in your comment.

@KKGator You interpreted the national motto, the topic is about how we " had better start to realize our original motto", and I think it may be how this motto is interpreted or specified under a two party system that makes it problematical.

@cava I didn't "interpret", I corrected the order of the words, and translated. Huge difference.

@KKGator to translate is to interpret

@cava Not necessarily.
A translation, in this case, was from one language (latin) to another (english).
An interpretation is an explanation of the meaning of the phrase, which is
not what I did.
Interpretations are subjective.
My translation was purely objective. I attributed no meaning to the words.

@KKGator Yes, necessarily there is no translation that is not an interpretation, done by someone, expressing what they understand in words understood by others. Even a literal translation is not absolutely literal, there is no such thing as a objective translation.

E Unum Pluribus is a deliberate pun, meant to point out the DISunification of the country, that the Trumplerites have caused!