Quote of the year

[Col. Flagg]

Wow, first time I've ever heard of this quote... quite telling:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

-John Adams ~ October 2, 1789

[Jason]

Wow, first time I've ever heard of this quote... quite telling:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

-John Adams ~ October 2, 1789

yup

source
https://books.google.com/books?id=j9NKA ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...the rest of the paragraph is equally applicable if not more so...

diatribe
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/ ... ystem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Durzan]

He's right, there should be MORE political parties!

[iWriteStuff]

He's right, there should be MORE political parties!

Whereas I will grant that more parties would be better than simply the two we have, the idea that a party can fix the system seems far fetched. Exhibit A:

Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choos ... icial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So at least in the minds of some senior party members, we the voters should really have no say in the selection of the candidates anyway.

My mother in law was visiting us the last time there was a GOP debate. We didn't have any interest in watching it, but she insisted. When my wife protested that she didn't like any of the candidates (D or R) enough to vote for them and was considering skipping, the mother in law flew into a tizzy about how it's our duty to vote Republican no matter what. To this I responded, "If you're just going to vote straight Republican, why bother even watching the debate? You'll vote for whomever they choose anyway." Unable to argue the logic, she stopped trying to force us to watch it.

This is the problem I see - people are more loyal to parties than they are to common sense or principled leadership. It's disappointing.

[lundbaek]

In "Tragedy An Hope" by Professor Carroll Quigley one can read:
"The chief problem of American political life...has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Pg 1247 - 1248

I appears to me that both the Democrat and the Republican Parties have one major goal in common: globalism. The major difference for now is in how they plan to achieve that goal.