Please educate me on American politics

Read their party platforms, listen to their speeches. All they talk about is the redistribution of wealth. It's like oxygen to them.

Are you blind and deaf?

 

You clearly are having problems responding. I'll try again. Provide a quote where a Democrat is celebrating Marxism. Its as if you can't...

 

Public education turning out a lot of students educated on capitalism? The Constitution? Electoral College? Basic English? You could use some work on making a good debate point.

 

Rep. Alan Grayson quoted the oft-repeated observation that "history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce" to slam U.S. foreign policy – then sheepishly asked whether it was all right to "repeat Karl Marx on the air."


Read Newsmax: Democrat Quotes Karl Marx to Make Point About ISIS | Newsmax.com

 

Redistribution of wealth and class warfare are common democrat legislation efforts, clearly Marx.

 

Redistribution? That's standard neoclassical economics, with a social welfare function detrrmining efficiency and equity relationship. To suggest reliance on Marxism isn't credible.

 

No one said Marx was particularly original. Yet you just defined Marxism in your post.

 

Given I referred to neoclassical welfare economics, you're struggling.

 

No, you're confirming I am correct. Dance all you want, it just makes you look the fool.

 

You don't seem to know how American politics works. The Democratic Party embraces Marxism. It seeks an equalization of income. All of what they do is meant to close the wealth gap among Americans. But the radical left is only 20% of the population. And the moderate left is another 15% to 20%. That leaves them short of a majority. They need moderates and independents to reach 50%. They can't do that if they go around quoting Marx. It would turn off too many independents.

 

Your response is churlish. I have referred to neoclassical economics. You have indicated that neoclassical economics is Marxist. That, put simply, is a spectacularly silly claim.

 

We got to neoclassical economics through Marx. You denying history now?

 

I'm certainly denying that ridiculous claim. The argument that Marxism derives the notion of perfect competition has comedy value mind you.

 

So now you're confused about Marx and neoclassical, awesome.

 

The only difference is the name. They are 2 sides of the same coin. They are meant to make the gullible and ignorant believe there's a choice. Divide and conquer.

 

So we have neoclassical economics referring to its Welfare Theorems, neither of which have anything to do with Marxism. You then argue that neoclassical economics is derived from Marx. I just laugh.

 

Marx essentially believes free markets are flawed and need government to control production. This requires redistribution of production, ergo wealth too.

 

The differences are cosmetic. Both parties are creatures of the global elite who are their paymasters.

 

By Dr. Hassan Shirvani —Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the most influential economists of the 19th century. His economics provided a bridge between the classical economics (1776-1850) and the neoclassical economics (1870-1936), with the latter being a precursor to the modern conservative economics.

 

I'm still laughing! We now have the claim that Marx gave us conservative economics. Brilliant

 

No, Republicans are not more popular now, although they would like you to think so. They seized political power by cheating and stealing for the most part. And they did it because their policy is not better.

The difference between the two parties is that while the Democratic Party wants a capitalism that is more "fair" and more kind to the people by sharing more of the wealth, the Republican Party wants as much wealth to go to the top as possible so they can get bigger campaign contributions from the rich and stay in power longer. Their goal, it appears, is a one-party dictatorship.

 

Nice try. There is a real difference between the politics of Eisenhower and Reagan when compared with Obama and Sanders. If you see no difference, I feel sorry for you.

 

It's called reality, you ought to try it one day.

You mean there's a real difference between individuals. The objective is the same, get rich and powerful at the expense of The People. Enact hundreds of new laws each and every year making every American a 24/7 career criminal. Stuff the pockets of the military industrial complex to the tune of over $1/2 billion each year to wage endless war and genocide despite that the Pentagon can't account for over $21 trillion.

If you see a difference you validate the facts.

 

If they're all crooks and government is evil, you should lean to libertarianism; it's best to keep government small and limit the damage it does.

 

It is an interesting question. And one, I fear, without a truly easy answer. You can start by reading the two party platforms crafted by the candidates in the last election, but be aware these are broad position papers, which is to say long on ideas and short on intricacies such as implementation of those ideas and in such details are a lot of devils some obvious some, some not so much. And you should further note that not everyone in either party is fully on board with all the provisions stated in the platform.

There are as many as fourteen political parties in the US. At the moment only four ever get more than 1% of the vote. Of those four 2 have combined for more than 90% of the vote over the last twenty years. This is because they are coalition parties in a way no party in Europe really is or can be.

That means the two major parties are really big tents composed of a very wide selection of views many of which are at best tangentially related. In the end all this means is that defining what separates one party from the other is difficult at best because what the people at the top say may be at best only tangentially - there's that word again - related to what the grass roots believe. And given that both parties have a substantial number of voters who vote the way they vote because that's how their family has always voted what the party platform actually is and how it's changed since great grand daddy was a staunch Democrat or Republican, for a lot of people is utterly inconsequential.

At it's heart the only difference between the two parties is that Democrats tend look at people in terms of group memberships, while most Republicans tend to see people as individuals. The policies they espouse reflect these differences in view.















































































































































A/ Z














-*

+\