Politics?

Politics is confusing. Can someone please explain in simple terms what the political parties in the US are trying to do and why they can't agree on anything?

Statist Christians control the Commies, Anarchist Muslim terrorists control the Fascists ,Jews control Germany, Mexico controls the electoral college and Mormons control the central banks.

>>1
There is a single political part in U.S., which is disguised under two names. That party is controlled by Jewish economic oligarchy.

Arabs and Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia) are bombed for the sole reason of losing subordination to U.S. - i.e. refusing to do exactly what Jewish oligarchy orders them to do.

That's all folks!

>>3
That is also why some single country, like Yugoslavia, cant alone free itself from the Jews. Whole world must unite in killing every single Jew. That is: all or nothing, because Jews want it all.

Also, while Slobodan Milošević was Slavic, his wife Mirjana Marković is obviously Jewish:
http://www.novosti.rs/upload/images/2011/01/2401j/markovic.jpg

note her hooked nose. Slavs never have these. Also surname Marković (Markovich) is Slavic for Marx, like in Karl Marx. Markovich is also a commie, while Milošević was closer to Nazis.

So it entirely possible, Milošević was backstabbed by his own family.

The closest thing in this thread that is relevant to the thread topic is >>1 - the original question.  The rest of you are incapable of staying on topic for more than a few seconds.

The US has two primary political parties and a variety of smaller political groups that were coaxed or co-opted to the label "Independent."  In the past, the political groups were much less centralized and, based on region, had a variety of platform across the spectrum; in the past thirty years, they crystallized around positions and that variety is harder to come by.  Whereas a decade ago the two were far closer to each other and appearances seemed vaguely cosmetic, "red" or "blue," if you will, their approaches have since shifted back towards being diametrically opposed.  They spend forever promising to take on the "difficult challenges" that face their country and, regardless of the position, spend most of that time weaving through the mire of legalese and detraction of their critics.  If they're lucky, it's only the other party; if they're lucky, the monumental burden that they've let the problem grow to will afford them an insufficient solution, but one that lets them save face, and the next sucker will have a go at it and face the same problems, and probably get no further.

As to their specific positions, I would actually say you'd have to read their claimed positions and decide that for yourself, because there's a lot of perspective and alternate interpretation involved.  Media outlets perform a major disservice by catering to that exaggeration, but that's another story.  In general, nothing the Democrats have ever done has ever lasted without controversy or costing a lot of money for little gain, and Republicans shoot their own feet by accidentally pursuing policies that reach the opposite goals of what they want; the aforementioned "Independent" parties have a variety of positions that only ever get anywhere on local levels, or when they are "adopted" by either of the other two groups, and are quite "independent" from each other.

>>6
The US has two primary political parties
Shalom!

>>1
It's hard to talk about the political parties in America because they are each only loosely based on the political philosophy their party reports to hold dear. This is because there is always a race for the middle ground that gets candidates the most votes, in this manner most politicians are either neo-cons or neo-liberals.

Generally speaking though, the difference lie in how each party views the role of government. Liberalism believes in high tax to fund the government's management of as much as possible, essentially using force to try and make everything go smoothly as possible for as many as possible. Social and economic policies lean both to the left, in theory.

Conservatism believes in low tax to fund only essential services, such as law making, law enforcement and national defence, leaving the rest to the market, allowing people to success on their virtues and fail because of their vices. Social and economic policies lean both tot he right, in theory.

Libertarianism is basically socially left and economically right but no one listens to it because they can't wrap their heads around something being both left and right.

>>7
You pick the dumbest things to shalom about.

>>9
Nope. Both parties have the same funding sources, so they aint really concurrent.

>>10
What does that have to do with anything?  I'm more uncomfortable about the people who play favorites only.

>>11
I has. For if I take funding from a Jewish oligarch, I work for him, instead of my voters, who are just a cattle.

what the political parties in the US are trying to do
Gain influence over voters to gain political power then sell their services to the highest bidder.

Bidders are usually lobbyists and special interest groups who want political parties to influence government policies in their favor, for instance a casino who wants gambling laws to be repealed. The more a political party caters to lobbyists the less they can cater to voters, for instance voters who think gambling is immoral, so they have to figure out how to do the most for their lobbyists without losing too many votes. At the same time they have to compete with rival political parties, both for voters and lobbyists.


why they can't agree on anything
Competition.

Naturally they will want to gain votes from the other political party and will nitpick and try to find something wrong with everything they do. Also, another way to get money from lobbyists is to be a fierce critic of the laws the lobbyist wants then secretly ask the lobbyist for money in order to keep quiet about the issue and any specific laws they are trying to get through.

>>12
And the evidence you have to back the blanket assertion up?