I also think our government has been co-opted by Marxists, but I know I'll get shit for that.
Marxism strikes me as an incomplete and therefore flawed socioeconomic theory, but all other economic theories have glaring deficiencies of their own. Capitalism works very well within limited parameters, but has glaring faults of its own, and market fundamentalists are capable of being just as blind and pigheaded as any Marxist I've ever encountered. We don't beat up on Adam Smith or David Ricardo despite the incomplete nature of their economic insights. Serious economists, including conservative ones, take Marx seriously without necessarily buying into all his ideas.
Foreign wars, drug wars, domestic spying, debt, military industrial complex, militarization of police state and the like. On these things, they are the same.
The parties differ on topics that we are instead the most strongly emotionally attached. That being religion and social issues. However, even on these, in reality the differences are often in rhetoric only. When the votes are cast, they often align.
but yes, if you're a privileged white male the only things that affect your life are the ones that affect your pocketbook.
I don't think a lot of poor minorities would agree your issues are more important than having spending your life in prison, your life possessions taken by the state by an unjust drug war and police state. Nor the millions of lives completely and utterly destroyed by our foreign wars. None of these people have any kind of privilege.
The progression of government power increases in the same direction with each administration. It was the other side who massively increased drug related incarcerations during Clinton's administration.
How quickly we forget how alike the sides are: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-...
You can't see that trillions spent on all these wars, domestic and foreign, leave you with less support for the exact things you mention.
The privileged class is the government class. They exempt themselves from the laws we have to follow and will they continue to accumulate wealth and power.
EDIT: Just realized you may be talking about "no substantial effect", in which case I agree with you that there are substantial differences. Neither party is of, for, or by the people though.
OK, I see this statement all the time and I just don't understand it. How can you say that when Trump, a man with exactly zero political experience, beat out a lifelong politician and wife of a President, not to mention the half dozen qualified candidates in the primary. Obama beat Clinton in the primary and McCain in the general when his only political experience he had was in the state senate.
If so, I have a few butt coins and a blockchain to sell you.
It reeks of political corruption. Money talks and Trump talked the loudest AND was populist. As a politician, you can't go wrong pandering to the largest groups (e.g. california). Clinton's promises didn't really make any headlines and were saddled by any comparison to Obama's failures to deliver whatever people imagined he was going to do for them.
He was an Illinois Senator from 1997-2004.