Pretty simple Nom. Would you like pictures?

Your picture seems to evidence that America does indeed have a national ideology, which means you are contradicting yourself.

We have left wing, moderate, and right wing press

All press is supposed to be politically neutral you fucking retard. You furthermore do not have a "left wing" press. You are deliberately conflating the left (i.e. Marxism) with the American left (i.e. liberal capitalism). The fact that America has politicised the press to be biased in favour of capitalism literally proves the other guy's point.

He works for MSNBC.

And he was viciously attacked by the American press on the basis of the allegation that he once voted communist, so what is your point?

That's because a third party can't win in America.

This idiotic sentence does not refute the point it replies to. It is a description of an effect, not a description of a cause. Communism has no major political representation in America because the Americans dedicated half a century's worth of time and resources to trying to wipe it out globally.

No one mentioned the Cold War

False. I mentioned the Cold War.

nor does anyone deny it

You clearly are denying it Bronto, because the Cold War was fought against Marxist ideology, America won it, but you are telling us half of the American political system is Marxist.

You mean the American right tried.

No, it was not only the American right which fought against Marxism. This is typically false Bronto revisionism. The Cold War saw a number of liberal presidents who escalated tensions and proxy wars against Marxist governments.

He claimed the Democrat Party is heavily Marxist

Not he: you. Stop pretending you are a different author please Bronto. Your insane fascist diatribe is absolutely unmistakable, as is your propensity to create faux support for it with puppet accounts.

An open Marxist almost beat Hillary Clinton.

Whose funding came from public grassroots campaigns because he was denied access to the veritable honey pot of private campaign financing which is offered to the acceptable candidates. This only proves my point. Sanders was cut off from the sweetie jar very early on in his campaign yet still managed to persuade much of the public because of the sheer logical strength of Marxist ideas.

However, you happily skip over the fact that Sanders was a complete anomaly. You try to use his existence to falsely suggest it is quite common for "open Marxists" to have success within the Democratic Party. In fact, the historical record evidences very clearly that it is the precise opposite of common. Indeed, as far as I am aware, it has never happened before since at least the end of WW1.

It's hardly his fault if you can't keep up with America from thousands of miles away.

It is hardly my fault if you are so thoroughly dishonest that you lose a debate and then come back pretending to be someone else.

Probably because you reference decades back.

Ah, gotcha. If information is decades old, it must be false, but if it is centuries or millennia old, it must be true.

Bronto, you are just so sad. Get a life. More importantly, get a fucking education.