08-06-2016, 02:00 PM
(08-05-2016, 09:27 AM)radind Wrote:(08-04-2016, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(08-04-2016, 08:34 AM)radind Wrote:(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote: It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.
How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?
It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.
I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.
Sorry, but I have to correct you again. The facts are "partisan." Five Republican justices against four Democrats. Trump's choices-to-be, or Hillary's. It's clear cut.
Yes, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen, and though they try to buy both sides, they mostly support the GOP. The wealthy are the Republicans' specific clientele.
So, like many on the conservative/moderate side, you have a choice. You can vote your values (anti-abortion), or your interests (anti-big money politics and trickle-down economics/ecology). You can't do both.
You have your opinions and I have mine.
Will compare notes in 4 years on outcome of election.
I suspect we'll need to compare notes after 2028.