08-03-2016, 11:31 PM
(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote:(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote:(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.
No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.
We will probably never agree.
Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.
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.