The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.
I just want and concrete example.
To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.
For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead.
The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.
If you want to talk about the 2008 financial crisis, ok. Why did Dodd-Frank pass? Why did the corporate backers allow for the creation of the CFPB? How is it that only once Trump came into office did it stop doing its job?
You are asserting that there is a cabal of corporations controlling politics in the USA, what do they actually agree on specifically? Why have things in many instances actually changed when administrations change?
Things change because things change. Look to the things that don't change, instead. Spook whistleblowers are hounded into solitary confinement right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Random innocent people are vaporized from the sky in countries we are not at war with, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Massive fraud campaigns ordered by officers of major corporations are prosecuted with exactly zero of such officers ever imprisoned or even inconvenienced, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies.
I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.
Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest.
I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented.
I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.
You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.
That comment asked for how, that's not a challenge, nor a refutation.
You don't want to face this idea, so to try to avoid engaging with it, you pretend you need to see more to merely consider it. But you can consider it immediately, and relate it to the world you see.
I understand that's not something you want, and it's hard for you, and I don't want it to be hard for you, so you could try just not believing it. And you can do that, without pretending you've disproved it. Why are you unwilling to disbelieve without pretending you've also disproved it, yet at the same time refusing try to disprove it by addressing and criticizing it? No wonder you seem upset, it must be very hard to be stuck in such a bind. But it's no one else's responsibility to get you out of that except yourself. It's your responsibility what you choose to believe or not and it's your responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas, no one else's.
You work it out. You can think and use your mind.
You say it's condescending to note you own your own beliefs but it seems more condescending or arrogant or immature or irresponsible to try to incorrectly put the responsibility on other people, for what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it.
If you are open and curious I'm sure you'd be willing to engage with an idea and criticize it but it seems from your comment that you've already decided that whatever other people write here will be nonsense, which is similar to how you decided that other ideas are nonsense without engaging and criticizing them, you don't seem open and curious at all. it seems much more like denial and psychological avoidance. which makes sense because these ideas are challenging and they threaten the worldview and the associated sense of security and stability with that.
So this problem where you shut your mind off and refuse to consider and critique the ideas and instead of this project onto others to demand that they solve the problem for you, is a common pathological projection pattern, but you can fix it, accepting you got yourself into this place and owning your own beliefs and the responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas that you encounter.
Best of luck, hope this helps!
Email me
You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.