Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of "entertaining" the fact that you posed a dumb strawman argument. It's a matter that you did. It's a fact. I pointed it out to you and that's that. You are a disseminator or propaganda and a poor person to discuss politics with. That's a fact. You can entertain it wherever you like.You can carry on with your strawman as long as you want, I'm not going to entertain it
I said corporate interests influence political policy, and both parties are guilty of it, and members of blue MAGA like you deny it. Until you acknowledge it, you can't hope to fix it. So the idea that we need to vote for Democrats to fix things like income/wealth inequality, poverty, healthcare, etc. is wrong because the evidence shows most of them - enough of them - just support whatever interest is influenced by their corporate donors anyway. The only reason you support them is because they're measurably better on social issues, because economic issues don't matter to you, because they don't affect you. Viewing it through that lense disenfranchises millions of potential votes that would have otherwise gone to the Democratic candidate.
Your glittering generality (propaganda) is another matter that you don't have to "entertain". I keep saying, OK, so my congressmen are free of corruption charges and have a good voting record regarding progressive issues. I do deny that they are corrupt. Show me that I'm wrong about the specific men.
No, I'm not going to vote for Republicans because of your glittering generalities about "corrupt Democrats". If I lived in Florida, I'd have to make my mind up about Wasserman. She's not on the ballot in Oregon so she's irrelevant. All you do is talk about "they" but there are no "they"s on ballots. Just people. DeFazio, Merkley and Wyden. Those are the Democrats on the Oregon ballot and they are leagues better than Republicans.
Are you saying I should vote for right wing Oregon Republicans because somebody is saying "they" meaning Democrats are corrupt?