> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)
I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them.
By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%?
I think that your point about Sanders is rather a large concession on your part. You seem to be saying that "the oligarchy" are concerned that Sanders might win, and therefore are orchestrating press coverage against him. But if they are concerned that he might win, then they clearly don't rule. Otherwise, they would have no such concern.
Well, they haven't assassinated him yet... you seem sort of eager to shit on my hope. The last three presidents ran for office promising no more stupid foreign wars. Are you trying to force me to admit that democracy in USA is a sham?
[EDIT:] Sorry, it's clear to me now that this is what you intended with your whole "how few is few?" routine. Clearly you don't consider it "oligarchy" when 51% of votes are used as toilet paper.
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. Please stop misrepresenting my position and my words, trying to make it sound like they support your ideas. They don't.
I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them.
By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%?
I think that your point about Sanders is rather a large concession on your part. You seem to be saying that "the oligarchy" are concerned that Sanders might win, and therefore are orchestrating press coverage against him. But if they are concerned that he might win, then they clearly don't rule. Otherwise, they would have no such concern.