Think of this analogy. Two prostitutes. One has worked 25 years, the other only 10. To posit that the prostitute who has only worked 10 years has a fundamentally different relationship to her johns and the concept of sex for money than the one who has worked 25 years is ridiculous. One can safely assume, absent any contradictory evidence, that both have the same basic relationship towards sex for money.
> I have no faith in the "goodness" of anyone who seeks the Oval Office.
> Short of something other than what has been posted to date Carrol is
> correct. It is revealed truth and as such is of no real merit.
>
> John Thornton
>
> ^^^
> CB: Actually, Carrol and you are the one's expressing articles of faith
> in the "evilness" of all who seek the Oval Office without considering
> any evidence. But anyway, even if the presumption is against any who
> seek the office, that presumption has been rebutted by the evidence
> others and I have introduced, shifting the burden of proof to vous.
See the above analogy. Absent any evidence to the contrary one can safely assume the relationship of any politician to those of the moneyed class is not dissimilar enough to label one a "worshiper" of money and position another politician against them as being fundamentally different. This is borne out again and again and is well supported by historical precedence. It is most definitely not an article of faith. The required relationship to money and the moneyed class is, for all intents and purposes, identical among politicians and especially those who seek the Oval Office. To position one as outside that paradigm requires something other than anecdotal evidence although even that is lacking in this case.
John Thornton