> implied that the guy who wrote the article was being hypocritical
So it seems like you did get the point of my comment, and purposely didn't address it the first time you responded. I'll say the same thing again in different terms: the author's ethos when it comes to criticizing corrupt political administrations is significantly harmed by the fact that he has worked for corrupt political administrations with seemingly no issue.
Again, your argument rests on your assertion both administrations are equally bad. It is a claim I reject, and thus I also reject your assertion that the author was hypocritical.
We are at an impasse then because I have no desire to write you an analysis of money interests in American politics.
It certainly seems to me that you, along with the author, are just trying to rationalize a biased viewpoint on the issue. If you don't have any specific criticisms about the various firms and billionaires that influence the Democratic party (you clearly have criticisms for the Republicans), that's a pretty good heuristic that you aught to be more scrupulous in your research.
You made an assertion without supporting it. That is fine, this is a comment thread, not a dissertation thesis. I disagreed and gave a terse summary for some of the reasons I disagreed. You said I missed your point. Rather than assigning stupidity or malice to your intent, I asked you to clarify what you meant. In return, you said you have good reasons for your beliefs but don't want to write them down. Again, that is fine, I can't force you to do anything.
But you go on to ding me for not rebutting the points you haven't made and attribute it to me being unscrupulous in my thinking.
At this point I raise my own heuristic that there is no point talking with you further if you hold me up to a different standard than what applies to you.
So it seems like you did get the point of my comment, and purposely didn't address it the first time you responded. I'll say the same thing again in different terms: the author's ethos when it comes to criticizing corrupt political administrations is significantly harmed by the fact that he has worked for corrupt political administrations with seemingly no issue.