Most leftists aren't rich. You might be thinking of centrist establishment. But, they already have what they want. They're rich and are the establishment. Why would they care about me, a poor?>Because you vote Republican
This is honestly the kind of view that can only come from a nation that was recently, in the scope of history, at war with itself. Half the US does not want war with the other half.>You don't live in a bubble and probably interact with people whose beliefs are antithetical to yours regularly.
This is a lot of assumptions, both about me and this ill-defined them. Rich Leftists is tragically ill-defined and, as I explained earlier, wrong. How do you know, for sure, that they don't interact with people whose beliefs are antithetical to their own?>They wouldn't talk to you?
Why wouldn't they?>Depends on whether we're counting media people, or people in academia, or people at thinktanks.. you have to set a limit first.
Any supposed enemy, that first requires me to set a limit, is to vague to consider an enemy. They can either be counted or they can't.>People like them have always existed.
How can you be sure? What impact did they have during the signing of the magna carta or the declaration of independence? Were there these rich leftist amongst the early colonists? What impact did they have?>Yes, you stood in the way of their political goals and were also a socially acceptable scapegoat for problems in the world.
When did I do that? And how is me being thought of, as a scapegoat, any different than thinking of rich lefitsts as an evil and nefarious other?>Debate them. That's always the right answer.
Why is that a good idea? Why what debating anyone do for? Debating others is often used to come to a conclusion. But, you seem to have already come to a conclusion and won't budge, so isn't debating someone, in those circumstances, merely shouting past them and expecting some unplanned change?