One of the hallmarks of being an adult in how one thinks, as opposed to being a child, is to be able to consider or at least to conceive of how another person thinks about something.
One of the things I dislike most about our false dichotomy politics is when one of the D's says of one of the R's that the bill they propose shows that they want to pollute the air and water and leave poor people homeless, or some such thing. The D's seem to do more of this particular stupid thing than the R's but it's not exclusive to them. And it's literally childish. It's literally the product of a six year old's thought processes. Even as a play acting exercise it strains credulity to imagine one's political opposite literally wishing for mercury in groundwater and smog filled air. It's tiring just to deal with purely adversarial political talk like that.
And it doesn't help you to deal with the opposite side of an argument if you can't imagine even moderately plausible justifications for it. How will you possibly anticipate what the other side will do next if you only imagine them twirling their black mustaches while standing over girls tied to railroad tracks?
So, I wonder what we would say are the best cases that an EE minion would make, away from the glare of tv lights, not for attribution in the mainstream media.
You go into a bar and fall into conversation with the next guy about this and that. How 'bout that Super Bowl? Jeez, this bartender's not exactly goin' all out for tips, is he? And he tells you that he works at JP Morgan. You keep your affinity of TF Metals Report to yourself for the moment. You ask a few questions to draw him out a bit.
What do you do, he asks? You tell him. You're not in finance, though you've been reading up a bit.
What justification would he give for what JP Morgan does? What would be the best case he'd make? This is a reasonably smart guy and let's say he hasn't been there too long. He's not too morally compromised. What would a guy on the other side say is the reason they do what they do?