Define "the wealthy."
Better yet, define "rich."
I'm not going to give a rigorous definition. That said examples given earlier are Soros, Adelson, Koch brothers.
Well, the reason I posted that is because a "rigorous definition" isn't possible for either - and you just demonstrated that. Indeed, both are completely relative terms - yet people like to use them in contexts like this as if they are definitive, easily understood, known and accepted by all - AN EASY STANDARD BY WHICH WE MIGHT JUDGE SOMEONE "GUILTY."
And yet, they are anything but.
When we start looking at someone with more money than we have, or more money than someone else has to decry them for their "riches" and "wealth" - we judge them accordingly, and when we do we err in an extremely egregious, unjust, and unfair manner.
If as you and so many others here are asserting, that the "wealthy" are easily identifiable people like Soros, Adelson, the Koch brothers, et. al. - and that in a thread that is denouncing such people for being "the wealthy," then who - by whatever "rigorous definition" you can put forth for us - who by your definition is
NOT guilty?
I'll give you some help - you can't do it. It's not possible, by ANY definition, however "rigorous" one might think it.
People here are equating guilt with wealth; they are judging an impossible to define group of people for what? For having more money (and in this context more power thereby). More money than what?
What is the standard of guilt here?
Impossible to define - and therefore totally unjust to be pronouncing anyone guilty on that basis. Totally unjust.