HRC’s speeches to Wall Street, for example, are likely the positive lingo that lends into larceny. Although these high-dollar speeches have been dismissed as not being a real issue, it is symbolic. Like Sanders said, they didn’t invite him (because he doesn’t share their identity).
Using symbols and signs that indicate intention, a lot of the language used to describe the process of extending credit has an objective tone and manner. This has everything to do with the attributive value, associated with lending, that in late order leads to larceny.
The attributive value literally occupies your space (over time), and the occupation intends to be suddenly realized (in late order). Capitalism describes this as the risk, falsely attributed to free-market mechanics, which always requires YOUR direct involvement. If all your involvement is political, to what do you attribute the economic value?
Objectively, conservatives explain, the distribution of economic value (the real value required to actually be politically involved and direct it) just kinda-sorta happens. The losers then use politics to expropriate the value, forcing conservatives to play politics. It is necessary, then, to keep the political risk consolidated, organizing it into a binomial system, for example, nominally described as liberals and conservatives.
Notice that the binome suggests there is a difference. Liberals are nominally not conservatives, but actually they are.
Have a look at HRC’s speeches. See the symbols and signs that attribute the value to occupy her space, your space, and mine.
Sanders adds natural identity at the margin to properly conform me to you (not us and them) and aggress the passive resistance over time.
(Read “The Added Identity” by griffithlighton, published on WordPress.)