Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:49 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
If I particularly don't want a government run by lobbyists, why should I vote for Hillary?![]() --imm
|
14 replies, 2924 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
immoderate | Feb 2016 | OP |
ladjf | Feb 2016 | #1 | |
friendly_iconoclast | Feb 2016 | #2 | |
immoderate | Feb 2016 | #11 | |
friendly_iconoclast | Feb 2016 | #12 | |
brooklynite | Feb 2016 | #3 | |
Jefferson23 | Feb 2016 | #6 | |
immoderate | Feb 2016 | #9 | |
Gregorian | Feb 2016 | #7 | |
tk2kewl | Feb 2016 | #14 | |
Jefferson23 | Feb 2016 | #4 | |
rbrnmw | Feb 2016 | #5 | |
VulgarPoet | Feb 2016 | #8 | |
Maedhros | Feb 2016 | #10 | |
immoderate | Feb 2016 | #13 |
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:51 PM
ladjf (17,320 posts)
1. I can't remember a political situation like the hillary vs bernie where the
choice was so easy for me to make. Most of Bernie's platform includes all of my favorite rants that only my wife has to put up with.
|
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:53 PM
friendly_iconoclast (15,333 posts)
2. Because we'll probably get even more if a Pubbie wins...
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #2)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:15 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
11. So, a Republican not bound to lobbyists...
Who could that be?
![]() --imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #11)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:25 PM
friendly_iconoclast (15,333 posts)
12. A certain wealthy neo-Falangist blowhard, perhaps...
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:55 PM
brooklynite (85,505 posts)
3. Because she'll keep the lobbyists out of the Republican President's Administration.
Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:58 PM
Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)
6. I think the OP is referring to the primary vote..that was my understanding of it. n/t
Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #6)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:07 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
9. It's about reality.
![]() --imm |
Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:01 PM
Gregorian (23,867 posts)
7. I would love to hear your rationale.
How is a pro-Monsanto candidate going to say no to their lobbyists?
|
Response to Gregorian (Reply #7)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:35 PM
tk2kewl (18,133 posts)
14. Better to have a democrat not say no than a republican i guess
![]() |
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:57 PM
Jefferson23 (30,099 posts)
4. If you're not a beneficiary like those groups are, then I have no idea why you would vote for her.
I suppose if you are not aware of policies like her war record or don't care much,
then she looks experienced. |
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:57 PM
rbrnmw (7,160 posts)
5. you shouldn't vote for whoever you want
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:03 PM
VulgarPoet (2,872 posts)
8. Because "Trump fearmongering, Cruz fearmongering, Rubio fearmongering", and my personal fave
"you're clearly just a republican plant".
![]() |
Response to immoderate (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:13 PM
Maedhros (10,007 posts)
10. Well, the going excuse is that OUR person doing the lobbyist's bidding
is better than THEIR person doing the lobbyist's bidding.
|
Response to Maedhros (Reply #10)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:25 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
13. A playout of the rivalry between the SANE billionaires and the INSANE billionaires.
IB: Let's kill the people and take their stuff!
SB: If we bleed them slowly, we can increase their productivity over a prolonged useful life. IB: Communist! --imm ![]() |