Quote:
Originally posted by Wonderland
So you have a problem with not-so-rich people taking money from lobby groups who may use that money to push an agenda but have no problem with a rich man bankrolling his own campaign to push his own agenda? Your line of reasoning is one and the same and both situations are equally problematic in my eyes 
|
Well, that lobby usually isn't in the society's best interest.
Let me provide you with an example:
Horse carriages in New York City. There was a lobby to end it, because the horses were exploited, worked too much and stressed out by the noise and their health is negatively affected by the polluted air. At least, that's what the official justification for the stance was. The new mayor, Bill De Blasio (D) supported demolishing the stables and ending the business running in the city.
Who gave the most money for De Blasio's campaign? Estate companies. The stable is located in Western Manhattan, where the grounds are hella expensive. So the deal is: the stables are demolished, the developers get the land and what happens to the horses? Given that they lose their "jobs" and no one would really care about them at that point, they most likely will be killed and sold for meat.
That's how I generally see lobbies, there is a reason they fund a certain stance and it doesn't always work for the well-being of others. At least, with a rich person, I have grounds to believe that what he's saying is what he believes in and doesn't have to pay his bills to those who funded his campaign.
), Leans Bernie
I hope their stubbornness is not an indication of what American Bernie supporters will be like, otherwise Hillary may be relying on moderate republicans against Trump.