Well, that’s YOUR story. And I’m sure you’re sticking with it.
Sorry - you had suggested the term was ill defined. But clearly it is not.
Your next question here…of course this is subjective, but my answer -
IMO, the issue is, their past and future prospects with the industries they lobby for could influence them to perform their duties in such a way as to benefit those industries instead of the american people.
This of course is not a novel or new observation. It is in fact there reason why lobbyists have to register as such and why there are prohibitions on lobbyists working in the WH and other offices.
Oh my god. Trump CAMPAIGNED ON THIS. His own stump speeches called for the following:
• A ban on federal employees lobbying the government for five years
• A ban on members of Congress lobbying for five years
• Tighter rules about what constitutes a lobbyist, instead of letting people call themselves consultants
• Campaign finance reform limiting what foreign companies can raise for American political candidates
• A ban on senior government officials lobbying for foreign governments
Lobbyists were the swamp and are the swamp by his own definition. You can’t parse your way out of this. He’s full of ■■■■ and you know it.
4 Likes
So, if ‘I rub your back, you rub mine’ is the swamp - certainly no argument there from me, how is lobbyists going to work in the government, where they influence change to teh benefit of their clients, then end up working for them again once they are out of government, not rubbing each others backs, and therefore the swamp?
So then he would want to avoid people rubbing the backs of others…but lobbyists working for the government incredibly frequently end up back in those industries after they effect govt. policy that benefits those industries…
You need to pay attention to what you are actually typing.
That’s not the entirety of what I said.
Please try to keep up.
Yeah, you said that was the swamp, but the president had to live with it to an extent.
But the man on the radio sounded mad!
That was a PART of it.
I know you can read.
Got it. So you are saying that the vast array of paid lobbyists in DC are a positive factor in having government address the needs of citizens.
Thanks for clarifying.
You made that up.
So you think that Trump’s dependence on lobbyists to set policy is a bad thing?
So ( … insert something ELSE I didn’t say … )
…If it’s part of the swamp, and trump wants to drain the swamp, why is he hiring lobbyists? Because he has to live with it?
2nd question - what are some other parts of the swamp in your view?
It was a question. You do know what question marks are, yes?
Obama didn’t need lobbyists, he had a conga line of far left liberal “Czar” flunkies who did his bidding. The Government was run by unelected and unapproved by Congress far leftists for 8 freaking years. The country will pay the price of that toxicity for decades. 
This is the part where you are “inserting words” and the conversation is OVER!
1 Like
If I understand your posts correctly, you think rubbing of backs is part of the swamp, but something even presidents have to tolerate. Is that correct?
Do you also agree that lobbyists working for government between industry jobs is also rubbing backs ie: the swamp?
Your answers aren’t as clear as you think they are. (I predict this will be the line you quote from this post, with an answer like: ‘Of course they are. Your TDS is keeping you from seeing that.’ While ignoring the questions above.)
