You can tell what a person prioritizes by what they are willing to shut the government over.

That's a bit extreme. There are some instances when a politician can make an enemy of a corporate interest and the corporation will work to get that guy out of office. It's not going to be the lobby firm that cares, they're just providing a service to companies with interests at stake. And most of the business conducted is not of the blow-your-dick-off variety anyway. All most companies can do is ask nicely and try to make good arguments. The biggest cudgel they have is to favor the legislator's opponent in the next race. But on every big issue of contention, there is usually some other entity on the other side looking for their own champion -- if the company hates you, probably the union loves you, or the environmentalist organization, or the low income advocacy group, or whatever. I'm not saying there aren't problems of influence -- there certainly are. In big issues there are some things on which no one is willing to cross the NRA, for example. And there are a million little things that aggregate up to essentially political marginalization. But it isn't all blow-your-dick-off extreme. In most policymaking, legislators can still stake out their independence where they want and still compete in elections. To say we're completely captured by lobbyist interests oversimplifies and distorts the reality, imo.

 

I think you're painting anomalies as common occurrences. The huge majority of victories are correlated with money, this is a decades-long trend. So much so that victories without the help of lobbyists (on the far left or far right) are constantly reported as miraculous by mainstream and non-mainstream media. That is to say, getting your dick blown off might not kill you, but you are facing far greater obstacles with your dick blown off.

You're also imo ignoring the bigger picture that such a system is not unique and there are lots of impressive legislative systems in the West that function without it and are dealing with no less/more "under the table" influence. Yes it's true that influence exists everywhere, but this is not like mar1juana prohibition where its prohibition was ineffective, this is more like the mafia where you can't argue that allowing them to legitimize their actions benefits the public good. Here, the public good is the ability of a citizen to exercise influence over their sovereignty. That's not to say anyone has or I have the answer, I'm just saying the lobbying system in the US is totally frivolous and serves no unique purpose other than to legitimize and accelerate the growth of non-citizen influence. That's true even if we can cite isolated positive aspects of it.

 

Holy crap dude. You should probably stop attempting to debate politics on the internet when you don’t even have a base level of understanding of what is going on.

 

He has a mandate to build it. Sorry you can't accept this.

 

Your post, in summary, is devoid of any actual argument. That tells me all I need to know about you.

 

America is not a democracy. It is a republic. So popular vote, and majority rule, do not actually exist here. Thank God. So your argument, which is fundamentally tied to majority rule, is a false notion in regard to what America is. I didn't say all of Americans. I said America, as in what was represented when Trump ran on that central promise to protect our borders and was elected by America.

 

You mean to drain the swamp? He could start by firing himself

 

63% of the country disagrees with you. Oh, I pulled that number from FoxNews just in case you tried to attack the number. Americans aren't as stupid as you think - they know a wall isn't magical and isn't going to have much impact, they know Trump lies a lot and that this is about politics and not border security.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...-voters-turning-against-his-shutdown-strategy

 

I really could careless.. America voted on a man who said he would build a wall, so that is what America wants. You know who doesn't want the wall? People who vote for online polls on Fox News apparently. You know who does? Actual voters!

 

I don't care less... I only want what trump wants!

 

I will shut down the government if Harden doesn't win MVP.

I will take that mantle.

 

Actually, I am pro more walls. Not a complete wall. But I still think Trump has a mandate from the election to do his key project. And his plan is better than any of the other plans (or lack of) that I have seen put forward these days.

 

Fair point, but the election spoke for Trump. Also yes! I guess I did. Thanks for correcting that.

 

I see it differently. I see it as the way the country was set up to function. We aren't a pure democracy so I think the election speaks well for the nation. If you don't think the electoral college is good, then I understand. I used to feel that way. Then I realized the reasons it was put in place and there are some compelling reasons that I agree with. I think we just have a very different world view on things. I get ya though.

To be fair it definitely isn't a mandate of the people in a democracy sense. It is a mandate from America (the entity and concept of America which speaks in the form of an election)

 

It wasn't an "online poll on Fox News," it was a scientifically conducted poll performed by a reputable organization.

Try again.

 

So how did the affordable care mandate worked for Obama?