3 ms·
There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?
by foolbiter 7y ago
There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?
- slenk 7y agoThere are 20-some people running...I wouldn't call them a presidential candidate yet...more like presidential hopefuls. And because big pharma seems to always win.
- mars4rp 7y agothey win because not enough people care!
- r00fus 7y agoThey are technically all candidates. The winner of the primary is a nominee. Pharma gets what they pay for. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to them.
- slenk 7y agoYeah, but after continuing to vote for people that don't have backing and therefore never have a chance to start really is starting to feel like I am wasting my vote. Hell, because of the Electoral College, my vote ultimately doesn't count if it isn't what the whole state picks.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoBecause the people that will likely win the nomination will almost certainly have big money, to include Big Pharma, behind them. Ads, research, propaganda, and aggressive ground games work, but they need money. Like multi-national corp or nation-state level money[1]. Hilary had some uncomfortable ties to Wall Street -- she was a Senator from NY, mind you -- and the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz picked up a lot of Budweiser money by scrapping any DNC talk of Marijuana Legalization (DWS has long battle MJ Legalization in Florida, so she's been taking their money for a while, or was a sympathetic bribe for Alcohol). But I could have lived with that in exchange for working health care and sane foreign policy. [1] see also: the russian firehose of propaganda -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html