Cory Booker and some other Dems BLOCK Drug Imports from Canada (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 11:09:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Cory Booker and some other Dems BLOCK Drug Imports from Canada (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cory Booker and some other Dems BLOCK Drug Imports from Canada  (Read 5886 times)
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


« on: January 13, 2017, 03:21:16 PM »

FYI, this was a bill than even TED FREAKING CRUZ voted for.

No wonder Democrats keep losing, bunch of limp-wristed cronies.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2017, 04:37:35 PM »

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.


Progressives and Berniecrats will not be able to swallow that pill, understandably.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2017, 04:44:06 PM »

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.


Progressives and Berniecrats will not be able to swallow that pill, understandably.

Yeah, how dare we demand that our politicians place the common good above petty sectional interests? What a crazy idea!

I agree with you, that's what I was saying. Booker is nothing more than an empty suit who will make Progressives stay at home, leading to another Trump victory.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.