[tzs]

If "the lobbyist" had the power over both parties that you are imagining, then net neutrality would have not passed in the first place.

Or do you think that was part of some long game to hide the influence of "the lobbyist" by appearing to lose on that issue, even though that meant "the lobbyist" had to put up with net neutrality for many years (it would have been at least 14 years if Clinton had one)?

Do you explain the numerous other things besides net neutrality for which Democrats and Republicans have consistently been on opposite sides for a very long time as just fake outs by "the lobbyist"?