31–40 of 222 posts
Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.
> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…
I feel like things like this are a fundamental social problem. How can this be prevented?
It is highly unlikely this is going to happen.
> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…
But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD.
She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most money offered gets to be president. Didn't seem to work very well for Hillary... (I know this sounds like a cheap shot, but it completely breaks down your argument)
$2B in free media attention helped a bit, I'd imagine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...
> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…
> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.
Trump got several billion dollars in free coverage. No one would care about Trump if he was not Trump.
what it really shows that it takes an incredible level of personal wealth and fame to beat the two party system and even then he had to usurp one of parties to do it.
I have no problem with his wealth and fame, I have a problem of it being an example of how much it takes to break the stranglehold those two parties have on our system. worse they use people and wealth like his as the means to implement rules to prevent outsiders from rising
Journalists that participated in the cover-up got access to his film premieres, parties at award ceremonies, interviews with celebrities and so on. Turns out that was enough to get every entertainment journalist to cover up his crimes for years.
Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this!