81–90 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump got several billion dollars in free coverage. No one would care about Trump if he was not Trump.
Does it even matter, with respect to the problems with our plutocracy? Every election the same plutocrats win no matter what, for example: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-gold...
This is similar to the tactic used by Harvey Weinstein to discourage newspapers from reporting on rape allegations against him. 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 p…
> Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this! I suspect the bigger problem is that there are so few honest people involved in the business that you would have to shut down if you broke off association with everybody doing shady things in Hollywood. While I'm pleased to see Weinstein going down, I keep scratching my head about "We know that there are people in Hollywood doing far worse things. Why…
So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.
In the Bay Area, see how San Jose officials spends so much focus on the downtown, but the city is very spread out, and many residents have no connection to downtown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$2B in free media attention helped a bit, I'd imagine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...
Was Clinton blocked from social media? She could have polluted Twitter and the news with sound bites that forced analysis and coverage of her, which is what Trump did. He played the media and Twitter and got free advertising. She had as much accessibility but didn't use it to her advantage and thus ended up losing.
The SV circle jerk worked about as well as expected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.
Only in official spending. Third parties aren't counted so it's a mostly meaningless measure. All it means is Hillary was worse at hiding the contributions to her campaign.
I think municipalities should be free to make the best deal they can with large employers like this. Chips fall where they may. They are all elected officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working just fine here. Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.
Did you actually read the LA Times article? Be honest. This post really makes it sound like you did not.
Classic Streisand effect. I wouldn't have heard of this had Disney not tried to "punish" the person who brought it to light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?
Natural disasters also get a lot of free press, if the ratings are high enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I risk to devolve this into a flame war, but I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election, so money spend by third parties to help get someone elected can be attributed to the corresponding campaign.
You are correct. This information would be useful, but surely we can't limit it to just one other country and one campaign?