Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#51

Post by bloopernova » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #30

tyfon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer; I am in no way supportive of Trump or most of his policies. However as an outsider (I'm not American), he actually seemed more on message and resonated more with his base than his opponent in 2016 so when Hillary became the nominee for the Democratic party I actually bet 100 NOK with my co-worker that Trump would win.

Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. People who don't like him genuinely underestimate the support his base provides. There is a reason republicans are falling all over themselves to lick his boots. He controls the power now.

My correct prediction was based on one factor only:

The more entertaining candidate wins.

Bush was more entertaining than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more entertaining than McCain and Romney. Trump was more entertaining than Clinton.

My prediction is that Trump will win again this year. I personally don't want that to happen, but I feel that it will. I'd love for Sanders to win.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#52

Post by dontdoitpls » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues.

Yes people are getting fooled real bad.

The decline of democracy is here.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#53

Post by octonion » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

eej71 wrote: post #35

khc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump spent less money on the election than Hillary Clinton maybe a counter example that people don't like

I think that this is true, though I have no numbers to back it up. He appeared to run a cost effective campaign. The endless free coverage provided by pundits and commentators who continuously mocked was transformed (by him) into a strength. He also made full use of social media to reach as many people as he could. I'd be hard pressed to name another candidate who so effectively used twitter. The slogan and the hats…

Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#54

Post by homonculus1 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

telchar wrote: post #32

ngngngng wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I didn't like any of the alternatives either. There's only two teams and I don't like them. What do I do?

Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?

The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#55

Post by blowski » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#56

Post by Shivetya » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

ulfw wrote: post #19

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.

Trump did not buy the election like Bloomberg is trying to do. Sadly Bloomberg is pretty much evidence of that in three years the Democrats have not managed to formulate a message of other than "not Trump". Bloomberg is much more authoritarian bent than any current candidate or Trump. Trump might be an embarrassment but because he is under the Republican banner we know the press is more than willing to ride his ass no matter how long he remains in office. The real threat is if we get someone in who the press turns a blind eye to their actions.

Congress has abdicated responsibility for far too long to the Administrative branch. The greatest example is on immigration where they would rather act by decree, issued by court or their own guy as President. Unfortunately Congress answers to their party affiliation first and the people last. Used to be committees made Congress work but they have been slowly torn down since the Republican take over in 96 and Democrats have shown no desire to bring them back.

Congress works when both sides work it out and debate, this only happens with a strong committee structure and until it returns Congress will be controlled by their parties who have the power to punish members of the party.

Trump spent less than Clinton and she lost [0]

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/campaign-spen...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#57

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still..

Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.

Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#58

Post by wombat-man » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

Kinda feels like anything goes at this point. You just gotta win :-|

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#59

Post by jdck1326 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

MrStonedOne wrote: post #43

gjs278 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.

Except, well, the FTC requirement that says literally that.

I'm not sure the person was speaking about the law or current rules.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#60

Post by dahfizz » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

octonion wrote: post #39

eej71 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the vast majority of folks who voted for Trump felt that they received what they were expecting to receive. I think most who voted that way the first go around will likely vote for him again should they return to the polls.

And what, exactly, were they expecting to receive?

Tax cuts and a big middle finger to the democrats.