101–110 of 553 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really good question and I'd like to see some fines dished out if they're not.
I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.
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…
I don't think it's going to work. Money may be a guaranteed way to get yourself in "the top tier" in polling but when it comes to voting, I don't think that pans out. Money is a factor but it's not the only factor. Ross Perot spent I don't know how many millions and never got more than 10% of the vote. Clinton outspent Trump in 2016. If people don't get excited for a candidate and connect with them its just not going…
Do we have any any hard numbers how much was spend by various nation-states to benefit the Trump campaign?
To be fair, there are so many loopholes in campaign finance laws that it is hard to get accurate numbers of spending, beyond what is self-reported, for any candidate.
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…
"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly." How about subvertive of the democratic process?
I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really good question and I'd like to see some fines dished out if they're not.
I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.
FTC, for a start. Political ads have more scrutiny as well, though I don't know the details. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/11/ftc-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1? Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.
Hillary outspending Trump 2:1 is a ridiculous way to look at it. When you combine the PAC/SuperPAC money spent for Trump with the Kremlin GRU efforts, it seems to me that Trump (including 3rd party efforts to help Trump and/or reduce Dem turnout) outspent Hillary roughly 100:1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).
This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coas... "“OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!” I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. “No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate. What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don'…
I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'. To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.
He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee.
It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trust network.
Now, perhaps everyone in your trust network is in on your deception, but realistically the vast majority of humans, as social (vs. antisocial) beings rely on trust networks as a strong signal for forming opinions and taking actions.