Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#111

Post by klyrs »

bloopernova wrote: post #51
Loughla wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Entertainment is a key component in my theory as well. For me, I called the last election after seeing Trump's behavior in the first republican debate. After he won the election, I predicted him winning in 2020 and shooting for 2024.

The other major factor I see is how Trump handles scandal: brag about getting away with it, and accuse everybody else of doing the same thing. It's certainly dramatic -- I'm loath to call it entertaining... but it's hard to tear oneself away from this news cycle

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#112

Post by malandrew »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

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…

At least he's doing the honest thing and giving away the money that he's earned by creating something of great value to society. That's far more honest than what other Democratic candidates like Bernie, Warren and Yang want to do which is trying to buy the election by promising to take money from Americans that earned it and give it to those that have not earned it.

Make no mistake, promising wealth transfers using taxpayer money to buy an election is still buying an election.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#113

Post by sigmaprimus »

rudedogg wrote: post #80
octonion wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Improving society is "wacko"?

I don't think the OP meant it in the way you think. My guess is they're speaking of the riskiness of Bernie winning the nomination, where as someone more centrist seems like a safer bet. But who knows, the experts said Hillary would win too. Edit: Nevermind, the OP meant what you thought :D

Actually I do agree with your statement, your statement is a much more nuanced PC way of getting to the point of my original comment.

I tend to far more blunt with my comments probably because I just get a kick out working up the zealots on both sides.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#114

Post by jacob019 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

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 agree. There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Will Trump spend one moment reflecting on the moral way to spend his enormous reelection campaign budget?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#115

Post by anthm1988 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

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…

What he's doing is trying to buy democracy. It's monstrous, not merely annoying. Not even Trump had the gall to try and do something like this.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#116

Post by anthm1988 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #95
danans wrote: post #81

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.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest.

He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative.

If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#117

Post by hbosch »

rdtsc wrote: post #72

Interesting. Now that the cat is out of the bag any mention about him from any acquaintance is just going to make me think they got a check from Mike and make me dislike him more each time. Does buying support like this work? "Hey family, Mike Bloomberg is awesome, we should all vote for him". That just feels so artificial and fake, but maybe if the phrase gets repeated enough people start believing it... > Outvote a…

> Does buying support like this work?

Definitely. When a voter is in the booth, and has to make their decision for once and for all, name recognition and the opinion of your community matters a ton. Further, the type of social media content that is being produced is painting him as sort of a benevolent, rich, goofy guy. It's intentionally anti-establishment, but not in the radical way or the thoughtful way... it's a safe type of rebellion and that is endearing to a massive amount of people.

> Does that open the door for his opponents to pretend to be Bloomberg's supporters but say ridiculous stuff to make people dislike him.

This has happened for a while and will continue to happen, although this kind of stuff is mainly isolated to niche Twitter... as we run up to election time, I think you will see more of this Clickhole/Onion type posting of anti-support-support.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#118

Post by malandrew »

pb7 wrote: post #71
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

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…

Surprised to see such naive takes on HN. Wealthy people don’t “hoard wealth like a dragon”. It’s invested in companies that translate to products, services, and jobs.

It's actually shocking and sad how widely held this belief is.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#119

Post by anthm1988 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #104
pmoriarty wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly." How about subvertive of the democratic process?

It is only subvertive if people let it be so. But if his spending is subvertive then ALL like spending is subvertive. He is just more upfront about it. I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.

Except every other candidate accepts donations and has to be more transparent. Every other serious candidate is appearing on the debate stage and town halls.

Bloomberg is buying off people and hasn't been forced to defend his atrocious record, at all.

and plenty of people support aggressively campaign financing reform and public funding of elections.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#120

Post by ketzo »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #104
pmoriarty wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly." How about subvertive of the democratic process?

It is only subvertive if people let it be so. But if his spending is subvertive then ALL like spending is subvertive. He is just more upfront about it. I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.

Well, there’s a lot of regulation around campaign finance: spending limits, disclosure requirements, etc. As far as I know, Bloomberg doesn’t haven’t to adhere to any of that, because it’s not campaign finances, it’s his own personal (massive) wealth.
Post reply on HN