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

141–150 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#141

Post by [deleted] »

vanusa wrote: post #137
pjlegato wrote: post #132

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard ea…

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. No - it's not that he's spending his own money. But rather, how he's spending it. And they're not "upset". They're calmly pointing out the obvious: that this kind of attempted influence buying is profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic.

[deleted]

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#142

Post by awb »

anthm1988 wrote: post #116
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business.

Money shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should.

I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#143

Post by jacob019 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #131
jacob019 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Are you sure about that? Trump raises massive donations at every rally.

Now he is popular, but in 2016 the $66 million of his own money that he spent on his campaign was vital to his election bid.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#144

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

chrisco255 wrote: post #74
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 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…

Clinton got more votes than trump as well, not the best example

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#145

Post by rabuse »

anthm1988 wrote: post #124
malandrew wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

because it's true. The naive people are the ones who swallow the line from billionaires.

What financially-savvy individual would keep their wealth in an inflationary store of value?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#146

Post by hippich »

pjlegato wrote: post #132

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard ea…

For what it is worth, I got text asking for donation to Bloomberg's campaign. So I would not expect Bloomberg not taking money from large donors.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#147

Post by pjlegato »

vanusa wrote: post #137
pjlegato wrote: post #132

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard ea…

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. No - it's not that he's spending his own money. But rather, how he's spending it. And they're not "upset". They're calmly pointing out the obvious: that this kind of attempted influence buying is profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic.

All of the other candidates are also doing that; there's nothing special about how Bloomberg is spending his money. The others are doing the same, but with other people's money -- people who will now expect to wield influence behind the scenes. Is that not worse?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#148

Post by pb7 »

throwlaplace wrote: post #136
pb7 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but those companies themselves hoard money so what's the difference? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-her... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet... edit: why did i get downvoted?

Even “cash” held by individual companies is not actually cash in a bank. It, too, is invested in marketable securities. Holding cash is an incredibly foolish move due to inflation.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#149

Post by hnaccount141 »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #113
rudedogg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

HN is not the place for that sort of thing.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#150

Post by pb7 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #79
pb7 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Companies are assets and as such they are still part of his wealth. It is not like I said he sleeps on gold coins in a vault. No need to get literal.

Money sitting in a vault and money invested in companies that employ people and produce value for society could not be more different.
Post reply on HN