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

181–190 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#181

Post by dfxm12 »

ngngngng wrote: post #21
ulfw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.

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?

There were obvious and appreciable difference between the two candidates of those two teams, between their campaign promises and between their political and personal histories. Even if you didn't "like" either, you can still think about these differences and decide which one you think is more fit to serve as president.

Even if you're unwilling to do that, then practically speaking, there were more than 2 teams. If a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for federal funding in the next election. It might not necessarily get them on the debate stage, but we're talking about a lot of money to get their messages out there one way or another. Libertarians got 3.28% of the popular vote in 2016. It might be naive to think that they or the Green party could have reached 5%, but I'm not one to take the defeatist attitude that voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#182

Post by asdfqwer234 »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #178
eplanit wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal fram…

No, some people still stand by ethical principles, and appreciate the irony of the process taken by the "Democratic" party

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#183

Post by humblebee »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #178
eplanit wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal fram…

I wouldn't say its an attack on Bloomberg, it was the DNC who choose to changed their policy to allow him on their debate stage. They didn't have to do that.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#184

Post by jaywalk »

sjg007 wrote: post #164
jaywalk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress doesn't give the President anything except money. Executive powers come from the Constitution, not Congress. To put it simply: the President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress.

Yes the executive powers in the Constitution are obviously not governed by Congress but Congress has indeed delegated some their responsibilities to the President. These, known as the emergency powers, are what I am referring to. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...

That's all well and good, but those are powers that have never been used since they've been granted, and that article is just a bunch of "Trump is so scary, look at all this stuff he could do!" tripe.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#185

Post by CydeWeys »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #178
eplanit wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal fram…

"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him."

So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#186

Post by anonAndOn »

What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. A populist carnival barker vs. a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.

I'd bet dollars to donuts Mike's got a tech team in place right now that is running rings around the DNC's haphazard patronage party.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#187

Post by at_a_remove »

allovernow wrote: post #139

Shilling on social media appeared overnight. Literally a switch was turned on and suddenly hundreds of "totally organic" posts about Bloomberg are popping up everywhere mimicking local forum/board subcultures. Many of the people seem to be posting somewhat ironically, though it seems his campaign has attempted to embrace the same style of "no press is bad press" attention that undoubtedly contributed to Trump's elect…

The results are even clunkier than when Correct The Record began. Those were obvious and a little insulting. So far, Bloomberg's shills are staggering about like 1950s robots, emitting electoral noises on some kind of shrill, buzzing loop.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#188

Post by danenania »

jacob019 wrote: post #84
slumdev wrote: post #68

I don't like this idea of buying elections. But at the very least, I'm happy to see the Democratic machine upside-down, with all of the designated incumbent royalty falling behind the outsiders.

I appreciate the sentiment, but for those of us who have been negatively impacted by the policies of the current administration, it is worrying that a candidate with broad appeal has failed to materialize at this point.

Based on approval polls, Bernie Sanders is one of the best-liked politicians in America. He has often literally been number 1 in these polls. So I think he does have broad appeal, just not to rich and influential people (who make up a small minority, despite their outsized ability to have their voices heard).

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#189

Post by Jeema101 »

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.

I hate to tell you this, but all money that exists in the money supply is invested in products, services, and jobs - unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere.

Wealthy people do 'hoard wealth like a dragon', by definition - otherwise they would not be wealthy.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#190

Post by CydeWeys »

standardUser wrote: post #171
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's actually perfectly in line with our democratic process. It's not subverting it, it's working exactly as designed. Spending a personal fortune is well within the rules. We should be criticizing the design, not the people taking advantage of the design. In other words, hate the game not the player.

It hasn't always been allowed within our rules, and indeed isn't allowed by the rules of most other functioning democracies.
Post reply on HN