201–210 of 553 posts
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.
Sounds more like a lack of choice.
Why doesn't he just buy Fox News?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly other politicians are running ads and campaign offices as politicians have done for decades - maybe with a social media manager or two per major office. Bloomberg is doing that, also at a level of intensity not really seen before, but then also managing a uniquely expensive social media campaign. Clinton's total campaign was something like $600e6. Bloomberg has already spent half of that, within the span of th…
Bloomberg 2020 campaign is really weird, not only is he not pretending to have an grassroots campaign so far he haven't even been on the ballot at a primary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might makes right.
The last time I saw that statement was in T.H. White's Once and Future King, talking about Medieval battles and governance....
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.
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.
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.
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…
How about the current racist with his reign of corruption and racism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. Sounds more like a lack of choice.
We keep pulling from the same small pool of rich, connected household names and expect different results.
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.
I don't think it's antidemocratic. Bernie Sanders is doing just fine with a fraction of the ad spending. Ultimately, nobody is being forced to vote for him. Super Tuesday will be the first test, and it's very possible that Bernie will sweep all of the big states himself.
