Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

Post by whatshisface » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

Post by chrisseaton » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

asdfqwer234 wrote: post #182

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #200

jariel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but the 'story' is that he didn't 'raise' this money, it's his own. Meaning it has pretty big implications for campaign finance. The precedent for having consecutive 'billionaires' as president is a little troubling. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires, but it sets the bar oddly high for a democratic republic.

> Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires Debatable. Find me a billionaire who didn't get where they are through exploitive labour practices, monopolistic consolidation, political manipulation, massive environmental damage, or inheriting wealth earned in one or more of those ways. A world where billionaires can exists seems like a perversion of the ideals of "healthy" capitalism to me.

Post by Aunche » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #86

blowski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.

Part of the problem is that it's a self-funded campaign. It's one thing when a campaign raises a bunch of money from donors and does an ad blitz, because at least it in theory represents real people (with contribution caps) who donated. When it's a billionaire self-funding, that's not the case. (PACs are also problematic, because they side-step the contribution caps)

Post by vanusa » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #147

vanusa wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?