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

221–230 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#221

Post by ta999999171 »

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.

Just because you're able, and many people in your left or right coast region may be, doesn't mean everyone is.

I agree with your sentiment, free will and less protectionism...

but, no - consumers/voters are not educated, or even given the tools they need to become so. Literally more is spent every year on the opposite.

Snap and media conglomerates alone ads so much noise, for no profit, to do just this - distract, and fuzz.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#222

Post by jlarocco »

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?

It's too bad more people don't realize the answer is to vote third party.

Voting for somebody you don't want to win is the definition of "throwing your vote away."

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#223

Post by boourns311 »

anonAndOn wrote: post #186

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.

Sorry, who's the billionaire other than Bloomberg?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#224

Post by mcv »

monadic2 wrote: post #38
ulfw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.

I don’t think trump voters were “fooled”, they did in fact own the libs and will likely continue to try and own the libs. For many in america this culture war shit is the only substantive choice at the polls.

That's a bleak and destructive ideology, if all they care about is hurting people they disagree with. What happened to political movements being for something, instead of just against everything?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#225

Post by Seenso »

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…

>> 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.

> 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.

I think there are two issues here:

1) candidate Bloomberg himself, and

2) systemic flaws that are offensive to small-d democratic sensibilities, of which Bloomberg is a representative and symbol.

The point of that kind of attack is to bring focus on the systemic flaws. Also, at this point, many more people are probably attuned to those flaws than they are to the candidate himself (as only New Yorkers have really had to care about him, previously).

> 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...

It can be, but not having a fair process turns off a lot of voters, and makes others angry. Doubly so if that lack of fair process means they'll be forced to choose between two bad options.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#226

Post by rc_kas »

nostromo wrote: post #209
mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. Sounds more like a lack of choice.

https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png We keep pulling from the same small pool of rich, connected household names and expect different results.

is that the Epstein 4? kind of like the fantastic 4 but .. opposite.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#227

Post by takeda »

anonAndOn wrote: post #186

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.

Also a supposed Democrat that run as a Republican and Republican that's running as a Democrat.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#228

Post by brighton36 »

farisjarrah wrote: post #175
brighton36 wrote: post #163

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....

I didn't mean to express that with enthusiasm. It's just what I see.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#229

Post by cyorir »

beaner wrote: post #125
octonion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what, exactly, were they expecting to receive?

Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question. -- - The wall - Fight against sanctuary cities, including now support for a bill that would allow relatives of murdered US citizens who were victims of aliens protected by Sanctuary laws, to sue those sanctuary cities. - Travel ban, which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist" by whether or no…

> Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question.

> which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist"

Implying that those who disagree with you are "crazy leftists" might be one reason for a downvote, for a start.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#230

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

zigzaggy wrote: post #63
ngngngng wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties. I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including…

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.
Post reply on HN