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

231–240 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#231

Post by rc_kas »

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.

uhm. no. you are litterally saying naive things while calling others naive. crazy.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#232

Post by outoftheabyss »

remarkEon wrote: post #179
monadic2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s true, the libs were owned. And owned hard. It’s all that matters to a lot of them. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are cheering on this Bloomberg phenomenon because of the potential damage it could do to the credibility of the Democratic Party, setting up the libs to get owned yet again in November.

Many would argue a hard left socialist would ruin the credibility of the party more. It’s happened here in the UK

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#233

Post by duxup »

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

>Are anyone going to be fooled by this?

I think that is a lot harder to know and an eternal debate I have.

Yeah lots of media is buying a lot of attention...in the end someone chooses to vote for that person, or not, or stay home.

I strongly worry about the influence / advantage of such money, but folks still pick them and provided they're not illegally ... imprisoning candidates (extreme example of course)... it's still an election.

I don't know how to tell how much these things really change people's minds or if they really do just get extra attention and folks pick the person they want.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#234

Post by pdeuchler »

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.

Why is this comment downvoted?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#235

Post by rtkwe »

leftyted wrote: post #45
tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1? Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.

A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket.

Also it's not about explicitly buying votes but there's a lot of lower information voters out there who currently are principally hearing from Bloomberg because he's spending lots of money in later states where the more traditionally funded campaigns haven't because they're on lower cash reserves.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#237

Post by free652 »

mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #212
free652 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His reign of terror? Which specific policies did he enact? How about the current racist with his reign of corruption and racism?

Stop & frisk.

He didn't enact and he stopped it. I assume you aren't from NYC, stop & frisk pre dates Bloomberg by a decade.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#238

Post by nostromo »

pdeuchler wrote: post #234
nostromo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why is this comment downvoted?

Maybe because "Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army" ;-)

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#239

Post by non-entity »

outoftheabyss wrote: post #232
remarkEon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true, the libs were owned. And owned hard. It’s all that matters to a lot of them. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are cheering on this Bloomberg phenomenon because of the potential damage it could do to the credibility of the Democratic Party, setting up the libs to get owned yet again in November.

Many would argue a hard left socialist would ruin the credibility of the party more. It’s happened here in the UK

Good thing no "hard left socialists" are running on the Democratic ticket.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#240

Post by gruez »

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…

I'll bite.

>- Travel ban, which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist" by whether or not you actually think it's a "muslim ban."

Can you elaborate on this? While it's not a literal ban on muslims, it does disporportionately affect muslims.

>- Bring back jobs to US

What Trump policies can be attributed to this? AFAIK there a bunch of reports that a bunch of companies that "brough back" jobs were planning on doing it anyways (eg. carrier/honeywell, couldn't remember which).

>- Efforts to remove US from middle east

Sure, he hastily pulled out of Syria, but earlier this year we were on the brink of war with Iran. What gives?

>- the natural bias that occurs within government when there is a 90%/10% political imbalance. [...] This manifests as things like the Mueller report: [...]

But Mueller is a registered republican?

>- Prison reform

>- Drug price transparency

>- Protection of religious expression in schools

I'm not aware of any of these. Can you elaborate?

Post reply on HN