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

241–250 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#241

Post by the_gastropod »

awb wrote: post #142
anthm1988 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative. If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

> If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution. So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business. Money s…

> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined. It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner should worry us all.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#242

Post by Ididntdothis »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #215
kennywinker wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I just don't get the socialist views people have here. Where do you think the moral cash limit should be? 10 million or 100 million? When does your success turn you evil? I don't see how you can say those things when you live in such a nice capitalistic economy when the rest of the socialist/communist world is in such turmoil. You're in the field that embraces capitalism the most, and it's beautiful. You can start a…

i think the moral limit should be set in a way that all citizens benefit from a growing economy equally. I view it as a moral failing of a society that the upper x percent are steadily increase their share of the output of the economy while a majority doesn’t benefit much from growth.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#243

Post by mrguyorama »

takeda wrote: post #227
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.

>supposed Democrat

Trump was a registered democrat.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#244

Post by oarabbus_ »

grumple wrote: post #75

So he's hiring a bunch of barely-over minimum wage workers to spread his message... and? What do you think the other politicians are doing with the millions they raise? This isn't a story.

What qualifies as a story for you? This is unprecedented in the history of US politics.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#245

Post by pb7 »

rc_kas wrote: post #231
pb7 wrote: post #71

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.

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

Please elaborate.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#246

Post by cmroanirgo »

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?

Linking to an external image and then making a conclusion here isn't profitable to discussion here. It'd been better if the op had said, and here's Bloomberg with Trump and Clinton (I forget the 4th guys name: I'm oz)... all of them clearly golf buddies.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#247

Post by nostromo »

takeda wrote: post #227
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.

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat.

Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president

Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat

Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#248

Post by oarabbus_ »

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.

I hope you are not posting this from an Apple or Microsoft produced device because if you are you fall as a hypocrite to at least half the things you decry in this post.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#249

Post by non-entity »

nostromo wrote: post #247
takeda wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat. Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

At the very least I wish the parties would split themselves.

The Democrats seems to have both a socdem wing and a more neoliberal wing and the Republicans a growing right wing populist wing and the standard neocons. Maybe this is oversimplified, but I feel like these should be different parties

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#250

Post by mrguyorama »

mcv wrote: post #224
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.

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?

"Winning" happened.
Post reply on HN