All I have to say to Bloomberg is:
Okay Bloomer.
Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
251–260 of 553 posts
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#252Earlier 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…
You go vote for someone else in the democratic primaries? He isn't the candidate
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?
No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.
If Trump just didn't leave the Oval Office, who would stop him? The republican senate that doesn't care about him violating the constitution?
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what, exactly, were they expecting to receive?
Tax cuts and a big middle finger to the democrats.
I don't think they honestly cared about tax cuts. It's all about "Owning the libs" and making America "great" which Fox news tells them is exactly what America is now thanks to Trump and no no other countries are laughing at us constantly that's "Fake news"
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Some humans are lazy and some humans are greedy.
Capitalism exploits the greedy humans into generating wealth by rewarding them greatly, it also generates many jobs and assets for the economy. Yes that one person gets rewarded greatly, but many masses would not benefit if they never existed or were never motivated to do those things.
The lazy humans will fleece the system until there's nothing left. Some people need survival to motivate them to climb.
Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. There's many examples of that.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's a bad faith response. He literally said if you believe it's a honest-to-god muslim ban he will categorize you as a 'crazy leftist', not if you disagree with him about whether or not it is good or bad. It is objectively not a muslim ban as anyone from those countries was barred, and the demographics of the countries don't automatically make it a muslim ban or imply any malfeasance by the president.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest... I feel like this is often the crux of the argument against any kind of government regulation. "The people are smart enough to not be duped!" And in many cases it's easier to create chaos / scam people than it is to defend yourself against it. Just because some people seem capable of defending themselves / cutting through the fraud does…
You do have a point, but I think your analogy does not hold. US schools do have educational system focused on presenting how US election system is supposed to work under ideal circumstances. By default, citizen should know wtf they are voting for. It may be a system issue, but that is a separate conversation. Apps, otoh, are relatively new. There is no class out there on avoiding scams ( though there probably should…
> He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?
1. I was referring to your example scenario where you're taking his money and disingenuously working to support his campaign.
2. I'm not sure why you're suggesting "spending your own money" absolves you from unethical behavior. If I bought a bunch of worn-out tires and hired some kids around the neighborhood to start a tire fire in the nearest park, that'd be absolutely unethical (and probably illegal as well), despite the fact that I funded the operation myself.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#258Earlier 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…
> When does your success turn you evil?
There are plenty of people making $100k/year exploiting labour and/or damaging the environment. But when you're one of the ~2000 billionaires in the world you are pretty much by definition responsible for such a massively larger amount of that harm than the guy making $100k.
> when the rest of the socialist/communist world is in such turmoil
There are plenty of degrees of socialism that could be applied before you end up in stalinist russia. Canada is arguably more socialist than the US, is that in turmoil? Various scandinavian countries are more socialist than Canada, yet they seem to be doing alright.
I'm not saying let's become communist, I'm saying:
1. force capital to respect labour by compensating it fairly
2. force capital to pay for the social and environmental damage it does
3. stop capital from using globalization to avoid doing #1 and #2
4. keep capital out of politics, so that it can't roll back #1, #2 and #3
If we did those things, you'd likely have a lot fewer billionares. Maybe none. But if there were billionaires, they wouldn't be standing on a horde of blood money like a goddamn dragon from a fantasy novel.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#259Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?
It's not, but hasn't money always played a big role in politics? It's hard to define where a wealthy persons legitimate advantage lies and when it becomes purchasing the presidency. I'm all for a meritocracy, but getting money out of politics doesn't seem like anything easily solved.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Yes. But they're kind of stuck to each other. Really I agree that we have 4 major constituencies stuck within 2 parties. First past the post and single member districts kind of force it to be that way.