Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#271

Post by cabaalis » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:02 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…

I see this also for Bernie, in odd locations. I've been playing Warcraft 3 reforged lately, and the general chat that shows up on the main menu in-game has been all kinds of people extolling the values of Bernie Sanders.

Of course, it could be grassroots. I just doubt it.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#272

Post by beaner » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #240

beaner wrote: post #125

Earlier 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…

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 we…

I really dislike that you are asking me to do your homework for you. But,

> Can you elaborate on this?

The countries are predominantly muslim but how does that make it a "muslim ban"? Are muslims still allowed from other countries? Yes. Are Christians from those banned countries allowed either? No. Seems straightforward then that it is not a muslim ban. The list of countries was composed by the Obama administration, not Trump. Trump just made a rational application of it. If there were a European ban, would it be a Christian ban? It would "disproportionately affect" Christians. Seems outlandish to think so. This characterization is ridiculous.

> What Trump policies can be attributed to this?

China trade war tariffs, for example. The China trade deal more broadly. The USMCA. The effort to make the US energy independent and a net exporter. [1]

> earlier this year we were on the brink of war with Iran

This depends on your choice of media and its bias and characterizations. The choice to strategically eliminate a single terrorist general with a missile, rather than wait for the plans he was brewing to bubble, prevented things from escalating and did it with zero casualties. This is an example of, not a counterpoint to, efforts to remove.

> But Mueller is a registered republican?

This seems like a very hollow thing to say. Whether or not the specific investigator is of a certain party is generally meaningless when his appointment is the decision of someone else, and the work on his team was mostly not carried out by him, but his staff. This would be true anyway, but it was clear in his deposition that he was also a mostly ignorant figurehead, unaware of a lot of what was happening. More broadly, I used the mueller investigation as an example of a wide trend, and that Mueller is a republican has nothing to do with that trend, or the statistical makeup of DC.

> Prison reform

Please literally google "trump prison reform". The First Step Act on Wikipedia is the first result.

> Drug price transparency

Please literally google "trump drug price transparency". The whitehouse fact sheet is the first result. [2]

> Protection of religious expression in schools

Please literally google "trump protection of religious expression in schools". The whitehouse fact sheet is the first result. [3]

--

If you are genuinely surprised you've never heard of these things before, you may consider what aspects of your information intake may be bubble-like and self-reinforcing. It would be healthy to question the media narratives that you tend to consume, and/or opening your stream to other news sources.

--

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential...

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...

[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#273

Post by Loughla » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #205

Jeema101 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to tell you this, but all money that exists in the money supply is invested in products, services, and jobs - unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere. Wealthy people do 'hoard wealth like a dragon', by definition - otherwise they would not be wealthy.

Everyone that saves for retirement is hoarding wealth like a dragon by this definition which makes the definition useless.

My $28,000 retirement account does not equal the billions upon billions owned by Bloomberg. That is the difference.

It's not a dragon hoard if it's two pieces of gold.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#274

Post by tropo » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

jdkee wrote: post #216

Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

The alternatives are worse. The choices:

1. purchase it with their own money

2. purchase it with money from bribes

3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support

Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#275

Post by mrguyorama » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #218

davexunit wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The candidate with broad appeal is Bernie Sanders.

Broad appeal among democrats , but the candidate with the best chances in the national election is not the center Democrat, it's the center American, which if you imagine Democrats and Republicans being two ranges butted up against the center, is the rightmost Democrat!

I don't believe republicans or "independent" voters will ever actually cross the aisle anymore. Trump still has massive MASSIVE support from registered republicans.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#276

Post by Loughla » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #150

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are assets and as such they are still part of his wealth. It is not like I said he sleeps on gold coins in a vault. No need to get literal.

Money sitting in a vault and money invested in companies that employ people and produce value for society could not be more different.

Not to be too negative, but

>money invested in companies

does not equal

>produce value for society

Necessarily. Those two things CAN be the same, but aren't necessarily the same.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#277

Post by pb7 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #273

pb7 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone that saves for retirement is hoarding wealth like a dragon by this definition which makes the definition useless.

My $28,000 retirement account does not equal the billions upon billions owned by Bloomberg. That is the difference. It's not a dragon hoard if it's two pieces of gold.

So you're just upset you don't have more money? $28K is a lot to the vast majority of the world but I bet you don't think so.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#278

Post by fennecfoxen » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #174

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.

Is there a right process to go through to run? I'm not convinced the typical process as far as there being two viable parties and running through the wringer of their processes, is something that is particularly great at producing good candidates, or that someone bypassing that legally is a bad thing.

The "right process" is whichever one ends up nominating Hillary Clinton.

... I'm only partly joking; I am not a fan of the idea that there are some special gatekeepers or One True Process™ for determining who's allowed to talk to voters.

The things Bloomberg has meaningfully "wrong" in terms of process look something like this:

- he is be a rich person (definitely not trendy in the party), and...

- his failure to solicit donations deprives people of one meaningful test of his political appeal, instead

- he spends his own money on politics instead: an uncool, Constitutionally protected exercise of the First Amendment, which has an unfortunate interaction with the political narrative that _Citizens United_ must be restored (though in fact it wouldn't stop him from doing this)

Needless to say, arguing about some of these "violations" is actually in practice just arguing about ideology and might be more effectively approached as such.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#279

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #257

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abs…

1. My bad. I genuinely misunderstood your stance. Are you suggesting that by taking money from him in a manner that is not sincere is not ethical? Is it unethical, because I am taking money under false pretenses, sway opinion of a few, or some other reason?

2. I never claimed to be absolved. Then again I do not believe I committed a sin either. You may be pushing your analogies too far. Lets stick to the facts available to us.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#280

Post by avmich » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

reroute1 wrote: post #259

jdkee wrote: post #216

Why 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.

> It's not, but hasn't money always played an important role in politics?

I guess it's a rhetorical question. In other words, let me rephrase: why money has always played an important role in politics?

In 2016 Lawrence Lessig tried to attack this problem, with little success. In this election there seemingly is another candidate, somewhat more practical than Lessig, with somewhat stronger systematic approach than others, so we can hope for some progress.