Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#281

Post by squegles » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

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.

J. K. Rowling comes to mind.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#282

Post by pb7 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #276

pb7 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Needlessly pedantic. If companies are profitable, they provide some sort of value even if you don't think so. Much more than people sucking up welfare benefits and not giving back, at least.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#283

Post by kennywinker » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #269

kennywinker wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 socia…

Have you ever ask yourself why the US generates twice as many billionaires than any other country combined? (hint: it's because the economy generates so much wealth) I don't think your Canada/Scandinavia economy argument is going to win any vote from any American.

I've literally described why I think generating billionaires is a symptom of a broken system. So the short answer is: because it's a broken system. A better question would be which country has the least inequality and the highest standard of living. That's the country I want to live in. Would be pretty nice if that was every country.

Also you're wrong: there are ~700 billionaires in asia and only ~600 in north america (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...)

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#284

Post by ErikAugust » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

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.

And 2016 was also a NY-based choice. Combination of money and control of media narrative.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#285

Post by mrguyorama » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #262

mrguyorama wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>supposed Democrat Trump was a registered democrat.

Party registration is not an immutable property.

I was pointing out that it was not "supposed" at all. Trump is a former democrat in exactly the same way that Bloomberg is a former republican. There was no reason to weasel word it

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#286

Post by AlexandrB » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #112

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…

At least he's doing the honest thing and giving away the money that he's earned by creating something of great value to society. That's far more honest than what other Democratic candidates like Bernie, Warren and Yang want to do which is trying to buy the election by promising to take money from Americans that earned it and give it to those that have not earned it. Make no mistake, promising wealth transfers using t…

You can't "earn" a billion dollars. You can acquire that much by winning big at the stock lottery or by appropriating the surplus value of others. All Bernie/Warren/Yang are promising is that they'll return some of that acquired wealth to the people who actually did the work.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#287

Post by nacho2sweet » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #271

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.

I am paid to shill in warcraft 3 general chat. I can vouch for this.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#288

Post by pb7 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #267

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 minuscule 401k isn't even in the same universe as someone who could move several billion dollars at anything he wants over night.

It really does not matter how much you have. You are hoarding wealth that you could be giving back to improve conditions for those that aren’t as fortune to be able to save. It doesn’t feel great to listen to people tell you what to do with your money, does it?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#289

Post by duxup » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #278

duxup wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sol…

It is difficult to have these conversations and not think that people are just determining right and wrong by whatever they do or do not like based on what is immediately in front of them

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#290

Post by homonculus1 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

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?

That's not all they care about, it's just all they have left. Their values have been systematically eliminated from education, entertainment, and the courts. Their regions are socially and economically ruined. They have some representation in politics and the media but it's mostly just exploitive lip service. Their states are used as shorthand for incest and illiteracy in the punchlines of jokes.

I would guess that when there's a riot in an urban neighborhood you don't say they have an ideology which only cares about hurting people and destroying things. You should look at this in a similar way.