Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

361–370 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#361
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.

Bernie's "independent" label means very little. Look at how he votes. He's a Democrat. It's a weird attempted knock against him considering how consistent he's always been.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#362
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I think you nailed it. It is so easy to dismiss their complaints and then people are surprised when it turns out that people don't like being dismissed. Who knew?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#363
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said Clinton’s message “...just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.” That’s a numerical comparison. Are you saying that X > X+3000000? It’s an incoherent claim, so find another argument.

Can we agree that the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidential election? And if so - why impute my words with that interpretation?

It's only irrelevant for deciding who wins the office. You are making the argument that Trump won because his arguments were more popular among the electorate, which is provably false using the popular vote total.

Hillary Clinton's message resonated with over 3,000,000 more voters, however unfortunate their distribution was.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#365
post #301

I'd respect the hell out of Bloomberg if he came out and said "damn right I'm buying this election...because the rules are that messed up" followed by a comprehensive plan to forever get money out of our elections.

I feel like I'm missing the sarcasm here.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is absolutely nothing socialistic about any of the campaigns in the running. You're just creating a straw man. Accruing capital almost never has anything to do with hard work or laziness. It's a lot of luck. What family you were born into, what area of the world, if you had parents growing up etc. You could be the laziest POS and have more money than you could spend in a lifetime. Tax-funded education and healt…

Bernie Sanders, one of the frontrunners, calls himself a socialist because he is one. At least he admits it.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#367
post #358

If Bloomberg get elected and successfully purchases the presidency, I’m moving my family out of the US. I will no long contribute to our collective GDP or pay taxes. I’ll vote with my feet if I can’t vote with my rights as an American citizen.

What if Trump wins?

Donald Trump spent on his campaign almost half the money of Clinton's campaign, and he won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since 2008 [0]. So, if your concern is a candidate "buying" an election, Trump would be the worst recent example one could use.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing socialistic about any of the campaigns in the running. You're just creating a straw man. Accruing capital almost never has anything to do with hard work or laziness. It's a lot of luck. What family you were born into, what area of the world, if you had parents growing up etc. You could be the laziest POS and have more money than you could spend in a lifetime. Tax-funded education and healt…

Bernie Sanders, one of the frontrunners, calls himself a socialist because he is one. At least he admits it.

He is not a socialist. Nothing he is proposing is socialism.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it is worth, I got text asking for donation to Bloomberg's campaign. So I would not expect Bloomberg not taking money from large donors.

Bloomberg doesn't need money. He solicits donations because the act of donating money causes the donator to feel personally invested in the campaign. They will be more likely to take steps to influence their friends and family to vote for Bloomberg, and more likely to actually bother to vote themselves, than someone who hasn't. This is the same reason governments sell war bonds -- they don't actually need the $100. I…

The reason to sell war bonds in a fiat money world, at a base level, is that you want to devote some resources to the war effort, and therefore those resources are not available to produce consumer goods.

Now there are two options. Either the consumers have just as much money chasing a smaller amount of goods, leading to inflation, or you need to reduce the amount of money consumers have. Selling bonds is a mechanism for doing the latter. The end result is the same: the war effort means lower living standards, whether through inflation or through people voluntarily forgoing consumption by purchasing war bonds; the latter happens to make people less upset and likely has different distributional characteristics, so is probably a better idea.

Note that there are various details like whether your economy is at capacity (and if it's not, maybe you can do the war effort production _and_ still produce the goods consumers want by expanding overall production). And there can be various different mechanisms which lead to inflation in practice, ranging from "printing money" to pay for the cost of the war effort production, thus bidding up prices in general, to establishing rationing and a corresponding black market with high prices.

In a non-fiat-money world, there can be other reasons to do war bonds, of course, including "getting some of whatever counts as money", since the government does not control the supply of that.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#370
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you there, no doubt, but lately I've wondered how effectively Bernie could accomplish this. Only Nixon could go to China, as the saying goes. EDIT: I don't mean this in terms of electability -- I think Bernie can beat Trump hands down. What I mean is accomplishing what he sets out to do in terms of policy implementation -- which, as the Obama years have shown us, is not as easy as it sounds.

Won in New Hampshire Tied in Iowa, won popular vote Polling strong in Nevada. The momentum is there. EDIT: Regarding policy, with so many Supreme Court Justices up in age, the next President will likely get the chance to set the tone. Citizens United is the ruling that enabled much of the financial influence in the government, and Bernie is committed to dismantling it.

> Regarding policy, with so many Supreme Court Justices up in age, the next President will likely get the chance to set the tone.

Terrible strategy. Bernie replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer isn't going to advance the agenda. Clarence Thomas is only 71 and won't step down if a Democrat is president.

The only way Bernie passes his agenda is by getting significant portions of the country to strike until Congress complies.

Post reply on HN