Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#371

Post by arrosenberg » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

ColanR wrote: post #332

brightstep wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways he's far more dangerous. He implemented a truly scary authoritarian police state during his term as mayor of New York City.

This is the allure of libertarianism - since a free democracy can't predict the quality of its leaders, representatives, and lobbyists, the government should be given as short a leash as possible to prevent things like a "truly scary authoritarian police state".

Of course, the flip side is that such a government can't accomplish anything positive either.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#372

Post by brightstep » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

ColanR wrote: post #332

brightstep wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways he's far more dangerous. He implemented a truly scary authoritarian police state during his term as mayor of New York City.

This is the allure of libertarianism - since a free democracy can't predict the quality of its leaders, representatives, and lobbyists, the government should be given as short a leash as possible to prevent things like a "truly scary authoritarian police state".

Libertarianism just replaces one tyranny with many. A powerful state is replaced by powerful corporations and individuals.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#373

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

brightstep wrote: post #309

reroute1 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The amount of money Bloomberg can/is using to buy this election is unprecedented in a Presidential candidate. The simple definition for attempting to buy the presidency is "any money you control", including your bank account, your business, dark money groups, etc. Elections should be funded entirely by donations from individuals.

It would be relieving to see this effort fail. The popularity of platforms should be based on the merit of the ideas, not money spent.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#374

Post by rapind » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

zelias wrote: post #339

omegaworks wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect the guy that's said that very thing since he started running. Bernie is proving that we can win without corporate PAC money and he has a plan to get dark money out of politics.

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.

I suspect he'll continue to campaign and rally in various states where there is resistance to his goals (one could argue the people's goals), making it very costly to oppose him if you're not on solid footing.

Pretty much what Trump did to Republican resistance, but doubtfully as amazingly successful as it's been for Trump.

Something of note that Obama did is turn over an enormous movement to the DNC when he assumed office. Not sure anyone knows why except insiders, but it was definitely his biggest mistake, and neutered his clout. (https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-insi...). No chance Bernie will do that.

Bernie's answer to your question would probably be "I can't, but together we can." As cheesy as it sounds, it's true.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#375

Post by arrosenberg » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #318

takeda wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's really sad, Bloomberg essentially is Democratic version of Trump.

In what way, other than both being old, white, rich and from New York. Trump wanted to tack hard away from the center and to tear down the Republican establishment and rebuild it with a more populist vision. Bloomberg is running to stop the Democrats from tacking away from the center and to 'protect' the party from those threatening to tear it down and rebuild it with a more populist image. Trump ran as an outsider p…

Different flavors of dictator. Confederate Fascism where the leader rules based on tribal loyalty vs. an Octavian-style emperor who rules by controlling everyone who matters behind the scenes.

Neither candidate believes in compromise or their own fallibility. In either case, we would be choosing to forfeit the ability to decide for ourselves going forward.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#376

Post by travisoneill1 » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

eplanit wrote: post #161

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.

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.

Doesn't polling above 10% make him a legitimate candidate?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#377

Post by ordinaryperson » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:10 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?

George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40.

When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.

Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.

[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#378

Post by lolc » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #253

newfriend wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You know a lot can be said about deficiencies in the democratic process in the U.S. but the crazy guy would just be removed. He'd need decisive support from the military to stay and ride out the fact that he lost all democratic legitimacy. I don't see a coup on the horizon. Do you?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#379

Post by dennisgorelik » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:15 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?

Politics being strongly influenced by money is healthy, because the most successful people have the most money.

The more influence successful people have on politics - the better it is for the country overall.

Countries that try to manage themselves by poor majority - quickly deteriorate into chaos or into dictatorship.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#380

Post by ColanR » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #371

ColanR wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the allure of libertarianism - since a free democracy can't predict the quality of its leaders, representatives, and lobbyists, the government should be given as short a leash as possible to prevent things like a "truly scary authoritarian police state".

Of course, the flip side is that such a government can't accomplish anything positive either.

Comparable to a library of unix programs - would you rather have small tools (/ organiziations) that are limited to a single job - which they are often optimized for - or a single behemoth which tries to do everything, and may not do it very well?

...and now the systemD vitriol makes sense.