381–390 of 553 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people. He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no…
Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.
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".
Maximizing-liberty libertarianism would say that an impartial government is necessary to enforce rights for all citizens, even if that's the right to information to vote efficiently.
Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?
What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people. He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no…
Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more.
> the American media is free enough to have reported on it
Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values.
> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people
Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...
Earlier 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop & frisk.
He didn't enact and he stopped it. I assume you aren't from NYC, stop & frisk pre dates Bloomberg by a decade.
This claim he reduced it is a key talking point of his campaign, and an outright lie. He was defending it literally up until the moment he decided to run for president (defending it publicly for years until October 2019, then apologizing in November 2019 when he announced his campaign).
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.
He's pointing to the impact his $400M political donations have made, like getting women elected, stopping homelessness, youth education, etc. whenever asked.
This $2,500/mo for influencers is a drop in the bucket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...