Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#411

Post by [deleted] »

pacoWebConsult wrote: post #256
cyorir wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question. > which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist" Implying that those who disagree with you are "crazy leftists" might be one reason for a downvote, for a start.

That's a bad faith response. He literally said if you believe it's a honest-to-god muslim ban he will categorize you as a 'crazy leftist', not if you disagree with him about whether or not it is good or bad. It is objectively not a muslim ban as anyone from those countries was barred, and the demographics of the countries don't automatically make it a muslim ban or imply any malfeasance by the president.

[deleted]

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#413

Post by uoaei »

brightstep wrote: post #316
takeda wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Exactly. The only thing preventing Trump from being more successful in implementing his ideas is that he's so brash and offensive to people's tastes in character. If Bloomberg can put on a nice mask, he can (and if the past is anything to go by, will) enact much worse than Trump did, and I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream media outlets announce his policies with fanfare.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#414

Post by torben-friis »

ColanR wrote: post #324
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?

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…

> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid

I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets?

I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well informed, mind you; I'm simply saying that it's pretty clear that the efforts to keep people misinformed are giant, becoming stronger by the day as technology advances and with no significant opposing force. I can't see how anyone can see that trend and think it's not going to have a harmful effect on society.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#415

Post by baybal2 »

ordinaryperson wrote: post #377
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 buy…

On the other hand, the Rockefeller family had a very long record of spending enormous sums on elections, whether by running themselves, or through an own candidate, and loosing every single time.

It will be a good read for everybody deifying "a realpolitik grandmaster" Henry Kissinger how badly he failed in the role of Rockefeller's political adviser. His ineptitude in politics was borderline tragicomedic. This the best proof to me that a "professional politician" is really an oxymoron.

The rich are bad at politics more often than not, and their money can compensate for that only partially.

Georgie Washington was however a spectacular politician on his own, without a doubt.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#416

Post by scarmig »

uoaei wrote: post #410
ordinaryperson wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buy…

This comment carries the implication that because this practice is American, it's OK if we continue doing it. I heartily disagree and thinks it's abominable to consider something as consequential as this election in such stark, cynical terms.

For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived because of a lack of threatening national competitors within a couple thousand miles of our borders.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#417

Post by [deleted] »

ta999999171 wrote: post #214
_jal wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the US, pols have been hiring fake enthusiasm forever. What is new is that they don't appear to care about getting caught anymore. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/crowd-h...

The story is that people still haven't rebuffed it as a whole. We should keep complaining until they do. What exactly does your comment attempt to achieve? Don't care yourself? Don't read the story, don't comment - or at least don't be surprised when you're rebuffed, too.

[deleted]

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#418

Post by AlohaFractal »

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?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump's actions that you imagine to be constitutional violations are probably actions that you personally disagree with, but are not actually constitutional violations.

Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear about when the term of the presidency ends. He would not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate if he chose to remain in office past the expiration of his term.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#419

Post by lolc »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #155
deeblering4 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unseemly is not a strong enough word. An effort to knowingly pay off human shills to covertly interfere with an election outcome is shameful, completely unethical and arguably illegal. Being passive about issues like this (let alone turning a blind eye and personally profiting from them...) gets into a scenario where there is no less obnoxious candidate to vote for.

I disagree on all counts. It may not be strong enough, but it is literally his money. He can burn it all in flames and you would have zero to say about it ( unless maybe ypu were his neigbor and smoke was too bad ). And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting. Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred.…

I'm surprised there are people not a little bit ashamed to sell their social trust. To me Bloomberg clearly is corrupting people with this. And somehow they seem to reason that they stand above it as they're shilling him (transparently, they imagine) to their friends. To me it seems that it's people who have been forced to take such a choice too many times to feel the disgrace anymore.

I find it morally acceptable to take his money if you need it. But let's not forget what that transaction means. It's the powerful forcing your outward attitude towards them. You're not a reputable citizen if your speech is controlled by your lord.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#420

Post by nabla9 »

graeme wrote: post #401
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.

Trump is highly unlikely to be a billionaire. The only source for this claim was Trump himself. He took on an alter ego and lied to Forbes to get on the Forbes list. Other than Forbes, I know of no source that claimed Trump was a billionaire. I think it all goes back to the original lie. Further, most of his charity scams have been strictly small time. Amounts ranging from $10,000 to a few hundred thousand. No billio…

Forbes and other magazines just sum up assets associated with wealthy individuals and don't do any real work to track debt or real owners.

In many properties with Trump's name on them Trump is minority owner with small stake and these companies have huge loans. Bank Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-...

Actual net worth is very hard to estimate because he is hiding his financial status as much as possible. The fact that American banks don't do business with him anymore indicates that his financial situation is not good.

Post reply on HN