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

421–430 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#421

Post by deevolution »

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…

Andrew yang offered Americans 1k/month... maybe he should have offered 1k/month in booze, opioids and football tickets instead

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#422

Post by jkestner »

three_seagrass wrote: post #385
huebomont wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, is there a way to vote Yes/No but "indpendently" on bills?

That's how it's done: https://www.multichannel.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_au...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#423

Post by akira2501 »

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.

> a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.

Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#425

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

zigzaggy wrote: post #395
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.

I strongly disagree with your Nike / sportswear comparison. Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly here. I'm specifically talking about governance / political science vs. popcorn politics. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed in the world of political philosophy, public administration and government that don't involve stage shows and rabble rousing. Starting with local politics first, then regional, T…

Right, that’s the premise I don’t agree with. Politics is the art of stage shows and rabble rousing, and tackles larger issues only to the degree that they make a good show or easily rouse the rabble. Important questions usually aren’t and usually shouldn’t be solved through politics.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#426

Post by dragonwriter »

AlohaFractal wrote: post #418
mrguyorama wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

Well, they say that a lot, I can't see any evidence that it's particularly true in general (it's definitely true that there are things that they care about that they cite their particular interpretation of the Constitution to support, though on issues like executive vs. legislative power their deeply held Constitutional beliefs seem to flip 180° when you flip which parties are in power in the respective branches; the Constitution seems to be more of an identity touchstone than a document whose actual content is of particular concern.)

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#427

Post by ethbro »

torben-friis wrote: post #414
ColanR wrote: post #324

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…

> 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…

I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action.

Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad.

Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to funding voter media literacy and education, seems like a better approach.

Give everyone the freedom to speak, but teach everyone to listen critically.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#428

Post by irq11 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #373
brightstep wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or maybe people like Bloomberg because of his policies and positions, and concluding that it’s simply because of money is a logical fallacy.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#429

Post by uoaei »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #215
kennywinker wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I just don't get the socialist views people have here. Where do you think the moral cash limit should be? 10 million or 100 million? When does your success turn you evil? I don't see how you can say those things when you live in such a nice capitalistic economy when the rest of the socialist/communist world is in such turmoil. You're in the field that embraces capitalism the most, and it's beautiful. You can start a…

> When does your success turn you evil?

Maybe I can help. The view is that calling the accumulation of wealth "success" is a misnomer because there is hardly anything he as a person had to do compared to the collective effort of all of the people who labored to carry out the orders from above. The workers who made his "empire" what it is have been shafted, since the result of all of their work is that most of the profit goes to the few people at the top. It is wrong to say that Bloomberg did as much work. It is wrong to say that Bloomberg provided opportunity for those workers, because opportunity to be subjugated is not opportunity at all. Opportunity would be to earn 100% of the proceeds of your work so that you have the opportunity to achieve what you want. Employers unilaterally deciding how much money to pay their employees is fundamentally unfair by definition, courtesy of the word "unilaterally". Choice is a false concept in capitalism as you cannot choose from all possible options, just the ones that are graciously handed down from the plutocrats.

Also: the economy we live in is not "nice". It is if you have significant investments in the stock market, but relatively few people actually do. Of the total invested wealth, 90% of it belongs to the top 10% percent of the population. If you are not a part of this club, chances are you are hurting more than you were 15 years ago.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#430

Post by arrosenberg »

eej71 wrote: post #403
arrosenberg wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet also fair! ... While these reasons were partially born as a result of compromise - the compromise is rooted in some good political theory. You really want to celebrate a compromise that was made to enable to states to maintain chattel slavery? The electoral college is only fair in 2020 if your goal is to elect candidates who have fewer votes nationally. It no longer serves any philosophical or practical purpose…

It is popular to tar the electoral college with the slavery brush. But I think that's deeply unfair to the overall value that it offers. Slavery is merely one kind of divisive issue that can be used by a candidate to leverage seeds of distrust, disdain and disagreement to gain leverage over the other side. Even without slavery, there were other issues that divided North and South. Anglophile vs. Francophile. Agrarian…

I don't think any of what you said supports keeping the EC. The slavery brush is just the most obvious reason to get rid of it. The electoral college has never increased unity in the country. Issues of federalism and culture are still unresolved, and the EC has only served to exacerbate those tensions by awarding the office to the popular loser multiple times in the last 20 years.

> Something like an electoral college itself encourages compromise over divisive issues.

I can name exactly one time this has happened and I don't think the Compromise of 1878 is something we should be holding up as good governance. Our current issues are a direct result of that compromise.

The EC only served to increase tensions at several points in our history - 1800, 1860, 1878,2000, 2016. I can't think of a single time it has served to increase unity or harmony. We have had a few individuals who were more-or-less consensus candidates (Monroe and Eisenhower), but that had nothing to do with the EC.

> You can't make just an appeal to populous coastal regions to win. You can't just make an appeal to moneyed northern industrial cities. You can't just make an appeal to agrarian southern interests. As we continue to change shape, candidates have to learn its shape and pull back to the middle if they want to win.

So instead the candidates spend their time raising money to run ads and pandering to about 6 swing states, which winds up leaving far more people out of the process than if every vote was worth, you know, one vote.

> I like that modern candidates really have to get out there to so many different states and "press the flesh". They need to know a substantial portion of the country. A national vote would slowly put an end to this. And I think that's dangerous.

See above. Trump literally knows New York City and nothing else. He lost by 3,000,000 votes. How is a national vote more dangerous than a system that happily elected an unpopular demagogue? Especially when the stated function of the EC is to prevent such an event.

> Consider today's angry issues - the debate over the 2nd amendment or Roe v Wade. A national vote would result in situations where a candidate can take a very strident position on topics like this and win - but it would ultimately lead to more division rather than trying to wrestle ourselves to some sort of compromise.

We've had the Electoral college for the entirety of the existence of those issues. They are more partisan than ever, with no compromise on the horizon (in large part thanks to the EC appointing 2 unpopular presidents in 16 years).

> So I think it's really unfortunate to dismiss the EC as though its some sort of slavery preserving institution. It really promotes compromise and chills regional passions even if they are a large majority.

You have demonstrated no proof of your claim. The fact that all of these issues are at historic highs really underscores the fact that what you are arguing simply isn't true.

Post reply on HN