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

511–520 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#511

Post by remmargorp64 »

ep103 wrote: post #397
zelias wrote: 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.

There is a candidate saying the rules are messed up, but its not Bloomberg, its Sanders. Bloomberg is the guy the rules were written to benefit. He doesn't want them changed. That's why he chose to run against Sanders, when it appeared Sanders could win.

Exactly. Bernie is the only candidate I know of who is a fan of getting the big money out of politics and has been fighting on that platform for years:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#512

Post by refurb »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #478
refurb wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve noticed huh? Politics lately seems to be:1) paint candidate in the best light, 2) paint opponent in the worst light. Note: there is no requirement to have a consistent set of rules to do this.

> Politics lately Mark Twain: Running for Governor [Written about 1870] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#gover...

Good point. None of this is new.

I was going to say politics has gotten nastier, but I know that's not true. [1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#513

Post by mrgreenfur »

tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

It is super effective. I was in FL last weekend and the tv stations were flooded with ads; the positive tone seeps into your brain whether you like it or not.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#514

Post by busymom0 »

graeme wrote: post #494
busymom0 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year. His company’s net worth has dropped by at least 700 million when he became president. Meanwhile the previous president is now worth over 120 million and bought a $15 million mansion recently. Pelosi is worth $140 million while being a life time politician. Won’t comment further as I don’t want HN to turn into political flame war b…

>Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year. This isn't correct. It was thrown out because the Democrats lacked standing. It wasn't ruled on the merits: a standing argument means you are not eligible to bring a case yourself. It's not even a sensible argument: salary is a nominal sum the government pays the president. Emoluments are gifts from foreigners. There's no logical…

$450k per year is not a nominal sum by any means. He doesn't need to donate his salary but he does. No previous president has ever done this. If a democrat president had done this, they would be all over the news. But since it's Trump, most people don't even know about it. Also if he was really trying to rich himself, why have his company's net worth dropped by 700 million over 3 years? And how about the previous presidents and Pelosi who are worth hundreds of millions after serving while being life time politicians?

I think people are letting their disdain for him cloud their judgement. Also innocent until proven guilty.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#515

Post by godelski »

webninja wrote: post #501
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no answers as to why Andrew Yang did not poll more than 1-5% in Iowa/New Hampshire.

To me, Yang seemed like an advertising platform to raise awareness on a few of his clearly defined issues such as reasons for war, freedom dividends, and support for mothers raising children. These are a small number of ideas any candidate or senator can adopt and as president, you don’t just write 3 bills go home, and call it a term. Sanders and Buttigieg seemed more capable and well equipped (to me at least) to be…

I'm confused by this comment because he had more issues on his page than anyone else and was constantly adding more and updating them as he was talking to average day Americans and trying to better understand their day to day problems.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#516

Post by anthm1988 »

awb wrote: post #142
anthm1988 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative. If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

> If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution. So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business. Money s…

> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

Almost certainly yes. These people have out of control egos and little relevant experience. Bloomberg would be no different than Trump.

Gates too.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#517

Post by anthm1988 »

berdon wrote: post #168
awb wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution. So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business. Money s…

Nit: Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), wealthy at all, debt superseding wealth, etc. Bloomberg is _actually_ super wealthy.

> Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"),

There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#518

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #122
anthm1988 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative. If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

> He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, but plenty of people decide for themselves.

In reality, compelling political science evidence suggests that people do not decide for themselves, and that in the absence of concentrated outside interests, elections are essentially random functions based on arbitrary group identity. We're now pretty close to sure that voters around the world don't generally individually map candidates to issue profiles (it's likely that the influence goes the other way), and that the electorate in the large doesn't aggregate preferences to a median acceptable policy. In that landscape, the one thing that does move outcomes is large amounts of political spending.

(This is the core argument of Democracy for Realists).

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#519

Post by lolc »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #496
lolc wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Believe it or not, I largely agree with the sentiment expressed. I suffer no illusions in that regards. That said, riddle me this as it may yield some interesting answers. Do you believe there is such a thing as too much power in one set of hands? If so, is one Bloomberg too much?

It's not really a question one could answer no to in my view. The historical struggles against absolutism really don't allow any other answer but that power requires powerful checks. And that some forms of power are not legitimate at all.

With capitalism the solution was roughly that some things were taken out of money's reach. You can't buy them. Still I say that a guy like Bloomberg has too much power. It's not like the struggle is over.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#520

Post by mcv »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #507
mcv wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an outsider, but I talk to a lot of people online. The frustration I'm seeing is indeed one of not being heard and being ignored. Power is in the hands of a minority. The country is heading in a different direction than most people want it to go, because of the grip on power that the Republican Party has. And they're willing to bend and twist the Constitution to hold on to that power. Seeing it as a game is a mas…

I apologize. It is possible I used too strong a characterization for the sake of effect. Still, with regards to propaganda, you are subject to it. Best you can do is be aware of it and act accordingly. Maybe it would a little less unnverving if I used term advertising since they are closely related and propaganda has more negative connotations? But going back to the original thread. How are my arguments miscolored? I…

I don't know if your arguments are miscolored, but they all seem to apply just as much the other way around. How exactly do Trump supporters get ignored or denied? Trump's primary policy seems to be that he wants to ignore and deny various minorities. It really appears to me that the primary reason Republican voters are angry at liberals, is that the liberals don't want them to discriminate foreigners, LGBT people, and women. Republicans claim they're being persecuted merely because other people are receiving the same rights they have. Many of Trump's policies are specifically about hurting people, denying them rights, and protecting people who hurt people.

Do you understand why I find it hard to have any sympathy for that?

Post reply on HN