Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

521–530 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#521
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pre…

Nominal relative to the sums alleged re: emoluments and other intakes of money such as secret service lodging snd not paying city security bills for police at his rallies. Those are in the millions.

You focussed on that and not the central point that your interpretation for dismissal of the court case was incorrect. It has nothing to do with his salary.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#522
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…

> 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.

So where do you draw the line? At what net worth are you saying someone can't possibly help the country?

To say anyone with $X shouldn't be President sounds like profiling. Why not just disagree with his policies or actions?

As far as relevant experience, Bloomberg was the Mayor of NYC and has managed a large organization. That's a lot more government and leadership experience than Trump or Obama had.

Plenty of other things to not like about him but being Mayor of NYC or running a successful business shouldn't disqualify him by any means. So now no one who wants to be President should be a Mayor first or start a successful business? Maybe we should throw out senators while we're at it. Pretty soon we'll be left with armchair economists and self described philosophers who truly don't have any relevant experience.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#523
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…

> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined . It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner sho…

See below, people are saying this.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people comp…

My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here. I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of…

That the process is crooked and disgusting is absolutely the realest story that there is here. Again, I don't understand your point. You're just being dismissive and accepting of a bad status quo for no reason other than that you (but not others!) are resigned to it.

In other words, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't. And the news isn't writing stories catering to solely your interests; there's millions of other readers to consider.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#525
post #344
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternatives are worse. The choices: 1. purchase it with their own money 2. purchase it with money from bribes 3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.

4. Fund federal elections with federal dollars.

You mean with tax-payer dollars? Through a federal government which is currently $21+ Trillion in debt running deficits of around a trillion dollars annually? Would this funding involve new taxes or borrowing since it is new spending, requiring either current or future taxpayers to finance the program?

Meanwhile, small donor fundraising has become much easier and much more successful than in the past, and imho, the entire problem revolves completely around the amount of power that has been centralized and expanded to the Federal Government. Part of the whole idea behind, you know, the principle of limited government... is to limit the amount of power that could be bought in the first place and therefore limit the incentive to corrupt the process, but obviously that ship has sailed a long time ago...

I would think that in a free society, people are not forced to give their money to support political activity they would otherwise not support. For me, it’s that simple. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#526
post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

I absolutely do. Being able to understand other individual's point of view is at the center of my argument. May I suggest that you conflate support for Trump and support for his policies? It is not a meaningless distinction. Without going too much into the weeds and reciting quotes from "Hillbilly Elegy", it helps to understand that Trump supporters, on average, were not in that great of a shape financially. They were literally abandoned by the elites, called various forms of deplorables, and then expected to vote for not-Trump, because... what exactly? They just had their livelihood decimated by trade deals that brought money to conglomerates, but left them in the dust. "Their" representatives in congress and senate pay lip service to what they think they want to hear, but nothing ( some cynically note by design ) gets done. Their farms are slowly being bought out by agrobusiness as they are effectively forced to compete with low wage immigrants. No politicians would dream of suggesting companies should stop hiring them, so fines don't follow, but a token level of enforcement makes it look like something is going on.

Along comes Trump and uses that pain to his advantage. We won't go after the companies, but we will sure deport them all. Kinda stupid idea given the sheer number of illegal aliens, but it is better than nothing. Some people nod. We will then build a wall. Kinda stupid, but it is a good visual. Some people nod. We will renegotiate NAFTA. People are listening. They know this is one of the reasons their little community fell apart. Nodding intensifies. And so it went on.. Trump was better than doing nothing.

It was a scream for help and it was ignored by everyone, but Trump, Bernie and Yang. Everyone else pays lip service, but do not seem to understand the underlying socio-political current in the US.

And more to your point, all the policies that you disagree with, the discrimination and all that jazz stems straight from that pain. Those people feel persecuted not because someone is getting equal rights, but because the country that they were born and raised in, sold them out in a truly American fashion. They felt betrayed. They would likely give zero to no shits about LGBTs, foreigners or women if their bellies were full and were left alone. But they are not and were not. Foreigners are a proxy for NAFTA issues. LGBT is a proxy for change. ( I think you may be onto something with women.)

And you have no sympathy for that? And you are surprised they are lashing out?

Then get ready for another 4 years of Trump. Unless you.. we somehow manage to go beyond our comfort zones and openly talk about what ails us, there is no hope for reconciliation, the polarization will increase with likely even worse results than what we have now; though I fear to speculate.

Thus, little sympathy is advised.

edited voting record out

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#527
post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

So the real question becomes, how can that much power be diffused in a safe manner?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#528
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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 pre…

Nominal relative to the sums alleged re: emoluments and other intakes of money such as secret service lodging snd not paying city security bills for police at his rallies. Those are in the millions. You focussed on that and not the central point that your interpretation for dismissal of the court case was incorrect. It has nothing to do with his salary.

Like I said - innocent until proven guilty.

What exactly is secret service lodging? not paying city security bills for police? Are you being serious? A President and even ex presidents get secret service. How exactly is he lodging? These are absolutely absurd claims.

Have you looked into what the Bidens were up to? Where was everyone when Obama came out of office being worth over 120 million and Nancy Pelosi worth 140 million?

Like I said, I think your disdain for him is clouding your judgement.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it is worth, I got text asking for donation to Bloomberg's campaign. So I would not expect Bloomberg not taking money from large donors.

Bloomberg doesn't need money. He solicits donations because the act of donating money causes the donator to feel personally invested in the campaign. They will be more likely to take steps to influence their friends and family to vote for Bloomberg, and more likely to actually bother to vote themselves, than someone who hasn't. This is the same reason governments sell war bonds -- they don't actually need the $100. I…

Your idea makes sense. I guess there are always exceptions to any rule - I shared screenshot of that text and link to the amount of Bloomberg's wealth with my friends asking reasonable question - if he wants to help people, why he asking them to donate all the while sitting on $60B+ of own wealth.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#530
post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

I absolutely do. Being able to understand other individual's point of view is at the center of my argument. May I suggest that you conflate support for Trump and support for his policies? It is not a meaningless distinction. Without going too much into the weeds and reciting quotes from "Hillbilly Elegy", it helps to understand that Trump supporters, on average, were not in that great of a shape financially. They wer…

I have sympathy for their economic problems, absolutely. But they vote for the party that's primarily responsible for those economic problems. Over the past 40 years, the middle class has been hollowed out, and that's been done primarily thanks to Reagan. Before Reagan, the US had more left-wing economic policies and a stronger middle class. They'd be better off voting for Sanders than Trump. Trump hasn't realy done anything for them except some symbolic gestures, but he has made it harder for them to export their agricultural products.

They keep voting for the party that's hurting them, because that party keeps lying to them, and they keep buying those lies.

Post reply on HN