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

541–550 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#541

Post by anthm1988 »

influx wrote: post #449
scarmig wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

And yet it is the oldest existing nation with a constitutional government in which the people elect their own government and representatives. It's always been a work in progress and always will be.

Except we allowed progress to stall and now claim that's a virtue.

America is by far the oldest nation with a presidency, and it's finally starting to collapse.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#542

Post by anthm1988 »

wyre wrote: post #462
harry8 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Really? Hasn't the U.K. been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 or so? I totally accept it if we're only counting from the start of true universal adult suffrage, including women and taking no account of melanin content of skin - whoever is first on that deserves it be known widely for their national pride. Was that the USA?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage UK has had universal suffrage since 1928. It looks like Finland was the first in 1904.

and the US didn't have universal suffrage until the 1960s.

Arguably we still don't, given what the republicans have done to subvert democracy in Florida.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#543

Post by anthm1988 »

philwelch wrote: post #534
scarmig wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: impeachment proceedings. Concretely, the Trump administration ignored Congressional subpoenas, among other things, in clear acts of obstruction of justice in a way that undermined Congressional authority. Also see, for instance, his treatment of tax returns. Partisan polarization has made the idea of interbranch checks and balances defunct.

The courts never made a ruling on whether those Congressional subpoenas were legally binding—in fact, when one of the people subpoenaed tried to take that question to federal court, the House instead chose to withdraw the subpoena. I’m also not sure what Trump’s tax returns have to do with checks and balances between the Congress and the President. Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a c…

If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president.

> Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court

Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#544

Post by anthm1988 »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #438
gremlinsinc wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we need public funding of elections... Bloomberg can spend a billion, and who benefits the most? MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, so of course when he's not paying they STILL prop him up because the longer he stays in the race the more $$ they collectively make, who cares if it destroys America in the process as long as there's a paycheck.

When I look at politics and government in general, my immediate take away isn't "Boy, I'd sure like to pay even more for that". That said, I agree that money in politics is an issue, but since getting money out of politics is impossible, perhaps we should just get politics out of money. A government which is not empowered/encouraged to waste the publics money would be a nice starting point.

Just say you want poor people to die you fucking scumbag.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#545

Post by gjs278 »

Proziam wrote: post #443
gjs278 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.

Oil is good for the environment - BP Spokesperson, also a scientist or Oil is good for the environment - scientist - You're telling me you don't see a difference here?

none because they’re both scientists. let’s see their reason too. or do you just trust oil is bad - any other scientist

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#546

Post by philwelch »

anthm1988 wrote: post #543
philwelch wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts never made a ruling on whether those Congressional subpoenas were legally binding—in fact, when one of the people subpoenaed tried to take that question to federal court, the House instead chose to withdraw the subpoena. I’m also not sure what Trump’s tax returns have to do with checks and balances between the Congress and the President. Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a c…

If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president. > Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

> If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president

Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.

> What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

Thus disproving this notion that Congress is powerless against the President. The President has the constitutional power to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#547

Post by AcerbicZero »

anthm1988 wrote: post #544
AcerbicZero wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I look at politics and government in general, my immediate take away isn't "Boy, I'd sure like to pay even more for that". That said, I agree that money in politics is an issue, but since getting money out of politics is impossible, perhaps we should just get politics out of money. A government which is not empowered/encouraged to waste the publics money would be a nice starting point.

Just say you want poor people to die you fucking scumbag.

:(

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#548

Post by anthm1988 »

philwelch wrote: post #546
anthm1988 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president. > Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

> If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority. > What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointme…

> There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.

The constitution is a deeply flawed document that relies on the acceptance of norms and generally good actors. Absent that you end up with a wannabe dictator like Trump acting basically unchallenged.

> and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.

an act made much harder when the executive flouts subpoenas.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#549

Post by anthm1988 »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #547
anthm1988 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just say you want poor people to die you fucking scumbag.

:(

Least you can do is be honest and face the consequences like an adult.

You want poor people to die needlessly. That's what you advocate for, that's what you believe. If you don't like me saying it, too goddamn bad.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#550

Post by scarmig »

philwelch wrote: post #534
scarmig wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: impeachment proceedings. Concretely, the Trump administration ignored Congressional subpoenas, among other things, in clear acts of obstruction of justice in a way that undermined Congressional authority. Also see, for instance, his treatment of tax returns. Partisan polarization has made the idea of interbranch checks and balances defunct.

The courts never made a ruling on whether those Congressional subpoenas were legally binding—in fact, when one of the people subpoenaed tried to take that question to federal court, the House instead chose to withdraw the subpoena. I’m also not sure what Trump’s tax returns have to do with checks and balances between the Congress and the President. Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a c…

No; you're attempting to evade the central point by changing the argument to a typical Republican/Democratic slugfest.

I don't care about the merits of Congressional prerogatives here, which is an entirely secondary point. The point is that the Founding Fathers believed that Congress would defend its own prerogatives against the executive. This has been proven false: a model where government is dominated by partisan prerogatives is far more descriptive of reality than one where branches-of-governments pursue their own prerogatives.

Your latter point--that a Republican Congress investigated and obstructed a Democratic President--is true, but it is, again, an indication that Congress is driven by the needs of the political parties who happen to be running it at the time, not as an institution in itself.

This is entirely contrary to what the vaunted Founding Fathers intended or expected. Not least because the main thinkers among them thought the system would prevent the development of political parties. The Constitution was theorized to deal with abstractions that don't correspond to reality, and it doesn't even consider the most important driver of politics and governance not only in the contemporary world but in the world that existed a year after it was ratified.

In a world where political parties are accepted as a given and inevitable, no one would write anything like the Constitution and expect it to be effective. And no one has: even after WW2, when the US was drafting constitutions for its defeated opponents, it went with documents entirely unlike our own.

Post reply on HN