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

401–410 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#401

Post by graeme »

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 billionaire needs to bother scamming figures so low. If you have, say, $5 billion in net worth and it grows at 5% per year, that’s $250 million per year.

$100,000 is strictly beneath the notice of someone with that much income. But it was not below Trump’s notice. Ergo, it seems unlikely he has the income. Again, the only source on his wealth was himself.

I should note, against my own argument, that Forbes presently thinks Trump is worth $4.4 billion. I could be wrong, but the charity behaviour seems so contrary to actually having wealth. We also know no banks other than Deutsche Bank would lend Trump money. If he truly has billions in assets not encumbered by debt....why? There seems little risk.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#402

Post by arrosenberg »

omegaworks wrote: post #396
arrosenberg wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding policy, with so many Supreme Court Justices up in age, the next President will likely get the chance to set the tone. Terrible strategy. Bernie replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer isn't going to advance the agenda. Clarence Thomas is only 71 and won't step down if a Democrat is president. The only way Bernie passes his agenda is by getting significant portions of the country to strike until C…

With the support of so many unions[1] and willingness to use that support to push his agenda [unlike his predecessor 2], that might actually be a card in his pocket. 1. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/24/bernie-sanders-labo... 2. https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-insi...

That's been my assumption for months based on his "organizer-in-chief" comments. I don't see any other practical way for him to get his agenda passed.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#403

Post by eej71 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #353
eej71 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one who supports the electoral college is opposed to the nature of democratic voting such as is used by the House of Representatives. I believe it's a strength of the US that we have different voting methodologies for different roles. One for the House and a _different_ (yet also fair!) methodology for the President. While these reasons were partially born as a result of compromise - the compromise is rooted in so…

> 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 vs. Industrial. Federalist vs. "Jeffersonian Repulicans". Federal powers. vs State. Small states vs. Big States.

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

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.

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.

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.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#404

Post by Reedx »

nostromo wrote: post #247
takeda wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a supposed Democrat that run as a Republican and Republican that's running as a Democrat.

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat. Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

git merge first-party instead of git init or git merge 3rd-party

That's the strategy being used because 3rd parties have no chance in our system. The only thing you can do is merge into one of the 2, become the new repo owner and reshape it going forward.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#405

Post by bubmiw »

huebomont wrote: post #361
nostromo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat. Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

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.

Bernie tried to primary Obama...he's independent

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#406

Post by zelly »

cmcd wrote: post #336
zelly wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw someone recording a video of themselves selecting the choices on the voting kiosk. No one is going to stop you from doing that, nor would it be practical to try.

Pretty sure that is illegal, wouldn't be a major complication to add a metal detector outside voting booths.

That would be considered voter suppression by lots of people. Also very expensive.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#407

Post by mensetmanusman »

eej71 wrote: post #26
ulfw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.

I think the vast majority of folks who voted for Trump felt that they received what they were expecting to receive. I think most who voted that way the first go around will likely vote for him again should they return to the polls.

Most of my family was so nihilistic after the press called Romney a nazi for transporting their dogs on top of their vehicles that they were happy to do whatever made the press mad.

At first the press only talked about Trump to ignore real republican thought, then it became a reinforcing cycle as people bought into the despair.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#408

Post by three_seagrass »

ep103 wrote: post #399
three_seagrass wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not doing well though. Disney specifically ditched it as part of the Fox takeover.

Why is that a bad thing? It means the murdochs are now rich in cash from the acquisition, and free to concentrate on their news division, which was always his primary concern.

Murdochs did not want to sell. There was a semi-hostile takeover, involving a Saudi prince, that allowed investors to sell off the profitable franchises to Disney. It's a fairly interesting story if you find the time to read it.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#409

Post by huonpine »

12xo wrote: post #294
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?

Healthy? No. But its as American as apple pie. Everything these days,in America is based on money. The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success. The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has t…

In the Podesta emails john ivory laments the fact that the dnc thought the real treat was citizens untied, but turned out the free press from trumps celebrity dwarfed that. This time dnc is banking that Bloomberg billions can outspend even that...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#410

Post by uoaei »

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…

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.
Post reply on HN