9 ms·

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 pay

by tyfon 7y ago

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?

user00012-ab 7y ago
Yes, 90% of the population is fooled by this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- EvenIf_He_Loses 7y ago
  Thing is, I'm not opposed to people holding up a mirror, to demonstrate what this kind of thing looks like. There's this constant and pervasive snark that roils through the internet at large. Pantomiming it, right in everyone's face, should serve as a reminder that being shitty about opinions need not be a winning move. So, you have these dicks showing up, with obnoxious, poorly drawn cartoons, and when it looks just like the opposition, yet inverted to point in the other direction, both look the same, and it sort of nullifies both, resolving to an undecided outcome, at least for anyone still sitting on the fence.
- oth001 7y ago
  Is this based on facts or just your opinion? I'm willing to bet 90% of the population isn't fooled by it.
  - trevyn 7y ago
    Isn’t fooled, but doesn’t really care, and it has the intended subconscious effect.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Do you think advertising is ineffective?
- gjs278 7y ago
  oh right, but you are so smart that it can’t affect you.
ulfw 7y ago
People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.
- ngngngng 7y ago
  I mean I didn't like any of the alternatives either. There's only two teams and I don't like them. What do I do?
  - telchar 7y ago
    Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.
    - newfriend 7y ago
      No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.
      - mrguyorama 7y ago
        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?
        lolc 7y ago
        You know a lot can be said about deficiencies in the democratic process in the U.S. but the crazy guy would just be removed. He'd need decisive support from the military to stay and ride out the fact that he lost all democratic legitimacy. I don't see a coup on the horizon. Do you?
minimaxir 7y ago
> Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting? This in particular is an active area of development. Instagram initially said no, but then they changed it to yes. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-memes/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-me...
kop316 7y ago
It seems to be a similar play from 2016 with Correct the Record and worked then: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gdubs 7y ago
Real Clear Politics Average currently has Bloomberg nearly tied for second place. Extrapolate what you wish from that, but something is working.
leftyted 7y ago
Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1? Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.
- ehmish 7y ago
  I'd say yes to both, but I'm not from the US so I have no horse in this race
- 6510 7y ago
  It doesn't work like that. The big spenders drown out any alternative and they offer only a different interface for pretty much the same back end. Since the US green party had 200-300 views per youtube video for them out of a million voters about 1 or 2 are not fooled. With candidates further "down" the list we all are fooled. I read maybe half the program for 1% of the alt-candidates. Definitely fooled I was.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  Hillary outspending Trump 2:1 is a ridiculous way to look at it. When you combine the PAC/SuperPAC money spent for Trump with the Kremlin GRU efforts, it seems to me that Trump (including 3rd party efforts to help Trump and/or reduce Dem turnout) outspent Hillary roughly 100:1.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? You could have just said "yes".
  - rudedogg 7y ago
    Can you back this up with... anything? I'm not denying the Russian interference, but the numbers include PACs: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
dontdoitpls 7y ago
We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues. Yes people are getting fooled real bad. The decline of democracy is here.
- morelisp 7y ago
  The democratic party is not yet running anyone; the two major party members running are Biden and Klobuchar who are neither populist nor demagogues; it's unlikely Bloomberg is the preferred choice of anyone there; Bloomberg is not populist (and I would also argue against demagogue); and Sanders, who might reasonably be called populist (but also not a demagogue) is also far from the DNC's preferred choice, maybe even below Bloomberg. But sure, "both."
- justincredible 7y ago
  > Populist demagogues That's redundant.
blowski 7y ago
Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.
- paulgb 7y ago
  Part of the problem is that it's a self-funded campaign. It's one thing when a campaign raises a bunch of money from donors and does an ad blitz, because at least it in theory represents real people (with contribution caps) who donated. When it's a billionaire self-funding, that's not the case. (PACs are also problematic, because they side-step the contribution caps)
  - Aunche 7y ago
    What's the alternative though? Even assuming it would be constitutional to cap Bloomberg's political spending, I don't see why Bloomberg's supporters should have to donate money to the campaign of the 9th richest person in the world.
wombat-man 7y ago
Kinda feels like anything goes at this point. You just gotta win :-|
duxup 7y ago
>Are anyone going to be fooled by this? I think that is a lot harder to know and an eternal debate I have. Yeah lots of media is buying a lot of attention...in the end someone chooses to vote for that person, or not, or stay home. I strongly worry about the influence / advantage of such money, but folks still pick them and provided they're not illegally ... imprisoning candidates (extreme example of course)... it's still an election. I don't know how to tell how much these things really change people's minds or if they really do just get extra attention and folks pick the person they want.
mrgreenfur 7y ago
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.

by tyfon 7y ago

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?

user00012-ab 7y ago

Yes, 90% of the population is fooled by this.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
EvenIf_He_Loses 7y ago
Thing is, I'm not opposed to people holding up a mirror, to demonstrate what this kind of thing looks like. There's this constant and pervasive snark that roils through the internet at large. Pantomiming it, right in everyone's face, should serve as a reminder that being shitty about opinions need not be a winning move. So, you have these dicks showing up, with obnoxious, poorly drawn cartoons, and when it looks just like the opposition, yet inverted to point in the other direction, both look the same, and it sort of nullifies both, resolving to an undecided outcome, at least for anyone still sitting on the fence.
oth001 7y ago
Is this based on facts or just your opinion? I'm willing to bet 90% of the population isn't fooled by it.
- trevyn 7y ago
  Isn’t fooled, but doesn’t really care, and it has the intended subconscious effect.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Do you think advertising is ineffective?
gjs278 7y ago
oh right, but you are so smart that it can’t affect you.

ulfw 7y ago

People got fooled by Trump. Anything can happen.

ngngngng 7y ago
I mean I didn't like any of the alternatives either. There's only two teams and I don't like them. What do I do?
- telchar 7y ago
  Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.
  - newfriend 7y ago
    No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.
    - mrguyorama 7y ago
      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?
      - lolc 7y ago
        You know a lot can be said about deficiencies in the democratic process in the U.S. but the crazy guy would just be removed. He'd need decisive support from the military to stay and ride out the fact that he lost all democratic legitimacy. I don't see a coup on the horizon. Do you?

minimaxir 7y ago

> Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting? This in particular is an active area of development. Instagram initially said no, but then they changed it to yes. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-memes/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-me...

kop316 7y ago

It seems to be a similar play from 2016 with Correct the Record and worked then: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gdubs 7y ago

Real Clear Politics Average currently has Bloomberg nearly tied for second place. Extrapolate what you wish from that, but something is working.

leftyted 7y ago

Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1? Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.

ehmish 7y ago
I'd say yes to both, but I'm not from the US so I have no horse in this race
6510 7y ago
It doesn't work like that. The big spenders drown out any alternative and they offer only a different interface for pretty much the same back end. Since the US green party had 200-300 views per youtube video for them out of a million voters about 1 or 2 are not fooled. With candidates further "down" the list we all are fooled. I read maybe half the program for 1% of the alt-candidates. Definitely fooled I was.
hcknwscommenter 7y ago
Hillary outspending Trump 2:1 is a ridiculous way to look at it. When you combine the PAC/SuperPAC money spent for Trump with the Kremlin GRU efforts, it seems to me that Trump (including 3rd party efforts to help Trump and/or reduce Dem turnout) outspent Hillary roughly 100:1.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? You could have just said "yes".
- rudedogg 7y ago
  Can you back this up with... anything? I'm not denying the Russian interference, but the numbers include PACs: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

dontdoitpls 7y ago

We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues. Yes people are getting fooled real bad. The decline of democracy is here.

morelisp 7y ago
The democratic party is not yet running anyone; the two major party members running are Biden and Klobuchar who are neither populist nor demagogues; it's unlikely Bloomberg is the preferred choice of anyone there; Bloomberg is not populist (and I would also argue against demagogue); and Sanders, who might reasonably be called populist (but also not a demagogue) is also far from the DNC's preferred choice, maybe even below Bloomberg. But sure, "both."
justincredible 7y ago
> Populist demagogues That's redundant.

blowski 7y ago

Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.

paulgb 7y ago
Part of the problem is that it's a self-funded campaign. It's one thing when a campaign raises a bunch of money from donors and does an ad blitz, because at least it in theory represents real people (with contribution caps) who donated. When it's a billionaire self-funding, that's not the case. (PACs are also problematic, because they side-step the contribution caps)
- Aunche 7y ago
  What's the alternative though? Even assuming it would be constitutional to cap Bloomberg's political spending, I don't see why Bloomberg's supporters should have to donate money to the campaign of the 9th richest person in the world.

wombat-man 7y ago

Kinda feels like anything goes at this point. You just gotta win :-|

duxup 7y ago

>Are anyone going to be fooled by this? I think that is a lot harder to know and an eternal debate I have. Yeah lots of media is buying a lot of attention...in the end someone chooses to vote for that person, or not, or stay home. I strongly worry about the influence / advantage of such money, but folks still pick them and provided they're not illegally ... imprisoning candidates (extreme example of course)... it's still an election. I don't know how to tell how much these things really change people's minds or if they really do just get extra attention and folks pick the person they want.

mrgreenfur 7y ago

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.