4 ms·

> 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

by anthm1988 7y ago

> 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.

awb 7y ago
> 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 shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should. I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.
- berdon 7y ago
  Nit: Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), wealthy at all, debt superseding wealth, etc. Bloomberg is _actually_ super wealthy.
  - anthm1988 7y ago
    > Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  > 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 should worry us all.
  - awb 7y ago
    See below, people are saying this.
  - anthm1988 7y ago
    I have an issue with his having it. I don't believe billionaires should be allowed to exist in any healthy society. It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules. Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements. It's plutocracy.
- anthm1988 7y ago
  > 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.
  - awb 7y ago
    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.
    - anthm1988 7y ago
      > So where do you draw the line? It's flippant, but here's a simple test. > has managed a large organization If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president. > Obama Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more. > Trump Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.
  - imprettycool 7y ago
    Yeah I agree. Being mayor of NYC isn't relevant at all. He might as well have been peddling cocaine
rayiner 7y ago
> 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.
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising _because it works_. Virtually everyone thinks they're too smart to be influenced by it. And they'd be wrong.
- tptacek 7y ago
  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).
harryh 7y ago
Can you decide for yourself still? Or is it just other people who can't decide?

awb 7y ago

> 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 shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should. I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.

berdon 7y ago
Nit: Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), wealthy at all, debt superseding wealth, etc. Bloomberg is _actually_ super wealthy.
- anthm1988 7y ago
  > Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.
the_gastropod 7y ago
> 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 should worry us all.
- awb 7y ago
  See below, people are saying this.
- anthm1988 7y ago
  I have an issue with his having it. I don't believe billionaires should be allowed to exist in any healthy society. It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules. Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements. It's plutocracy.
anthm1988 7y ago
> 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.
- awb 7y ago
  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.
  - anthm1988 7y ago
    > So where do you draw the line? It's flippant, but here's a simple test. > has managed a large organization If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president. > Obama Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more. > Trump Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.
- imprettycool 7y ago
  Yeah I agree. Being mayor of NYC isn't relevant at all. He might as well have been peddling cocaine

rayiner 7y ago

> 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.

the_gastropod 7y ago
Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising _because it works_. Virtually everyone thinks they're too smart to be influenced by it. And they'd be wrong.
tptacek 7y ago
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).

harryh 7y ago

Can you decide for yourself still? Or is it just other people who can't decide?