6 ms·

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

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.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
They're building it, and seem to be recruiting heavily from Google/Facebook/Amazon etc. From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.
mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. Sounds more like a lack of choice.
- nostromo 7y ago
  https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png We keep pulling from the same small pool of rich, connected household names and expect different results.
  - rc_kas 7y ago
    is that the Epstein 4? kind of like the fantastic 4 but .. opposite.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - pdeuchler 7y ago
    Why is this comment downvoted?
    - cmroanirgo 7y ago
      Linking to an external image and then making a conclusion here isn't profitable to discussion here. It'd been better if the op had said, and here's Bloomberg with Trump and Clinton (I forget the 4th guys name: I'm oz)... all of them clearly golf buddies.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      Maybe because "Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army" ;-)
boourns311 7y ago
Sorry, who's the billionaire other than Bloomberg?
- tyfon 7y ago
  Tom Steyer (Hedge fund manager from NY)
- anonAndOn 7y ago
  Emoluments Clause be damned, he's cashing in more than just a book deal after this. Private dinners with the POTUS at Mar A Lago don't come cheap.
  - busymom0 7y ago
    Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year. His company’s net worth has dropped by at least 700 million when he became president. Meanwhile the previous president is now worth over 120 million and bought a $15 million mansion recently. Pelosi is worth $140 million while being a life time politician. Won’t comment further as I don’t want HN to turn into political flame war but I had to set the record straight because it sounds a lot like accuse opposition of what you are doing.
    - graeme 7y ago
      >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 relationship between salary and gifts. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-t...
      - busymom0 7y ago
        $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 presidents and Pelosi who are worth hundreds of millions after serving while being life time politicians? I think people are letting their disdain for him cloud their judgement. Also innocent until proven guilty.
takeda 7y ago
Also a supposed Democrat that run as a Republican and Republican that's running as a Democrat.
- nostromo 7y ago
  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.
  - non-entity 7y ago
    At the very least I wish the parties would split themselves. The Democrats seems to have both a socdem wing and a more neoliberal wing and the Republicans a growing right wing populist wing and the standard neocons. Maybe this is oversimplified, but I feel like these should be different parties
    - geogra4 7y ago
      Yes. But they're kind of stuck to each other. Really I agree that we have 4 major constituencies stuck within 2 parties. First past the post and single member districts kind of force it to be that way.
      - axaxs 7y ago
        This is the sad truth. Try being a person who leans conservative, having the absolute racists of society be on your team. I imagine it's not much different than a liberal leaning person getting all the crazies on their side. I wish there were distinct parties for reasonable people...
  - huebomont 7y ago
    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.
omegaworks 7y ago
Most of us have until Super Tuesday (March 3rd) to choose literally any other option. Look up your state to find the rules that apply to you: https://voteforbernie.org/ https://voteforbernie.org/
ErikAugust 7y ago
And 2016 was also a NY-based choice. Combination of money and control of media narrative.
nappy-doo 7y ago
I have friends that work[ed] at Bloomberg. I doubt they're that good.
huebomont 7y ago
Weird definition of "choice."
graeme 7y ago
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-took-trump-off-the-forbes-400-during-his-decade-of-tax-losses/#6851229633d9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-...
- nabla9 7y ago
  Forbes and other magazines just sum up assets associated with wealthy individuals and don't do any real work to track debt or real owners. In many properties with Trump's name on them Trump is minority owner with small stake and these companies have huge loans. Bank Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-... Actual net worth is very hard to estimate because he is hiding his financial status as much as possible. The fact that American banks don't do business with him anymore indicates that his financial situation is not good.
akira2501 7y ago
> a man who built his own personal tech/media empire. Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

They're building it, and seem to be recruiting heavily from Google/Facebook/Amazon etc. From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.

mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago

> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. Sounds more like a lack of choice.

nostromo 7y ago
https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png We keep pulling from the same small pool of rich, connected household names and expect different results.
- rc_kas 7y ago
  is that the Epstein 4? kind of like the fantastic 4 but .. opposite.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- pdeuchler 7y ago
  Why is this comment downvoted?
  - cmroanirgo 7y ago
    Linking to an external image and then making a conclusion here isn't profitable to discussion here. It'd been better if the op had said, and here's Bloomberg with Trump and Clinton (I forget the 4th guys name: I'm oz)... all of them clearly golf buddies.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    Maybe because "Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army" ;-)

boourns311 7y ago

Sorry, who's the billionaire other than Bloomberg?

tyfon 7y ago
Tom Steyer (Hedge fund manager from NY)
anonAndOn 7y ago
Emoluments Clause be damned, he's cashing in more than just a book deal after this. Private dinners with the POTUS at Mar A Lago don't come cheap.
- busymom0 7y ago
  Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year. His company’s net worth has dropped by at least 700 million when he became president. Meanwhile the previous president is now worth over 120 million and bought a $15 million mansion recently. Pelosi is worth $140 million while being a life time politician. Won’t comment further as I don’t want HN to turn into political flame war but I had to set the record straight because it sounds a lot like accuse opposition of what you are doing.
  - graeme 7y ago
    >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 relationship between salary and gifts. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-t...
    - busymom0 7y ago
      $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 presidents and Pelosi who are worth hundreds of millions after serving while being life time politicians? I think people are letting their disdain for him cloud their judgement. Also innocent until proven guilty.

takeda 7y ago

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

nostromo 7y ago
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.
- non-entity 7y ago
  At the very least I wish the parties would split themselves. The Democrats seems to have both a socdem wing and a more neoliberal wing and the Republicans a growing right wing populist wing and the standard neocons. Maybe this is oversimplified, but I feel like these should be different parties
  - geogra4 7y ago
    Yes. But they're kind of stuck to each other. Really I agree that we have 4 major constituencies stuck within 2 parties. First past the post and single member districts kind of force it to be that way.
    - axaxs 7y ago
      This is the sad truth. Try being a person who leans conservative, having the absolute racists of society be on your team. I imagine it's not much different than a liberal leaning person getting all the crazies on their side. I wish there were distinct parties for reasonable people...
- huebomont 7y ago
  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.

omegaworks 7y ago

Most of us have until Super Tuesday (March 3rd) to choose literally any other option. Look up your state to find the rules that apply to you: https://voteforbernie.org/ https://voteforbernie.org/

ErikAugust 7y ago

And 2016 was also a NY-based choice. Combination of money and control of media narrative.

nappy-doo 7y ago

I have friends that work[ed] at Bloomberg. I doubt they're that good.

huebomont 7y ago

Weird definition of "choice."

graeme 7y ago

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-took-trump-off-the-forbes-400-during-his-decade-of-tax-losses/#6851229633d9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-...

nabla9 7y ago
Forbes and other magazines just sum up assets associated with wealthy individuals and don't do any real work to track debt or real owners. In many properties with Trump's name on them Trump is minority owner with small stake and these companies have huge loans. Bank Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-... Actual net worth is very hard to estimate because he is hiding his financial status as much as possible. The fact that American banks don't do business with him anymore indicates that his financial situation is not good.

akira2501 7y ago

> a man who built his own personal tech/media empire. Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.