Bloomberg to spend $100M on anti-Trump ads in battleground states | TheHill
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to drop $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key swing states during the 2020 election.
The digital ad campaign will focus on Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, four states Democrats are eager to flip into their column next year, and will run starting Friday through the end of the primary season. The ads will not feature Bloomberg himself.
========================================================
Rich people buying political office reminds me of the final stages of the Roman Empire. You don't need to be either qualified or popular - you just have to have saturation quantities of money.
i hope that no one accidentally drinks a coke while watching the ads.
i hope that no one accidentally drinks a coke while watching the ads.
Bloomberg to spend $100M on anti-Trump ads in battleground states | TheHill
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to drop $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key swing states during the 2020 election.
The digital ad campaign will focus on Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, four states Democrats are eager to flip into their column next year, and will run starting Friday through the end of the primary season. The ads will not feature Bloomberg himself.
========================================================
Rich people buying political office reminds me of the final stages of decline of the Roman Empire. You don't need to be either qualified or popular - you just have to have saturation quantities of money.
And they say money cannot buy an election... :roll:
Everyone note this... money, no matter if coming from the left or right, ends the debate beyond all argument that our modern day aristocracy is alive and well so much so that it has a firm grip on both the Republican and Democratic Parties. With plenty of actors along the way the Supreme Court ended that debate as well.
Somehow, I doubt many of the "get big money out of politics" folks will object to this.
I couldn't agree more!And they say money cannot buy an election... :roll:
Everyone note this... money, no matter if coming from the left or right, ends the debate beyond all argument that our modern day aristocracy is alive and well so much so that it has a firm grip on both the Republican and Democratic Parties. With plenty of actors along the way the Supreme Court ended that debate as well.
I'm at a loss to understand what it is Bloomberg is trying to accomplish here.Bloomberg to spend $100M on anti-Trump ads in battleground states | TheHill
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to drop $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key swing states during the 2020 election.
The digital ad campaign will focus on Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, four states Democrats are eager to flip into their column next year, and will run starting Friday through the end of the primary season. The ads will not feature Bloomberg himself.
========================================================
Rich people buying political office reminds me of the final stages of decline of the Roman Empire. You don't need to be either qualified or popular - you just have to have saturation quantities of money.
Rich people buying political office reminds me of the final stages of decline of the Roman Empire. You don't need to be either qualified or popular - you just have to have saturation quantities of money.
At the same time though, you have to have a message that resonates with people enough for them to go out and vote for you. Clinton was better funded than Trump and she still lost, but all things being equal, money does provide the resources and access to content distribution if you know how to use it. I do think this is terrible for the health of our government though.
If voters are making key decisions about the future of the republic based on the contents of 30-second ads, maybe we've found the problem.
Rule by the rich is called a plutocracy. Wave bye bye to Jeffersonian democracy. The framers never anticipated a take over by the ultra-rich.
See Plutocracy - Wikipedia
The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition Throughout history, political thinkers such as Winston Churchill, 19th-century French sociologist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, 19th-century Spanish monarchist Juan Donoso Cortés and today Noam Chomsky have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their social responsibilities, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict, corrupting societies with greed and hedonism.
Examples
Historic examples of plutocracies include the Roman Empire, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, pre-French Revolution Kingdom of France, Genoa, and the pre-World War II Empire of Japan (the zaibatsu). According to Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter, the modern day United States resembles a plutocracy, though with democratic forms Former Chairman of the federal reserve, Paul Volcker, also believes the US is developing into a plutocracy.
===========================================================
Anything here remind you of Donald Trump? Or warn of Michael Bloomberg & his kind?
On a straight up money spent argument, you have a strong point. What we may be discarding though is Hillary was not that great of a candidate, she and the DNC ignored and then lost key districts that Obama took easily twice. And all things considered Hillary lost to Trump of all people, money did not help her because she assumed her aristocracy was enough.
My point is Bloomberg dropping money on an election (again if we are being honest) tells us conclusively that our election system is driven by aristocracy anyway, win or loss.
Sad times indeed.
I'm at a loss to understand what it is Bloomberg is trying to accomplish here.
He could do that much more easily and cheaply without entering the race, though. My suspicion? He wants his voice heard on the debate stage; he wants to be an active part of the process.Blast the media with anti- Trump ads maybe.
He could do that much more easily and cheaply without entering the race. My suspicion? He wants his voice heard on the debate stage; he wants to be an active part of the process.
Blast the media with anti- Trump ads maybe.
That's what's diabolical about this. Most Americans have a single vote, influencing only their immediate district in local terms. Plutocrats & political parties can go into any locale district they want, including yours, and paper the place with money and other resources to attempt to over-weight their influence on it.It's somewhat concerning that some of the puppets are now plutocrats, but they have been pulling the strings for quite a while. As more and more power flows to the federal government level it greatly simplifies the mission of the plutocrats to gain total control of all government functions.
The mere voter (we the sheeple) has a single vote (for or against) over at most 3 of "our" 535 congress critters, yet the plutocrats can contribute campaign cash to (legally bribe?) any or all of them while also supporting PACs and running "issue" ads directly using their virtually unlimited resources. Control of Google or Facebook alone is worth at least 15 points in a general POTUS election.
Agreed. And after watching Trump in 2016, he may believe there's always an outside chance of winning the nomination.Yep, he wants recognition.
I'm at a loss to understand what it is Bloomberg is trying to accomplish here.
Bloomberg to spend $100M on anti-Trump ads in battleground states | TheHill
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to drop $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key swing states during the 2020 election.
The digital ad campaign will focus on Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, four states Democrats are eager to flip into their column next year, and will run starting Friday through the end of the primary season. The ads will not feature Bloomberg himself.
========================================================
Rich people buying political office reminds me of the final stages of decline of the Roman Empire. You don't need to be either qualified or popular - you just have to have saturation quantities of money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?