Hacker News Reader

Comment by barry-cotter | Hacker News Reader

> Money governs access to political power in this country.

Billionaires who failed to get anywhere in the Democratic primary: Bloomberg, Steyer.

Remember, all political campaign funding plus all think tank funding plus all media funding is less than the US spends on almonds each year. Money doesn’t buy political influence in the US, it flows to it.

> (in case you’re keeping track: all donations to all candidates, all lobbying, all think tanks, all advocacy organizations, the Washington Post, Vox, Mic, Mashable, Gawker, and Tumblr, combined, are still worth a little bit less than the almond industry. And Musk could buy them all.)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

View on HN

Money will only get you so far in your public facing political ambitions if you are politically incompetent (Bloomberg) or devoid of charisma (Steyer). But money got both of them to the stage.

> But money got both of them to the stage.

So what? They lost comprehensively. The point of politics isn’t to be heard. It’s to win so you can get what you want done done. If being heard led to political change US politics would be a great deal more libertarian. You don’t just need to be heard you need to persuade people to believe what you believe and to vote for you. Money doesn’t do that. It buys you a bigger megaphone but if no one likes the message they hear from you they won’t vote for you. Then you end up like Bloomberg, having spent a ton of money on a Presidential bid that failed utterly.

> you need to persuade people to believe what you believe and to vote for you. Money doesn’t do that. It buys you a bigger megaphone..

A megaphone is a naive and unsuitable analogy.

Money buys you the two-party system where the only viable candidates are the ones that have been paid for, that do the bidding of the lobbyists and special interests that actually dictate national policies and run the country.

Money buys you the mass media, that surrounds and saturates the public with messages, dis/misinformation and values skewed to suit your agenda.

Money buys you the power to shape laws and regulations, so that your industry is.. You get the idea.

"Money governs access to political power in this country."

As an American, I'm ashamed to learned over the decades how much this statement is true. Didn't you see how money bought the presidency? How else did we end up with utterly corrupt and incompetent (or maliciously competent) politicians running the country?

I saw how money partially bought the presidency. (people actually love him, but the big luxurious personal jet certainly helped in the primary) In this case I don't mind. He's a good man. His money makes him far less tempted by bribes. The adventure has cost him over a billion dollars. Our more typical presidents get rich from the experience, despite the salary being pitiful. The US president gets paid like a San Francisco software developer, yet has the responsibility for running a nation with a GDP of roughly 20 trillion dollars. Somehow that pitiful salary turns into riches for most politicians. It's really delightful to see a president who is in it for fame and for duty to his nation.

The only reason why you need to state that "people actually love him", is because they don't. There is no other reason for that.

How do you know he lost a billion dollars? Did you see his tax records? I'm pretty sure it's ain't because of the lack of trying if it was so.

In a normal situation, I can't imagine any scenario that a businessman can lose a billion dollars by becoming president. But this is the only guy that is literally capable of failing upwards.

Criminal indictments with the current administration : 215.

With Obama: 0, but... Obama did 8 years. The current one isn't even at 4.

In real life, I don't even know a person who dislikes Trump. I have never encountered a pro-Biden sign. Maybe it would be different if I worked for Twitter in San Francisco?

I love how you point out that our criminal justice system wasn't prosecuting the criminals because it was infested with corrupt Obama appointees.

It's not zero though. Here's one convicted just last week:

"Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesm...

The crime was altering an email so that it would work as evidence to get the FISA court to allow spying on the Trump campaign. That is far worse than the incident with Nixon.

> He's a good man.

We can agree to disagree on this point. :)

It is interesting to hear the other side of the argument. Perhaps I've become cynical over the years, witnessing what "duty to nation" really means in practice.

As far as national interest goes, public well-being seems low in priority, far below enriching those who hold the reins of power. The attempts to justify these skewed priorities, in my opinion, fall apart from the view of the people, who must live with the resulting social conditions.

I'm not sure Bloomberg failed. He stepped in because he was afraid that Sanders or Warren would win, which would be bad for him personally. He's fine with Biden. Seems like a pretty effective return on investment to me.

The point of politics is to get what you want done done. You don't have to win to do that. In fact, if you can achieve your goals without spending four years of your life being president of the US, that sounds so much less stressful.

Bill Gates agrees, he said as much in that famous interview.

The current president seems to crave attention, so that’s different. Many other wealthy men of power are happy to influence from behind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com