Hacker News Reader

Comment by awb | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

> 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.

See below, people are saying this.

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.

Nit: Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"), wealthy at all, debt superseding wealth, etc. Bloomberg is _actually_ super wealthy.

> Trump being super wealthy is arguable on many grounds - definitionally ("super"),

There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Yeah I agree. Being mayor of NYC isn't relevant at all. He might as well have been peddling cocaine

Reply on news.ycombinator.com