Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:30 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
joining late is not a good look for him. But he's got many good policies. I think he would do very well in a debate vs. Trump.
  #102  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:31 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Nothing wrong with putting cops in high-crime neighborhoods in order to reduce violent crime. That's absolutely great, AFAIAC.



The problem comes when the cops expand their mission well beyond that, and bust the people living there for a lot of trivial shit like marijuana possession. That makes the residents of those neighborhoods soooooooooooooo much safer, right?



Basically that just punishes poor people for not being able to afford to live in a nicer neighborhood where the cops don't stop and frisk you for dope.


That wasn’t even the worst part - something around 80-85% of the stops in NYC resulted in neither an arrest nor a summons. If that many people are being stopped and frisked with no further action at all, then the standard they are using to stop people is too low, and it starts to look like the standard is “non-white male” in some specific age range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #103  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:33 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
So, to those of you who have no problem supporting him, or even actually would want him to win...why? I'm not against billionaires on principle: I would have voted for Steyer with no problem had he been the nominee, but Steyer didn't wait til after the race had started only to try to purchase victory.
Why is it some big deal if he started late? I really don't get that attitude.

This is a man who spends millions of dollars of his own money every year on climate change, gun control and good (evidence based) governance. Why would you discount him because it isn't fair he didn't jump in January 2019?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-11-2020 at 12:36 PM.
  #104  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:39 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
I guess some people are not happy he didn't spend a year or more in Iowa and NH. He didn't "pay his dues" like everybody else. I can see that point.
  #105  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:41 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,838

"Mike" Bloomberg Presidential campaign, 2020


I also believe that Bloomberg entered the race due to concerns that Warren or Sanders might win the nomination - but I don’t believe for one second that it’s because he fears they will raise his taxes. It is unlikely that any tax increase would exceed the amount he currently donates. I think he’s concerned that one of them will win the nomination and then lose to Trump.

And I’m much more concerned about beating Trump than I am about someone paying their dues. I’m not at all sure Warren can and I’m pretty sure Sanders can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by doreen; 02-11-2020 at 12:44 PM.
  #106  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
I don't see that point. It's not dues, it's one aspect of the primary campaign. If you forego Iowa and NH, the penalty is built in.
  #107  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:49 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I also believe that Bloomberg entered the race due to concerns that Warren or Sanders might win the nomination - but I donít believe for one second that itís because he fears they will raise his taxes. It is unlikely that any tax increase would exceed the amount he currently donates. I think heís concerned that one of them will win the nomination and then lose to Trump.

And Iím much more concerned about beating Trump than I am about someone paying their dues. Iím not at all sure Warren can and Iím pretty sure Sanders canít.
The charitable version would be he gave Biden a chance to show his chops and joined when he lost faith. The more cynical is that he knew Biden would falter but waited for the other moderate candidates to be forgotten before jumping in. If he had started early he might have been one of those early forgotten "not Biden"s.
  #108  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:49 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne
I admit, I didn't see Bloomberg as a real possibility at first, since he declared his candidacy so late (I believe I read something about him not even being on the ballot in these early states, right?) so I figured he had no chance. I hear more and more about him actually having a chance, especially with Biden suddenly doing bad, and...honestly, I am confused. To me, it is looking like this billionaire suddenly decided to walk in and purchase the election (and the timing made it look like his reason for getting into it was because he was concerned about Warren or Sanders potentially winning), and...is maybe succeeding? I mean, to me, that looks just as bad as Trump winning with lies and false information. He is the one democratic candidate that I really, really do not want to vote for. It seems a lot of people here do not share that view, and it perplexes me that many of you don't.

So, to those of you who have no problem supporting him, or even actually would want him to win...why? I'm not against billionaires on principle: I would have voted for Steyer with no problem had he been the nominee, but Steyer didn't wait til after the race had started only to try to purchase victory.
Because I don't really care when he got into the race, as long as he can beat Trump. I think he is the Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Bonus: I think he's a good, moral man who shares my opinion on climate change.

How does getting into the race late and using his money strategically even remotely compare with Trump's lies?

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-11-2020 at 12:53 PM.
  #109  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:00 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,788
Here’s my take on the late start.

He is in a unique position because he doesn’t have to fundraise. Not at all. This completely changes the game. It’s easy to try to equate Bloomberg and Steyer because they are both billionaires but Bloomberg is over 30 times richer than Steyer.

I think the long primary season is more about fund-raising and sponsors and I’m not sure it helps with the voters. I don’t think anyone needs two years to pick a candidate. I think one of the problems is that by voting time, they’re all stale.

And Bloomberg’s shortcoming is that he’s Michael Bloomberg. He’s short. He has a nasally voice. Hes not going to do well with the one on one, baby-kissing, corn dog eating stuff and he probably decided that winning over Iowans one at a time, in person, is waste of time and money. He’s not warm. He’s the kind of guy that hires a team of experts to run an data-driven analysis in order to decide what he wants for lunch. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but if any candidate is really a shapeshifting lizard from outer space, it’s Mike. I think it was smart of him to minimize his exposure until after his extensive ad campaign had taken hold.

I’m not holding it against him that he didn’t put himself out for a long primary season. It wouldn’t have worked well for him. Instead, he spent the past 2 years working with closely and extensively with municipalities and mayors across the country on climate and other policy initiatives which should gain him some support from the ground up.

It’s a unique approach. I’m not sure it will work. But I’m sure that every step he makes on the campaign trail is backed by pages and pages of evidence-based data. That’s how he works.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-11-2020 at 01:02 PM.
  #110  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:07 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
yes his cash certainly made it possible for him to skip IA and NH. He's also skipping SC and NV. Rudy G the Ghoul tried skipping early states and he crashed and burned quickly.
  #111  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:16 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
And he will get those endorsements. Heís been working with city governments across the country since 2016 through his Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Initiative and US Mayor Challenge -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/u...ors-trump.html

https://www.bloomberg.org/program/fo...tive/#programs

https://www.bloomberg.org/press/rele...ors-challenge/

It actually feels like he may have been laying the groundwork for a possible Presidential run since around the time Trump got elected- these organizations are going to be huge assets.
So...he's giving money to cities so they can do popular things, which presumably helps their mayors get re-elected. And in return, those mayors support his candidacy.

Am I really the only one seeing a problem here?
  #112  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:27 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A real scenario in my estimation is Sanders having a narrow plurality but significantly short the majority, even adding in all of Warrenís delegates. The center Left group together OTOH have a solid majority with Bloomberg the very solid leader of the group.

Second vote which way ethically SHOULD delegates, including the then able to vote superdelegates, vote? Pretty sure which way it would go. And pretty sure if the circumstance was Biden in the Sanders position and Sanders in the Bloomberg that Sanders would be saying that the supers should vote for him as the progressive faction got the most votes. Pretty sure though that in my hypothetical heíll be yelling how not giving it the one who got the most votes is unfair undemocratic and a fixed back room process stacked against him. And sulking for a while.
I'm quite sure Bernie will share my view that Bloomberg's attempt to buy the election represents an existential threat to American democracy, and I'm pretty sure Warren will too.

IMO, therefore, the scenario you describe doesn't end with the minor candidates coming together to support Bloomberg against Sanders, it ends with Sanders and Warren coming together to support Biden or Buttigieg or whoever against Bloomberg.

Which is certainly a win from Bloomberg's POV, if his not running would have led to Sanders winning the nomination. But I don't think it's at all likely that a contested convention would actually nominate Bloomberg.
  #113  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:29 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Has anyone seen any data on Bloomberg's approval ratings? I saw one source that said he was at -28, far lower than Trump. But that seems inconsistent with the polls showing him doing well against Trump.
  #114  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:38 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So...he's giving money to cities so they can do popular things, which presumably helps their mayors get re-elected. And in return, those mayors support his candidacy.

Am I really the only one seeing a problem here?
I don’t. Because I REALLY REALLY REALLY don’t want Donald Trump to win. And Trump has a billion dollars and the power of the Presidency.

I think Citizen United was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. But it’s the law of the land. And Elizabeth Warren really pissed me off with her “we don’t need those nasty billionaires, we’ll win if everyone that likes me sends me $5 stuff.

YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME YOU’RE IN, NOT THE GAME YOU WISH YOU WERE PLAYING. They didn’t get this in 2016, because some Democrats still think that winning the popular vote counts. THATS NOT THE GAME YOU WERE PLAYING.

This is not a normal election. The Democrats are against not only one of the best funded campaigns ever but most definitely the dirtiest and most dishonest.

We need every advantage we can get. Good for him. If Bloomberg and Bezos and Buffet got together and developed some legal way to pay everyone $1000 bucks for voting Democrat, I’d be all for it.

My state starts early voting next week. I haven’t seen a single commercial for anyone other than Bloomberg. Most ordinary non-political people that I know don’t know who Buttigieg and Klobuchar are, much less what they stand for.

I’m pissed because I’m scared. It’s like trying to watch a child’s lemonade stand compete with WalMart. This year I’m all about winning. There’s not going to be any solace in “Well, I lost but at least I didn’t take any dirty billionaire money”.

Maybe some people don’t hate Trump as much as I do, though.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-11-2020 at 01:41 PM.
  #115  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:40 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So...he's giving money to cities so they can do popular things, which presumably helps their mayors get re-elected. And in return, those mayors support his candidacy.

Am I really the only one seeing a problem here?
You mean spend his money to enact popular programs and build political alliances? Can you spell out what you see as a problem?
  #116  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:21 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Because those mayors have to wonder whether the money will keep flowing if they don't support Bloomberg. It looks as though he's trying to build up a patronage system.
  #117  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:22 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Maybe some people donít hate Trump as much as I do, though.
Nope. That's definitely not where the disconnect is.
  #118  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:28 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
More on Bloomberg and his wealth. Any Democratic candidate who gets elected president must have gotten there because they knew what issues are important to their voters. So, Bloomberg knows health care costs and stagnant wages are major concerns of the middle/working class, problems he hasn't had since at least the early 1970s, if ever. He need not have experienced these things to know he will have to do something about them or probably not get re-elected. That's why I'm not concerned with his wealth. And I think his wealth might actually be a very good thing for his chances. I love the contrast of two rich New Yorkers going at it, where one is an undeniable billionaire, a man who started and ran and immensely successful business, with a record of philanthropy and all the other things mentioned in this thread that he is for, and the other a questionable billionaire with a record of shady business dealings and numerous failed enterprises in his career. If there are two die-hard capitalists running, what sensible person on the fence would go for Trump?
  #119  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:37 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
anyone know the wealth of JFK when he ran in 1960? Or the family wealth? Need to adjust for inflation of course.
  #120  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:38 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME YOU’RE IN, NOT THE GAME YOU WISH YOU WERE PLAYING. They didn’t get this in 2016, because some Democrats still think that winning the popular vote counts. THATS NOT THE GAME YOU WERE PLAYING.
And on this: I am of the opinion that whomever gets the nomination, they should set up state headquarters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, and maybe Arizona, and a chartered campaign to cycle through each state repeatedly until election day. Maybe a perfunctory trip to a number of other states just to make it look good, but California and New York ain't going nowhere. The others will be the states that matter.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-11-2020 at 02:39 PM.
  #121  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:55 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
More on Bloomberg and his wealth. Any Democratic candidate who gets elected president must have gotten there because they knew what issues are important to their voters. So, Bloomberg knows health care costs and stagnant wages are major concerns of the middle/working class, problems he hasn't had since at least the early 1970s, if ever. He need not have experienced these things to know he will have to do something about them or probably not get re-elected. That's why I'm not concerned with his wealth. And I think his wealth might actually be a very good thing for his chances. I love the contrast of two rich New Yorkers going at it, where one is an undeniable billionaire, a man who started and ran and immensely successful business, with a record of philanthropy and all the other things mentioned in this thread that he is for, and the other a questionable billionaire with a record of shady business dealings and numerous failed enterprises in his career. If there are two die-hard capitalists running, what sensible person on the fence would go for Trump?
Contradiction in terms. No sensible person has any doubt which party they will vote for in November.
  #122  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Contradiction in terms. No sensible person has any doubt which party they will vote for in November.
Do you get my point, though?
  #123  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Well, there are people who aren't necessarily stupid but are morally bankrupt. These people say "Well, I don't care for the racism, misogyny, corruption, toxic ignorance, or habitual violation of basic democratic norms...but gee, look at my stock portfolio!" Bloomberg would no doubt clean up with these voters.

Then there are people who feel alienated from the system and want radical structural change. They see the influence of billionaires on the political process as a fundamentally bad thing. Many of these voters will stay home or vote third party if Bloomberg is the nominee. They may fairly be called stupid. If the end result is that Trump gets re-elected, though, there's not going to be any solace in "Well, I lost, but at least I didn't pander to those SJW purity ponies!"

There's no way to know for sure whether the Democrats would come out ahead or not on that tradeoff. I suggest voting for the candidate who you feel would make the best President, and letting the chips fall where they may.

(Unless that candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. In that case, I suggest placing your head in the toilet and flushing repeatedly until I return with further instructions.)
  #124  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:49 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
That wasnít even the worst part - something around 80-85% of the stops in NYC resulted in neither an arrest nor a summons. If that many people are being stopped and frisked with no further action at all, then the standard they are using to stop people is too low, and it starts to look like the standard is ďnon-white maleĒ in some specific age range.
...I just don't understand how anyone could think that someone responsible for such a horrendous, racist, dehumanizing, punitive unconstitutional policy is even remotely qualified to win the nomination. Its almost as if black lives don't matter.

And then I remember that millions of people also voted for Donald Trump and things make more sense.
  #125  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:11 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
There's no way to know for sure whether the Democrats would come out ahead or not on that tradeoff. I suggest voting for the candidate who you feel would make the best President, and letting the chips fall where they may.
Of course there is no way to know for sure. But yes, vote for whomever you think is best, no matter what party they are in. Your single vote is not going to matter anyway, so if the candidate of the Workers World Party suits your needs, vote that way. The country desperately needs other parties that matter.

That being said, let's not forget this is a thread about Bloomberg, and my statements here should be taken in that context.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-11-2020 at 05:13 PM.
  #126  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:17 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I just don't understand how anyone could think that someone responsible for such a horrendous, racist, dehumanizing, punitive unconstitutional policy is even remotely qualified to win the nomination. Its almost as if black lives don't matter.

And then I remember that millions of people also voted for Donald Trump and things make more sense.
Regarding Stop and Frisk, I know Bloomberg supported it when he was mayor. I don't know much more about that, but my impression was that he thought it was a way to bring down crime, and now he renounces it. I say this not to support him in any way, because if he can be shown to be a racist, with no good reason to have supported that policy other than because of that fact, then of course he has no business being president.
  #127  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:34 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Regarding Stop and Frisk, I know Bloomberg supported it when he was mayor. I don't know much more about that, but my impression was that he thought it was a way to bring down crime, and now he renounces it.
...he renounced it because he is running for President of the United States of America and being responsible for a horrendous, racist, dehumanizing, punitive unconstitutional policy that stood for the duration of his Mayorship and wasn't stopped until after he left is simply something he doesn't want people to be reminded of. As Mayor de Blasio said: "People aren't stupid."

Quote:
I say this not to support him in any way, because if he can be shown to be a racist, with no good reason to have supported that policy other than because of that fact, then of course he has no business being president.
We have his thoughts on tape. Those thoughts have been posted in this thread. We have him on tape enthusiastically endorsing throwing kids them up against the walls and frisking them. Why do we need to show that he was racist? The fact that he actively supported a racist unconstitutional policy that affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of black and latino New Yorkers should be enough.
  #128  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:07 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, there are people who aren't necessarily stupid but are morally bankrupt. These people say "Well, I don't care for the racism, misogyny, corruption, toxic ignorance, or habitual violation of basic democratic norms...but gee, look at my stock portfolio!" Bloomberg would no doubt clean up with these voters.

Then there are people who feel alienated from the system and want radical structural change. They see the influence of billionaires on the political process as a fundamentally bad thing. Many of these voters will stay home or vote third party if Bloomberg is the nominee. They may fairly be called stupid. If the end result is that Trump gets re-elected, though, there's not going to be any solace in "Well, I lost, but at least I didn't pander to those SJW purity ponies!"

There's no way to know for sure whether the Democrats would come out ahead or not on that tradeoff. I suggest voting for the candidate who you feel would make the best President, and letting the chips fall where they may.

(Unless that candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. In that case, I suggest placing your head in the toilet and flushing repeatedly until I return with further instructions.)
That’s where we disagree and only time will tell. Because in my real life, I actually know several older, upper middle class centrist light Republicans that would probably vote for Bloomberg but not for Sanders. And I don’t know many Sanders supporters IRL.

And I don’t think most of the Democrats I know IRL are outraged enough. They hate Trump, sure - but they are also apolitical and just don’t grasp the long term danger. And I’m nervous about them turning out, especially if the markets react negatively to Sanders news.

I don’t think radical structural change sells when the economy is good. People that are financially comfortable are pretty attached to that comfort. And a lot of people are doing just fine.

In my experience the Internet amplifies the extremes and downplays the middle. Everyone I know IRL is way more middle of the road than most of the people I know online.

I might be wrong, though. Its like many things in life, we all want to get to the same place at the end of the day - we just have different ideas about how to get there.

Discussing it can be productive at this stage as long as we don’t get poisonous. We’ll put it all behind us and come together in 6 months. If Sanders is the nominee I’ll walk through fire to vote for him.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-11-2020 at 06:09 PM.
  #129  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:30 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
this says JFK would have inherited $1 bil , inflation adjusted. This article was before Trump was in the race.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/to...nts-2015-06-01
  #130  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:25 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...he renounced it because he is running for President of the United States of America and being responsible for a horrendous, racist, dehumanizing, punitive unconstitutional policy that stood for the duration of his Mayorship and wasn't stopped until after he left is simply something he doesn't want people to be reminded of.
Or maybe he renounced it because he thinks he was wrong back then. I don't know, but I do know that people make mistakes. To be clear, you may be right. I just don't know.

Quote:
We have his thoughts on tape. Those thoughts have been posted in this thread. We have him on tape enthusiastically endorsing throwing kids them up against the walls and frisking them. Why do we need to show that he was racist? The fact that he actively supported a racist unconstitutional policy that affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of black and latino New Yorkers should be enough.
Since posting earlier, I saw the stories about the tape. When he said "throwing kids up against the walls" I don't think he meant that literally. Just to get that out there. But this is no defense of him, and I agree the policy was wrong and anyone should take into consideration what he did then.* And yes, that also means at least considering his explanation before just dismissing it out out hand. Finally, my racist comment was tied into the policy, and I don't mean you have to show him to be racist in other ways. That would be enough to disqualify him.

* As to his thoughts posted here, let me say I only scanned the rest of the thread before posting yesterday, so if he said things about Stop and Frisk, I did not see those.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-11-2020 at 07:28 PM.
  #131  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:28 PM
Mnemnosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Because I don't really care when he got into the race, as long as he can beat Trump. I think he is the Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Bonus: I think he's a good, moral man who shares my opinion on climate change.

How does getting into the race late and using his money strategically even remotely compare with Trump's lies?
Mostly what makes it seem bad to me, is that the message I have so far gotten from how he's gone about things just says 'screw the rules and the process; I have money, I don't need to do things the same way the peasants do.'

And frankly, it literally looks like buying the nomination. Now, I'm not sure, but my impression is that although there are some very prominent super-rich people who would side with the Democratic Party on most things, isn't there a whole heck of a lot more of that super-rich money on the Republican side? If something that looks this much like buying the nomination is successful - even if everything is totally legal and not breaking any rules - might it not unleash considerably more of that money that people have been afraid to make it look too obviously like the elections were being bought?

That said, after looking at his policies, I suppose I'm not quite as unhappy to vote for him if he were to secure the nomination, but I still think the whole thing looks bad.
  #132  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Every time I think Bloomberg might not be so bad, I remember that he donated the maximum to Mark Johnson's campaign. Johnson, a DeVos knockoff in the body of an eight-year-old boy, won North Carolina's superintendent position in 2016, and has been screwing up our public school system ever since.

One fun example: just today, Johnson sent unsolicited email or text to over half a million NC parents and teachers, based on a database of emails intended for use in school-based communication, asking for their participation in a push survey about his desire to end Common Core standards in North Carolina. There's a lot of problems with this effort, but the most significant one is that North Carolina replaced Common Core standards in 2018.

I know this is tangential to Bloomberg, but goddamn. All his talk about supporting evidence-based governance rings pretty freaking hollow to me.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-11-2020 at 07:43 PM.
  #133  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:44 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Or maybe he renounced it because he thinks he was wrong back then. I don't know, but I do know that people make mistakes. To be clear, you may be right. I just don't know.
...he could have renounced when the courts found that the policy was unconstitutional instead of blasting the courts and vowing to continue the policy.

Quote:
Since posting earlier, I saw the stories about the tape. When he said "throwing kids up against the walls" I don't think he meant that literally. Just to get that out there.
Why not? How exactly do you think the NYPD enforced stop and frisk? They would throw people, including kids, up against the wall to frisk them. Its literally what they did. Just to get that out there.

Quote:
But this is no defense of him, and I agree the policy was wrong and anyone should take into consideration what he did then.* And yes, that also means at least considering his explanation before just dismissing it out out hand. Finally, my racist comment was tied into the policy, and I don't mean you have to show him to be racist in other ways. That would be enough to disqualify him.
It shouldn't just be taken into "consideration." It should, in any rational society, be disqualifying. His regime terrorised communities of colour. He approved of enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities and individuals. He's only in this race because of his bank balance. That he can afford to wage a propaganda campaign is not a reason to think he should be president.
  #134  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:48 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Those thoughts have been posted in this thread.
Okay, I went back and found the quote you are referring to in the thread. And I also saw this from the New York Post.

Quote:
Earlier Tuesday, an audio recording surfaced online in which Bloomberg justified the NYPDís use of stop-and-frisk on grounds that it was ďthe way you get the guns out of the kidsí handsĒ and ďstop them from getting murdered.Ē
From these two, and assuming Bloomberg had data to back up the idea that the neighborhoods where Stop and Frisk was implemented had higher crime rates, it is clear he did what he did to bring down crime and stop the murder of kids. That doesn't make the policy the right way to go about it, but it does show motivation. As for what I know now, I don't know that Bloomberg should be excoriated for this when his intentions were good.
  #135  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:54 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Why not? How exactly do you think the NYPD enforced stop and frisk? They would throw people, including kids, up against the wall to frisk them. Its literally what they did. Just to get that out there.
Then maybe you know more than I do. I am open to that possibility. How do you know they threw people up against the wall. I am interested.

Quote:
It shouldn't just be taken into "consideration."
Okay, if you want to believe what one side says about what Bloomberg did, take from that that he had no good intentions whatsoever, and not listen to what he says about it, and perhaps find out that Bloomberg did what he did because he wanted to reduce crime and kids being murdered, that is your option. You aren't required to look at all sides. I prefer to.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-11-2020 at 07:55 PM.
  #136  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:14 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
with Biden fading fast Bloomberg now is likely the leading moderate left in the race or maybe #2 to Pete.
  #137  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
... IMO, therefore, the scenario you describe doesn't end with the minor candidates coming together to support Bloomberg against Sanders, it ends with Sanders and Warren coming together to support Biden or Buttigieg or whoever against Bloomberg. ...
That's a very interesting supposition.

Very honestly I don't get the "buying" bit. Voters are not being given money for their votes. His money gives him a big leg up on getting his message out, no question, but people will still either like his message and how he delivers it or not.
  #138  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Thatís where we disagree and only time will tell. Because in my real life, I actually know several older, upper middle class centrist light Republicans that would probably vote for Bloomberg but not for Sanders. ...
Likewise. And a few "Independents" who have swung in different elections who say the same. But I also know Sanders supporters along with Warren fans, and all of them have said that they will vote and vote D no matter what. Anecdotes ...
  #139  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:33 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Then maybe you know more than I do. I am open to that possibility. How do you know they threw people up against the wall. I am interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nation
Among others, Rose heard from a Bangladeshi teenager who was patted down by two male police officers looking for marijuana on her way to school, a mother who was beaten by police in front of her home for having a closed bottle of alcohol, and a civil rights activist who was thrown against a wall and frisked during an afternoon smoke break outside his Manhattan office.
https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...top-and-frisk/

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccJustice
Stops and frisks are steeped in the ever-present threat of police violence. Several interviewees reported that stops o$en result in excessive force by police, describing instances when o%cers slapped them, threw them up against walls or onto the ground,beat them up, used a Taser on them, or otherwise hurt them physically. Many of the
testimonies CCR heard illustrate that this force is o$en used indiscriminately, or in
response to being asked the reason for a stop or an arrest.22 O$en, experiences of
brutality by police leave people feeling terri#ed and helpless:
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default...act-report.pdf

(Errors in formatting copied and pasted)

There is a FUCK TON of evidence out there. You only have to care enough to look it up.

Quote:
Okay, if you want to believe what one side says about what Bloomberg did, take from that that he had no good intentions whatsoever, and not listen to what he says about it, and perhaps find out that Bloomberg did what he did because he wanted to reduce crime and kids being murdered, that is your option. You aren't required to look at all sides. I prefer to.
I don't give a fuck what his stated intentions were. President Rodrigo Duterte's drug policies are aimed at "the neutralization of illegal drug personalities nationwide". That doesn't make them any less cruel, less arbitrary, or any less disgusting.

Bothsiderism isn't a good thing. Sometimes there are not "very fine people" over there. I HAVE looked at both sides. I see no reason why we should give Bloomberg a pass.

Quote:
From these two, and assuming Bloomberg had data to back up the idea that the neighborhoods where Stop and Frisk was implemented had higher crime rates, it is clear he did what he did to bring down crime and stop the murder of kids. That doesn't make the policy the right way to go about it, but it does show motivation. As for what I know now, I don't know that Bloomberg should be excoriated for this when his intentions were good.
I've already cited more than enough evidence to show that Stop and Frisk didn't work. Why does the motivation matter? Bloomberg ignored the evidence, he even ignored the constitution in support of a racist policy that overwhelmingly targeted people of colour. It doesn't matter if he did that "to stop the murder of kids." That isn't a good enough reason to terrorise hundreds of thousands of people.
  #140  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:09 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
There is a FUCK TON of evidence out there. You only have to care enough to look it up.
I said I didn't think they literally threw people up against the wall, and at that time you had not posted these links. But thanks, that is exactly what I was asking for.


Quote:
I don't give a fuck what his stated intentions were.
Fine. That is your option. I happen to believe that if he was doing it for good reasons, they should be considered.

Quote:
I HAVE looked at both sides. I see no reason why we should give Bloomberg a pass.
Great, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I absolutely think you haven't looked at both sides. And I never said he should be given a pass. Looking at both sides is not giving him a pass.

Quote:
I've already cited more than enough evidence to show that Stop and Frisk didn't work. Why does the motivation matter? Bloomberg ignored the evidence, he even ignored the constitution in support of a racist policy that overwhelmingly targeted people of colour. It doesn't matter if he did that "to stop the murder of kids." That isn't a good enough reason to terrorise hundreds of thousands of people.
I never said it worked or not. And the motivation matters because if someone tries to do something to help people, that is a good thing. Not everything is as black and white (excuse the unintentional pun) as you seem to think it is. The weight of the evidence on "your" side might very well out weigh mine. But I can't know that until I consider both sides.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-11-2020 at 09:14 PM.
  #141  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:39 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I said I didn't think they literally threw people up against the wall, and at that time you had not posted these links. But thanks, that is exactly what I was asking for.
...it astonishes me that you actually had to ask me for a cite for something that I would have expected to have been common knowledge. I'm even more astonished that you are arguing to look at "both sides" when you don't even know the bare basics of what this is all about.

Quote:
Fine. That is your option. I happen to believe that if he was doing it for good reasons, they should be considered.
Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by sending millions of people to concentration camps. Do you think that if Hitler thinks he was doing this for good reasons that we should consider that when we look at his impact on history?

Quote:
Great, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I absolutely think you haven't looked at both sides. And I never said he should be given a pass. Looking at both sides is not giving him a pass.
Not bothering to look at either side unless spoon-fed is giving him a pass. You didn't even know that (at times) the police would throw people against the wall to frisk them. You know absolutely nothing about stop and frisk except what I've told you in this thread. In the time its taken you to respond you could have put some effort into looking at "both sides." But it looks like you've only put effort into exonerating one party. The evidence is overwhelming here.

Quote:
I never said it worked or not.
My response wasn't about you. The evidence showed that stop and frisk didn't work. If Bloomberg was motivated by "stopping the kids dying" then setting policy that worked against that goal puts his motivations in doubt.

Quote:
And the motivation matters because if someone tries to do something to help people, that is a good thing.
"Good" is subjective. Anti-vaxxers think they are helping by telling people not to get vaccinations. Is that a good thing?

Quote:
Not everything is as black and white (excuse the unintentional pun) as you seem to think it is. The weight of the evidence on "your" side might very well out weigh mine. But I can't know that until I consider both sides.
Sometimes things are black and white. Some things are constitutional and some things aren't. These weren't random stops. They were being stopped purely on the basis of the colour of their skin. This is indefensible. Let me know when you've finished considering "both sides" and then if you can figure out a defense I would love to hear it.
  #142  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:16 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Oh goodie, Hitler's arrived.
  #143  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Oh goodie, Hitler's arrived.
...oh goodie! What a compelling rebuttal. Godwin has been clear that this kind of usage of Hitler in debate is acceptable: and if its good enough for him it should be good enough for you. You've engaged in anti-Godwinism: dismissing the entirety of an argument on the basis of a single Hitler.
  #144  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:53 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Thatís where we disagree and only time will tell. Because in my real life, I actually know several older, upper middle class centrist light Republicans that would probably vote for Bloomberg but not for Sanders. And I donít know many Sanders supporters IRL.
...
I donít think radical structural change sells when the economy is good. People that are financially comfortable are pretty attached to that comfort. And a lot of people are doing just fine.

In my experience the Internet amplifies the extremes and downplays the middle. Everyone I know IRL is way more middle of the road than most of the people I know online.

I might be wrong, though. Its like many things in life, we all want to get to the same place at the end of the day - we just have different ideas about how to get there.
Plus there's the possibility you might agree (and just want to soften the disagreement with previous poster, or maybe you don't agree) that a big shift to the left in public policies wouldn't actually be in the country's interest.

It isn't simply being 'attached to comfort' with the implication things would get better if you abandoned that comfort. I think a reasonable discussion keeps open the possibility that Sanders' solutions aren't the right ones, they really do go too far, rather than just identifying narrowly self interested motives as the only reason anyone would resist them.

With that said, I'm not sure Sanders has a lower chance of beating Trump than the other candidates. Including the fact that Sanders losing the nomination after going to the convention with a delegate plurality would have a big cost in unity and enthusiasm. Same goes for any appearance the 'establishment' of the party is maneuvering against him in concert, having been caught doing it last time. So the alternative to Sanders has to win the nomination outright, not just be more 'electable' in a vacuum. A plan (like Bloomberg's might be in part) to win a contested convention I don't think produces an actually more electable candidate, considering party unity and enthusiasm. Thread is supposed to be about him, Bloomberg, I still don't see any real chance of him doing that, going to the convention with a delegate majority.
  #145  
Old 02-12-2020, 03:44 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Best outcome is a nasty public feud between Bloomie and Trump, that results in Bloomie pouring huge amounts of money in defeating Trump with whoever defeats Bloomie. Groovy.
  #146  
Old 02-12-2020, 08:29 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Because I don't really care when he got into the race, as long as he can beat Trump. I think he is the Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Bonus: I think he's a good, moral man who shares my opinion on climate change.
Nah, he's a racist, sexist asshole who shares our opinion about climate change, and may well be the Dem with the best chance of beating Trump.

I'm willing to dance with the devil if that's what it takes to save the world my son will spend his life in. And it may come down to that.
  #147  
Old 02-12-2020, 08:47 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
He will appear at the main train station here in Raleigh. Interesting choice. I figured he would be at a hotel ballroom but maybe they are all booked up.
  #148  
Old 02-12-2020, 08:58 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Nah, he's a racist, sexist asshole who shares our opinion about climate change, and may well be the Dem with the best chance of beating Trump.

I'm willing to dance with the devil if that's what it takes to save the world my son will spend his life in. And it may come down to that.
This, word for word.
  #149  
Old 02-12-2020, 09:04 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by sending millions of people to concentration camps. Do you think that if Hitler thinks he was doing this for good reasons that we should consider that when we look at his impact on history?
This fails utterly as an attempt at an analogy. Hitler's goal was to kill people. Bloomberg's goal was to prevent people from being killed.

Quote:
My response wasn't about you. The evidence showed that stop and frisk didn't work. If Bloomberg was motivated by "stopping the kids dying" then setting policy that worked against that goal puts his motivations in doubt.
Possibly, or it could simply mean that his policies failed in spite of his good intentions. But since you feel Bloomberg might have had other motivations, what might those be?

Quote:
Sometimes things are black and white. Some things are constitutional and some things aren't. These weren't random stops. They were being stopped purely on the basis of the colour of their skin. This is indefensible. Let me know when you've finished considering "both sides" and then if you can figure out a defense I would love to hear it.
Why the snark? It's tiring. I am not here to defend Stop and Frisk, and haven't done so. I was against it when it came out and I am against it now. This thread is about Bloomberg's campaign to become president. You think his policy disqualifies him completely, and I respect that opinion. I just happen to think that if someone is trying to save the lives of people, when he is literally trying to keep people alive who would otherwise be killed due to crime in the city he was elected to protect, that he should get some credit for it. But you just dismiss it out of hand, and imply some other motivation.
  #150  
Old 02-12-2020, 01:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post

From these two, and assuming Bloomberg had data to back up the idea that the neighborhoods where Stop and Frisk was implemented had higher crime rates, it is clear he did what he did to bring down crime and stop the murder of kids. That doesn't make the policy the right way to go about it, but it does show motivation. As for what I know now, I don't know that Bloomberg should be excoriated for this when his intentions were good.
Good intentions aren't enough, if they lead to bad policies. And this seems to illustrate a problematic Bloombergian mindset: "Let's keep doing what wasn't working before, but this time we'll throw more money at it". It's the attitude that brought us the Vietnam and Iraq wars.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017