"Mike" Bloomberg Presidential campaign, 2020

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Banquet_Bear

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.

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?

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.