"Mike" Bloomberg Presidential campaign, 2020

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fiddle_Peghead

You call those two things “un-nuanced.” I say they are are a shorthand way of getting to the heart of the matter of what each intended. One had good intentions, the other did not. No matter how you try, you can’t twist what Hitler did to compare it with Bloomberg.

…lets get to the heart of the matter. I believe that Hitler intended to “save lives” as much as Bloomberg intended to “save lives.” Or to put it bluntly: I don’t think Bloomberg was sincere and I don’t believe he deserves any credit.

But you can ignore Hitler if you like. We never have to talk about Hitler ever again. Lets talk about the anti-vaxxer. Shouldn’t anti-vaxxers get credit because they want to save lives? Its simple yes or no question.

Are you going retract what you erroneously said about my post or not? We both agree that the way Bloomberg went about this was wrong. Stop and Frisk was wrong. You must know (don’t you?) that when I’m talking about the science, it’s about how you can reduce deaths from gun violence, not about Stop and Frisk per se.

Retract?

Show me a reputable scientist who would advocate stop and frisk as a way to reduce deaths from gun violence. Just one. Claiming that “fewer guns means fewer deaths” is “science” and that Bloomberg looked at “this science” and on the basis of “this science” decided to ramp up a racist discriminatory unconstitutional policy is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

[poweroftheglory]

Bloomberg terrifies me far more than Trump being reelected. As bad as Trump is at least he is incompetent and lazy. Replacing Trump with a more competent racist right wing authoritarian is far more dire.

[tomndebb]

Banquet Bear, Thing Fish, Snowboarder Bo, Carnalk, and anyone else involved in insults or catty remarks: back off. Keep the discussion focussed on Bloomberg and stop waving around claims about what others posted–especially refrain from choosing to “interpret” what other poster have said. Accusations of what your opponent “really” said and demands for apologies have no bearing on Bloomberg’s candidacy. Take it to The BBQ Pit or e-mail.

[ /Moderating ]

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Banquet_Bear

…lets get to the heart of the matter. I believe that Hitler intended to “save lives” as much as Bloomberg intended to “save lives.” Or to put it bluntly: I don’t think Bloomberg was sincere and I don’t believe he deserves any credit.

Yes, I am aware of this. We disagree.

But you can ignore Hitler if you like. We never have to talk about Hitler ever again. Lets talk about the anti-vaxxer. Shouldn’t anti-vaxxers get credit because they want to save lives? Its simple yes or no question.

My apologies, but I told you how I feel about that analogy, and I don’t think it applies. I have no desire to get into that for that reason.

Retract?

Show me a reputable scientist who would advocate stop and frisk as a way to reduce deaths from gun violence. Just one. Claiming that “fewer guns means fewer deaths” is “science” and that Bloomberg looked at “this science” and on the basis of “this science” decided to ramp up a racist discriminatory unconstitutional policy is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

I guess I’m just not getting my point across. Let me try again. You made the anti-vax analogy, and I attempted to show you why I don’t think it applies. Let me quote what I said then:

Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, looked at the science saying fewer guns means fewer deaths, and tried to get guns off the streets to save lives.

When I say the science, I am talking about how Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, determined that the science, or research, if you like, said fewer guns means fewer deaths. Anti-vaxxers ignored science. To me, this refutes your analogy. But here is the key part: this is all that was necessary to refute your analogy (or at least I think so), and I did not intend in any way to suggest that Stop and Frisk was a good way to get guns off the streets. In fact, I’ve said numerous times that I think it was the wrong way. To be sure, I said “tried to get guns off the streets to save lives” in the above quote, but I should have left that out, because it obviously only confused the issue. Again, this was only about refuting, not about SaF

One more thing, and that is that you seem to be ignoring, again and again, that I don’t like Stop and Frisk and never have, but you continually reply to me as if I was thought it was a good idea.

[DSeid]

Perceptions of motivations matter to many voters.

The clip in which he said “Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city.” is read by many as something that should repel Black voters from him. And certainly some activists respond that way. But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

If the perception is that his intent was to seriously address the typically relatively ignored very serious issue of urban gun deaths, typically one that is within minority communities, then he will get some positive credit even if the attempt was misguided and ended up having racist impacts.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@DSeid

Perceptions of motivations matter to many voters.

The clip in which he said “Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city.” is read by many as something that should repel Black voters from him. And certainly some activists respond that way. But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

If the perception is that his intent was to seriously address the typically relatively ignored very serious issue of urban gun deaths, typically one that is within minority communities, then he will get some positive credit even if the attempt was misguided and ended up having racist impacts.

One of the problems I’ve always had about the gun violence debate in the US was that it’s essentially been reframed as a white issue - right wing militias and suburban school shootings. Gun violence has always had an outsized impact on minorities that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed. I think it particularly resonates with middle-aged black women with children, who are (I think) pretty reliable voters.

[Wesley_Clark]

@poweroftheglory

Bloomberg terrifies me far more than Trump being reelected. As bad as Trump is at least he is incompetent and lazy. Replacing Trump with a more competent racist right wing authoritarian is far more dire.

Bloomberg isn’t really right wing though. At least not according to his policy positions. But who knows how much of that is just to get elected.

What scares me about Bloomberg is he shows just how powerful the corrupting influence of money is. You can buy hundreds of millions of dollars in ads, painting a very one sided picture and offering no solutions and still poll at 10-15%, higher than all but the front runners. Plus the media aren’t critical of him while being overly critical of Sanders.

he got the DNC to change their rules to allow him to debate because of his money.

Plus Bloomberg has a history of offering financial incentives to build and break coalitions, or to gain support or stop criticisms of him.

He is basically showing first hand how billionaires can buy politics and he seems far more adept at it than the Koch brothers.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fiddle_Peghead

My apologies, but I told you how I feel about that analogy, and I don’t think it applies. I have no desire to get into that for that reason.

…we are talking about motivation. If you give Bloomberg a pass because he wanted to “save the kids” then you give the anti-vaxxer the very same pass because they wanted to “save the kids” as well.

I guess I’m just not getting my point across. Let me try again. You made the anti-vax analogy, and I attempted to show you why I don’t think it applies. Let me quote what I said then:

When I say the science, I am talking about how Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, determined that the science, or research, if you like, said fewer guns means fewer deaths. Anti-vaxxers ignored science. To me, this refutes your analogy. But here is the key part: this is all that was necessary to refute your analogy (or at least I think so), and I did not intend in any way to suggest that Stop and Frisk was a good way to get guns off the streets. In fact, I’ve said numerous times that I think it was the wrong way. To be sure, I said “tried to get guns off the streets to save lives” in the above quote, but I should have left that out, because it obviously only confused the issue. Again, this was only about refuting, not about SaF

I’ve still got nothing to retract. You’ve refuted nothing. Bringing the science of “gun control” into this debate is simply a distraction, a non-sequitur, simply another attempt by you to give Bloomberg a pass when he doesn’t deserve one.

One more thing, and that is that you seem to be ignoring, again and again, that I don’t like Stop and Frisk and never have, but you continually reply to me as if I was thought it was a good idea.

Its not that you think stop and frisk was a good idea. Its that you are acting like stop and frisk was merely a misguided police tactic and that Bloomberg should get a pass and even get some credit because his motives were allegedly good. Thats what I’m challenging. Posted today:

@Sean Perryman

I want to speak less about Mayor Bloomberg and more about the program he misused and the people it impacted.

People often refer to #stopandfrisk as if it were simply a misguided police tactic. I believe they envision it as an unpleasant but brief encounter with the police.

…

The times that I witnessed it, multiple police cars would pull up, grab as many Black men as they could, and slam them against the wall. They would shout “shut the fuck up,” “get against the wall,” and other expletives. They would not ask questions.

They would search your pockets, push you around, and demean you the entire time. When they finished, they would threaten to be back and that they better not see you when they came back. This was said to actual residents of the neighborhood.

Imagine the affect that has on you in your own neighborhood knowing you can be stopped at any time for any reason by people empowered to use violence against you without repercussions. Imagine the terror and resentment that builds.

The interesting thing is I never witnessed them make an arrest because they never actually found anything. I believe that was because it wasn’t about finding anything. They knew these weren’t criminals. I would later discover that my anecdotal experiences would bear out in data.

Sean Perryman

I mean **DSeid ** even characterises stop and frisk as “misguided and ended up having racist impacts.” You won’t even mention the impact the policy had on hundreds of thousands of people. Are you wondering why I said before that “apparently black lives don’t matter?” Because a racist fascist unconstitutional policy that terrorised communities of colour for a decade is being characterised as “misguided”. As “having racist impacts.” That we should give Bloomberg credit because he “wanted to save the kids.” It wasn’t merely misguided. It was anti-everything that America allegedly stands for. It didn’t just have “racist impacts.” It was racist from the get go. When it was declared unconstitutional by the courts Bloomberg continued to defend stop and frisk. He continued to defend it in 2015. He continued to defend it in January 2019. Why are people giving this man the time of day?

[China_Guy]

To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?

Bloomberg is a smart guy who’s platform revolutionized investment banking, has the war chest, has meaningful government experience (whether you agree or disagree with policies, at least he ran NY City), has some policy things I like regarding big money and wall street, and will stop the fiscal incontinence of the deficits only matter when it’s a Democrat in the White House. On top of all that, it appears deeply personal between Bloomberg and Trump, and Bloomberg knows how to get under Trump’s skin at least as well as Pelosi.

Bloomberg needs the right VEEP. A woman that is also a person of color is good marketing, and given mikey’s age, provide hope for a woman to finally crack that highest glass ceiling.

Biden is a has been that never was. Seriously, he never came close in his previous runs for the White House, so I’m mystified why folks think he is credible now. And, while Hunter didn’t do anything illegal (I think), the optics are terrible and a decade or so ago would have disqualified his father.

Bernie has his dedicated core of maybe 25% of the democratic electorate vs Trump with at least 30% of the total electorate. Haven’t seen any sign that Bernie can beat Trump like a drum.

Klobochar is too unknown and not raising the money needed. Plus, I don’t think she has broad appeal across the country.

Pete is very impressive but young. Much more someone to get a cabinet position and make a another run in 4, 8, 12 years. Pete can out debate trump, but won’t out twitter him, and that will cost votes.

But at the end of the day, I would vote for a small soap dish as an alternative to trump. So, whoever it is, they will have my support and my vote.

[Banquet_Bear]

@China_Guy

To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?

…the polls say **all **of the front runners can beat Trump. Are you guaranteeing that a Bloomberg nomination is the only candidate who will beat Trump?

This isn’t “one issue.” This isn’t about “purity.” I’m pointing out the obvious. But it isn’t the only thing. If you could assure me that Bloomberg was the only candidate capable of defeating Trump then you might have a point.

[DSeid]

@Banquet_Bear

…the polls say **all **of the front runners can beat Trump. …

Head to head polls are at this point still worth very little. To the degree they are worth something the bigger the cushion the better. (And Bloomberg does slightly better.)

The argument is based on which theory you subscribe to.

Sanders is the drive up excitement and turnout of younger progressives theory. And appeal to the Obama/Trump voters who are motivated by voting for disruptive change.

That theory could have merit and win the presidency. If he is the nominee I very much hope it does! But it has less potential merit in helping out in critical Senate races.
The Bloomberg theory relies on his alliances with mayors to get out the city vote, running up numbers there, winning the suburbs more solidly, and winning the Romney Republicans and Independents all the way over.

That theory could have merit and win the presidency. And seems more likely to me to have the desired Senate results.
To me the other issue is who is more likely to actually make any progress on any of the items in the Democratic wishlist if elected. Sanders has a poor record of actually getting shit done. Bloomberg knows how to make the business case for the items that might actually get some bipartisan support.

[Banquet_Bear]

@DSeid

Bloomberg knows how to make the business case for the items that might actually get some bipartisan support.

…Bloomberg supports racist fascist policies, is a misogynistic arsehole, and is unlikely to govern any differently if elected to be president of the United States. You’ve already got Trump. Bloomberg is a more intelligent Trump with a filter. He would obviously be better than Trump and if he is the nominee then everyone should get out to vote for him. But he deserves all the scrutiny that Kamala got for “being a cop” and that Warren got on “how to pay for her healthcare policies.” Stop and frisk should be disqualifying and that it isn’t says a lot about how important black lives are in America today.

The only theory I subscribe to is my personal “chaos theory.” And what we have right now: with Bloomberg essentially attempting to buy the nomination, is a huge injection of chaos into an already impossibly chaotic system. When you add in what Bloomberg is doing with what the Russians are doing, propaganda from the White House, disinformation campaigns, a disinterested media, along with algorithms gone wild, **nobody **knows how the next election is going to go. So you should vote for the person who you think would be the next best President of the United States. Not the person you think *might *get the most votes or the person that you *guess *might push them over the edge in the states that matter.

[RTFirefly]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I agree that the elimination of redlining was a huge contributing factor to the economic collapse of 2008, if not the single most important factor.

It’s over a decade since the collapse, and this is the first time I’m even hearing this claim. I rather think it needs substantiation.

I don’t give a fuck if he’s the devil if he’s MY devil. Are you unaware that THEY currently have a devil of their own in the White House? Who’s side are you on?

1. Atrios, yesterday:

One of my Great Insights in life has been that too many people who you would like to thing would know better are quite happy putting a bastard in charge as long as he’s “our bastard.” The thing is, even if that was defensible it never works out that way. Bastards are not “our” bastards, they’re just bastards.

This. Make him President, and he’ll do whatever he wants with the powers of the office, combined with the power of his money to move recalcitrant Congresspersons.

He’s likely to be a less awful bastard than Trump, but he won’t be ‘our’ bastard. He’ll be his own bastard.

2. Whose, not “who’s”.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Banquet_Bear

…we are talking about motivation. If you give Bloomberg a pass because he wanted to “save the kids” then you give the anti-vaxxer the very same pass because they wanted to “save the kids” as well.

I didn’t respond when I first read it, because I thought it was a bad analogy. But you brought it up again, so I read it again. Still thought so. The point is, I gave your argument the courtesy of consideration. I’m not sure you do the same for me. To wit:

I’ve still got nothing to retract. You’ve refuted nothing. Bringing the science of “gun control” into this debate is simply a distraction, a non-sequitur, simply another attempt by you to give Bloomberg a pass when he doesn’t deserve one.

You ignore the point, once again, the one thing I came into this discussion to for. If Bloomberg had a good reason to think that taking guns of the street would reduce lives, gun control is far from being a non-sequitur as to what I claim Bloomberg wanted to do. It is literally the thing that would stop what Bloomberg wanted to stop: death in the streets. You think it’s a non-sequitur because it doesn’t acknowledge the wrongness of stop and frisk, but for the last and final time, I’ve done that.

I mean DSeid even characterises stop and frisk as “misguided and ended up having racist impacts.” You won’t even mention the impact the policy had on hundreds of thousands of people. Are you wondering why I said before that “apparently black lives don’t matter?” Because a racist fascist unconstitutional policy that terrorised communities of colour for a decade is being characterised as “misguided”. As “having racist impacts.” That we should give Bloomberg credit because he “wanted to save the kids.” It wasn’t merely misguided. It was anti-everything that America allegedly stands for. It didn’t just have “racist impacts.” It was racist from the get go. When it was declared unconstitutional by the courts Bloomberg continued to defend stop and frisk. He continued to defend it in 2015. He continued to defend it in January 2019. Why are people giving this man the time of day?

Bold: You keep bringing this up, because it allows you to pretend I don’t care about it, and gives you an excuse not to respond to my initial point. As for the rest of that quote, you must be responding to someone else, because, for example, I have never said it wasn’t “anti-everything that America allegedly stands for”. I never said it wasn’t unconstitutional. Finally, I’ve said repeatedly I think Stop and Frisk was wrong. Can you please acknowledge that just once in this thread? If you choose not to, that’s fine, because I’ve said all I can say on this.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@DSeid

…But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

Precisely. To me, that shows he cares about solving the problem, even if stop and frisk was the wrong way to go about it.

[DSeid]

@Banquet_Bear

… Bloomberg is a more intelligent Trump with a filter. …

One who strongly believes that Climate Change is crisis for the world and has backed that belief up with action. One who has fought for real immigration reform with a path to citizenship for years. One whose WHO partnered Tobacco Control initiative has likely saved immeasurable lives in low and middle income countries worldwide. One who think Obamacare was a great accomplishment that can be built on with expansion of a public option as the next step. One who would nominate judges who are not toadies of the right. One who believes in promoting gun control as a matter of public health and who has fought hard to deliver on it.

If that is “a Trump” to you, then you have an assessment of Trump that is out of keeping with reality.

[Wesley_Clark]

@China_Guy

To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?

Bloomberg is a smart guy who’s platform revolutionized investment banking, has the war chest, has meaningful government experience (whether you agree or disagree with policies, at least he ran NY City), has some policy things I like regarding big money and wall street, and will stop the fiscal incontinence of the deficits only matter when it’s a Democrat in the White House. On top of all that, it appears deeply personal between Bloomberg and Trump, and Bloomberg knows how to get under Trump’s skin at least as well as Pelosi.

Bloomberg needs the right VEEP. A woman that is also a person of color is good marketing, and given mikey’s age, provide hope for a woman to finally crack that highest glass ceiling.

Biden is a has been that never was. Seriously, he never came close in his previous runs for the White House, so I’m mystified why folks think he is credible now. And, while Hunter didn’t do anything illegal (I think), the optics are terrible and a decade or so ago would have disqualified his father.

Bernie has his dedicated core of maybe 25% of the democratic electorate vs Trump with at least 30% of the total electorate. Haven’t seen any sign that Bernie can beat Trump like a drum.

Klobochar is too unknown and not raising the money needed. Plus, I don’t think she has broad appeal across the country.

Pete is very impressive but young. Much more someone to get a cabinet position and make a another run in 4, 8, 12 years. Pete can out debate trump, but won’t out twitter him, and that will cost votes.

But at the end of the day, I would vote for a small soap dish as an alternative to trump. So, whoever it is, they will have my support and my vote.

We are in an age when a lot of people in both parties realize that politics has been bought and sold by the wealthy. For a wealthy billionaire to swoop in and buy the nomination is going to cause a lot of backlash.

I don’t think Bloomberg is the best candidate to beat Trump because him winning the nomination will deeply demoralize voters who want to get money out of politics.

[septimus]

@DSeid

… But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. [sgs7 added emphasis] Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

Thank you, DSeid. I’ve laughed when this point arises in debates here: right-wingers raise this correct point; others accuse them of racism. :smack:

What are the stats on gun control advocacy? Am I correct that blacks are more likely than whites to favor gun control? And — [septimus dons asbestos suit] — one approach to getting illegal guns off the street is to target … people likely to be carrying illegal guns!

[Lantern]

I agree there is something troubling about Bloomberg’s rise powered by massive amounts of money. I have to think that his momentum will slow down dramatically once his record is examined more carefully. Aside from stop-and-frisk there are the sexual harassment lawsuits against his company and his large donations to Republicans. It would be rather absurd for the Democrats to nominate someone who endorsed George W Bush over Kerry in 2004. I also don’t think he would be a strong general election bet either. He would attract moderates but repel progressives and minorities and given his positions on gun control some working class whites as well. He is also a thoroughly mediocre speaker.

[CarnalK]

@Lantern

I agree there is something troubling about Bloomberg’s rise powered by massive amounts of money. I have to think that his momentum will slow down dramatically once his record is examined more carefully. Aside from stop-and-frisk there are the sexual harassment lawsuits against his company and his large donations to Republicans. It would be rather absurd for the Democrats to nominate someone who endorsed George W Bush over Kerry in 2004. I also don’t think he would be a strong general election bet either. He would attract moderates but repel progressives and minorities and given his positions on gun control some working class whites as well. He is also a thoroughly mediocre speaker.

I am rather confident stop and frisk will not be a big liability. I think a lot of people will think it a misguided “tough on crime” policy rather than “I want to put black people in jail” policy certain people in this thread are trying to characterize it as.

And I don’t think the party line crossing is an issue for really anyone but the hardcore party members.