There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
That's true of course, and don't you evaluate someone differently based upon their intent? What are we doing today that's embedded in our culture that will be considered racist or sexist in 20 years? Surely we're not at peak awareness.
I’m starting to think the whole Bloomberg as a savior idea might not work. Couple reasons....
1) Voters already know the good stuff about him. More and more negative things that either are or can be construed as racist/sexist/elitist will come out. Trump weathered that storm in 2016, but I’m blot sure Bloomberg will.
2) He seems very boring. The constant ads are one thing, but holding rallies and participating in debates is another.
3) His late entry might piss off the supporters of the currant candidates. Are the supporters of Biden, Amy, and Pete going to get behind him if he vanquishes them? From the perspective of those supporters, they’ve been in the fight with their candidates for months now. Now some rich asshole is basically buying the primary?
4) Nobody is going to be passionate about Bloomberg in a way they’re passionate about Sanders (or on the other side, Trump). Most people that support Bloomberg will do it under the notion of “Trump is bad, I want Trump gone, Bloomberg can do it.” That’s fine, and it might beat Sanders in the primary (probably via shady superdelegates lol). But Trump? As we saw with Hillary, just being the better option than Trump might not be enough. The winning candidate needs excitement and passion surrounding him (as Obama did, or as Sanders and Trump do) and I don’t see that happening with Bloomberg.
All true to some extent. I think he decided to join when he saw Bidens weakness. I don't think he anticipated anything from Pete or Amy. Maybe he thinks both are still weak. It's interesting how weak Pete is in national polling but he did so well in the two states. I'm guessing he just doesn't have the money to raise a national profile.
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
This topic has literally become people who don’t understand the recent history on NY trying to preach about the history of NY.
I would also hope your hiring strategies target members of the community that walked in those shoes, not some white kids from Long Island who don't know how they lived.
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
This topic has literally become people who don’t understand the recent history on NY trying to preach about the history of NY.
Another recent instance of the incorrect usage of “literally”.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
That's true of course, and don't you evaluate someone differently based upon their intent? What are we doing today that's embedded in our culture that will be considered racist or sexist in 20 years? Surely we're not at peak awareness.
What points of contention on Bloomberg are we still attributing to being a product of the time? The sexual harassment lawsuits were contemporaneous to his attributed comments and his quotes on race are from 9 years ago.
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
That's true of course, and don't you evaluate someone differently based upon their intent? What are we doing today that's embedded in our culture that will be considered racist or sexist in 20 years? Surely we're not at peak awareness.
What points of contention on Bloomberg are we still attributing to being a product of the time? The sexual harassment lawsuits were contemporaneous to his attributed comments and his quotes on race are from 9 years ago.
I don't think the sex comments are okay. I said as much yesterday when I read through the Post article you linked. Regarding the race, I still don't think the PBS interview was racist by intent (as a nod to OftenReading). Think about that entire answer if the question was "AA and Hispanic youth are disproportionately over represented in the prison population and under represented in the work force. What are you going to do to help reverse that trend in your city?" And then he answered with that. Or, even more likely, that's the problem statement that Soros and Bloom were tackling with their initiative.
I would also hope your hiring strategies target members of the community that walked in those shoes, not some white kids from Long Island who don't know how they lived.
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
That's true of course, and don't you evaluate someone differently based upon their intent? What are we doing today that's embedded in our culture that will be considered racist or sexist in 20 years? Surely we're not at peak awareness.
Helpful intent is better than harmful intent, that's true, but in practice the result might be much the same, and helpful intent is cold comfort to individuals and communities that have nonetheless been harmed. Helpful intent is also not nearly enough; one needs to do the due diligence to actually learn about the situation with an open mind and not just charge in, believing you have the answer. In this case, we're not talking about the early years of the Civil Rights movement, we're talking about statements and actions that weren't really all that long ago, when someone with an open mind and an interest in learning, rather than just a brain full of preconceive notions, could have seen how some of his policies were actually perpetuating the situation rather than improving it.
He has apologized for some of what he is responsible for, which is a good start, and more than many have done.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There's a big issue that is being missed here that is leading to people arguing in circles. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters that if someone is in some way "trying to help" that means by definition they are not racist, but simply put, that's hogwash. History is rife with racist do-gooders who were "trying to help". It's quite possible that Bloomberg was both genuinely trying to help Black and Latino individuals and still harboured significantly racist ideas.
That's true of course, and don't you evaluate someone differently based upon their intent? What are we doing today that's embedded in our culture that will be considered racist or sexist in 20 years? Surely we're not at peak awareness.
Helpful intent is better than harmful intent, that's true, but in practice the result might be much the same, and helpful intent is cold comfort to individuals and communities that have nonetheless been harmed. Helpful intent is also not nearly enough; one needs to do the due diligence to actually learn about the situation with an open mind and not just charge in, believing you have the answer. In this case, we're not talking about the early years of the Civil Rights movement, we're talking about statements and actions that weren't really all that long ago, when someone with an open mind and an interest in learning, rather than just a brain full of preconceive notions, could have seen how some of his policies were actually perpetuating the situation rather than improving it.
He has apologized for some of what he is responsible for, which is a good start, and more than many have done.
Do you think this specific initiative, that we've been discussing, is racist? And do you think, in full context, that the description of it is racist?
Nobody in here voted for the chick in yellow, right?
Proudly. Would again.
Reluctantly. Would not again.
So if we wound the clock by to '16, you'd vote Trump, third party, or would sit it out? Now if you don't live in a swing state, that's kind of a cop out...
That ad seemed as damning as any ad against Trump I saw in 2016. If this is the stuff that's running against him before he even participates in a debate or primary, I can't imagine what they'll be running when he's actually a part of the race.
Bloomberg seems like a legitimate businessman while Trump is as shady and corrupt as a businessman can be. So advantage Bloomberg there. But personality-wise, they seem pretty similar.
Nobody in here voted for the chick in yellow, right?
Proudly. Would again.
Reluctantly. Would not again.
So if we wound the clock by to '16, you'd vote Trump, third party, or would sit it out? Now if you don't live in a swing state, that's kind of a cop out...
Comments
Nate Silver 538
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Yeah, uh huh...sign me up for this.
Khakis and pleats for dayyyyyyysssss
No one golfs in khakis anymore, even old guys.
Nobody in here voted for the chick in yellow, right?
So good.
Those of us who lived thru the homicide spike in NYC from 1970 to 1995 are not so flippant about crime stats.
closer to $666.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Helpful intent is better than harmful intent, that's true, but in practice the result might be much the same, and helpful intent is cold comfort to individuals and communities that have nonetheless been harmed. Helpful intent is also not nearly enough; one needs to do the due diligence to actually learn about the situation with an open mind and not just charge in, believing you have the answer. In this case, we're not talking about the early years of the Civil Rights movement, we're talking about statements and actions that weren't really all that long ago, when someone with an open mind and an interest in learning, rather than just a brain full of preconceive notions, could have seen how some of his policies were actually perpetuating the situation rather than improving it.
He has apologized for some of what he is responsible for, which is a good start, and more than many have done.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Bloomberg seems like a legitimate businessman while Trump is as shady and corrupt as a businessman can be. So advantage Bloomberg there. But personality-wise, they seem pretty similar.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com