Bloomberg for President

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

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.

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1229518469932122119?s=20

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.

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

The Juggler said:

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...

He lives in Pennsylvania. 

Come on Ledbetter....

mrussel misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I meant it as I reluctantly voted for her in 2016, but not regrettably. I'm not saying I'd go back to 2016 to change my vote. I'm saying that if she was ever in a future election, I wouldn't vote for her in that. I thought mrussel was implying he’d like to vote for her in the future if there was an opportunity to.   

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

The Juggler said:

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...

He lives in Pennsylvania. 

Come on Ledbetter....

mrussel misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I meant it as I reluctantly voted for her in 2016, but not regrettably. I'm not saying I'd go back to 2016 to change my vote. I'm saying that if she was ever in a future election, I wouldn't vote for her in that. I thought mrussel was implying he’d like to vote for her in the future if there was an opportunity to.   

Well if she was the D nominee, absolutely.  If she was in the D field as it stands today, not necessarily.  I voted for Obama in the primary in 08, Clinton in 16.  Today I'm split between Amy and Pete, depending on who I think has Klomentum between now and VA primary.  

I voted for Hillary in '08 (back when I was still a democrat) but even then I was kind of reluctant. I just felt, at the time, that she'd have a better chance than Obama in the general. Voted for her again in 2016 general. Again, reluctantly, just because I won't vote for Trump (because that's EXACLTY what he wants you to do!) but in a hypothetical situation where she was the 2020 nominee, I'd vote third-party or do a silly write-in (I've voted Les Claypool for Vice-President in four straight elections). 

As for me today, again, I'm no longer a democrat so I can't vote in the primary, but if I was, I'm not sure how I'd vote. I feel Biden has the best chance against Trump in a general, but will he even make it out of the primary? Or even last until Pennsylvania in April? I like Sanders, but I don't think many of his ideas are feasible. I like Pete the best of the bunch, but I don't think he's very electable in a general. Not now as Mayor Pete. But years from now as Senator Pete or Governor Pete, maybe he'd have a shot. 

Nevertheless, taking out electability in the general, and just basing it on who I like the most out of Bloomberg, Biden, Pete, Amy, and Sanders, I'd vote for Pete if I was a still a Dem. 

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

Also, "hey it's not racist, I'm just quoting crime stats" is quite literally a Breitbart move

Those of us who lived thru the homicide spike in NYC from 1970 to 1995 are not so flippant about crime stats.

Stop-and-frisk was good from your view?

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

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. 

Excuse me?

Beg your pardon?

What’s wrong with lawn guy land whites?

I don't like cis straight male whites.  It's that simple.  

Over.my.head.