"This should disqualify Michael Bloomberg"

[emmaverybo]

Snip———————————————-

This should disqualify Michael Bloomberg

Opinion by Jill Filipovic
Updated 7:28 PM ET, Tue February 11, 2020

CNN)If you need proof that Michael Bloomberg is the absolute wrong person to lead the diverse Democratic coalition to victory in 2020, look no further than a recently resurfaced 2015 recording of him defending not only the controversial policy of stop-and-frisk but violent, racist policing in New York City. Writer Benjamin Dixon, who supports Senator Bernie Sanders, posted the audio to Twitter on Monday.

You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed," Bloomberg can be heard saying. "You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets, put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."
So, one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that is true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that is true. Why did we do it? Because that's where all the crime is," Bloomberg says. "And the way you get the guns out of the kid's hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."

Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims" are male minorities between 16 to 25, Bloomberg says.

This is actually not true -- not in New York City, and not nationwide. In 2015, reportedly the same year as this recording of Bloomberg, black men committed 36% of murders, and were 52% of murder victims, according to FBI data cited by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. White men were 30% of murderers and 43% of murder victims. According to FBI statistics from 2015, just under 16% of male murder victims were Latino or Hispanic and less than 10% of offenders were Latino or Hispanic.

These statements should be disqualifying for Bloomberg on their face: We definitely don't need another president who uses racist scare tactics and outlandishly false claims to justify his bad policy goals. In his response to CNN about the recording, Bloomberg said of stop and frisk, "this issue and my comments about it do not reflect my commitment to criminal justice reform and racial equity."


https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/opinions/bloomberg-recording-racism-stop-and-frisk-filipovic/index.html

[oldsoftie]

1. So if he's the eventual nominee, you wont vote for him?

[ibegurpard]

3. Where did the OP say that?

We're in a primary not the GE. I'd vote for him in the GE but I'd prefer not to have to.

[oldsoftie]

12. Thats why its phrased as a QUESTION.

[LanternWaste]

5. Who (other than yourself) is arguing that line of thought?

As that sentiment was neither stated nor implied, it seems like quite a leap of grade-school petulance to get from here to there.

[oldsoftie]

13. Its a question. Which even the most petulant can understand. Usually.

[stopdiggin]

20. asked, and answered. about 100 times so far.

on numerous threads. But did you have a point?

[Cal Carpenter]

10. I think we first need to ask his defenders how the actual fuck he can represent the Democratic Party

before forcing hypothetical loyalty oaths about November.

Because it should be inconceivable and no one should have to answer your question.

[emmaverybo]

17. I did not find a better way to say it. Thank you.

[stopdiggin]

21. thank you. 100+. tired of this. (nt)

[emmaverybo]

15. Our party should disavow him. We are trading one racist for another because the second racists"

money could beat the first’s. True, I do not believe Bloomberg will be a national security threat, a threat to the world’s safety, to the planet we inhabit. Lesser of two evils. Do I vote for Hitler or the man who just carried out a small piece of his plan and thought like him?

I will not vote for Bloomberg in the primary. I will hope he is not our nominee so I am not forced to vote for him in the GE.

We are often asked this question when we criticize a candidate we either believe can not win the GE or, as in this case, actually a singular one, betrays our party’s principles. The question begs the answer which is yes, and in effect says “See! Next to the need to get rid of Trump, your criticism amounts to nothing so STFU.”

It proposes a false choice, with Bloomberg, to overlook his recent racist history, which he did not apologize for until he decided to run, or to give Trump another four years.

No. You don’t silence or minimize my criticism that easily with “the bottom line.” We are in a primary contest. I believe Michael Bloomberg’s racism should disqualify him from running.

I further believe his money to be a pernicious influence on our party.

I don’t choose Bloomberg over Trump right now because I don’t have to. I hope and pray Democratic voters will see the light and vote for another primary candidate before the GE.

[mr_lebowski]

2. Three and half years ago I'd have been deeply offended ...

15K lies later, after children in cages and barrages of 'mexicans are rapists and muslim's must be banned', I'm kinda like ... eh, as long as that's as bad as it gets ... sounds like a significant improvement.

I'd also add, when someone quips '99% of the time ... such and such', I generally think to myself ... They're conveying a general idea ... they don't mean they've literally checked the statistics, and that's the exact correct number.

[LanternWaste]

7. Seems a lot of us are justifying lowering our standards.

[mr_lebowski]

9. Are you expecting me to try to deny it?

Wish I could, but ... Desperate Times and all that ...

[Squinch]

26. Yes. I am. Because the Democracy is crumbling around us.

[progressoid]

4. We keep saying the African American vote is critical in this election.

This seems like a pretty big hurdle in the way of getting their support.

[mr_lebowski]

11. I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth but I'd speculate ...

That a significant number of people living in the minority neighborhoods in question actually hear something like this and think ... yeah ... there is a lot of crime here, and we do need the government to do something, send more police, and get the bad guys the hell out, and protect the good kids who are just trying to live their lives, go to school, get ahead, etc.

That's just a guess, however.

And I'm certain the sentiment would be far from universal ... but significant nonetheless.

[progressoid]

16. If it's enough to depress the AA vote even a bit, it could be devastating.

Especially if the election is close like 2016.

[mr_lebowski]

22. To that ... I will most definitely stipulate (nt)

[stopdiggin]

24. I think "stop and frisk" had a pretty bad rep

in minority communities within a VERY short period of time. MY guess is that it retained it's popularity in the burbs (and TV land) somewhat longer. But that's sort of to be expected .. when it's not YOUR neck being stepped on.

(it's true that minority communities were crying out about crime .. it's just that they learned that the "solution" turned out o be worse than the problem)

[mr_lebowski]

28. I have no counter argument ... other than to say I've oft been surprised about particular people

that AA voters have coalesced around.

I honestly wouldn't have thought Bill Clinton would be popular with AA's after his presidency. He did sign a number of bills that I thought would be perceived as harmful to minority communities ... but it didn't seem to make them hate him in droves like I feared they might at the time.

I don't typically try to guess who's going to resonate with the average African American voter anymore, because I'm usually off-base, frankly.

I do think that in this election they're going to be very motivated to vote for whoever wins the nomination though ...

I mean ... at least I'm pretty sure lol ...

[stopdiggin]

30. agree. pretty much down the line.

and I also bring up the point that a lot of PoC I'm familiar with .. are a good deal more conservative (by most measures) than I am.

[patricia92243]

6. Five years ago.

[jmg257]

8. In NYC, it was damn close...(& likely places like Chicago would be/are similar.)

Per 2012 NYPD Police Report, (and those before and after)

Murder and Non-Negligent
Manslaughter victims are most frequently
Black (60.1%) or Hispanic (26.7%).

The race/ethnicity of known Murder
and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects
mirrors the victim population with Black
(53.7%) and Hispanic (34.8%)

Shooting victims are most frequently
Black (74.1%) or Hispanic (22.2%). White
victims account for an additional (2.8%) of all
Shooting victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders
victims account for (0.8%) of all Shooting
Victims.

The race/ethnicity of known Shooting
suspects is most frequently Black (78.2%).
Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional
(18.9%) of all suspects

The Firearm Arrest population is most
frequently Black (73.2%) or Hispanic (21.5%).

The most frequently occurring
race/ethnic group within the Violent Felony
suspects is Black, accounting for (66.0%).
Hispanic suspects account for an additional
(26.1%)

2015...

Murder and Non-Negligent
Manslaughter victims are most frequently
Black (63.7%) or Hispanic (27.6%).

The race/ethnicity of known Murder
and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects
mirrors the victim population with Black
(62.1%) and Hispanic (29.6%)

Shooting victims are most frequently
Black (73.3%) or Hispanic (23.2%).

The race/ethnicity of known Shooting
suspects is most frequently Black (71.2%).
Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional
(25.6%) of all suspects

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year_end_2015_enforcement_report.pdf

Of course - as pointed out here on DU, suspects and arrests do not equal actual perpetrators- especially if they are targeted disproportionately.

And of course the whole stop and frisk thing is BS!!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287510064


Edit for Chicago circa 2016..

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/chicago-75-murdered-are-black-71-murderers-are-black

and Recent, via Wiki:

"75.3% of victims and 70.5% of offenders were African American, 18.9% were Hispanic (20.3% of offenders), and whites were 5.6% of victims (3.5% of offenders). "

[mr_lebowski]

14. Indeed, pretty damn close to the claimed 95% ... thanks for the facts (nt)

[oldsoftie]

18. Facts are often ignored here when they're not popular.

And a few, who never have anything to offer in a conversation, will be quick to pounce on you. And me for pointing it out.
The article is quick to point out "national figures"; while ignoring the REST of his quote where he mentions "cities".
It also fails to adjust for the % of population each group holds

[jmg257]

19. Yep - don't let "facts" stand in the way of a good hack job!

And this OP's were just flat out wrong.

"This is actually not true -- not in New York City, and not nationwide. In 2015, reportedly the same year as this recording..."

CNN sucked it, here.

[oldsoftie]

29. Exactly. That line right there. nt

[mr_lebowski]

23. Indeed .. also, as I mentioned above, when someone throws out something like ...

"95% of the time ... such and such" I take that as a sign that the person is conveying the idea that something is very common, not that they are claiming they literally checked the statistics and are giving us the precise number, and that is 95%.

[emmaverybo]

25. Honestly, whatever the statistics, Bloomberg's crime fighting tactic, to deny young black and Latino

males their civil liberties and brutalize them, was a racist one which violated the fourth amendment, a law that stands between all of us and a police state.

Profiling is racist.

Bloomberg did not lower crime. He exacerbated tensions between communities of color and the police. 88 percent of the five million men stopped had no weapons. Of those who did, reports did not make distinctions between a knife and a gun. Of those carrying guns, reports did not disclose if
the gun was going to be used in the commission of a crime or for self-defense. But under the policy it was assumed a)all young black and Latino men could be armed b) all could potentially be armed murderers c) all found with weapons should be arrested on the spot

Can’t believe DUers have become apologists for racist crime fighting.

[honest.abe]

27. Actually 95% is exactly correct for NYC 2010

The 2010 report:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/yearend2010enforcementreport.pdf

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (67.0%) or Hispanic (24.7%). White victims account for (5.0%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims while Asian /Pacific Islanders account for (3.3%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims.

The race/ethnicity of known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects mirrors the victim population with Black (60.9%) and Hispanic (30.7%) suspects accounting for the majority of suspects. White suspects account for (4.9%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (3.5%) of the known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects.

Black: 67%
Hispanic: 24.7%
Asian/Pac Islanders: 3.3%
=================
Total minorities: 95%

[Hearthrob]

31. Electoral college

I still don't understand all the emphasis on the popular vote.
Reps still outnumber us b/o the college will mostly be intact this year.
It will still not count until 2024-
unless 2022 is the significant factor as the lead in to 2024.
What am I not getting here?