New poll says Bloomberg is in 4th place

[Anonymous]

Nope. He won’t commit treason, destroy our senate, remove all checks and balances, demand pure loyalty to him and not the constitution.

Eff Trump and the debt laden train he came in on.

Blue No Matter Who - because ALL of the Blue candidates have flaws, just like you and me —- but they are ALL patriots, not dictators, not intentional chaos machines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. He won’t commit treason, destroy our senate, remove all checks and balances, demand pure loyalty to him and not the constitution.

Eff Trump and the debt laden train he came in on.

Blue No Matter Who - because ALL of the Blue candidates have flaws, just like you and me —- but they are ALL patriots, not dictators, not intentional chaos machines.

x 1 million

[Anonymous]

I am beginning to wonder if Bloomberg would be the right guy but I have heard that he is committed to using his money to make sure a Democrat is the next President even if it's not him. For that reason I salute him.

[Anonymous]

It is truly a devastating sight to watch liberals who have winced for years at Donald Trump’s issues on wealth, race and women allow fear, propaganda and influence mercenaries to push them into supporting a man who has his own issues concerning wealth, women and race.

#nothanks to the liberal hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am beginning to wonder if Bloomberg would be the right guy but I have heard that he is committed to using his money to make sure a Democrat is the next President even if it's not him. For that reason I salute him.

Democrats would be better off if Bloomberg contributed his $2 billion to buy the Senate for democrats and stay a private citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am beginning to wonder if Bloomberg would be the right guy but I have heard that he is committed to using his money to make sure a Democrat is the next President even if it's not him. For that reason I salute him.

Democrats would be better off if Bloomberg contributed his $2 billion to buy the Senate for democrats and stay a private citizen.

It's starting to appear that way although I don't think anything Bloomberg has done is any worse than everything Trump has done and what he represents, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is truly a devastating sight to watch liberals who have winced for years at Donald Trump’s issues on wealth, race and women allow fear, propaganda and influence mercenaries to push them into supporting a man who has his own issues concerning wealth, women and race.

#nothanks to the liberal hypocrisy.

#Give me the totally in your face conservative hypocrisy. Abortion never! Except if it's my unintended kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are particularly high crime neighborhoods, it makes sense to target them for stop and frisk. If they happen to be majority black or Latino... is this racial profiling? Or simply the fact that there is higher probability of stopping someone who represents the majority of the inhabitants?

The greater problem with Mike Bloomberg is that in the 2 videos on this thread(and in the news), he makes it pretty clear that it was actually racial profiling. And these videos are from 5 years ago.

Stopping people from groups that statistically commit more crimes might be called profiling, or... data driven approach.
Black and Latino leaders should work with their communities on reducing crime, instead of investing all their energy into fighting “racial profiling”.

A "data driven" approach that resulted in about 90% of innocent black and latino young men being stopped and frisked.

Why don't you and Bloomberg introduce a "data driven" approach for searching white boys before they enter school campuses because they are more likely to commit mass shootings?

They weren’t jailed or abused were they?
And yes I support profiling of white boys too.
I am a mom of one.

So why has it not happened? Bloomberg has been crying "gun control" . Why didn't he propose his "winning" strategy of stopping and frisking white kids to deal with mass shootings at schools?

And yes, some young black men were frisked and then arrested for marijuana possession. Mind you, white men with similar profiles would therefore have much less marijuana arrests because they were not randomly stopped and frisked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are particularly high crime neighborhoods, it makes sense to target them for stop and frisk. If they happen to be majority black or Latino... is this racial profiling? Or simply the fact that there is higher probability of stopping someone who represents the majority of the inhabitants?

The greater problem with Mike Bloomberg is that in the 2 videos on this thread(and in the news), he makes it pretty clear that it was actually racial profiling. And these videos are from 5 years ago.

Stopping people from groups that statistically commit more crimes might be called profiling, or... data driven approach.
Black and Latino leaders should work with their communities on reducing crime, instead of investing all their energy into fighting “racial profiling”.

A "data driven" approach that resulted in about 90% of innocent black and latino young men being stopped and frisked.

Why don't you and Bloomberg introduce a "data driven" approach for searching white boys before they enter school campuses because they are more likely to commit mass shootings?

They weren’t jailed or abused were they?
And yes I support profiling of white boys too.
I am a mom of one.

So why has it not happened? Bloomberg has been crying "gun control" . Why didn't he propose his "winning" strategy of stopping and frisking white kids to deal with mass shootings at schools?

And yes, some young black men were frisked and then arrested for marijuana possession. Mind you, white men with similar profiles would therefore have much less marijuana arrests because they were not randomly stopped and frisked.

1) I don’t know but I would support any safety measures at schools, be it metal detectors or “profiled” stop and frisk.
It is our kids’ safety.
2) don’t carry marijuana if it’s illegal. Doesn’t matter if you’re black or white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am beginning to wonder if Bloomberg would be the right guy but I have heard that he is committed to using his money to make sure a Democrat is the next President even if it's not him. For that reason I salute him.

Democrats would be better off if Bloomberg contributed his $2 billion to buy the Senate for democrats and stay a private citizen.

He’s basically said he’s investing in Dem candidates if he doesn’t getting the nomination.

And if he gets the nom, then he will continue to fund his own campaign precisely so the Dems won’t have to; then they can invest what they would have spent on the presidential election on other Dem races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are particularly high crime neighborhoods, it makes sense to target them for stop and frisk. If they happen to be majority black or Latino... is this racial profiling? Or simply the fact that there is higher probability of stopping someone who represents the majority of the inhabitants?

The greater problem with Mike Bloomberg is that in the 2 videos on this thread(and in the news), he makes it pretty clear that it was actually racial profiling. And these videos are from 5 years ago.

Stopping people from groups that statistically commit more crimes might be called profiling, or... data driven approach.
Black and Latino leaders should work with their communities on reducing crime, instead of investing all their energy into fighting “racial profiling”.

A "data driven" approach that resulted in about 90% of innocent black and latino young men being stopped and frisked.

Why don't you and Bloomberg introduce a "data driven" approach for searching white boys before they enter school campuses because they are more likely to commit mass shootings?

They weren’t jailed or abused were they?
And yes I support profiling of white boys too.
I am a mom of one.

So why has it not happened? Bloomberg has been crying "gun control" . Why didn't he propose his "winning" strategy of stopping and frisking white kids to deal with mass shootings at schools?

And yes, some young black men were frisked and then arrested for marijuana possession. Mind you, white men with similar profiles would therefore have much less marijuana arrests because they were not randomly stopped and frisked.

1) I don’t know but I would support any safety measures at schools, be it metal detectors or “profiled” stop and frisk.
It is our kids’ safety.
2) don’t carry marijuana if it’s illegal. Doesn’t matter if you’re black or white.

1. What you and Bloomberg would or would not support in your head is very different from the racist impact of Bloomberg's actual policies. That was my point. You get to keep your fantasy moral high ground while supporting a racist policy. Good for you. It must feel good to have that kind of privilege when you have white kids.

2. If you cannot even acknowlegde that it is problematic that many young men, white and minorities possessed marijuana while Stop and Frisk policies made it much more likely that black men were arrested for possession, you are just as devoid of empathy and a sense of fairness as Bloomberg is. Good on you for finding your perfect candidate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am beginning to wonder if Bloomberg would be the right guy but I have heard that he is committed to using his money to make sure a Democrat is the next President even if it's not him. For that reason I salute him.

Democrats would be better off if Bloomberg contributed his $2 billion to buy the Senate for democrats and stay a private citizen.

He’s basically said he’s investing in Dem candidates if he doesn’t getting the nomination.

And if he gets the nom, then he will continue to fund his own campaign precisely so the Dems won’t have to; then they can invest what they would have spent on the presidential election on other Dem races.

In a perfect world he funds a Sanders or Gabbard or similar. But I’m guessing he just wants to throw money at the Democrats’ decades-old failed model.