Well hopefully this puts an end to his wasteful spending spree....

Also, I bet people decrying racial profiling live in safe neighborhoods. How about law abiding citizens who can’t afford to live anywhere but crime ridden neighborhoods? I bet they support profiling if it means more safety for their kids.

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?

Mass shootings? I think we need a data driven approach to figuring out who becomes an oligarch. Oligarchs cause way, way more damage than mass shooters. In addition to picking out white guys, look for Ivy League degrees and rich friends. Corner those guys and given them hell until they spill on looting the society and buying off politicians.

So dumb!
And actually since the US cannot ban guns, I support metal detectors at schools.
Democracy is all good, until 9/11 happens.

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.

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?

Mass shootings? I think we need a data driven approach to figuring out who becomes an oligarch. Oligarchs cause way, way more damage than mass shooters. In addition to picking out white guys, look for Ivy League degrees and rich friends. Corner those guys and given them hell until they spill on looting the society and buying off politicians.

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?

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”.

Quite possibly the dumbest post on this thread. People don’t commit crimes because they are black or Latino. They commit them because they are poor or have no hope or good family structures and love. It just happens to be that in many big cities that social demographic happens to be blacks and Latinos. Profiling just perpetuates the cycle. Profiling is also about quotas and stats and not actually “protecting and serving”.

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”.

Alexa, How do you define "arrogant?"

No doubt in my mind that this is why they floated Hillary as VP.
Deflect attention from this story. This is really damning stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bloomberg-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Put a fork in him.

Can’t wait to establishment Dems to spin this!

“It’s a f****g baby! It doesn’t know the difference between you and anyone else,” Bloomberg yelled at an employee trying to find childcare.

“All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”

Just wow.

Now I have heard it all. I said it earlier in this thread. This guy sounds a lot like Trump. It will be an effing shame if Democrats nominate this idiot.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bloomberg-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Put a fork in him.

Can’t wait to establishment Dems to spin this!

“It’s a f****g baby! It doesn’t know the difference between you and anyone else,” Bloomberg yelled at an employee trying to find childcare.

“All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess today's Washington Post article on his crude behavior towards women will kill him. Republican women may put up with that s***, but most women won't.

Bill Clinton biting the lips of his rape victims?

that was a long long time ago. things have changed. we won't take that anymore

Move those goalposts!

Yes, I'm happy to move them in the right direction. That stuff never should have been allowed. I feel very sorry for the women of that generation. But just because women were abused in the past doesn't mean we have to put up with it forever.

It could be that many women didn't want the first female president to be a woman who was married to a past president and looked past his cheating and abuse of other women for the sake of her own career ambitions.

That might be one reason why she didn't win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bloomberg-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Put a fork in him.