quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Pick a topic and look at his interviews. He comes off like an idiot. Even to the untrained he comes across as a smug, rich white guy who has an opinion about controlling everything.

Fixed it for you.

It appears the party selected shill over bern in 2016 against the will of the dim voters. Even though it makes their voters mad and stay home, it may be that the party has the power to and can pick whoever they want regardless of the primary vote. Either that or the party is corrupt as hell and doesn't follow their own rules to select their nominee.

In 2016 they either allowed or selected a flawed and beatable candidate to get the nomination, maybe because she was owed it, or they were really stupid about her chances of winning. I think the party is more likely to pick the candidate they think has the greatest chance of winning in 2020, possibly disregarding their voters. But when you add the money factor, doomberg probably owns the DNC with one large cash infusion, which certainly alters the nominee selection process.

I think we are about to see if money can buy a nomination, the will of the voters be damned. Money rules and gives control to the party, and so maybe a nomination can be bought. Doomberg is going to want something for his donation and isn't likely to just walk away with nothing.

The dim party would likely be in shambles if doomberg buys the nomination over the candidate that gets the most votes, likely Bernie. I think Bernie would step down quietly if the party wants him to, he knows his days are numbered and he may not be able to hack a campaign until election day. Maybe Bernie will stay in, and doomberg is really campaigning for his VP spot, which looks good to become president if Bernie won.

quote:

Originally posted by dave7378: This guy projects nothing but elitism. He knows what is best for you, just ask him.

Heck, even my 14 year old nephew could shoot a "Stop & Frisk"-themed cellphone camera video that would drop Bloomers into the crapper. Starring nothing but the white cat and a Hillary finger puppet. Which would beg answer to one question. Was he lying then, or lying now? Can't guess what Pres.Trump will come up with once the gloves are off.

He's run into a little problem. Check today's headlines.

Bloomberg Proposes Doubling America’s Intake of Refugees from Obama Years

https://www.breitbart.com/2020...es-from-obama-years/



Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is promising to nearly double the intake of refugees admitted to the U.S. under the Obama administration.

Bloomberg, whom polls show is gaining traction in his quest for the 2020 Democrat nomination, released his proposal for overhauling America’s immigration and refugee laws on Monday. The plan, based on policies the mayor implemented during his tenure at the helm of New York City, is being touted as beneficial to not only the country’s diversity, but also its profit margins.

The proposal states:

As the grandson of immigrants, Mike understands that immigration has been and always will be one of America’s greatest strengths. His plan focuses on … tapping into the dedication and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants to grow our economy and enrich our communities.

One way that Bloomberg hopes to “grow and enrich” the economy is by increasing the number of refugees allowed into the country annually. If elected, Bloomberg hopes to accept 125,000 refugees if elected—nearly doubling the intake accepted under former President Barack Obama. A portion of the new refugees will be individuals fleeing the impact of climate change, an idea also favored by Bloomberg’s more progressive rivals, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer.

“During his first year in office, Mike will set the target for refugee admissions at 125,000, and—recognizing the changing conditions causing displacement—will also establish a precedent for people permanently displaced by climate change to qualify as refugees,” Bloomberg’s plan states.

The proposed numbers stand in stark contrast to the 18,000 refugees President Donald Trump’s administration is on track to accept between October 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020.

Trump’s refugee policy, which has shrunk the number of incoming individuals to levels unseen since 1980, is central to his agenda for raising wages and living standards for the American worker. The president and his allies have argued that a tight labor market benefits workers already in the country by pushing companies to invest in skill training and development. It also has the benefit of boosting wages, as there is a smaller pool of workers competing for open positions.

The president’s policy differs from that of his predecessor. During former President Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House, the number of displaced persons being resettled in the U.S. increased drastically. Between 2008 and 2017, more than 67,000 refugees on average were admitted into the country. The total would have been larger if Republicans had not stymied Obama’s efforts to admit 110,000 displaced persons, most notably from Syria, during his final year in office.

Overall, as of 2005, nearly 860,000 refugees have been resettled across America—a large proportion going to areas that have lagged behind the rest of the country in economic growth since the Great Recession. The incoming refugees have stressed the already depleted resources of state and local governments. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that it costs taxpayers more than $64,000 over five years to resettle one Syrian refugee. To resettle an entire family, the cost estimate rises to more than $257,000 over five years.

Complicating matters is the education levels of recently admitted refugees has plummeted, according to data analyzed by CIS. In 1996, only 35 percent of incoming refugees lacked a high school diploma. By 2015, the number had skyrocketed to 51 percent. The low educational attainment levels help explain why 56 percent of refugee households received food stamps or other government benefits in 2015.

Despite the murky economic picture, Bloomberg is not only promising to accept more refugees, but he’s also lashing out at those who disagree. Last month, during a campaign swing through Texas, the former mayor attacked Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) for his decision to halt refugee resettlement.

“This is America. We shouldn’t be doing this,” the former mayor told The Dallas Morning News at the time. “It’s not good for Texas. It’s not good for America.”

“It’s certainly not good for the people who are trying to get here,” Bloomberg added, before claiming America was “too wealthy” to deny refugees.

Bless his heart! NEVER let them catch you being honest, right Bloomy?!?

https://nypost.com/2020/02/11/...alls-stop-and-frisk/

quote:

Leaked Bloomberg audio shows him defending ‘throw them up against the walls’ stop-and-frisk

Newly released audio from a 2015 speech given by Michael Bloomberg shows the former NYC mayor vehemently defending his controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy — a policing procedure that the 2020 presidential candidate has since apologized for.

In the speech, which the billionaire gave to the Aspen Institute, Bloomberg sounded unapologetic in his acknowledgment of how the policy targeted minority kids in minority neighborhoods, arguing that they were targeted “because that’s where all the crime is.”

“Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” Bloomberg said, “They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.

“So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”

The former mayor went on to defend why he had implemented the controversial policing policy: to get guns out of the hands of kids.

“And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them … And then they start … ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught,’ so they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

Here in Arkansas, Mini Mike is hammering the airwaves with ads featuring the Krimson Kenyan promoting Mini Mike. Has the KK become a Bloomberg supporter?

Based On these past quotes, we have an unelectable candidate with essentially unlimited campaign resources. Kind of like a rock and a hard place. I predict fireworks and great discord in the dim party. It’s going to be fun to watch.

Newly-released Audio of Bloomberg May Doom His Candidacy

Townhall is reporting a newly released audio of Michael Bloomberg addressing the Aspen Institute in 2015 has many Democrats upset.

In it, Bloomberg defends his controversial "stop-and-frisk" policy, using language that many in the minority communities would find offensive (in common parlance, "racist").

quote:

"Ninety-five percent of murders—murderers and murder victims—fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops," he said during a speech to the Aspen Institute. "They are male, minorities, 16-25. That's true in New York, that's true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that's where the real crime is. You've got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed."

"So one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods," Bloomberg said. "Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them... And then they start... 'Oh I don't want to get caught.' So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home."

At the time of his comments, Bloomberg asked the Aspen Institute to not distribute the video of it.

Apparently #BloombergIsRacist is a trending hashtag.

quote:

"stop and frisk"

Racist, or realistic?

Lots of voters will still pull the D lever just because they always do. Lots of them probably agree with many of his positions even if they will never admit it to someone else.
If he rides this out, the Democrat machine has few other viable options.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
Here in Arkansas, Mini Mike is hammering the airwaves with ads featuring the Krimson Kenyan promoting Mini Mike. Has the KK become a Bloomberg supporter?

Arkansas is a Super Tuesday state. Bloomberg's strategy is to flood the airwaves with ads in Super Tuesday states because he didn't enter the fray in time to get on the ballot in the first 3 states.
We'll see soon enough if it is effective. Super Tuesday will be held on March 3.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

"stop and frisk"

Racist, or realistic?

Realistic, when it reflects badly on "people of colour," automatically becomes "racist." You should know that by now.

Regardless of how realistic his assessment: The policy was an egregious infringement on the 4th Amendment. You can't use demographics to establish reasonable cause no matter how reasonable some may think it. No matter how effective doing so may have been.

Throwing the Constitution out to achieve an objective rather misses the point.

Stick a fork in Bloomie, cause he’s done.

Lil mikey blaming minorities.
Audio: Mike Bloomberg Tells Aspen Elites 'All the Crime' Is in Minority Areas; 'Throw Them Against the Wall and Frisk Them'
https://www.breitbart.com/poli...wall-and-frisk-them/

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Regardless of how realistic his assessment: The policy was an egregious infringement on the 4th Amendment. You can't use demographics to establish reasonable cause no matter how reasonable some may think it. No matter how effective doing so may have been.

Throwing the Constitution out to achieve an objective rather misses the point.

Agree 100%. "Egregious infringement" is exactly right.

quote:

Throwing the Constitution out to achieve an objective rather misses the point.

Agree, but I'm curious, what was the effect of the policy? Did it reduce violence?

A great irony is that the Bloomberg statement that will get him in trouble - is mostly true

The 95% is way too high, but 2018 FBI data for homicide offenders shows that for

the 11,202 homicides where offender race was known, there were

4,884 white offenders
6,318 black offenders

6318 / 11202 = 56 % black offenders while only 13% of the U.S. population is black

Homicide Victim data 2018

14,123 victims with

6,088 white victims
7,407 black victims
628 other or unknown race

7407 / 14123 = 52 % black victims w only 13 % black population

The black population is burdened with by far the highest homicide rates. But public figures are too afraid to address the problem directly to try and lower that burden. Bloomberg was more right than wrong but our country has made some topics taboo because of "sensitivities".

You seldom solve problems you refuse to acknowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
Lil mikey blaming minorities....

The latest blumeburger ad in Idaho has him paired with Barry O. Perhaps this is the 'take back' all of the negative comments on crime stats.

When it comes to Demos choosing a candidate think about the Humphrey-Mondale debacle in Chicago!
"Blood in the streets"?