Stop and Frisk

Bloomberg's Awful Old Quotes Defending Unconstitutional Stop-and-Frisk Are Coming Back to Haunt Him

The former New York mayor is being called a racist for his former support of searching young minorities without cause.


A new clip from a 2015 speech has resurfaced documenting former New York Mayor and current Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg's forceful defenses of stop-and-frisk practices as a mechanism to fight crime, knowing and approving of the targeting of young minority men.

Progressive political podcaster Benjamin Dixon focused on Bloomberg's history in an episode Monday and has posted a clip of the comments on YouTube:

The speech was given in an Aspen Institute appearance in 2015, and Bloomberg's representatives had blocked the release of video of his comments. The contents of the speech were hardly a secret, though, and Reason's Robby Soave made note of them back when Bloomberg gave the speech, criticizing Bloomberg's condescending attitude toward young black men. It was also in Aspen in 2015 where Bloomberg continued to insist that marijuana legalization was one of the "stupider things that's happening across the country."

Now that Bloomberg's running for president, all of these full-throated defenses of his support for unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices are going to be thrown in his face as the Democrats vie for the votes of urban progressives. Quotes like this:

"Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods. So, one of the unintended consequences is, 'Oh my god, you're arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. 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 walls and frisk them."

So to summarize: The young minority men searched without probable cause and then arrested for marijuana possession were merely the side effects of the more important goal of stopping violent crime. And New York City just had to break all these eggs to make this pretty, crime-free cake.

But critics knew (and most certainly Bloomberg also knew) that these searches rarely ever found guns at all. In 2012, New York City police found them in less than .1 percent of 532,000 stops. Bloomberg insists that these searches then serve as a deterrent keeping these guys from carrying guns around. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people in New York City were arrested for marijuana possession annually (even though it had been decriminalized) thanks in part to these searches. Data from the New York Civil Liberties Union about these searches found that less than a quarter of them happened because officers suspected a person might have a gun.

It wasn't until November, a week before Bloomberg announced his candidacy, that he acknowledged that he had been wrong about stop-and-frisk. He had argued that these efforts were necessary to fight violent crime, and yet crime continued to fall in New York after Mayor Bill de Blasio, Bloomberg's successor, largely abandoned the practice.

Reason's Jacob Sullum questioned the sincerity of Bloomberg's conversion with good reason. We can hear in that clip that, a year after leaving office, Bloomberg was still insisting stop-and-frisk worked even though data showed it wasn't true, and one judge had already ruled that the way police in New York City implemented stop-and-frisk violated citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.

In an odd development, President Donald Trump attempted to use this revived quote to attack Bloomberg as a "TOTAL RACIST" in a tweet that was quickly deleted. The tweet might have been taken down after somebody reminded Trump that he's a huge supporter of stop-and-frisk techniques and, in fact, campaigned on them in 2016 and said Bloomberg's crime-fighting tactics did "incredibly well."

This morning Bloomberg's campaign responded and made the whole fight stranger by attacking Trump, even though, again, up until November, they had both agreed that stop-and-frisk was a good policing tactic. Bloomberg's statement reads in part:

"President Trump's deleted tweet is the latest example of his endless efforts to divide Americans. I inherited the police practice of stop-and-frisk, and as part of our effort to stop gun violence it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%, but I should've done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized—and I have taken responsibility for taking too long to understand the impact it had on Black and Latino communities."

But the problem here is that Bloomberg's comments at Aspen make it clear that he did indeed know the impact that stop-and-frisk had on these communities. He just believed that the impact of harassing all these young men and upending their lives was worth it if it made people feel safer, even if the data didn't back it up and even when he was told he was violating people's constitutional rights.

NEXT: Modi Cheerleaders Are Abusing a Well-Intentioned American Refugee Law for Anti-Muslim Ends

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them.“

    This is true of every gun control effort.

    1. It is also true of our efforts here at NYU to stop any form of illegal "parody" confronting our distinguished faculty members. We are especially thankful to Mayor Bloomberg for the city's special assistance in this regard. See the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "satire" case at:

      1. Pimps get flagged, pimp

    2. I get paid over $90 every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my closest companion gains over 10k a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is unending. Heres what I’ve been doing

      ..................... Read more

  2. The fact Bloomberg is one of the more appealing and least extreme of the Democratic options is both hilarious and sad.

  3. One can support the concept of stop and frisk (I do in a kind of abstract way, but realize there is no way to square that with the 4A, therefore it is a bad policy) and realize that Bloomberg's comments were overtly racist.

    1. How can one possibly support stop and frisk in any way but authoritarianism? "It doesn't square with the 4A", is that the best you can do? It doesn't square with self-ownership, with human dignity, or with anything but authoritarianism.

      1. Just shut up and hand over your papers, comrade. Officer Smith here is gonna check your package for contraband.

      2. Which is exactly what the fucking 4A is all about. I said in the fucking abstract also. In other words devoid of any realistic expectations or outcomes, but purely based upon the hypothetical, e.g. reducing crime by removing weapons from the criminals. However, I only supported it in the abstract not in any actual implementation, nor as official policy. You are reading much more into what I stated then I actually stated. Also, I never limited my objections to just the 4A (I never said anything of the sort, you jumped to that conclusion) I simply stated that it violated the 4A, therefore it is bad policy. I never said it wasn't bad policy fora variety of other reasons. I stated it's violation of the 4A (which I read to protect self ownership and human dignity from authorities) was enough to convince me, by itself that it was a bad policy. It is like how in abstract, socialism and it's bigger brother capitalism, sound reasonable but fail to take the real world into account, therefore are never workable and always devolve to dictatorships and violence.
        To take it further, open borders. It sounds reasonable, in the abstract, but I don't see any truly realistic way of implementing it and remaining a sovereign nation.

      3. Also, the concept of stop and frisk was the removal of weapons from those most likely to misuse them. That is an understandable concept, but the actual implementation is the problematic part. Just like red flag laws. The concept seems reasonable, at least in the abstract, but there is no practical way of implementing it without harming people, most of which are completely innocent. Therefore it is just bad policy and should be rejected.

        1. I can make up all sorts of "reasons" for "understanding" Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and even soldiermedic76. I'm sure not gonna waste time pointing out such nonsense.

          1. Nice personal attack, especially comparing me to Hitler and Mao. I never stated I wanted the laws implemented and never supported the laws. I stated I somewhat supported the abstract concept while rejecting the actual implementation. There is a large distinction. You are purposely misstating what I actually said, to fit your narrow narrative. '... it is a bad policy' get it. I stated in the abstract, but not in reality. Do you understand the difference? Or is that to esoteric for your simplistic world view?

            1. He will just call you a trumpista and move on.

        2. " those most likely to misuse them"

          That is problematic in and of itself. I can accept placing limitations on people who have previously demonstrated misuse - ie. criminals. That is part of their penalty.

          To physically violate the person who has not done anything actually wrong (and I do not consider going about armed to be wrong) is a harm.

          1. I agree. I stated the policy was wrong for the reason you stated, i.e. the violation of their persons. And again, I agree with the idea that previous misconduct should not be excuse for any violations of rights. What I am saying is the basic concept is understandable, and I support the idea of targeting those who are misusing firearms, but it is impossible to do so, practically, and without violating their rights. I think what people are misconstruing is my support of an abstract concept as being in support of the actual practical application of the concept.

          2. Bloomberg is the same guy who nauseated an NPR reporter praising the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party. Democracy and constituents for the PRC. If that interview is not enough to haunt BB, nothing will stop him.

          3. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours…......clickclick>

      4. Well what do you expect when everyone here has their whole head lodged up Trump's ass and Trump supports it?

        1. What do you expect when people purposely ignore what you say and instead interpret things to fit their own prejudices?

        2. Do you understand the difference between supporting something in the abstract, i.e. not in the real world, and supporting actual policy implementation?

    2. GOD, I love the internet!!!!

      These fucking Lefties cannot get out from under anything they said in the past, thanks to a quick video or quote from years past.

      1. the Information Age is beautiful.

      2. It's especially great because they're the party of "let's dig up some tweets from a decade ago".

        Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

      3. The media is pissed that they cant control narratives anymore. They still try by doxing evil meme makers.

      4. You mean the comments by Former NYC Republican Mayor Bloomberg? Dude isn't a lefty just because he's running as a democrat today.

        1. Bloomberg was never a Republican.

          Just like Guiliani is not a Republican.

          Anyone who believes that shit is moronic.

          1. Bloomberg I'll give you. But why makes you say Giuliani isn't a Republican? I think he fitted right in with many of them.

            The Republican Party is not exemplified by Rand Paul, unfortunately.

        2. Wants to control what people eat and drink, wants to control who can and cannot practice their 2A rights, support for unlimited abortions, supports extreme positions on the environment, I could go on, but seems fairly left to me. Yes he has supported charter schools (but took over the directing of schools from the elected school board as mayor, and placed it in the mayoral office)

      5. It's like a Neil Stephenson novel... instead of magic not working anymore, doublethink, reality control, faking past temperature data and tossing awkward questions down a memory hole alluva sudden don't bring voters stampeding to the polling places to ban energy and tax & regulate.

        1. I see that many people need a valve to pressure out so go here and do something about it Gold Coast fuck date

  4. This is the reality of a "War On Guns" that progs don't seem to grasp, or perhaps don't care about (i.e. their concern for minorities is fake). If a Democrat president launches a crackdown on gun owners, it isn't going to just affect those "bitter clingers" in "flyover country".

    The brunt of the enforcement will fall on those the progs say they care about.

    1. Yep! If gun control passes it wont be enforced in the burbs. Sheriffs in "Fly-over" country will refuse to support is as well. It will be enforced the poor inner cities. Coloin Nior has a great video about this.

      1. It is enforced by which cop wants to enforce it. The Pro-gun crowd has strength in numbers but once you're driving your grandmother home from church and get stopped for some minor traffic infraction and you have an "illegal" gun in the car, is when they will get you.

        You don't want a shootout with your Grandmother in the car and you have no other gun supporters to get government to back off.

        Its how these unconstitutional laws are so bad.

        1. Sheriffs in these counties tend to be elected, and news travels fast in these places. Arrest too many people in the circumstances you describe and you won't win the next election.

          Bob might've technically broken the law and you might've been technically correct to arrest him, but when everyone in the county has known Bob for 30 years and knows you didn't give him a fair shake it has consequences.

          1. True. Still doesnt help the multiple people arrested for these unconstitutional gun charges.

            Now if every jury acquitted these defendants for gun charges, that would make an impact. Cops and prosecutors would not even waste their time.

            1. Agree, the laws being on the books at all is a problem. I'm happy that some Sheriffs have their head on their shoulders and not up their ass, but they shouldn't be put in a position like arresting lawful gun owners in the first place.

              Mass jury nullification would certainly have an impact. The concept needs a lot more publicity, and not just for gun cases. It's one of the few tools the average man has that is effective against the petty tyrants. Pass all the laws you'd like, it only takes 1 person to render them useless.

          2. Thing is, there's not just the Sheriff out there. State cops of all types - highway patrol, etc - are there. And there's often some inter-jurisdictional agreements that allow local cops to roam outside their towns a bit.

            1. "And there’s often some inter-jurisdictional agreements that allow local cops to roam outside their towns a bit."

              This, plus expect the "Federal Interdistrict Drug Interdiction Task Force" model to be applied to the new contraband category of illegal firearms. Lisa needs braces, those gun laws won't be applied to the cops, and those dirty gun owners deserve this anyway: all will ensure the police don't run out of people willing to enforce those laws. Like they have no problems enforcing drug laws.

              1. I live in Colorado, the Feds aren't doing fuckall about marijuana enforcement. There's no willpower for it, and the local cops have all told them that the Feds will receive absolutely no assistance in enforcing their laws in Colorado.

                We also have a magazine capacity ban. The sheriff of my county says he won't enforce it, and we have gun shops openly selling magazines in violation of the ban. State cops don't do anything about it, because they understand that the law is unpopular in my county and it's not worth stirring up the hornet's nest.

                I don't see why 2A would be any different. If the local cops don't want to mess with it, the Feds won't either. They typically rely on local assistance with vehicles, facilities, backup staff and whatnot. When they aren't getting that, they just don't bother showing up at all.

                1. "I don’t see why 2A would be any different. If the local cops don’t want to mess with it, the Feds won’t either. They typically rely on local assistance with vehicles, facilities, backup staff and whatnot. When they aren’t getting that, they just don’t bother showing up at all."

                  Consider a federal government with President Gabbard in 2024, and a Democratic legislature. Then think of that system funneling block grants by the billions to local LE. Think that might change their mind a little when it comes to enforcing gun laws? How popular was alcohol prohibition in Appalachia in the 20s? Still got enforced, sort of.

                  Pot is more popular in Colorado than high-capacity magazines or ARs. Not surprising the Feds aren't meeting with much help on the weed front. They make a big funding push to get rid of ARs in the cities and 'burbs---who gives a shit about ranchers---I don't know if it will go the same way weed enforcement did.

    2. Actually, it will fall on the Inner City Gang-Bangers, who if you take out suicides, are responsible for about 75% of the people shot or murdered by guns in America (handguns, not rifles)!

      Do the Lefty Clowns care about stopping or rehabilitating Gang-Bangers? Not really....Do they care about changing their Big Govt. policies that have ripped apart the stable black family unit & created a niche for kids to join gangs? Not really... Do they care about the horrible actions of Gang-Bangers on the good innocent black people in the hood?....Not really!

      But, they do care about sanctimoniously telling us how much they really care!

      "The whole point of modern Liberalism is for Liberals to feel good about themselves"
      -Geroge Will, 2013

  5. Bloomberg wasn't wrong; the difference between the South Bronx and Williamsburg isn't just a matter of location. Having said that, the reality of crime in NYC is not something that can be discussed honestly in the Democratic camp and that is why he is facing backlash.

    1. "Having said that, the reality of crime in NYC is not something that can be discussed honestly in the Democratic camp..."

      True pretty much everywhere, not just the Dems. Ask John Derbyshire. Discussing the reality of violent crime in the United States is hazardous to continued political or media employment.

  6. These comments are problematic indeed. One of the rare instances in which #BillionairesDontKnowBest.

    Needless to say, I'll still support Bloomberg if he gets the nomination. Because Orange Hitler is obviously worse.


    1. #(UnlessItsTulsiGabbard)

      You actually make me hope she somehow gets the nomination [who knows, as we are likely headed toward a broken convention] if only to watch you eat a shit sandwich, with a side of borscht.

      1. are you new here?

        1. No, but sometimes I just cannot help myself.

      2. Brokered convention, though it will likely be broken as well when the rads don't get their way and go on a rampage.

        1. It would be hilarious to see a whole convention like this . . .

          Quick point of person privilege!

        2. I am perversely looking forward to watching---from a distance---the Berntards losing their shit as they see their party defrauding them (again!), trying to burn down Milwaukee, and getting their heads stove in by tear gas grenades and rubber bullets.

          It will be tragic.

    2. You forgot to comment on his stance on open borders. Points off. 2/10.

  7. plus the whole Big Gulp thing

    1. If I am running against him, that's the first and last thing out of my mouth every time. "Mr. Big Gulp over here thinks that he should be able to..... "

      1. Oh come on Cyto, you cannot work "stop-and-frisk" AND "Big Gulp" into every sentence?

        [interrupts some network host] "Sorry, I need Stop-and-Frisk this question for a moment. Mr Big Gulp over there..."

        1. Weinstein just phoned one over.

          Let's play stop and frisk so you can get a Big Gulp of this!

    2. And the whole baby formula thing.

  8. Are they coming back to haunt him though?

    NBC's Today show is my go-to for "what is the DNC establishment up to". They are plugged in really tight with the party operation. Today they were covering the NH primary.

    They downplayed Biden (who they have been championing for most of the last year) and his early struggles, saying that if he doesn't win in AZ he might be done. They talked about Sanders in terms of being a social democrat and not being able to win nationally - and about how this is his back yard and he won with 60% of the vote last time but he's struggling.

    And the discussion changed as they switched to Bloomberg - who they praised for his "national campaign". They immediately went to national polls (where before they had been talking about NH only), talking about him as being in the top 3. And they talked about Biden losing support among African Americans and how the national poll had Bloomberg at 25% among African Americans.

    No discussion of spending more than Trump did in his entire 2016 run just to limp in to 3rd or 4th in national polls. No discussion of "buying your way in to the nomination". No discussion of rules changes just for him. Nope... he's at 25% with black voters and Biden is struggling because he only has double that level of support.

    So there ya go... my tea-leaf reading is that the establishment is starting to put their muscle behind Bloomberg - not just letting him on the stage, but actively sending out surrogates to the media pushing the story the Bloomberg is the real rising star.

    1. Of course, my immediate response to NBC telling me that Bloomberg has really strong support among African American voters was to call B.S.

      My wife was watching Today and I actually blurted that out as I was walking through the room. "No way are they supporting him.... he is 'Mr. Stop-and-Frisk'. No chance he gets the black vote."

      My wife is my "pulse of the electorate" person. She follows the horse-race avidly but doesn't really know much beyond what CNN and NBC tell her. So she had no idea what I was talking about.

      So here's my grain of salt. At this point in 2016 I said that Trump polling high was a goof. "Nobody is ever going to actually cast a real vote for that guy". My wife was worried.

      Now it is Bloomberg. My head says there is zero chance the African American electorate gives him a pass on Stop and Frisk and other policies. But my wife has no idea what that is. So maybe he can just run a bunch of TV commercials that are full of nonsense and buy his way into the White House.

      1. Now it is Bloomberg. My head says there is zero chance the African American electorate gives him a pass on Stop and Frisk and other policies. But my wife has no idea what that is. So maybe he can just run a bunch of TV commercials that are full of nonsense and buy his way into the White House.

        Into a Presidential election, maybe. White House, I don't believe it. Not after the way Gabbard set fire to Kamala Harris' campaign.

      2. IF the Democrats nominate Bloomberg Trump might actually have a shot at getting 30% of the black vote. I think Bloomberg would lose to Trump by a larger margin than Bernie would lose.

        1. It might be the same margin for different reasons.

          Nobody wants Bernie's Socialism nationally.
          Nobody wants Bloomberg's stop 'n frisk and soda bans nationally.

      3. My wife's friends might have no idea what "stop and frisk" is, but I suspect that black voters do.

        Dems need a strong black turnout with 95% support to win the election. I suspect that Bloomberg won't generate that turnout. Not that they'll necessarily vote for Trump, but given a choice between "stop and frisk Bloomberg" and "criminal justice reform Trump" they might just stay home.

        1. Enough Black Americans will associate Bloomberg with Stop-and-Frisk becoming national police policy.

          That is NOT the police policy under Trump.

      4. To make you feel better Cyto, I saw Trump support and how wrong the media was. I also see the lack of support for Bloomberg and how wrong the media is.

        Stop and frisk was a NYC policy so Southern Black Democrats might give him a pass or didnt pay attention enough.

        Hillary Clinton was tied to Bill Clinton's popularity among Black Americans and she had millions of Black voters sit home.

        Trump now has many more Black Americans as supporters because his policies are bringing in more income for Black American families.

        The DNC thinks the voters want a rich white men for President, so they'll give them Bloomberg. That is NOT why voters supported Trump.

    2. Cheat Bernie out of the nomination to give it to a billionaire. Minneapolis is going to be Lit AF.

      1. Milwaukee?

        1. Yeah Milwaukee too. 🙂

          1. schlemiel. schlimazel. Hasenpfeffer, Incorporated

            1. +1000

          2. Milliwaukee - The good land.

      2. The Democrat Convention will absolutely be a litmus test for how many swing voters will jump over to Trump. If Bernie is not the nominee and Minneapolis has riots, Trump will get a landslide.

        Americans are used to L.A. or NYC having riots. Americans are not ready for Minneapolis Lit AF.

        1. That is going to be the most polite riot in history.

          1. Uff Da. This is a pickle, ya, yabetcha.

            1. Well, Ole, is Lena making lutefisk and lefsa? Let's go ice fishin' and get some beers and then go to your place.

        2. You assume Bernie survives, literally. What is the medical outcome data for a 78 year old white man who is slightly overweight, and suffered a heart attack? The death probability for 78-year old with no medical issues is ~5%.

          My point: You're making an assumption that I am not sure is a good one.

          1. Will the Bernie Bros accept his death, without suspecting nefarious causes?

            1. Nope. That said, Trump's not much younger...

              Neither side will likely handle it well.

    3. Its sounds like that is spot on Cyto.

      Bloomberg has shone himself to be perfectly moldable to whatever he thinks will work. Plus, the DNC changing the rules just for Bloomberg also let me know that he was there guy. He was a RINO and now a Democrat.

      Bernie Sanders is an (I), he's not even a (D). I would have been shocked if the DNC allowed Bernie to win the nomination. Plus Trump's support illustrates that a Socialist cannot win in the USA right now.

      1. "Plus Trump’s support illustrates that a Socialist cannot win in the USA right now."

        I don't see that the one has much to do with the other. I think the economy doing well under Trump has a lot to do with Socialism not being universally popular, but support for Trump by itself? Not so sure.

  9. Say what you will, these are the quotes that might win back Nick Gillespie's vote!

  10. "You've got to get the guns out of the hands of all the people that are getting killed."

    Obviously, if they're getting killed, the guns didn't do them any good as protection, so you may as well go back in time and take their guns away. Economic efficiency, doncha know.

    Cops need throw-down guns, and these are excellent opportunities.

    1. I think I have Bloomie figured out on that statement.

      People who have guns are criminals. People killing the people with guns are cops. So his solution to is keep people from getting guns so they won't be shot by the cops.

      Own a gun, you get killed by cops. That's what Bloomie thinks about the second amendment.

      1. Which is why all of Bloomberg's bodyguards are unarmed...

        What a clueless, heartless idiotic 'let them eat cake' comment he made.

  11. As much as MSM is searching and yearning for a plausible champion, even HuffPo is running this story; but will it be Bloomberg's "blackface" moment and end his political aspirations or will he undergo a "Northam rehabilitation" and the whole sorry thing will be sent down the media memory hole?

    Already seeing headline claiming Klobuchar is "surging" at about 6%; meanwhile it is looking more and more like Sanders will keep his lead, and run against Trump in November. Odds?

    1. All this does is put Bloomberg at the mercy of the far left. They are not going to end is career just like they didn't end Northam's. This gives them the power to end it and they will use that power to control him.

      1. From what I've seen of Bloomers it is not likely he will be willing to genuflect all that much to the altar of woke. Those fools are all about #feelthebern as it is, and I think they will likely just want him out of the way of any real "progress" along with any other relative moderate the party and media tries to promote; looking forward to a brokered convention, that will make Chicago '68 look like a yoga class

    2. Sanders is about even money or -110 (bet $110 dollars to win $100, receiving $210 total)
      I'd put Biden at 1:3 (+300) and sinking fast, but I'm probably lower on him than the betting public (which is probably close to even, or 3:4ish).
      Buttigieg +125
      Klobuchar +400
      Warren +450
      Bloomberg +175
      Field +1000
      Unannounced +750

  12. If saying that you have to have cops concentrate on the black community and make sure they stop and harass black men in particular doesn't make you a racist what does? He isn't just being called a racist. I think it is pretty clear that is exactly what Bloomberg is.

    And the contrast between Reason's kid gloves "some old comments come back to haunt him" coverage of this with its coverage of Trump's "Mexico doesn't send us their best" comment could not be more striking. Bloomberg's statement is by any objective measure much worse than Trump's. Trump singled out a particular sub set of Mexicans, those who come to the US illegally and said that that subset often includes criminals. Bloomberg in contrast singles out the entire black race and says all of them are prone to criminal behavior and must be disarmed to save themselves.

    Somehow reason doesn't seem anything close to as upset about Bloomberg's statement.

    1. He's a racist with good intentions.

      Just like all Dems.

      1. +1000

        So unreason is on board. #ResistTrump

      2. The dems are still entirely racist. The difference being that now their racism is paternalistic instead of antagonistic.

        1. ""The dems are still entirely racist.""

          They think they are, but are not so sure. So they are willing to pay $2,500 to find out.

        2. Actually, much of the defense of slavery by Democrats in the 19th century was also based on paternalism.

    2. Targeting crime where it is, even if that's mostly only certain ethnicities, is NOT racist. It's reality.

      Warrantless searches is the problem with such policies.

      1. I'd wager if you stuck a bunch of cops in a lily white rich neighborhood with express instructions to find criminals, the crime rate would go up there too simply due to increased police activity and reporting.

        Cops arrest people, that's what they do. If you put a bunch of them in one place, a lot of people in that place are going to get arrested and then you can report on how crime ridden that neighborhood is, just look at all the arrests!

        1. Don't be retarded dude.

          The fact is that poor people in general, including poor whites, commit most crimes. The thing is that there are way more poor minorities, and even when at the same income levels minorities commit more crimes than comparably poor whites/Asians.

          Sure you could cram 10 fold more cops into a rich white neighborhood and they'd find 10% more crime... You 10 fold the number of cops in a poor neighborhood of any variety and you'll probably catch 10 fold more crime.

          So don't play that bullshit game denying that poor, mostly minorities, do in fact commit most crimes. They do. That's all there is to it.

          1. While you are statistically correct, a lot of them commit the crime of possessing or using drugs, or engaging in consensual sex work. The kinds of crimes that don't get nearly the same amount of enforcement in richer neighborhoods.

            There is more violent crime as well, but that is largely due to the above activities being illegal. CVS and Walgreen's don't get into shooting wars over their Ibuprofen territory.

            1. "There is more violent crime as well, but that is largely due to the above activities being illegal."

              Disagree. I used to think that organized crime or narcotics related crime was the reason as well. While I still think that drives a lot of the violence, now I think it's culture. Poorer majority minority neighborhoods have a culture that is predominantly honor-based and encourages violent means of dispute resolution. That isn't changing just because I can snap my fingers and end the War on Some Drugs.

              It changes when you demonstrate to people that their culture only leads to destruction. Stop subsidizing the birth of children they can't afford other than through government dependency, lock up the violent, and provide an alternate means of achieving success besides being more violent than the next guy.

              1. Again, this is incorrect. Wealthier areas do not predominantly solve their disputes in the same manner as poorer, inner city areas. Your statement is close to the mistaken idea among many leftists that all colors, cultures, and groups of people commit crime at the same rates, but racism is the reason for higher arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates for African-Americans.

                We can't begin to identify the problem of violent crime, much less fix it, if we refuse to believe what we see when we look at it.

                1. And this was meant to be a reply to Thomas's post at 3:54 PM.


              2. The profession being illegal encourages violent means of dispute resolution. If another drug dealer rips me off, I can't call the cops about it, can I? If that problem is going to get solved, I must solve it myself with the means I have available.

                There are definitely cultural issues at play, I'm not ignoring that. I think if you did snap your fingers and end the War on Some Drugs you'd see a lot of the problems that low income neighborhoods face right now disappear in short order though.

                1. I don't think anybody here would say ending the war on drugs wouldn't help... But it won't just ALL disappear. A lot of those people are out committing crimes unrelated to drugs. Stealing cars, robbing convenience stores, etc just to pay regular bills, not even necessarily to pay for a drug habit.

                  I guarantee those places would still be far higher crime than other areas. I'm all for ending the drug war, but don't fool yourself into thinking that's the ONLY reason black/Hispanic neighborhoods have more crime. I'm part Mexican and grew up in Cali, there are other reasons that weed or blow!

              3. Poorer majority minority neighborhoods have a culture that is predominantly honor-based and encourages violent means of dispute resolution. That isn’t changing just because I can snap my fingers and end the War on Some Drugs.

                How would an honor-based culture lead to crime?

                If the U.S. as a whole had an honor-based culture, the 2016 elections would have had different nominees.

                1. If I change Honor to Respect, does it make more sense?

                  The inner city dominant culture is one where perceived disrespect---stepping on someone's shoes, cutting someone off in traffic, being a member of a different group than the local majority---may be met by violence, often lethal. Tolerating disrespect means weakness and showing weakness means others may, among other things, now take your property without risk.

                  As the above implies, there are little societal structural impediments , like strong law and order, or a pervasive religious moral code, to inhibit violent responses to what an outside observer would think a minor inconvenience. Which is how you get people getting into first fights over their McDonalds order getting screwed up. Or shooting a kid over a social media post.

                2. An honor based culture/society is a term used in the social sciences that has a whole list of associated stuff. You probably weren't aware of that, but Gray_Jay seems to be.

          2. "The fact is that poor people in general, including poor whites, commit most crimes. "

            True, if by 'crime' you mean arrest and conviction.

            Otherwise, no. People in high socio-economic strata commit all manner of crimes routinely, they just don't get caught, or if caught don't get charged, much less convicted. Hell at various times I've been one of them.

            1. Bullshit.

              I'm sorry, I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood when I was a kid. I saw sketchy shit all the time going on around me. As my family moved to nicer and nicer places, the sketchy shit disappeared. Whether you want to talk random shit stolen or % of people that beat their wives/girlfriends, it's all higher in ghetto neighborhoods.

              If you want to count "lied about $2,000 on his taxes" as the same as beating somebody to within an inch of their life, you MIGHT get close... But poor people lie about that kinda shit a ton too. So it's just really not true.

              There are some behaviors, like smoking weed, or maybe drunk driving, that wealthier people probably do at similar rates (but I would guess slightly lower still), and they are just less dumb about it... But being less dumb about it counts for something.

              Not smoking weed in your front lawn all day and hopping into your car with an open and obvious bottle of booze, speeding off down the street at 60, IS in fact a quality of life improvement as well! The rich guy takes 2 hits, finishes his drink inside, and drives off at the speed limit. That's less sketchy.

      2. It most certainly is racist. Just because a larger percentage of black people commit crimes doesn't give you the right to assume the black person in front of you is a criminal. It is no different than assuming they are stupid because of some collective IQ average.

        The very essence of racism is projecting characteristics associated with a race onto every individual. That is what this is doing.

        1. As I said, warrantless searches is the problem.

          The fact is that profiling is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent thing to do, which is why humans innately do it. It is a beneficial trait. The only reason people believe profiling is bad is because of propaganda.

          Now, there is a difference between assuming 100% of XYZ group does ABC thing... But nobody is really like that IRL. If I see a black guy wearing a nice suit, getting out of a nice car I don't assume he's going to mug me. However if I see a scuzzy black dude dressed like a hood, the thought crosses my mind. I would feel the same between a nice/scuzzy white guy too. And I imagine 99% of cops would use about the same thought process. Why? Because profiling sketchy people works!

          Now there will be hood looking black guys who are perfectly nice and decent people... But dressing like a sketchy person comes with repercussions. Same thing for a white biker or punk rock guy or whatever. As long as it's merely keeping an extra eye on people to a limited degree, there's nothing wrong with profiling IMO. It's just retarded SJW PC crap that has made people think it's a bad thing.

        2. "Just because a larger percentage of black people commit crimes doesn’t give you the right to assume the black person in front of you is a criminal..."

          Of course, that would be stupid. Most people in most walks of life aren't criminals. The increased prevalence of violent crime among African-Americans vs other Americans does not make it likely that a given African-American walking towards you is a criminal. Even if the rates of violent criminality reflect the rates of being a victim of homicide, which last I checked, were for a 19-23 year old AA male something like 60X the rate of the population at large: because individual rates of criminality are so low, that 60X multiplier still doesn't make it more likely than not that this 19 year old black guy is going to rob you. Or is actually breaking the law at that moment.

      3. vek, it's racist because Bloomberg really believes that Jewish White men are better than Black and Hispanic Americans.

        Bloomberg proved that he is racist by implementing those policies as NYC Mayor. The civil rights groups have the data on how many Blacks, Hispanics, and White people were stopped and arrested.

        1. I dunno man. I mean he probably does think that, but I don't know that any of the data is going to prove anything (were more stopped because they legit looked sketchy, or JUST because they were black???), OR that any of it really matters in the end.

          I'm tired of all the endless "That's racist!" even when stuff DOES make sense and is reasonable. So frankly, I don't really care anymore. If I found out Bloomberg wanted to bring back African slavery I wouldn't care that much or be terribly surprised! I've just gone plaid on the whole line of argument.

          1. I agree with you about all the "that's racist" stuff when the definition of racism is:
            prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

      4. The problem with such policies is that the crime in these neighborhoods is a direct result of government policies - like Prohibition - and we're here saying that a potential solution to a government created problem is to give the government more power?

        1. I mean, when you and I say 'crime', we're probably thinking of property or violent crimes. But those are really a small percentage of all possible crimes. Most crimes are of the 'failure to obey' type. So you might live in a completely safe neighborhood - but its a high crime area because one dude is dealing and the cops keep busting people for possession.

          1. Most crimes are of the ‘failure to obey’ type.

            Everybody should go to jail at least once. Takes about 3 seconds to disabuse someone of this nonsense.

            1. Or live in the 'hood. Or go to a school in same.

  13. ★I Get paid over $90 every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my closest companion gains over 10k a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is unending.
    Heres what I’ve been doing…….w­w­w­.­m­o­n­e­y­8­1­.­c­o­m

  14. is Hillary, Inc. going to allow a Jewish guy to get the nom?

    1. Which one?

  15. Ok... Seriously... There's nothing wrong with the first part of his statement. Going after the areas and people involved in crime IS THE ONLY SANE WAY TO DO IT.

    There is NO REASON to have many cops in a wealthy white/Asian suburb, because almost no crime ever happens there. That's not racist, it's just the facts.

    The problem is that drugs should be legal, so no ancillary arrests made... And two people shouldn't be searched without a real and valid reason, whatever their color.

    But the idea that it's racist to concentrate cops where the problems are is absurd. If we REALLY wanted to end violence we need to end the drug war... But even without that, going after the gang members that commit the vast majority of crimes like rabid dogs is the way to do it.

    The Feds took down the mafia by relentlessly harassing them, nabbing them for every little thing they could. If we did this to black and Hispanic gangs, which commit the vast majority of murders, THAT might actually help things.

    I actually read an article by some bleeding heart researched that went through some interesting stats. In high murder rate cities they found on average only about 1% of the population were in gangs or ran in gang related circles. Only .35% of the population (1/3 of gang/gang adjacent people) committed over 50% of the murders.

    So you're telling me targeting .35% of the population, who IS committing a ton of crimes of all sorts, is impossible??? Bullshit. Go after those dicks, and leave law abiding gun owners alone.

    1. "There is NO REASON to have many cops in a wealthy white/Asian suburb, because almost no crime ever happens there. That’s not racist, it’s just the facts."

      Regardless of race, wealthier areas presumably get attention from the police because 1) those are the people whose taxes are paying for the police and 2) because while they may not perpetrate crime, they can be the victims. In New York City, it's even weirder because it can alternate between shitty neighborhoods and really nice neighborhoods block by block.

      I think what Bloomberg's statement shows is that he's an out of touch billionaire. Maybe it's because Trump's clientele at his casinos and the workers at this hotels are average working people--so he needs to be more or less in touch with how they live their lives. Bloomberg's only interaction with other people is probably broadcasters and technical people on Wall Street. If he has any understanding of the average American, it's probably because he hired someone to explain it to him. Bloomberg has had about as much interaction with regular working Americans over the past 20 years as Melania Trump.

      Those statements are from a billionaire telling people what he really thinks about minorities he doesn't really understand as people. When he's driving around in New York City in his limo, he probably can't tell the difference between young people and the homeless. They probably all look alike to him--minority and poor, even if they aren't either one.

      1. I'll give you that he's out of touch!

        And yeah, rich neighborhoods do have cops to protect them from criminals... But my point was that they don't need much policing on account of the people that live there. That's just reality.

      2. He's been known to take the subway. But I'm sure there's more to it than that.

    2. Actually crime in NYC would have dropped by magnitudes of ten if all drugs were legal.

      Cops went after drug dealers and guess which race of Americans do the most drug dealing outside college dorms?

      I get what you're saying about directly targeting crime areas with police. The problem is that in some cities, most of the crime comes from projects that Democrats set up to store Black Americans. So when you say you are "targeting crime" it actually means target Black Americans and let them prove that they were not committing crimes.

      1. I'm all for changing laws! Especially drug laws.

        But if targeting criminals means targeting black people, why shouldn't we target black people??? Black people also commit more murders, assaults, rapes, car thefts, etc. So even if drugs were legal, a lot of that would still be going on. Murders and assaults may often be drug related, but I doubt rapes and car thefts are. Do the good black folks not have a right to be free of fear from the sketchy ones?

        1. It's probably more of how you say it. Targets the criminals whatever race they may be.

          Its that we cannot have an honest discussion about which people commit the most violent crimes and where those crimes mostly happen.

          Chicago has a large Black American population and a lot of violent crimes are committed in Chicago.

          1. Not being able to have an honest conversation is 99% of the problem. Because as mentioned it's not anywhere close to all black people... But the ones that do the sketchy shit drag everybody else down with them.

    3. Increased police presence if done properly. Not coming in like an invading army, but foot patrols where the cops don't see the entire community as the enemy and attempts to form meaningful, mutually respective, alliances with the community are by far the best way.

      1. Sure. Being excessively dickish never pays.

      2. I have always said that every police force should bring back foot patrols. Cops riding around in cars all the time can create a disconnect from the community they patrol.

        1. And we need to stress that cops are not soldiers (and vice versa). It requires a different mind set and a different set of tactics/strategies. There is no reason to have an APC, MRV or other such equipment for most, if any police force (possibly for specialized units but even that is highly debatable).

          1. I have a theory that might explain some of the really aggressive and military type police violence on unarmed citizens in the last 15 years.

            Ex-military have always filtered into law enforcement. After all what other job uses Marine Corps infantryman skills? Cops used to beat suspects but overall police were fairly un-militarized before the 1990s.

            Something changed where ex-military and wannabe tough guys really turned police duties into violent militarized gestapo. A very intense Us vs. Them mentality. Not all cops were like that but their Blue Line meant that violent cops would not be exposed early in their careers.

            1. I think you will find the ex military guys are less likely, they understand ROE and other tactics. We also tend to understand the difference between being a soldier and being a cop. It is the wannabees. The guys who "almost joined the Marine Corp..." The guys who walk around with a high and tight and regulation mustache. Who wear cammy pants and tactical boots off duty, that are the problem. It is the Tackleberrys of the police force. Guys who think they are John Rambo (and actually think that is what the military is like) but have never served a day in their life. The guys who think police academy is as tough as basic training, and don't understand the actual lessons of basic training.

            2. "Something changed where ex-military and wannabe tough guys really turned police duties into violent militarized gestapo"

              The prevalence of portable video cameras everywhere with full audio, and the attitude among the elite that cops should ideally police the ghetto in the same way they police Main Street. Go read memoirs from old cops---"Unrepentant Sinner" about Charles Askins isn't a bad one---and you'll see that cops have brought the ultraviolence at times, long before the present day.

              What also has changed is the prevalence of high-capacity weapons, and a willingness to achieve fire superiority over anyone slightly constituting a perceived deadly threat, and getting excused for this behavior by their superiors, politicians, and the legal system. They are trained to think that hesitation in the presence of a threat of deadly force will get themselves or others killed. See, e.g., the video of the killing of Deputy Kyle Dinkeller.

              They will take less heat from dumping the magazine at a bad guy, than they would if a more restrained use of deadly force resulted in the bad guy killing other citizens (bad) or cops (worse). Those stray rounds downrange? Don't matter. With a 17 shot Glock vs a 6 shot revolver, there's a lot more shots to take into account.

  16. in the cancel culture era, Buttigieg has a huge advantage going for the progressive nomination in not having much of a record. Nobody cared what he had to say for so long, so he hasn't had as much time to pile up stupid things he's said. Koba-ginkobaloba-char has a similar advantage. She's probably feeding on the Warren vote.

    If Bernie wins, the Democrats are in deep shit.

    I'm not convinced Bernie can win a primary in Texas--not even among Democrats.

    1. Bernie doesn't have to win. He only needs to get close enough for his retarded supporters to think he should have won. Even if he doesn't, his supporters are so stupid and so fanatical they are likely going to make it impossible for any Democratic nominee to even pretend to be sane in the general election.

      The Democrats are in deep shit period. I said this the other day and it still is true. The Democrats allowed the far left to get a foothold in their party and never stood up to it for years. And now they can no longer control it. Imagine if Richard Spencer or Vox Day were the favorites to win the Republican nomination. That is the kind of shit the Democrats are in only it is Bernie and the retarded left rather than Teddy and the retarded Alt Right.

      1. It's a slow motion train wreck, and I'm so glad we get to watch.

        Super Tuesday will be a big deal--California and Texas on the same day. Bloomberg won't drop out until he loses big there, and the other candidates are capitalized well enough to survive him. So what if Bernie wins in California . . .

        Bloomberg seems to be picking up all the support Biden is losing in Texas, and I'm not sure if what Bloomberg helps or hurts him in Texas, where they aren't necessarily hateful towards the police.

        I don't know what's worse for the Democrats, a brokered convention or Sanders winning. I'm just glad we don't have to pay to watch this premium entertainment.

        1. Bloomshit's been doing a MASSIVE ad buy in Texas, so that's probably why his numbers are doing well.

      2. he Democrats allowed the far left to get a foothold in their party and never stood up to it for years.

        It ain't just a problem here.

        Swedish Communist Party: The Left Has Abandoned the Working Class For Migrants & LGBT

        Former members of the Swedish Communist Party have accused the new left of abandoning working class people in favor of becoming obsessed with mass migration, Greta Thunberg and LGBT issues.

        “Nils Littorin, an ex-member of the Malmö branch of the Communist Party, told Lokatidningen that the Left of today has become part of the elite who has lost contact with the working class it was supposed to represent,” reports Voice of Europe.

        Littorin is planning to help launch a new socialist party that will eschew the fixation with climate change alarmism and identity politics that has come to define leftist political movements.

        Sure, Democrats, push all your chips to the center of Greta Thunburg's table and see what happens.

        1. Whether or not you agree with retarded socialist economic policies, that commie is right. They've thrown aside the semi legit platform of trying to do right by normal working people for insane, retarded, virtue signal issues.

          1. "Helping" workers is the only platform that blue collar people can easily support.
            Higher wages- Great!
            Better benefits- Great!

            Socialists abandoning the workers was huge mistake and hopefully its too late for them to gain the support back.

          2. He is absolutely right. The "left" in the West is now the private playground for the gentry and their various neurosis.

    2. In 2016, Texas was anOpen primary. Hillary got 936,004 (65.2%) votes and 147 delegates plus 21 super delegates. Bernie got 476,547 (33.2%) and 75 delegates.

      1. Yeah, at that 538 link above, you'd expect to see Sanders do well as Biden fades, but Bloomberg seems to be picking up Biden's former supporters--as well as Warren's.

        Bloomberg may actually benefit from this. Not every Democrat in Nevada, Texas, or South Carolina thinks that the cops giving people are a hard time is a bad idea. That's how Trump scored points--by going against BLM type arguments in 2016. If people see that Bloomberg isn't completely against the police, it may help him with moderates.

        1. I'm watching TV right now, and I just saw Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), who's stumping for the Biden campaign now, respond to a question about Biden saying it was anyone's race. He said he didn't agree--that if the Democratic party nominates a socialist, Trump will win 48 of 50 states.

          Even I would have only put the over/under at 45.

          1. Out of a 48/50, which 2 states would pick the Democrat?

            1. CA and NY.

              That was easy.

              1. Let's not forget Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, and probably Illinois. I can't see any of those voting for Trump.

                1. Washington and Oregon are lost causes too. King County will always decide it for Washington, and Salem and Portland for Oregon. Hell, Portland is so bad, even my left wing, Bernie Sanders supporting sister-in-law fled there and returned to Idaho, because it was "saner" her words.

          2. Ryan is being hysterical. Bernie is just a Democratic version of Trump, and his populism is far more appealing to the rank and file than it is with the establishment. While he's happy to parrot the SJW line if it's mentioned, you'll notice that his focus is almost entirely on economic issues and social welfare programs, not IdPol stupidity. He can legitimately point to over $1 trillion in student loan debt and say that this isn't sustainable. He can point to the $3.6 trillion in medical spending and say that isn't sustainable. And he'd be right in both instances. That economic populism is why he polls against Trump so well.

        2. but Bloomberg seems to be picking up Biden’s former supporters–as well as Warren’s.

          Sanders ain't gonna pick up Biden't supporters. I am a bit surprised that Bloomberg is picking up Warren's, I'd think they'd break more heavily toward Sanders.

          1. Bloomberg's website is further left or progressive than Obama and Clinton. BB compares himself to Teddy and FDR as a traitor to his class. His newfound schtick is wealth inequality, climate and refugee resettlement.

    3. >>Buttigieg has a huge advantage

      he kisses boys - can't say a thing about him or *you're* the bad guy

  17. There are times when ideology flies in the face of reason, and this is one of them. I lived in NYC in the 80s, and it was a jungle. I was accosted and narrowly missed being attacked on three occasions, and the assailant in all three cases was a black male. "Stop and frisk" brought sanity and relative safety to NYC. Those are the facts, and Bloomberg's justification, is completely legitimate. The only thing wrong with "stop and frisk" was the misguided drug laws.

    Would "stop and frisk" be an abuse of police power in a peaceful setting? Of course. But NYC at that time was a very dangerous place, and the action was justified by the circumstances.

    1. Except that "stop and frisk" didn't actually do any of those things. The crime rate in NYC was already declining before "stop and frisk" was implemented and continued declining after the practice was stopped. The crime rate also declined at about equal rates in cities that never implemented "stop and frisk".

      So what you actually did was infringe of the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of people so the politicians could say they were "doing something" even though they were getting the same results as doing nothing.

      1. Why is that bad?

        Is that not the rationale for "common sense", "sensible" gun legislation?


      While I'm not a resident, I've been visiting NYC since the 1980s and been many times. I divide NYC as pre-Giuliani (as in the Koch years which were like a jungle) and post. The pre-Giuliani years were a blast though. 42nd st. was still sleazy (Lou Reed's 42nd if you will) and we've been followed too. Used to go the Limelight (owned by a Canadian as it were) and Palladium.

      My BIL's cousin always told us run back to the 5th ave. (or something like that) whenever you sense trouble because that's where NYPD were. We even took the subway into Trenton one year. That was, erm. interesting.

      It was Giuliani who cleaned it up before Bloomberg did. And his NYC was far more violent than what L'Il Nappy had to deal with.

      Just my observations as an interloper.

      1. Whatever other problems there are with Giuliani, he was the one who cleaned NYC up. The thing is it wasn't by being soft on crime! Soft on crime doesn't work. See NYC today, LA, SF, Seattle, etc for how that works out.

        There are ways to be hard on criminals without unwarranted searches and other rights violations though.

        1. SF is ridiculous and outrageous.

          Those videos I see about how the homeless are running amok and how the DA is letting them do it will lead to one thing: Underground vigilante justice where even the cops may let it happen.

          If I'm being pestered or even threatened by such cretins, I may have to consider 'outside protection'.

          1. This. Vigilante justice happens in a vacuum. The famous Montana Vigilante movement occurred because of a complete lack of policing of any sort. For a number of years, despite being a territory, the US President had not even bothered to appoint a territorial judge for the Idaho territory (Montana was part of the Idaho Territory). When one was appointed he never took office. Then when Montana was separated out as its own territory, again no judge was appointed, and when one was finally appointed, he never actually did his job.

            1. What do you mean I have to actually hold court hearings, just because I am the territorial judge?

          2. I basically live in SF junior up in Seattle. It's a joke.

            I have a friend who does indeed enact minor degrees of vigilante justice to deal with hobos near his families property. He politely tells them that some of his neighbors have been known to break out windows of people living in vans, slash their tires or worse... He suggests they move somewhere else to save themselves the trouble... While holding a baseball bat.

    3. I mean, dude, NYC made it super hard for law abiding citizens to have guns.

      Did you have a gun? Whip a gun out and assailants die or run for it.

      I have only had to pull out my pistol a few times. One guy will never rob ever again and the other piece of shit took off running.

      Not many violent criminals get away with it here in Georgia.

  18. You guys! You guys! Bloomberg didn't enter the race to actually be critiqued! He just wanted to sling mud at Trump and coast to victory! Quit ruining his plans, you guys!

    In all seriousness, though, National Review kicked Reason's ass at digging up Bloomberg's bad history:

    1. Right?

      ""that voters shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the “bottom-line, my-way-or-the-highway charismatic CEO is as likely to be the most emotionally stunted, attention-craving, socially maladroit, casually cruel, spectacular boor in the room.”""

  19. I'm just an outsider around here but I'll keep saying it, Bloomberg is has a God-Napoleon complex. This makes him toxic for anything connected to liberty and the concept of free agency.

    1. Bloomberg tried to ban large sized soda cups.

      It's scary as fuck if it weren't so comical that people actually listened to that clown.

      1. What's funny is the Big Gulp from 7/11 was not part of the ban.

        1. Exemptions.

          How am I not surprised?

          Like how everyone in the 'your masters class' wanted an exemption from Obamacare.

          Everyone's an asshole.

          1. I forget the reason but I don't recall it being an exemption per se. I think it had to do with where the department of health had jurisdiction. He did try to implement the ban by going through the dept of health. Which is why it could not survive a legal challenge.

            A ban like that must by passed by city council. But he knew he didn't have the votes so he tried to by pass city council by going through the health dept. That right there tell you about his respect for the legislative branch.

            1. IIRC a Big Gulp is "only" 32 oz.

  20. But the problem here is that Bloomberg's comments at Aspen make it clear that he did indeed know the impact that stop-and-frisk had on these communities. He just believed that the impact of harassing all these young men and upending their lives was worth it if it made people feel safer, even if the data didn't back it up and even when he was told he was violating people's constitutional rights.

    This perfectly encapsulates The Modern Left.

  21. There sure is a lot of resentment against Bloomberg here in the comments. I wonder how much of a tax break he got from Dear Leader. I wonder about these types of things so any guesses as to the kind of tax break he received and how that compares to the combined tax break received by the bottom quintile of White Trump supporters who voted for Dear Leader because of Gawd, country music, abortion, and because Trump humps and molests the flag occasionally when he goes to an NRA convention. What’d you think? Comparable?

    1. Did you suffer some kind of brain injury? You are more than just stupid. That is the most irrational, idiotic thing I have ever seen.

    2. What's your point?

      1. Maybe the concept of false consciousness.

        1. More likely some lame bullshit from a dead-beat scumbag.

  22. ""I wonder how much of a tax break he got from Dear Leader""

    Probably not much since Dear Leader killed the SALT deduction.

  23. Bloomberg might win the nomination but has no chance against Trump because his anti-gun elitist coastal snobbery will most certainly cost him in states like PA, MI, WI, and OH. And his stop and frisk and ethnicity/religion will also turn off many Black voters. I actually think Bernie is about the only one who might beat Trump at this point because he seems authentic and doesn’t come across as thinking he’s better than everyone.

    1. I don't think Bernie actually could win. But a Sanders/Gabbard ticket might make Trump sweat a little. More than any of the others, anyway.

  24. Is there any polling about how black folk really think about stop and frisk? Philly has had 41 murders in 41 days and, judging by the folks interviewed on tv in the neighborhoods where these murders happen, the vast majority of those who aren't lowlifes would seem to welcome more cops and tougher measures maybe including the stopping and frisking of any sketchy looking young men and damn the 4th amendment.

    1. Sadly, Philly hit #42 today.

    2. "...the vast majority of those who aren’t lowlifes would seem to welcome more cops and tougher measures maybe including the stopping and frisking of any sketchy looking young men and damn the 4th amendment."

      People like liberty and freedom. They demand order and safety.

    3. They are hardly different from those who demand "common sense", "sensible" gun legislation in response to mass shootings.

  25. Blacks are arrested less disproportionately for drug crimes than violent and property crimes. Therefore, ending drug prohibition will make the alleged problem worse.

    1. Finally! A Landover Baptist prophet is here to foretell the future! Allah be praised.

  26. I heard Bloomburg blew Buttigieg, either out of the water or out of Uncle Scrooge's swimming pool. Doesn't this make you miss Ross Perot?

  27. "Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods. So, one of the unintended consequences is, 'Oh my god, you're arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. 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 walls and frisk them."
    - Michael Bloomberg

    So, "Stop, Question, and Frisk" SQF was supposed to be for the noble purpose of taking guns off kids on the streets.
    _ In 2012 NYC PD
    found guns in SQF less than 0.1% (one out of a thousand) of 532 thousand stops.
    _ The NY Civil Liberties Union found that less that quarter of SQFs were actually based on reasonable suspicion the person had a gun.
    _ Bloomberg claims that so few guns were found because SQF served as a deterrant to carrying guns, so that's good, and thousands of the stopped, questioned, and frisked were found in possession of marijuana as an unintended consequence, but to Bloomberg a good thing. He's a bigger supporter of marijuana prohibition than anyone since maybe Harry Anslinger.

    Why, why, do I suspect, despite the fact Bloomberg is obsessed with guns, that the goal was to bust people for his other obsession, marihuana (to use the 1937 spelling)?

    "Bloomberg was still insisting stop-and-frisk worked even though data showed it wasn't true, and one judge had already ruled that the way police in New York City implemented stop-and-frisk violated citizens' Fourth Amendment rights."

    Stop and frisk for guns on the street was promoted in Norval Morris and Gordon J. Hawkins, "The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control", U Chicago Press, 1970: "there can be no 1984 fears in this. There can be no right to privacy in regard to armament." Morris and Hawkins also advocated Jamaican style gun control: conducting dragnet searchs of homes for privately owned guns. Morris was dean of the U Chicago Law School (1975-78) arriving via an academic career from New Zealand to Australia to UK before arriving in Chicago.

    Morris was nominated for appointment to head of the federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. On 27-28 Sep 1978, he was questioned on his views on the Fourth Amendment in enforcement of
    gun control. Although Morris backed away from the views expressed in Morris & Hawkins 1970 calling them "Utopian" and "science fiction", the Senate did not approve his nomination. -- (Washington Post, 29 Sep 1978, p. A13) Morris' supporters blamed his defeat on the magical powers of the NRA gun lobby.

    Don B. Kates (Restricting Handguns: Liberal Skeptics Speak Out) noted that the ACLU claimed that in one gun ban city, police operating "on the theory that any black driving a late model car has an illegal gun" conducted over 25,000 searches that resulted in finding 117 firearms. -- "Handgun Control: Prohibition Revisited", Inquiry, Dec 5 1977.

    So stop and frisk, the 4th amendment be damned by enemies of the 2nd amendment, has a long history in America, way older than Emperor Bloomberg's reign in New York City.

  28. No worries, Mike. Democrats are never held accountable for anything. You are a Democrat today, yes?
    PS: If anyone says anything, slip 'em a million.

    1. I was wondering how much he will have to pay Al Sharpton for absolution; I'm thinking at least 50, maybe 100 million.

  29. Is anyone under the impression that Bloomberg had a newfound appreciation for civil rights when he apologized for stop-and-frisk?

  30. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online ……… Read more  

  31. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours…......clickclick>

  32. My last month's online earnings was $16953 just by doing very easy and simple job online from home. I am a full time student and doing this online work for 2 to 3 hrs daily online. Awesome job and earning from this are just amazing. Get this today and start making money by follow details..... Read more   

  33. Home based job to make every month more than $19k by doing very easy work on laptop or Mobile just in part time. Last month i have received $16822 from this job by giving this 4 hrs maximum a day online. Very easy work to do and earning from this are just crazy. Everybody can now makes more cash online by joining this job from the website given below.... Click it here  

  34. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…....Read MoRe

  35. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  36. Stop and frisk and now redlining. Those pesky constitutional amendments getting in they way. If you are a minority in a poor neighborhood you are guilty until we finish our search and prove otherwise. Also you are not credit worthy simply because of the area in which you live. Your credit history is of no consequence.
    Scary to think NY elected him multiple times.

  37. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably….click here.......Read MoRe

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.