Bloomberg A Racist?

[seer]

Or just rational?. Of course the woke idiots will jump on it and his political rivals.

https://newsone.com/3902125/bloomber...k-voters-poll/

https://twitter.com/search?q=mike%20...rc=typed_query

[One Bad Pig]

The main problem I have with Bloomberg, however, is his naked attempt to buy the presidency.

[seer]

The main problem I have with Bloomberg, however, is his naked attempt to buy the presidency.

The woke twitter bots are really going after him on this. A perfectly rational policy...

[demi-conservative]

The main problem I have with Bloomberg, however, is his naked attempt to buy the presidency.

Compared to the standard half-naked attempts to buy it?

[One Bad Pig]

Compared to the standard half-naked attempts to buy it?

Generally it's done with other peoples' money (iow, donations).

[demi-conservative]

Generally it's done with other peoples' money (iow, donations).

It's still being bought, just by multiple buyers, and Bloomberg is just taking the current system to its logical conclusion.

[KingsGambit]

Of interest was Bloomberg maintaining that not enough minorities were stopped by stop and frisk based on a demographic analysis of the relevant crime areas. I believe the program was simply unconstitutional, FTR.

Also of interest is the video floating around where Bloomberg expressly defended regressive taxes as an attempt to correct behavior: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ou-want-pande/

In the case of tobacco, I'm actually not convinced he's wrong, but his attempt to explain it would come across flat to most of the nation should he win the nomination.

[seanD]

I believe the program was simply unconstitutional, FTR.

This is what gets lost in the whole fake "was it racist or not" issue of it.

[seer]

Of interest was Bloomberg maintaining that not enough minorities were stopped by stop and frisk based on a demographic analysis of the relevant crime areas. I believe the program was simply unconstitutional, FTR.

It is Constitutional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

[Terraceth]

It is Constitutional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

And lest anyone say "well, that decision was from the 1960's, maybe the current Court would say something else," the article notes subsequent decisions expanding it, including the 2014 decision Heien v. North Carolina (8-1).

[seanD]

It is Constitutional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Problem is, it presupposes an organization that has had a history of corruption will use "reasonable" means in bypassing that amendment. "Reasonable" and corruption are never a good combo.

[NorrinRadd]

Sounds a lot like DWB to me.

[rogue06]

And lest anyone say "well, that decision was from the 1960's, maybe the current Court would say something else," the article notes subsequent decisions expanding it, including the 2014 decision Heien v. North Carolina (8-1).

And an interesting approach as well. I wonder if those saying it would view Roe v. Wade in a similar light since it's from the early 70s

[Terraceth]

And an interesting approach as well. I wonder if those saying it would view Roe v. Wade in a similar light since it's from the early 70s

My comment was meant more in reference to older decisions that, while not actually overturned by the court, would definitely be if it ever went up to them again. It would be foolish to appeal to Buck v. Bell as evidence that government-mandated sterilization for the unfit is constitutional because while it's never technically been overturned (no need to, all of the applicable laws have been repealed or are unenforced), there's no way if the issue went to the Supreme Court nowadays the law in question wouldn't be struck down. I was more trying to say that Terry v. Ohio couldn't be dismissed on the speculation that it was something like Buck v. Bell because it's been so clearly reaffirmed multiple times since by justices of different decades and different judicial philosophies.