Charles M. Blow: You Must Never Vote for Bloomberg

[melman]

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:21 AM - Edit history (2)

--
Let me plant the stake now: No black person — or Hispanic person or ally of people of color — should ever even consider voting for Michael Bloomberg in the primary. His expansion of the notoriously racist stop-and-frisk program in New York, which swept up millions of innocent New Yorkers, primarily young black and Hispanic men, is a complete and nonnegotiable deal killer.

Stop-and-frisk, pushed as a way to get guns and other contraband off the streets, became nothing short of a massive, enduring, city-sanctioned system of racial terror.

This system of terror exploded under Bloomberg, with his full advocacy and support.

--

Just the idea of Bloomberg in the race is odious to me. And support for his candidacy incenses me. Anyone who would support Bloomberg is complicit in his terror campaign against those young black and Hispanic men — and dismissive of their pain.

If you support Bloomberg, I want nothing to do with you. Nothing!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/michael-bloomberg.html


----

edited to comply with copyright guidelines. Please click link for full article.

[George II]

1. Is this YOUR sentiment of Charles Blow's:

Just the idea of Bloomberg in the race is odious to me. And support for his candidacy incenses me. Anyone who would support Bloomberg is complicit in his terror campaign against those young black and Hispanic men — and dismissive of their pain.

If you support Bloomberg, I want nothing to do with you. Nothing!

[melman]

2. Every word is copied directly from the NY Times site

As you can easily see if you clink the link.

[George II]

3. "As you can easily see if you clink the link." - when you post a link from a site behind a paywall..

..."clinking" the link doesn't do much good.

[melman]

4. I was able to read it and I don't have a subscription

[George II]

6. The New York Times allows five free articles a month.

[melman]

14. Yes and there are ways around the article limit

It's quite easy as I'm sure you know.



Anyway, this is an important column and I think everyone should see it. So keep on bumping!

[George II]

17. I try not to cheat, just as I try not to violate copyright infringement polity. "Bump" away!

[melman]

19. Oh you are so wonderfully virtuous

I'm sure everyone is terribly impressed. Equally, I'm sure everyone realizes what all of this is really about.


You don't like what Charles Blow says here. And you don't like that I posted it.

[George II]

22. I try to be.

[lapucelle]

30. Charles Blow seems to have his facts wrong.

Not only has Bloomberg failed to express any regret for what he did, he has continued to defend it.

Blow reminds me of the folks during the 2016 general election who continually demanded apologies from one candidate and then were never satisfied anyway.

What's really truly reprehensible is a pundit using his NYT column to skew the case by misstating facts. Blow needs to take responsibility, apologize to readers and Bloomberg, and correct the inaccuracies in his column. Anyone cognizant of journalistic ethics observes this basic principle:

You Must Never Misstate Facts in an Attempt to Sway Public Opinion

It's pretty clear why the BS campaign is so afraid of a Bloomberg candidacy: Bloomberg has been a strong anti-gun activist for 15+ years. Bloomberg has led on this issue, even as a private citizen.

One can hardly blame a career politician with a record of voting with Republicans on guns for 20+ years from running scared.

[melman]

39. "It's pretty clear why the BS campaign is so afraid of a Bloomberg candidacy"

Charles Blow a Bernie surrogate now?

[lapucelle]

40. It's clear that the BS campaign (and by extension some BS followers)

are scared of Bloomberg. Gun violence will be an issue, and any politician who voted with the Republicans against the Brady Bill and for the PLCAA will be held accountable.

Nobody said that Blow is a BS surrogate. But any source of bias confirmation who either doesn't know the facts or who deliberately misstates the facts is not a source who can be trusted, however desperate partisans may be.

[PJMcK]

57. Excellent points

I urge you to re-post your comments as a direct reply to the OP.

Have a heart, lapucelle!

[lapucelle]

70. Thank You!

[PatSeg]

55. There is nothing wrong

with not wanting to cheat.

[customerserviceguy]

64. I haven't used up my five free articles

and I will verify that what the OP says is in the article is indeed in the article. Sorry if using one of my freebies is considered cheating.

[thesquanderer]

25. I suspect most people don't know how to get past paywall even if they want to

(except by paying, of course).. I have to agree with George, you should not assume anyone here can see behind a paywall.

[chia]

34. There's no paywall if you haven't exceeded their 5 article limit, and if you have, google the title

because the article will be reprinted in various other publications that don't have firewalls. It really is pretty easy to do.

[melman]

38. Times links are posted all the time

There's never any complaint unless someone object to the content.

bonus protip: clear your browsing history/cache/cookies every day. Proceed to read anything online you want to.

[thesquanderer]

41. I have no issue with anyone posting NYT links (or WSJ or WP)

but I don't think it was terrible for George to ask for confirmation that the end of the quoted part was in the original (and not additional commentary by the OP).

[melman]

53. Did I say that it was?

No.

btw, if you follow the post chain you will see the same poster that complained about the paywall also complained that too much of the article was posted. That should tell you all you need to know about the motivation behind the complaints.

[MineralMan]

51. But, see, I don't know how to do that.

Maybe you can tell us what techniques you use to bypass the NYT's paywall. That would be really helpful to some who don't mind violating that newspaper's attempts to stay in business and continue delivering the news.

I'll just wait here to see how you do that. I won't use your tips, myself, since I subscribe to the NYT. See, I believe that newspapers are a crucial service to keep us informed.

Others, I'm sure, though, would love to learn how to skip paying for that content.

[PatSeg]

52. I know there are ways about the pay wall

but it is cheating, so I won't do it.

[melman]

56. Maybe you could subscribe to the Times?

That seems like an option to consider.

[PatSeg]

60. Honestly, I prefer the Washington Post

but right now I can't afford to subscribe.

[Skya Rhen]

5. Good for you Charles. You are one of the few journalists not afraid to stand up to this media mogul.

Obviously you're not for sale.

[jcmaine72]

7. I concur.

[Amishman]

27. Yup, alarmed at how many people are buying into Bloomberg's contrived persona

He might be running ads we like, and I do appreciate his hits against Trump, but he is not what we want or need in the White House.

[PatSeg]

59. Yes

I love how Bloomberg is going after Donald Trump. He is really good at it and can afford to run ads nonstop, but he is not my idea of who I want for a Democratic president. Of course, I'd vote for him if he was the nominee, but only to defeat Trump.

[Dem2]

8. The knives are out of Bloomy now!

Not sure if it hurts or helps him, but it's expected and I'm glad he's being vetted now that it seems he has a chance.

[DesertRat]

9. He's been fuming about Bloomberg on twitter for the past couple of days

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[jcmaine72]

12. These are valid points Mr. Blow is making and they need to be discussed.

We would never, EVER overlook the wholehearted endorsement and defense of such blatant civil rights violations against African-Americans from anyone else, so why does Bloomberg get a pass?

I stand in firm solidarity with Charles Blow. We need to be better than this as a party. We can be better than this as a party. We MUST be better than this as a party.

[DesertRat]

50. I agree

Link to tweet

[backtoblue]

62. +1 nt

[redqueen]

44. Wow. This got ONE reply? Who can read that and not react?

Yep - Bloomberg would tank us in the GE. I have no doubt

[airmid]

63. It's my understanding there are also a few troubling NDA's. Bloomberg sounds like

a smarter Trump.

[Dem4Life1102]

10. Bloomberg is another rich white authoritarian

We don't need a less conservative version of Trump.

[customerserviceguy]

65. If the November election

comes down to "Our NYC billionaire is better than your NYC billionaire," we lose.

[Dem4Life1102]

71. Yes we do.

[Garrett78]

11. Yep

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=510100

[demofan40]

13. I agree with him 100% but he shouldn't be blocking people

For asking what happens if it comes down to Trump or Bloomberg. Because like it or not (and I sure am not thrilled) at this point it's a possibility. And you can't just run away from that.

I have great respect for Blow (always have) but what's the plan of action to stop Bloomberg from getting the nomination?

[melman]

16. video

Link to tweet

[Sunsky]

48. I couldn't have said it better

A Bloomberg nomination would be a gut punch for many AAs. Democrats can't do this to us. It would be a huge mistake, that would cost us votes for years.
I believe Bloomberg today is the same stop and frisk Bloomberg. He stated that he believed too many white people were being stopped, because white people didn't fit the profile. This is who Bloomberg is. IMO he only apologized because he was going to announce his candidacy.
A few days ago, I was like many of my fellow AAs. I was warming up to Bloomberg because- his ads are powerful, he's saying the right things and he has the money to go head to head with the Trump machine. However, after I listened to his words about racial profiling and did some digging of my own, I now believe if Bloomberg is our nominee, it will suppress our base. Money won't undo his past.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I would prefer Sanders as our nominee to Bloomberg.

[Cal Carpenter]

18. It shouldn't even be a question

and he shouldn't have to answer it.

Bloomberg should be unelectable. He is an opportunistic, greedy racist man. He destroys lives. He is a danger to society.

If it is even conceivable that he could be the Democratic Party's nominee, the ostensible best we can do against Trump, then it has all gone too far.

[jcmaine72]

24. +1000 Excellent post!

Spot on!

[redqueen]

45. Exactly. It's like some people WANT to drive other people out of this party. nt

[customerserviceguy]

67. The plan

is getting people to vote for someone who can earn the nomination instead of buying it.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. I'm glad this is blowing up

(No pun intended )

Really, though, Bloomberg's history is fucking brutal. If he's really gonna spend a billion on this race no matter who the candidate's gonna be that's peachy.

But he sure as shit better not be the nominee.

I'm glad to see Charles Blow, the Root, and other black media helping make this crystal clear.

[Kaleva]

32. But you'll still vote for him if he is the nominee.

[hangaleft]

36. You say it's blowing up

And it may very well be.

Here.

But is it among Democratic voters, especially Blacks and Latinos, at large?

That remains to be seen.

I’m not Black. But I respect Charles Blow. And if he’s that vehemently opposed to Bloomberg, as a POC there’s no way I’d vote for him. And without the support of Blacks and Latinos, a Democrat doesn’t have a chance.

I don’t like Joe Biden. I didn’t like what he did to Anita Hill. And I didn’t like what he did with our bankruptcy laws. But I’d take Biden over Bloomberg if that’s what it came down to.

Hopefully it won’t.

[Cal Carpenter]

49. In my experience, DU is behind the curve on this

as are the cable news pundits. I haven't noticed concerted effort to talk about this until this week when the tapes came out.

In real life conversation and in reading essays online, much of the black community has been critical of Bloomberg as a possible candidate since day one. There have been some murmurings about it here on DU but I am glad to see more mainstream black voices like Charles Blow and Michael Harriot saying it loudly and clearly.

I am white, and I deal with the public all day. I have, at minimum, several in-depth conversations about politics per day. Sometimes literally dozens of conversations. I'm in a very, very blue county and I'm dealing with people of all demographics in terms of race, age, gender, nationality, religion (lots of very progressive Muslims around here!).

While my bias may impact my perception, my feeling is that most people are like "Bloomberg? Really? No fucking way." And his racist policies as NY mayor have as much to do with that as his wealth.

[loyalsister]

47. He could have spent the money without injecting himself

into the process. That he did makes me doubt that he has good intentions. White supremacy and egomania define him and his candidacy.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread melman.

[BootinUp]

21. Bloombergs problem is his ego, I figure,

He knows better than all of us.

[Awsi Dooger]

23. Charles Blow has no clue

The devastating reality is a choice between Donald Trump and someone he would defeat

We've spent 3 years stupidly believing Trump is an easy out

[Lexblues]

26. Bloomberg is atoning and as he long as he can beat Trump

I don't give a rat's ass. Plus, Bloomberg is putting out specific broad plans for the African American community. 2020 is not the year for purity tests.

[secondwind]

29. Hear, hear......

[redqueen]

46. Stop calling not violating millions of Black and Hispanic men's civil rights a "Purity test".

Details about climate change plans, social welfare plans, and healthcare plans are purity tests.

This is WAY more than that

[stopbush]

28. Mr Blow has nothing to do with me, as I just early voted for Bloomberg in the CA primary.

[Kaleva]

31. Everyone here will vote for Bloomberg in the general if he is the nominee.

[brooklynite]

37. "I won't vote"

That'll teach 'em!

[ChiTownDenny]

66. It sure taught the 4,000,000 voters

who sat out 2016. Heh!

"4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/12/4-4-million-2012-obama-voters-stayed-home-in-2016-more-than-a-third-of-them-black/

[customerserviceguy]

68. You think there was a lot of third party voting in 2016?

If it's Bloomberg vs Trump, that will seem like nothing.

[comradebillyboy]

42. Sorry Charlie, I'll vote for whoever I please. I really don't need

the NYT to tell me how to vote.

[Autumn]

43. This guy really alarms me. I found an old article about him, I knew about stop and frisk

but his attitude towards women shocked me.

[Cal Carpenter]

54. He has shown by his actions who he is

and if he is given POTUS level power, I fear what will happen. His policies have destroyed lives.

Before people start demanding Democratic Party loyalty by trying to force people to say they'll vote for him in November if he wins the nom, I think they should have to answer how the fuck it has gotten to the point that he is in actual contention to be the leader of the Democratic party. Because it is really, really fucked up.

He is an authoritarian racist, and what's scary is that he's a shitload more competent and adept at playing the politics game than Trump.

[jmg257]

58. Blow's twitter feed is a must read.

https://twitter.com/CharlesMBlow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1227778310622654466&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F%3Fcom%3Dview_post%26forum%3D1287%26pid%3D510189

[Devil Child]

61. I'm in total agreement with Blow!

Bloomberg is the least palatable primary choice for me. Shocked that so many are enchanted by his fortune as a determiner of his electoral worth.

[customerserviceguy]

69. Just like the MAGAts

who were (and still are) fascinated by Trump's phony stardom.