Charles M. Blow @CharlesMBlow Read my column, "The Notorious Michael R. Bloomberg,"'

[BeckyDem]

Link to tweet

( Charles is rightfully appalled by some of those defending Bloomberg.)

[still_one]

1. The only thing I will say to Charles is that if it comes down to trump and Bloomberg

I’ll vote for Bloomberg

If it comes down to trump or the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee

[BeckyDem]

2. I keep seeing this stated over and over again and I understand the concern is real.

What Charles and people like myself, a person of color are saying, this guy is not who he says he is and please do not support his hype during the primary. THAT is what is most important right now, to be aware of him and why we feel so strongly against him.

[still_one]

3. Bloomberg is not on my list for my Super Tuesday vote. I will be looking at Nevada and SC to weigh

my vote for Biden, Amy, Pete, or Liz

[BeckyDem]

4. +1. None of our other candidates would govern like Bloomberg.

[True Blue American]

7. That policy was in effect before Cloomberg.

It also cut down on crime among the young. He has apologized and has a great record on guns,heAlth care and jobs!

He is clobbering Trump!

[BeckyDem]

12. Racial profiling cut down on youth crime?

I can't believe some of the arguments I read here.

[True Blue American]

13. Bloomberg also worked with Obama

On gun control. The program was started to get guns out of neighborhoods, not racial profiling.

[BeckyDem]

14. Do not throw Obama up to me to cover for Bloomberg.

You can deny Bloomberg's record all you want, it will not change reality.

[uponit7771]

5. Bloomberg has not apologized for racial profiling he said S&F was "overused" vs it shouldn't

... have been used at all in the way he used it.

This is disgusting

[BeckyDem]

6. Thank you!

[True Blue American]

8. Yes,he has!

Several times.

[uponit7771]

9. Link and quote Bloomberg apologizing for racial profiling? S&F is legal racial profiling is not

[Cal Carpenter]

10. I think it is important for people to understand

That there is a reason for Charles Blow, Michael Harriot, and other black writers to focus on Bloomberg. He is an opportunist. He took institutional racism to some seriously next-level shit and destroyed thousands and thousands of lives. In the recent past. Not just stop-and-frisk but in housing, wages, and various other ways. Just google what happened in Rikers Island (where many of the victims of stop-and-frisk had to spend time, btw, especially if they couldn't pay bail) under Bloomberg's watch. Use of force against inmates by guards increased by 90% in one year. ONE YEAR.

I could parse about Klobuchar as prosecutor or Buttigieg as mayor, but I won't. They were in roles in which institutional racism was part and parcel. Could they have done better? Sure. But they pretty much chugged along with the status quo, and they seem sincere in their efforts to understand the depth of systemic racism and the importance of doing something about it.


Bloomberg is a whole different animal, with wealth and power and a very dangerous authoritarianism. His so-called 'apologies' about this do not even scratch the surface of how directly responsible he is for the results of his policies, and how extreme (even unconstitutional) those policies were. We've heard recordings from just 5 years ago when he says things that should horrify all Democrats, and certainly make it clear that he cannot represent the Democratic Party!

While Bloomberg is getting meaningful (and for me, unnerving) endorsements from Black Democratic politicians and leaders, I genuinely believe that if he gets the nomination, enthusiasm and turnout will be greatly impacted, particularly among POC and those (generally younger folks) who are encouraging a real reckoning in this country about how embedded racism is in our history and our institutions and the depth of change that we need to make it better.

Bloomberg is NOT a step forward. I've heard some argue that his opportunistic tendencies, intelligence and political savvy could make him even more dangerous than Trump. Based on his track record, those arguments are hard to counter.

If he is sincere in his desire to spend a shit ton of money to get Trump out, he should step aside and spend it on Democratic candidates. Any of them. All of them. Whatever will work. But mostly during the general election when it counts.

[BeckyDem]

11. This really should be an OP here by itself.

I appreciate it very much. I am fully aware of Bloomberg policies and he is spreading his wealth all over to gain support where he does not deserve it. Charles, as you say is speaking out, there are others, and they must push back. We all must push back.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. Thanks BeckyDem

I'm reluctant to post something like this as an OP because I fear it is treading the line of the rules, if DU recognizes Bloomberg as a genuine Dem Party candidate.

But as you say, we must push back and if we don't do it loudly and immediately it will be too late, imho. He's gaining so much traction just with his massive ad spending, without having even been on a ballot or on a debate stage yet.

I will say that I'm happy to see supporters of all candidates reacting with disgust/horror/shock that Bloomberg's being considered a legitimate candidate.

[BeckyDem]

16. Yes, we are in agreement, he is not the candidate he says he is and must be rejected.

I am thinking, Booker and Kamala are gone and I have to listen to this guy on the debate stage because that's what billionaires can do?

I understand what you mean about the rules here, but within the confines of a primary, he must be challenged.

[Cal Carpenter]

18. Welp, I did it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287517268

[BeckyDem]

19. You are the best!

[jmg257]

17. Agree - this is a great post! nt