• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump Just Nuked Bloomberg From Orbit

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,952
19,896
855
What context? First case the context is that they were criticising Trump's administration, on which he replied "if you are not happy here then just leave, go back to where you came from" "pie_tears_joy: Such a constructive way of replying to comments on your administration.
There is perhaps nothing more intellectually dishonest than intentionally misusing quote marks.

First, you claimed he said this to "people of color". Ok, I'll ignore your racism for a second and point out he said this to highly successful politicians. To reduce them to "people of color" makes you the racist.

And what he actually said: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."

In other words, he is pointing out Ilhan Omar, for example, was literally saved by the USA. We took her in as a refugee, and in this great country she was able to not only succeed but rise to high office in our Federal government, with a platform to speak to the entire nation. And that with all her vitriol against the country that offered her so much, perhaps she should remember her own past, and why she needed to leave her home country in the first place.

But most importantly, note that Trump said 'come back'.

You post lies and half truths and see everything in race. Look in the mirror. You are what you claim Trump to be.
 
Last edited:

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
1,075
537
410
Trump shouldn't be the messenger on this, but I figured this would catch up with Bloomberg. It was a good idea to add and delete to get the ball rolling before blowback.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
The standards of "rationality" have been openly discussed and debated for 1000s of years.

While individual examples might be subjective, to say that rationality is "mostly subjective" is ignorant. Humanity developed the metaphysical ideal of "rationality" specifically to counter everyone's natural, subjective viewpoint.
Didn't I say on a personal level? You are repeating what I said.

But let's say my comments on Trump were irrational, and subjective based on my own personal political viewpoint. Then you can probably say the same about all the media outlets that said the same, which can be true by the way. It was the subjective viewpoint of those specific media companies. The reason why it's subjective is because it doesn't align with the view of many others (I guess). Although them saying it's not racist is equally irrational then. Which means it's both as well as neither. Point being that pointing out that I'm behaving irrational can also be said if I would've said that it wasn't racist. So there wasn't a right answer and it's easier to say nothing. So what's the point of a forum then...
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
23,016
6,885
2,235
42
Southern California
mcucosmic.com
What context? First case the context is that they were criticising Trump's administration, on which he replied "if you are not happy here then just leave, go back to where you came from" "pie_tears_joy: Such a constructive way of replying to comments on your administration.


One has nothing to do with the other... I mean sure he did great things for the American economy, and you are right about the First Step Act, but that doesn't mean that if you do a positive thing for minorities that it's then OK to tweet racist messages.
"Look at this KKK grand dragon!"



 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
Didn't I say on a personal level? You are repeating what I said.

But let's say my comments on Trump were irrational, and subjective based on my own personal political viewpoint. Then you can probably say the same about all the media outlets that said the same, which can be true by the way. It was the subjective viewpoint of those specific media companies. The reason why it's subjective is because it doesn't align with the view of many others (I guess). Although them saying it's not racist is equally irrational then. Which means it's both as well as neither. Point being that pointing out that I'm behaving irrational can also be said if I would've said that it wasn't racist. So there wasn't a right answer and it's easier to say nothing. So what's the point of a forum then...
Racism has a specific definition. Provide proof that Trump fulfills that definition. Primary sources only, no "he said, she said" and point to the particular part of the definition where Trump's actions fit.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Didn't I say on a personal level? You are repeating what I said.
But we're not talking on a "personal level", so you're either throwing in an unrelated platitude to distract from the topic at hand, or you don't understand the topic and included it to sound smart. In either case, it was a deflection that does not apply here.

But let's say my comments on Trump were irrational, and subjective based on my own personal political viewpoint. Then you can probably say the same about all the media outlets that said the same, which can be true by the way. It was the subjective viewpoint of those specific media companies. The reason why it's subjective is because it doesn't align with the view of many others (I guess). Although them saying it's not racist is equally irrational then. Which means it's both as well as neither. Point being that pointing out that I'm behaving irrational can also be said if I would've said that it wasn't racist. So there wasn't a right answer and it's easier to say nothing. So what's the point of a forum then...
Accusations of "racism" are fundamentally subjective because the term "racism" has changed with culture. So if we're going to complain about the subjectivity of "rationality", it applies even moreso to the term "racism".

No one is saying you can't discuss. Quite the opposite: people are asking you to back up your claims. That is indeed the point of a forum. It doesn't reflect well on you that this must be spelled out, apparently.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,797
4,323
1,055
Didn't I say on a personal level? You are repeating what I said.

But let's say my comments on Trump were irrational, and subjective based on my own personal political viewpoint. Then you can probably say the same about all the media outlets that said the same, which can be true by the way. It was the subjective viewpoint of those specific media companies. The reason why it's subjective is because it doesn't align with the view of many others (I guess). Although them saying it's not racist is equally irrational then. Which means it's both as well as neither. Point being that pointing out that I'm behaving irrational can also be said if I would've said that it wasn't racist. So there wasn't a right answer and it's easier to say nothing. So what's the point of a forum then...
When faced with facts your feelings should moderate accordingly. Not double down because you don't like the facts.

That's been the point of a forum since the time of Socrates et. al.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rockbottom12

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
No one is saying you can't discuss. Quite the opposite: people are asking you to back up your claims. That is indeed the point of a forum. It doesn't reflect well on you that this must be spelled out, apparently.
When I back it up, I get the comment that I'm being irrational and subjective. Even though there are millions of articles claiming the same, but they are also being "irrational". Hence our back and forth on rationality.
 

Oner

Member
Jun 19, 2015
95
82
305
When faced with facts your feelings should moderate accordingly. Not double down because you don't like the facts.

That's been the point of a forum since the time of Socrates et. al.
Real time Cognitive Dissonance in full display...it's quite interesting to see live.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
When I back it up, I get the comment that I'm being irrational and subjective. Even though there are millions of articles claiming the same, but they are also being "irrational". Hence our back and forth on rationality.
Appeal to authority / Argumentum ad Populum is covered in the overarching rules of "rationality". There's no back and forth, you're just really far behind and need to catch up on the basics of forming a logical argument. I'm not blaming you, it's quite possible you were robbed of the chance to ever study these basics and/or you were intentionally taught malformed patterns of thinking.

Your open-ended concern over "what's the point of a forum then" is just a fancy way of retreating to the same old "oh so I'm not allowed to have an opinion?" argument. You are certainly allowed to have an opinion, but expressing that opinion on a forum comes with the implicit understanding that your opinion can be challenged -- since an opinion by its nature will challenge other viewpoints when you present it publicly.

Changing your words does not change the intent, in the same way that changing the definition of "racism" does not ex post facto make everyone from all of human history "racist", either.

It would be like assuming any person who criticizes the Xbox brand is a "Sony pony" or anyone who criticizes Playstation is an "Xbot". Even videogame forum nerds figured this out a decade ago yet the same "logic" continues to pop up.
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
When I back it up, I get the comment that I'm being irrational and subjective. Even though there are millions of articles claiming the same, but they are also being "irrational". Hence our back and forth on rationality.
The number of articles making the same claim has no bearing on the validity of the claim. To claim that "millions of articles are saying 'Trump is racist'. Therefore, he is" is no different from claiming that the universe is geocentric because everyone said so back in the Dark Ages.
 

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
1,075
537
410
The number of articles making the same claim has no bearing on the validity of the claim. To claim that "millions of articles are saying 'Trump is racist'. Therefore, he is" is no different from claiming that the universe is geocentric because everyone said so back in the Dark Ages.
I dunno man, Trump did say things like he wants to implement stop and frisk across the country in the 2016 campaign. He did allegedly say that laziness is a trait in all blacks that they can't control.

So he's a mixed bag. I think he does what he needs to win, including embracing racism to get votes, or showing that he's not racist. He's a winner like that, but not a good moral example of a person.
 
Last edited:

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
Appeal to authority / Argumentum ad Populum is covered in the overarching rules of "rationality". There's no back and forth, you're just really far behind and need to catch up on the basics of forming a logical argument. I'm not blaming you, it's quite possible you were robbed of the chance to ever study these basics and/or you were intentionally taught malformed patterns of thinking.

Your open-ended concern over "what's the point of a forum then" is just a fancy way of retreating to the same old "oh so I'm not allowed to have an opinion?" argument. You are certainly allowed to have an opinion, but expressing that opinion on a forum comes with the implicit understanding that your opinion can be challenged -- since an opinion by its nature will challenge other viewpoints when you present it publicly.
You're going in circles, and are pretty condescending. Also nowhere did I say that I'm not entitled to an opinion, that was merely the conclusion based on the interpretation of rationality on my first post.
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
I dunno man, Trump did say things like he wants to implement stop and frisk across the country in the 2016 campaign.
And what does that have to do with racism?

He did allegedly say that laziness is a trait in all blacks that they can't control.
The bold was all I had to read before I knew I don't have to read the rest of the sentence.

So he's a mixed bag. I think he does what he needs to win, including embracing racism to get votes, or showing that he's not racist. He's a winner like that, but not a moral person.
Actions speak louder than words. Maybe name a bill he signed into law rather than something that he allegedly said.
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
You're going in circles, and are pretty condescending. Also nowhere did I say that I'm not entitled to an opinion, that was merely the conclusion based on the interpretation of rationality on my first post.
Pointing out that you made an Appeal to Authority fallacy is not going in circles nor is it condescending. If you want to defend your position, defend it with (primary) sources. Point to the part of the definition of racism that fits with your evidence. It's not that hard.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
You're going in circles, and are pretty condescending. Also nowhere did I say that I'm not entitled to an opinion, that was merely the conclusion based on the interpretation of rationality on my first post.
Okay, you can just claim I'm "going in circles", it's certainly not the first time someone dipped out of a conversation in that way on these boards. Ya caught me. I was actually going in circles instead of directly challenging your assertions.
 

SpartanN92

Gold Member
Sep 7, 2012
3,460
3,206
860
US
I never thought I’d agree with Michael Bloomberg on something.
The facts aren’t racist, however when considering that Bloomberg is running with the party that has spent 5 years now calling Trump a racist it certainly has bad optics.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,616
7,238
460
I dunno man, Trump did say things like he wants to implement stop and frisk across the country in the 2016 campaign. He did allegedly say that laziness is a trait in all blacks that they can't control.

So he's a mixed bag. I think he does what he needs to win, including embracing racism to get votes, or showing that he's not racist. He's a winner like that, but not a good moral example of a person.
When did he say all blacks are lazy?

Edit: just saw the allegedly. So it didn’t actually happen at all.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
7,880
7,392
515
What a surprise.

a rich democrat who in reality is a hardcore closet discriminatory person.

say one thing on a podium, say another in a close door meeting
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
I never thought I’d agree with Michael Bloomberg on something.
The facts aren’t racist, however when considering that Bloomberg is running with the party that has spent 5 years now calling Trump a racist it certainly has bad optics.
Yeah, I see this as more of Trump pointing out that Bloomberg fits the Democrats' definition of "racism" and seeing if they will apply their standards on one of their own candidates (or conveniently try to sweep this under the rug).
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
Pointing out that you made an Appeal to Authority fallacy is not going in circles nor is it condescending. If you want to defend your position, defend it with (primary) sources. Point to the part of the definition of racism that fits with your evidence. It's not that hard.
Like i said, going in circles. I say trump is racist, because for example comments he made about those 4 congresswomen. I get the response that it's not really racism and more my opinion and interpretation. I'm being irrational. My argument is then that the same can be said about it not being racist and that it is thus open to everyone's interpretation. A bit like @DunDunDunpac also says in his response, but my point being that if it's up to personal interpretation there is no "proof". If you're asking me why I find those tweets racist, well I already said why and on that I got the response it's irrational. Hence circles circles circles.
 

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
1,075
537
410
When did he say all blacks are lazy?

Edit: just saw the allegedly. So it didn’t actually happen at all.
Well that's not necessarily true. It was from the former pres of trump plaza hotel, which Trump said that the book is mostly true.

And what does that have to do with racism?
Trump agrees with stop and frisk, he agrees with Bloomberg, even though it's a proven racist/racially motivated policy.

Bloomberg is a racist, no surprise there.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,911
3,673
1,500
I'm so used to asking for evidence now it's kind of funny it has bled over into any discussion concerning Trump.

People keep making claims without any direct evidence, only to point out the "millions of articles". This is not evidence. Nor are feelings. Does Trump really bring this out in people? "He looks like a racist" is an example of what people keep doing to Trump in all manner of things. "It looks like he withheld aid"

I used to think innocent until proven guilty, and evidence were universally known things. I am apparently wrong.
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
Like i said, going in circles. I say trump is racist, because for example comments he made about those 4 congresswomen. I get the response that it's not really racism and more my opinion and interpretation. I'm being irrational. My argument is then that the same can be said about it not being racist and that it is thus open to everyone's interpretation. A bit like @DunDunDunpac also says in his response, but my point being that if it's up to personal interpretation there is no "proof". If you're asking me why I find those tweets racist, well I already said why and on that I got the response it's irrational. Hence circles circles circles.
An Appeal to Authority fallacy is still an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I don't care how many articles say Trump is racist. That is not evidence. Show your evidence and explain how it supports your claim rather than feigning victimhood.

Trump agrees with stop and frisk, he agrees with Bloomberg, even though it's a proven racist/racially motivated policy.

Bloomberg is a racist, no surprise there.
What evidence proves that stop and frisk is racist?

I crossed out "racially motivated" because I can see what you're trying from a mile away, i.e. playing the association game.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
6,171
14,956
1,090
I get the response that it's not really racism and more my opinion and interpretation.
That's not what people said.
In order to defend your misquote, you are misrepresenting what others have said and are misrepresenting their position.
This is on top of the hypocrisy I've already pointed out.

Adding further layers of misrepresentation onto the ones you've already used is not going to win any good-faith argument.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Well that's not necessarily true. It was from the former pres of trump plaza hotel, which Trump said that the book is mostly true.



Trump agrees with stop and frisk, he agrees with Bloomberg, even though it's a proven racist/racially motivated policy.

Bloomberg is a racist, no surprise there.
We've had actual policies that were "racially motivated" in the USA, mainly propagated by the same political party that now claims authority over what does and does not qualify as "racism" (muh party switch)


It's pretty easy to see the policy is incredibly tame compared to the racist/racially motivated policies from just a few decades ago. The contrast is impossible to miss.

I'm pragmatic. I don't think stop and frisk is the best way to handle street crime, but also not the worst. The idea of a checkpoint or street patrols is to not only catch crimes as they occur, not only to prevent crimes by catching them on the way, but also to prevent crimes by introducing a new deterrent. Deterrents are an ancient concept.

One of the pillars of effective law enforcement is deterrence. Enforcement is only one piece of the puzzle. Did a not-zero number of racist cops stop and frisk? Probably. Did a not-zero number of racist politicians vote in favor of stop and frisk? Probably.

But that doesn't make the policy "proven racist/racially motivated". Deterrence is an unavoidable compromise if a region hopes to keep its police force relatively small. Deterrence isn't all that necessary in a police state that cracks down on everything. Ironically, discarding methods like stop and frisk may lead to a more aggressive, nosy police state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arelyon

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
3,977
5,379
450
If Era are disagreeing with Boomberg, a democrat and agreeing with the sentiment of Trump, orange man bad...

...Does that mean that the four horsemen are on their way?
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
An Appeal to Authority fallacy is still an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I don't care how many articles say Trump is racist. That is not evidence. Show your evidence and explain how it supports your claim rather than feigning victimhood.
Definition racism : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

His tweet said their comments currently didn't have merit because it's going bad where their ancestors come from, so they should go back and fix it there and then they have a right to comment on his administration. He is discriminating them (saying their opinions aren't valid) based on where their ancestors come from.

Better like this?
 
Last edited:

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
5,445
755
630
Lol, that's like saying that Trump shouldn't comment on European economics since that's where he came from. He should first go to Europe, and fix stuff there before giving comments on how Obama was running things.

And again, those congresswomen are from America, and indeed somewhere in their family tree they have ancestors from a foreign country. But that has nothing to do with their comments, he's saying that they don't have a right to give comments due to their heritage.
Trump was born in america and therefor from america. Ohmar was not and is not from america.
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
Definition racism : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

His tweet said their comments currently didn't have merit because it's going bad where their ancestors come from, so they should go back and fix it there and then they have a right to comment on his administration. He is discriminating them (saying their opinions aren't valid) based on where their ancestors come from.

Better like this?
You have not proven that the discrimination is based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Just because there is discrimination, that is not evidence for racism if the reason behind it is not based on the belief of racial superiority/inferiority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cybrwzrd

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
You have not proven that the discrimination is based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Just because there is discrimination, that is not evidence for racism if the reason behind it is not based on the belief of racial superiority/inferiority.
That is emphasized by "where they came from" which for some wasn't the US
 

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
1,075
537
410
An Appeal to Authority fallacy is still an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I don't care how many articles say Trump is racist. That is not evidence. Show your evidence and explain how it supports your claim rather than feigning victimhood.


What evidence proves that stop and frisk is racist?

I crossed out "racially motivated" because I can see what you're trying from a mile away, i.e. playing the association game.
That's an easy one, and very well documented.

We've had actual policies that were "racially motivated" in the USA, mainly propagated by the same political party that now claims authority over what does and does not qualify as "racism" (muh party switch)


It's pretty easy to see the policy is incredibly tame compared to the racist/racially motivated policies from just a few decades ago. The contrast is impossible to miss.

I'm pragmatic. I don't think stop and frisk is the best way to handle street crime, but also not the worst. The idea of a checkpoint or street patrols is to not only catch crimes as they occur, not only to prevent crimes by catching them on the way, but also to prevent crimes by introducing a new deterrent. Deterrents are an ancient concept.

One of the pillars of effective law enforcement is deterrence. Enforcement is only one piece of the puzzle. Did a not-zero number of racist cops stop and frisk? Probably. Did a not-zero number of racist politicians vote in favor of stop and frisk? Probably.

But that doesn't make the policy "proven racist/racially motivated". Deterrence is an unavoidable compromise if a region hopes to keep its police force relatively small. Deterrence isn't all that necessary in a police state that cracks down on everything. Ironically, discarding methods like stop and frisk may lead to a more aggressive, nosy police state.
It is very tame compared to crow, but still really bad. The most telling thing about stop and frisk is that it didn't adjust itself for actual crime trends. For example with marijuana, whites carry it much more often on them than anyone else. They are caught more with it, but stop and frisk never adjusted to these circumstances due to politics and money. And that's due to the motivations of guys like Bloomberg. It may have had good intentions, and was a great answer to issues surrounding crime, but people corrupted it.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
6,409
5,804
800
Bloomberg even being a viable candidate goes to show that all the hatred against Trump is manufactured by people who want their tribe to sit on the thrown. Guy owns a media outlet that is literally not allowed to cover all of today's political news - that's actual infringement of the free press and proof in and of itself as to how untrustworthy the news has become because of Democrats. Then you have this stuff which would disqualify any other Dem candidate in the media's eyes, but will be given a free pass since he's one of their own.

Fellow citizen's, if Bloomberg gets the nomination you have two options. Trump, or someone desperately trying to act like him, and who actually limits press freedoms and wants to take away your soda again. #BloombergFascism
 
Jun 26, 2013
4,376
3,550
685
Discriminating people based on the country they come from is not directly racism, but this is indirectly the case because the people of that country, their ancestors and themselves are a different race.
Ah yes, this 'sorta, kinda, maybe' language. I want to see explicit evidence, not Trump 'sorta, kinda, maybe' discriminated based on race.

Their ancestors do not represent all the people of their race. Rather hypocritical of you to assume that.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: X-Fighter

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,988
40,807
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It is very tame compared to crow, but still really bad. The most telling thing about stop and frisk is that it didn't adjust itself for actual crime trends. For example with marijuana, whites carry it much more often on them than anyone else. They are caught more with it, but stop and frisk never adjusted to these circumstances due to politics and money. And that's due to the motivations of guys like Bloomberg. It may have had good intentions, and was a great answer to issues surrounding crime, but people corrupted it.
So it seems we both agree the policy itself could not be "a proven racist/racially motivated policy" as you previously stated, it was the subset of racists who misapplied the tactic in order to carry out their own racist motives.

Bloomberg even being a viable candidate goes to show that all the hatred against Trump is manufactured by people who want their tribe to sit on the thrown. Guy owns a media outlet that is literally not allowed to cover all of today's political news - that's actual infringement of the free press and proof in and of itself as to how untrustworthy the news has become because of Democrats. Then you have this stuff which would disqualify any other Dem candidate in the media's eyes, but will be given a free pass since he's one of their own.

Fellow citizen's, if Bloomberg gets the nomination you have two options. Trump, or someone desperately trying to act like him, and who actually limits press freedoms and wants to take away your soda again. #BloombergFascism
Don't forget that "eat the rich" only applies when the meal is on the other end of the ideological spectrum. Pay no attention to the wealthy allies behind you, pressing you forward into the fray.
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2004
53,373
628
1,745
usa
haiti.kreyol.com
damn CNN really tried hard to defend Bloomberg on this that video is amazing spin basically he is a victim of a Bernie supporter smear campaign and he said he sorry long time ago

 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,350
9,346
910
The most telling thing about stop and frisk is that it didn't adjust itself for actual crime trends. For example with marijuana, whites carry it much more often on them than anyone else. They are caught more with it, but stop and frisk never adjusted to these circumstances due to politics and money. And that's due to the motivations of guys like Bloomberg. It may have had good intentions, and was a great answer to issues surrounding crime, but people corrupted it.
I’d like to see some documentation on the co-criminality of marijuana carrying whites and marijuana carrying blacks.

Last I checked, the only crime which whites commit at a higher frequency per capita than blacks is drunk driving. So if you get caught for something like theft, and just so happen to be carrying pot as well, there is a chance they got charged with both and maybe were able to plea down to just a drug charge. This issue is not just two dimensional like it often gets portrayed.
 

Oner

Member
Jun 19, 2015
95
82
305
I despise Bloomberg with a passion but what he said is not racist. The numbers are the numbers. THESE ARE FACTS. Another example of someone I dislike immensely but had a similar out of context quote is Romney with the "47%" comment and we all know how the media ran with that one. So we'll see how Bloomberg fairs when the spotlight is on a Dem.

As for the subject at hand in particular, it really is a losing battle no matter who addresses it. I grew up in the Bronx for 30+ years and in some of the hottest areas for crime (specifically the South Bronx) and would hear people in the streets BEGGING for help from the powers that be only to scream RACISM when stop and frisk was implemented....but it worked....did I take issues with it? Absolutely. Did I change my POV when the numbers came out and actually HELPED those in need. You damn straight I did.

Though to be honest I think it should be something that is implemented until it has gotten under control and then backed off to ease some of the blow back.