Bloomberg

Kamilah Hauptmann

A bit of a wanker
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,347
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2002
Pamela's right though that there isn't a candidate alive who has no less than proud moments. And it's tougher to find a consensus of how much and what sort of suck is okay than it is to say fuck it, all in on pussygrabber.
 

Lady Darnk Juniorette

⚧🎃💀Chaos Agent diminished middle 💀🎃⚧
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,029
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Dec 2012
SLU Posts
9114
Pamela's right though that there isn't a candidate alive who has no less than proud moments. And it's tougher to find a consensus of how much and what sort of suck is okay than it is to say fuck it, all in on pussygrabber.
I just don't wanna replace a bag of shit with another bag of shit.
 

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,135
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
Wait, is that number 13% of the total? Because NH is a state that is disproportionately elderly. There literally aren’t that many people in their twenties. Young people have been outmigrating for decades, at least when I was there, and the southern part of NH is now an exurb of greater Boston. The number I’d be looking for is the percentage of a given set - percentage of possible voters.
The most recent Census information seems to imply people in their twenties are less than 20% of the NH population.

https://www.nh.gov/osi/planning/resources/conferences/spring-2011/documents/census-2010.pdf

New Hampshire facing demographic crunch as population ages | New Hampshire | The Guardian

I don’t think we’ll really know what it’s going to look like until SC. NH is really white and really old.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,719
SLU Posts
18459
Are you sure you want to argue that stop and frisk was not racist?
I'm probably going to regret asking this but, as I understand it, the "stop and search" policy was -- or was said to be, at least -- primarily directed against members of street gangs in particular areas.

That is, the NYPD were targeting -- or were supposed to be targeting -- people they knew were, or whom they believed to be, associated with violent, racially-based, street gangs, rather then members of ethnic minorities in general, so it would follow that they'd be searching a disproportionate number of members of particular racial groups, depending on which areas and gangs they were targeting.

So my question is whether they were, in fact, searching people they knew (or thought they knew) were associated with particular gangs, and thus likely to be carrying guns illegally, or whether they were simply searching any young men and women who were members of the racial group from which the gangs recruited, on the off-chance they might be involved with gang activities.

Both would lead to members of particular ethnic groups being searched in disproportionate numbers, but were the subjects of the searches primarily known gang-members and their associates or were they simply people going about their lawful business who happened to be the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time?

While there are still, at least potentially, some disturbing civil liberties issues that I would want to consider, I'd want to know more about the details of how the "stop and frisk" policy was implemented before concluding it was racist in intent, I think, though it may have been questionable for other reasons.

For example, were officers conducting the searches required to submit reports detailing why they chose to search some individuals and not others? If they were, do we know the reasons they gave for searching the people they did?
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Katheryne Helendale

Ishina

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
355
SL Rez
2002
According to the ACLU:
Comparing police stops to violent crime suspects is bad math. Only 11 percent of stops in 2011 were based on a description of a violent crime suspect. On the other hand, from 2002 to 2011, black and Latino residents made up close to 90 percent of people stopped, and about 88 percent of stops – more than 3.8 million – were of innocent New Yorkers. Even in neighborhoods that are predominantly white, black and Latino New Yorkers face the disproportionate brunt. For example, in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops. This, on its face, is discriminatory.

And from here: Kelly's creative writing: Stop-and-frisk and Muslim surveillance are wonderful!
A paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal to NYPD Commissioner and would-be Homeland Security Chief Ray Kelly's WSJ op-ed

The "worksheet" officers must fill out after carrying out a stop-and-frisk contains boxes in which police officers can explain what led to the frisking -- what the "reasonable suspicion" was, in other words. The single most common reason for a stop in the year 2008 was "furtive movements." The third-most common was "other." "Furtive movements" is cited in more than half of the forms reviewed by criminologist Jeffrey Fagan, a plaintiff's witness in the class-action suit against the NYPD. Fagan, who believes a stop based solely on "furtive movements" is an unconstitutional stop, has calculated that the NYPD has carried out more than 200,000 illegal stop-and-frisks.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,719
SLU Posts
18459
Thanks.

So it looks as if the policy was indeed based primarily on racial profiling, which is clearly wrong and counterproductive, rather than intelligence-led and directed against known gang members and their associates, which would have been considerably less objectionable.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,571
SL Rez
2006
His track record. His history. He is a worse candidate for president than Trump was. Not only because he has caused more suffering than Trump had as a candidate, but also because he is smarter than Trump and because he does not say the quiet part out loud like Trump does.

If the only hope of replacing Donald Trump is a New York neoliberal billionaire with a history of racism and sexism, why even bother replacing him?
Thank you. I really didn't know that much about Bloomberg before this thread, but I've been doing more due-diligence on his record as a racist, misogynist and filthy rich autocrat.

I think you're right. He's worse than Trump, because he holds the same basic values as Trump but he isn't a blithering idiot. Any administration he put together would be ruthlessly efficient.

So here's the litmus test for the Democratic Party that the GOP failed last election cycle. Let's see how we come out of this one. Can we resist the lure of an autocrat that claims he will save our party and our issues? Will that promise blind us to the reality of who he is?
 
Last edited: