The South Carolina Debate thread
Senator Warren’s detailed letter, referred to in the article.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6786094-Reply-Letter-From-Elizabeth-Warren.html
there are people who think a hostile work environment and the stop-and-frisk policy are just Bloomberg's "baggage" but Warren believing she had Native heritage is a serious offense.
to each his/her own indeed.
STANV said:
I sincerely hope the eventual Dem nominee will be "nasty" to Trump. We know that Trump is going to be vicious.
One thing bullies are very good at is goading other people into attacking them. They can then claim victim status. Trump flips the script on people going at him.
I remember during one debate DJT adopting a kind of sad and hurt tone after Clinton took him to task on something which was pretty much factual. He said something like "Wow, I could have said really mean things about you but I didn't." I could practically hear him running to the teacher and claiming little Hilary was mean to him.
My point is getting nasty with Trump is like wrestling with a pig. You end up dirty and the pig has fun. Apologies to Shaw.
The only thing Bloomberg says consistently that I like is that he will back whoever the nominee is. I hope the others feel the same way.
Here in SC, the phone banks are going wild...I've had 11 calls so far today, 6 from Steyer. TV is end-to-end ads, sometimes 5 or 6 in a row. Lots of healthcare "anti" screeds from hidden insurance pacs. And we still have 3 days to go. We sure as hell never saw this level of politicking in good ole Joisy!
ml1 said:
I'm a little surprised that you'd pass judgment on Warren's debate comments if you don't know about the story she's referencing. what she's talking about regarding Bloomberg is not something from his personal life. It's an example that is part of a larger ongoing pattern of how women at Bloomberg were treated by him and by others at the company. If you learn the whole story and you still think it's no big deal that's one thing. But I don't understand why you would assume Warren is making a big deal over nothing if you don't actually know the details of what she's bringing up.
No surprise that I would pass judgement on Warren's debate comments, particularly the use of the phrase "kill it", as I have previously posted my distaste for the manner in which other candidates have attacked their rivals on the debate stage. My favorite candidate Julian Castro, with the most impressive animal advocacy platform, went after Biden with glee, insinuating that he had become forgetful. I never donated to him again,sent the campaign an email why, and he is the only champion, other than Booker, for the causes that I am working on.
If she had said, in some response to a question, that he had created a hostile work environment, with a policy to fire pregnant women, that would be one thing. Apparently there were 16 pregnant women in his company and he is quoted in a Mother Jones article below. I did as you suggested research the topic and still can find nothing to fill out the story. Below there is no reference to the phrase "kill it", meant to be cringeworthy. Worth noting Castro, of the ruthless attack on Biden is one of her surrogates.
This lawsuit was from 1997.
"According the lawsuit, after suggesting his employee should get an abortion, Bloomberg said, “Great, number 16,” apparently a reference to the number of women who were pregnant at the company." from a Mother Jones article.
Here's a bit of irony from my perspective. Bloomberg was made to look bad, not by saying he discouraged pregnancy, (not sure that he was effective if he had 16 pregnant employees) but because he allegedly used the words, "kill it". Everyone squirmed. Yet not one question came up in the debate asking why none of the Senators on the stage, showed up to even vote to debate on 2 new abortion bills.
It would have been a good follow up question. I for one would have liked to hear their answers and I for one would have liked to hear that debate on the Senate floor.
Morganna said:
No surprise that I would pass judgement on Warren's debate comments, particularly the use of the phrase "kill it", as I have previously posted my distaste for the manner in which other candidates have attacked their rivals on the debate stage. My favorite candidate Julian Castro, with the most impressive animal advocacy platform, went after Biden with glee, insinuating that he had become forgetful. I never donated to him again,sent the campaign an email why, and he is the only champion, other than Booker, for the causes that I am working on.
If she had said, in some response to a question, that he had created a hostile work environment, with a policy to fire pregnant women, that would be one thing. Apparently there were 16 pregnant women in his company and he is quoted in a Mother Jones article below. I did as you suggested research the topic and still can find nothing to fill out the story. Below there is no reference to the phrase "kill it", meant to be cringeworthy. Worth noting Castro, of the ruthless attack on Biden is one of her surrogates.
This lawsuit was from 1997.
"According the lawsuit, after suggesting his employee should get an abortion, Bloomberg said, “Great, number 16,” apparently a reference to the number of women who were pregnant at the company." from a Mother Jones article.
Here's a bit of irony from my perspective. Bloomberg was made to look bad, not by saying he discouraged pregnancy, (not sure that he was effective if he had 16 pregnant employees) but because he allegedly used the words, "kill it". Everyone squirmed. Yet not one question came up in the debate asking why none of the Senators on the stage, showed up to even vote to debate on 2 new abortion bills.
It would have been a good follow up question. I for one would have liked to hear their answers and I for one would have liked to hear that debate on the Senate floor.
not for nothing, but the statement "kill it!" does in fact appear in the link you provided. I get if you think that was unfair and needlessly shocking. But there's a ton of evidence that Bloomberg was a hostile environment for women employees. I think that's extremely important information about a presidential candidate. So from my perspective if it takes a little bit of shock to wake people up to that, so be it. This is serious business and I don't think politeness should be the priority over exposing the serious flaws of the candidate.
ml1 said:
Morganna said:
No surprise that I would pass judgement on Warren's debate comments, particularly the use of the phrase "kill it", as I have previously posted my distaste for the manner in which other candidates have attacked their rivals on the debate stage. My favorite candidate Julian Castro, with the most impressive animal advocacy platform, went after Biden with glee, insinuating that he had become forgetful. I never donated to him again,sent the campaign an email why, and he is the only champion, other than Booker, for the causes that I am working on.
If she had said, in some response to a question, that he had created a hostile work environment, with a policy to fire pregnant women, that would be one thing. Apparently there were 16 pregnant women in his company and he is quoted in a Mother Jones article below. I did as you suggested research the topic and still can find nothing to fill out the story. Below there is no reference to the phrase "kill it", meant to be cringeworthy. Worth noting Castro, of the ruthless attack on Biden is one of her surrogates.
This lawsuit was from 1997.
"According the lawsuit, after suggesting his employee should get an abortion, Bloomberg said, “Great, number 16,” apparently a reference to the number of women who were pregnant at the company." from a Mother Jones article.
Here's a bit of irony from my perspective. Bloomberg was made to look bad, not by saying he discouraged pregnancy, (not sure that he was effective if he had 16 pregnant employees) but because he allegedly used the words, "kill it". Everyone squirmed. Yet not one question came up in the debate asking why none of the Senators on the stage, showed up to even vote to debate on 2 new abortion bills.
It would have been a good follow up question. I for one would have liked to hear their answers and I for one would have liked to hear that debate on the Senate floor.
not for nothing, but the statement "kill it!" does in fact appear in the link you provided. I get if you think that was unfair and needlessly shocking. But there's a ton of evidence that Bloomberg was a hostile environment for women employees. I think that's extremely important information about a presidential candidate. So from my perspective if it takes a little bit of shock to wake people up to that, so be it. This is serious business and I don't think politeness should be the priority over exposing the serious flaws of the candidate.
Apparently, a former Bloomberg employee has corroborated Bloomberg saying "kill it" to Sekiko Sakai Garrison (the former Bloomberg employee who made the claim and ultimately reached a settlement with the Bloomberg organization).
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Here in SC, the phone banks are going wild...I've had 11 calls so far today, 6 from Steyer. TV is end-to-end ads, sometimes 5 or 6 in a row. Lots of healthcare "anti" screeds from hidden insurance pacs. And we still have 3 days to go. We sure as hell never saw this level of politicking in good ole Joisy!
If you people in South Carolina don't fall in line and just give it to Bernie this weekend, that could make it more likely that nobody has a majority heading in to the convention. The NJ primary in June could be a last stand, free-for-all fight for what kind of convention it will be.
Yes, it *was* shocking, but it also was the truth, so it wasn't "needlessly".
ml1 said:
not for nothing, but the statement "kill it!" does in fact appear in the link you provided. I get if you think that was unfair and needlessly shocking. But there's a ton of evidence that Bloomberg was a hostile environment for women employees. I think that's extremely important information about a presidential candidate. So from my perspective if it takes a little bit of shock to wake people up to that, so be it. This is serious business and I don't think politeness should be the priority over exposing the serious flaws of the candidate.
ml1 said:
there are people who think a hostile work environment and the stop-and-frisk policy are just Bloomberg's "baggage" but Warren believing she had Native heritage is a serious offense.
to each his/her own indeed.
It wasn't the "believing" that was an issue, it was the "claiming". This has been discussed on here seven ways to Sunday so no point in re-litigating, but ultimately, people were hurt by what they perceived as a hostile work environment at Bloomberg LP, people were hurt by the stop-and-frisk policy, and people were hurt by Warren's claims to be Native American.
"More than 200 Cherokees and other Native Americans have signed a letterurging Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to fully retract her past claims to being Native and help dispel false beliefs held by many white people that they have American Indian ancestry.
The letter cites a Los Angeles Times investigation that found more than $800 million in government contracts reserved for minorities instead went to companies set up by members of groups with dubious claims to being Cherokee and Creek Indian tribes.
The letter describes The Times’ findings as an example of the harm done when white people rely on family lore and DNA tests to falsely assert Native American identity."
I've never said Warren's claims were a disqualifying issue for her candidacy --she's not my fave, but I will vote for her if she is the nominee. But I have said her claims are valid grounds for criticism and questioning, just as Bloomberg's stuff is. I don't get Warren supporters' view of nope it's fine, nothing to see here, move along. But as you said, to each his/her own.
nohero said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Here in SC, the phone banks are going wild...I've had 11 calls so far today, 6 from Steyer. TV is end-to-end ads, sometimes 5 or 6 in a row. Lots of healthcare "anti" screeds from hidden insurance pacs. And we still have 3 days to go. We sure as hell never saw this level of politicking in good ole Joisy!
If you people in South Carolina don't fall in line and just give it to Bernie this weekend, that could make it more likely that nobody has a majority heading in to the convention. The NJ primary in June could be a last stand, free-for-all fight for what kind of convention it will be.
My impression, on the ground here, is that Joe did himself a world of good in the debate, and should win comfortably. However, there is the Project Chaos movement, encouraging Repubs to go vote for Bernie (it's an open primary...ANYONE can vote), and if that gets any traction, it could skew the vote. Also, the even bigger question is whether Steyer's gazillions spent translate to votes, or is it just in the polling? If he actually gets the votes to match his polling, that could blunt a bunch of Biden's support.
Smedley said:
It wasn't the "believing" that was an issue, it was the "claiming". This has been discussed on here seven ways to Sunday so no point in re-litigating, but ultimately, people were hurt by what they perceived as a hostile work environment at Bloomberg LP, people were hurt by the stop-and-frisk policy, and people were hurt by Warren's claims to be Native American.
"More than 200 Cherokees and other Native Americans have signed a letterurging Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to fully retract her past claims to being Native and help dispel false beliefs held by many white people that they have American Indian ancestry.
The letter cites a Los Angeles Times investigation that found more than $800 million in government contracts reserved for minorities instead went to companies set up by members of groups with dubious claims to being Cherokee and Creek Indian tribes.
The letter describes The Times’ findings as an example of the harm done when white people rely on family lore and DNA tests to falsely assert Native American identity."
I've never said Warren's claims were a disqualifying issue for her candidacy --she's not my fave, but I will vote for her if she is the nominee. But I have said her claims are valid grounds for criticism and questioning, just as Bloomberg's stuff is. I don't get Warren supporters' view of nope it's fine, nothing to see here, move along. But as you said, to each his/her own.
how does Warren's claim relate to the $800 million in contracts? I didn't get how that relates when I saw it in the article, and I still don't get it. She's been investigated inside and out, and not one person has said she claimed Native American heritage for personal gain. And she's apologized up and down for what any reasonable person would realize was a sincere belief in the family lore that was related to her.
yeah, Warren has apologized for this unconditionally. Not really sure of the point of this last letter nor of what they want from her. Seems kind of a strange play.
drummerboy said:
yeah, Warren has apologized for this unconditionally. Not really sure of the point of this last letter nor of what they want from her. Seems kind of a strange play.
the leadership of these groups probably wants to embarrass Warren again. Maybe they're recipients of Bloomberg's so-called philanthropy.
nohero said:
If you people in South Carolina don't fall in line and just give it to Bernie this weekend, that could make it more likely that nobody has a majority heading in to the convention. The NJ primary in June could be a last stand, free-for-all fight for what kind of convention it will be.
Sarcasm? I can't tell.
I see two related but distinguishable components at play regarding Warren’s claim.
1. There’s no evidence that it caused anyone direct harm, which separates it from the other two examples (Bloomberg LP’s work environment and stop-and-frisk) that Smedley listed.
2. It’s still the type of claim that has done direct harm, which makes it fodder for groups that want to call attention to the issue, and you have to ask yourself how much you’re going to fault them for using it. (Including when new information like the L.A. Times report comes out.)
mrincredible said:
nohero said:
If you people in South Carolina don't fall in line and just give it to Bernie this weekend, that could make it more likely that nobody has a majority heading in to the convention. The NJ primary in June could be a last stand, free-for-all fight for what kind of convention it will be.
Sarcasm? I can't tell.
Not sarcasm at all. Here's what the last days of the primary process look like:
| June 2 | |||
| District of Columbia | |||
| Montana | |||
| New Jersey | |||
| New Mexico | |||
| South Dakota | |||
| June 6 | |||
| Virgin Islands |
New Jersey is the biggest prize, and if there are multiple candidates scrambling for every last delegate, we are going to be extremely popular for the couple of weeks preceding primary day.
Smedley said:
It wasn't the "believing" that was an issue, it was the "claiming". This has been discussed on here seven ways to Sunday so no point in re-litigating, but ultimately, people were hurt by what they perceived as a hostile work environment at Bloomberg LP, people were hurt by the stop-and-frisk policy, and people were hurt by Warren's claims to be Native American.
"More than 200 Cherokees and other Native Americans have signed a letterurging Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to fully retract her past claims to being Native and help dispel false beliefs held by many white people that they have American Indian ancestry.
The letter cites a Los Angeles Times investigation that found more than $800 million in government contracts reserved for minorities instead went to companies set up by members of groups with dubious claims to being Cherokee and Creek Indian tribes.
The letter describes The Times’ findings as an example of the harm done when white people rely on family lore and DNA tests to falsely assert Native American identity."
I've never said Warren's claims were a disqualifying issue for her candidacy --she's not my fave, but I will vote for her if she is the nominee. But I have said her claims are valid grounds for criticism and questioning, just as Bloomberg's stuff is. I don't get Warren supporters' view of nope it's fine, nothing to see here, move along. But as you said, to each his/her own.
As I already posted prior to that last post, you can read Warren's detailed response.
nohero said:
Senator Warren’s detailed letter, referred to in the article.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6786094-Reply-Letter-From-Elizabeth-Warren.html
It already answers your points.
DaveSchmidt said:
I see two related but distinguishable components at play regarding Warren’s claim.
1. There’s no evidence that it caused anyone direct harm, which separates it from the other two examples (Bloomberg LP’s work environment and stop-and-frisk) that Smedley listed.
2. It’s still the type of claim that has done direct harm, which makes it fodder for groups that want to call attention to the issue, and you have to ask yourself how much you’re going to fault them for using it. (Including when new information like the L.A. Times report comes out.)
the people making the claims of Native American ancestry to get contracts know that they are violating the spirit of the laws setting aside contracts for people with that ancestry. It's probably technically legal, but it's morally a type of fraud. So to say that Warren claiming her grandmother was Cherokee, but never applying for any affirmative action status is of the same type seems something of a stretch. As I've mentioned before, Warren's claim is more like the kind of thing that's played for laughs in AncestryDNA commercials -- "My parents told me we're German, but it turns out we're Italian. LOL!" But it is important that it sheds light on the larger phenomenon of people falsely claiming Native American heritage to try to gain advantages that are supposed to be offered only to the people deserving of those benefits.
drummerboy said:
yeah, Warren has apologized for this unconditionally. Not really sure of the point of this last letter nor of what they want from her. Seems kind of a strange play.
Bloomberg has apologized for stop and frisk. Do you accept that apology as well as Warren's?
ml1 said:
not for nothing, but the statement "kill it!" does in fact appear in the link you provided. I get if you think that was unfair and needlessly shocking. But there's a ton of evidence that Bloomberg was a hostile environment for women employees. I think that's extremely important information about a presidential candidate. So from my perspective if it takes a little bit of shock to wake people up to that, so be it. This is serious business and I don't think politeness should be the priority over exposing the serious flaws of the candidate.
We are looking at an environment from 1997. I now read the link. Except for the "kill it"remark, I shrugged. . As for the remark being quoted to wake people up, I still look at her choice as a tad ironic as I did in my last post listed below.
"Here's a bit of irony from my perspective. Bloomberg was made to look bad, not by saying he discouraged pregnancy, (not sure that he was effective if he had 16 pregnant employees) but because he allegedly used the words, "kill it". Everyone squirmed. Yet not one question came up in the debate asking why none of the Senators on the stage, showed up to even vote to debate or not, on the 2 new abortion bills.
It would have been a good follow up question. I for one would have liked to hear their answers and I for one would have liked to hear that debate on the Senate floor."
I'm pretty sure that fact will come up in a Trump rally. And the only Senator who even mentioned the vote on the floor is no longer in the race. It was Senator Kristen Gillibrand.
I'm not voting on crude remarks, nor on a misguided ancestry claim, but a topic such as abortion, that I'll vote on.
Smedley said:
Bloomberg has apologized for stop and frisk. Do you accept that apology as well as Warren's?
do you believe Bloomberg's apology is sincere?
we should probably add a timeline:
Bloomberg did not ever end stop-and-frisk voluntarily. He only ended it when forced by court order in his last year in office.
After leaving office in 2013, Bloomberg defended the practice for years. (When Did Bloomberg Turn Against Stop-and-Frisk? When He Ran for President.)
Last defense of stop-and-frisk by Bloomberg -- October, 2019
Apology for stop and frisk -- November 17, 2019
Declares as candidate for president -- November 21, 2019
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Bloomberg has apologized for stop and frisk. Do you accept that apology as well as Warren's?
do you believe Bloomberg's apology is sincere?
I'm not convinced of its full sincerity, to be honest.
I dont think Bloomberg is racist. I do think he saw S/F as a way to reduce crime, in largely black and brown neighborhoods, which would help residents who are mostly black and brown. but it didn't work out that way. I think he sees that it didn't work out and it was wrong, but yes his apology was at least a little opportunistic.
But when I consider S/F I consider it as a blemish on what is otherwise a long and distinguished record as mayor, company founder/CEO (and my former boss's boss's boss's boss), and philanthropist that is not racist. Of course, Bloomberg haters will take S/F in isolation and say see, he's racist. His other 50 successful, non-racist years in business and government is just flotsam.
now let me ask you, do you believe Warren's apologies are sincere? She opted to take a DNA test just a year and a half ago to "prove" her native American ancestry, effectively doubling down on her claims from years earlier. It was only after that backfired (just as her campaign was ramping up), when she apologized. Sincere?
Is refusing to acknowledge that your actions disproportionately harmed people not considered white racist? Or is it only racist if you intended that harm?
I suspect that for most making accusations of racism, they say yes to the first question, whereas most pushing back would say no, and say yes to the second. What should we call the example in the first question, if we can't agree to call that racism?
Smedley said:
now let me ask you, do you believe Warren's apologies are sincere? She opted to take a DNA test just a year and a half ago to "prove" her native American ancestry, effectively doubling down on her claims from years earlier. It was only after that backfired (just as her campaign was ramping up), when she apologized. Sincere?
That's your interpretation. If you're sincere about wanting to know about what she's said:
nohero said:
As I already posted prior to that last post, you can read Warren's detailed response.
nohero said:
Senator Warren’s detailed letter, referred to in the article.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6786094-Reply-Letter-From-Elizabeth-Warren.htmlIt already answers your points.
nohero said:
Not sarcasm at all. Here's what the last days of the primary process look like:
June 2
District of Columbia
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
South Dakota
June 6
Virgin Islands
New Jersey is the biggest prize, and if there are multiple candidates scrambling for every last delegate, we are going to be extremely popular for the couple of weeks preceding primary day.
I meant about telling South Carolina they'd better "fall in line." As opposed to, say, voting based on ideology.
I've been saying for a while we could gave a meaningful primary in June. Maybe even see some of the candidates.
Smedley said:
I'm not convinced of its full sincerity, to be honest.
I dont think Bloomberg is racist. I do think he saw S/F as a way to reduce crime, in largely black and brown neighborhoods, which would help residents who are mostly black and brown. but it didn't work out that way. I think he sees that it didn't work out and it was wrong, but yes his apology was at least a little opportunistic.
But when I consider S/F I consider it as a blemish on what is otherwise a long and distinguished record as mayor, company founder/CEO (and my former boss's boss's boss's boss), and philanthropist that is not racist. Of course, Bloomberg haters will take S/F in isolation and say see, he's racist. His other 50 successful, non-racist years in business and government is just flotsam.
now let me ask you, do you believe Warren's apologies are sincere? She opted to take a DNA test just a year and a half ago to "prove" her native American ancestry, effectively doubling down on her claims from years earlier. It was only after that backfired (just as her campaign was ramping up), when she apologized. Sincere?
a 12 page letter with an unconditional apology seems sincere.
I'm not convinced there's any sincerity to Bloomberg's apology, given its timing. And given this quote from the last debate:
We let it get out of control and when I realized that, I cut it back by 95 percent. And I've apologized and asked for forgiveness. I've met with black leaders to try to get an understanding of how I can better position myself and what I should have done and what I should do next time.
he's meeting with black leaders to try to understand how he can better position himself. Jeebus, he's not even able to pretend it's anything more than positioning himself.
with regard to racism, I don't know what is inside Michael Bloomberg. But I know stop-and-frisk was a demonstrably racist policy with racist outcomes. What's in his heart doesn't really matter if he's going to tenaciously defend an institutionally racist practice.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Bloomberg's revenge? Article out this afternoon. Wonder if Mike himself assigned and edited it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-26/native-americans-ask-warren-to-fully-retract-ancestry-claims?srnd=premium