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.
I’m 0% surprised you don’t accept Bloomberg’s apology. Maybe 2% surprised you don’t cast even a glimmer of skepticism regarding warren’s.
Your defense of her apology is paper mache. Is the fact that’s 12 pages the least bit significant? I highly doubt she wrote it herself. If Bloomberg were to put out a 15-pager using the word unconditional on every page , would you accept that as sincere?
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
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?
Not even effing close. Again - failure to analogize.
The thing about Bloomberg and S/F is that he is STILL being disingenuous about it - talking about he finally reduced it, but not mentioning that he was forced to.
I’m 0% surprised you don’t accept Bloomberg’s apology. Maybe 2% surprised you don’t cast even a glimmer of skepticism regarding warren’s.
Your defense of her apology is paper mache. Is the fact that’s 12 pages the least bit significant? I highly doubt she wrote it herself. If Bloomberg were to put out a 15-pager using the word unconditional on every page , would you accept that as sincere?
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
and I'm not surprised you think it's my bias, and not the obvious differences between the two apologies. The thing about Bloomberg is that if you watch him answer questions about stop and frisk during the debates he can't even pretend to act like he's really remorseful. And he was defending the practice as a really good thing right up through last year. Words matter, but words by themselves mean nothing if a person's behavior doesn't indicate any sort of real remorse. And as db points out he's being terribly, terribly misleading when asked about it. It's hard to believe that even Bloomberg believes his own apology.
Why is nobody talking about how badly that debate was handled by CBS??? No rules, apparently, candidates fighting over each other to say something, and cheering and BOOING from the audience?! Was this a Trump rally or a democratic debate?!
Why is nobody talking about how badly that debate was handled by CBS??? No rules, apparently, candidates fighting over each other to say something, and cheering and BOOING from the audience?! Was this a Trump rally or a democratic debate?!
And really, how could anyone look their best under the circumstances?
Why is nobody talking about how badly that debate was handled by CBS??? No rules, apparently, candidates fighting over each other to say something, and cheering and BOOING from the audience?! Was this a Trump rally or a democratic debate?!
And really, how could anyone look their best under the circumstances?
You're right. CBS managed this horribly. I think they've taken a lot of heat for it. Hopefully they'll learn something.
You're right. CBS managed this horribly. I think they've taken a lot of heat for it. Hopefully they'll learn something.
Hard to imagine the questioners could be worse than before, but they were. I don't know if CBS learned anything, but I hope everyone else learned not to hold a debate on CBS.
Your defense of her apology is paper mache. Is the fact that’s 12 pages the least bit significant? I highly doubt she wrote it herself. If Bloomberg were to put out a 15-pager using the word unconditional on every page , would you accept that as sincere?
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
It's not merely that it's 12 pages long, but that it's 12 pages of intelligent content. You write as if you declined to read it, even after multiple suggestions to you with the link to it.
It's pretty ridiculous to write "I highly doubt she wrote it herself."
You describe "Warren's apology timing being equally curious". Anyone who reads this thread can see what you posted here two days ago:
So after that, writing two days later about the "timing being equally curious" is silly.
If yet another challenge to Senator Warren on this was some "Bloomberg's revenge", it failed miserably. See aforementioned 12 page response (with footnotes and citations) which clearly was prepared in anticipation of something like that.
Imagine having a President who anticipates potential challenges like that, and prepares in advance. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace.
a passage to me that highlights the difference between Warren and Bloomberg's apologies. She writes (referring to the groups right not to accept her apology):
I understand, with humility, that this is your right. Regardless of whether you forgive me—and again, that is up to you and you alone—I will continue to try my hardest to be the best champion for Indian Country I can be. I am committed to an accountability model of partnership, and I realize that an apology is only a first step. Trust must be earned in order for forgiveness to be granted. So I commit to you to continue to do the work, and I know that only time and my actions can show if I will.
contrasted with Bloomberg's attitude, which seems to be -- I apologized already, why can't everyone get over it?
Your defense of her apology is paper mache. Is the fact that’s 12 pages the least bit significant? I highly doubt she wrote it herself. If Bloomberg were to put out a 15-pager using the word unconditional on every page , would you accept that as sincere?
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
It's not merely that it's 12 pages long, but that it's 12 pages of intelligent content. You write as if you declined to read it, even after multiple suggestions to you with the link to it.
It's pretty ridiculous to write "I highly doubt she wrote it herself."
You describe "Warren's apology timing being equally curious". Anyone who reads this thread can see what you posted here two days ago:
So after that, writing two days later about the "timing being equally curious" is silly.
If yet another challenge to Senator Warren on this was some "Bloomberg's revenge", it failed miserably. See aforementioned 12 page response (with footnotes and citations) which clearly was prepared in anticipation of something like that.
Imagine having a President who anticipates potential challenges like that, and prepares in advance. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace.
The Bloomberg's revenge comment, which i followed with a silly notion that mike was personally involved in publishing the article, was clearly tongue in cheek. Or at least I thought it was clear, I guess it wasn't.
i find it peculiar that Warren supporters used to argue that her claiming native American ancestry was fine, no issue. Now the argument is in defense of her apology. If her claims were fine why did she need to apologize?
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
...
You describe "Warren's apology timing being equally curious". Anyone who reads this thread can see what you posted here two days ago:
So after that, writing two days later about the "timing being equally curious" is silly.
…
The Bloomberg's revenge comment, which i followed with a silly notion that mike was personally involved in publishing the article, was clearly tongue in cheek. Or at least I thought it was clear, I guess it wasn't.
...
Yes, everyone can see it was "tongue in cheek". Everyone can also see that you were commenting on a new story in the news, about a group asking Senator Warren to apologize. So, 24 hours after writing that, your assertion that her timing is "curious" is silly.
i find it peculiar that Warren supporters used to argue that her claiming native American ancestry was fine, no issue. Now the argument is in defense of her apology. If her claims were fine why did she need to apologize?
You're not describing what was actually said, by either Senator Warren, or anyone posting here.
And you obviously STILL didn't stop to read a primary source document which would provide you with the background and her most recent statement on this. Which might be a good idea to do before commenting about the issue.
And, you did a whole post on the curious timing around Bloomberg’s apology, driving home your view that he’s an opportunistic phony. Fair enough, as I said I acknowledge there’s something to that argument. But then with regard to warren’s apology timing being equally curious, you offer crickets.
...
You describe "Warren's apology timing being equally curious". Anyone who reads this thread can see what you posted here two days ago:
So after that, writing two days later about the "timing being equally curious" is silly.
…
The Bloomberg's revenge comment, which i followed with a silly notion that mike was personally involved in publishing the article, was clearly tongue in cheek. Or at least I thought it was clear, I guess it wasn't.
...
Yes, everyone can see it was "tongue in cheek". Everyone can also see that you were commenting on a new story in the news, about a group asking Senator Warren to apologize. So, 24 hours after writing that, your assertion that her timing is "curious" is silly.
This makes zero sense. Whatever and whenever I post on MOL has/had nothing to do with the timing of Warren's apology. And you conveniently ignored the simple question I asked.
Yes, everyone can see it was "tongue in cheek". Everyone can also see that you were commenting on a new story in the news, about a group asking Senator Warren to apologize. So, 24 hours after writing that, your assertion that her timing is "curious" is silly.
This makes zero sense. Whatever and whenever I post on MOL has/had nothing to do with the timing of Warren's apology. And you conveniently ignored the simple question I asked.
So what makes it "curious" for a candidate to respond to a request made a day or two earlier?
The Bloomberg's revenge comment, which i followed with a silly notion that mike was personally involved in publishing the article, was clearly tongue in cheek. Or at least I thought it was clear, I guess it wasn't.
i find it peculiar that Warren supporters used to argue that her claiming native American ancestry was fine, no issue. Now the argument is in defense of her apology. If her claims were fine why did she need to apologize?
nobody claimed it was "fine." I can't speak for everyone, but my response was that many people (such as yourself), were making it into a much bigger issue than it really was. And still are.
What Warren was guilty of was cultural appropriation, and participation in sort of cartoony representation of Native American heritage (e.g., "Pow Wow Chow"). It was insensitive, but certainly not out of the ordinary thirty or forty years ago. For that she needed to apologize. But my disagreement is with the people who are arguing (in bad faith IMHO) that Warren was trying to gain unfair advantage, when there is zero evidence she ever did.
Yes, everyone can see it was "tongue in cheek". Everyone can also see that you were commenting on a new story in the news, about a group asking Senator Warren to apologize. So, 24 hours after writing that, your assertion that her timing is "curious" is silly.
This makes zero sense. Whatever and whenever I post on MOL has/had nothing to do with the timing of Warren's apology. And you conveniently ignored the simple question I asked.
So what makes it "curious" for a candidate to respond to a request made a day or two earlier?
Ml1 posted how Bloomberg's apol was right before his campaign started. Suggesting it was opportunistic rather than sincere. It was a valid point which I did not disagree with.
i in turn noted that Warren apologized right as her campaign began. An analogous situation. Yes the transgressions were very different. But Warren apologized just as her campaign was beginning which at least gives the appearance that she was doing so opportunistically. Just as in Bloomberg's case.
I note the timing of the apology and fire rains down from the sky on MOL.
I will say if the ardor of warren's supporters on here is any indication of her broad support, she's going to sweep the rest of the primaries, and win the general in a landslide. Because according to mol, she walks on water and her ---- don't stink.
The Bloomberg's revenge comment, which i followed with a silly notion that mike was personally involved in publishing the article, was clearly tongue in cheek. Or at least I thought it was clear, I guess it wasn't.
i find it peculiar that Warren supporters used to argue that her claiming native American ancestry was fine, no issue. Now the argument is in defense of her apology. If her claims were fine why did she need to apologize?
nobody claimed it was "fine."
That's not my recollection. But maybe you're right. I would say one of these days maybe I'll go back and look. But I already spend too much time on here.
That's not my recollection. But maybe you're right. I would say one of these days maybe I'll go back and look. But I already spend too much time on here.
it doesn't even make sense that anyone would have said it was "fine" in the sense of being a good thing to have done. It isn't necessary to argue that it was a good thing in order to argue that it wasn't as important as some people have been making it.
I will say if the ardor of warren's supporters on here is any indication of her broad support, she's going to sweep the rest of the primaries, and win the general in a landslide. Because according to mol, she walks on water and her ---- don't stink.
sometimes I think you're angling to become the king of the straw men.
Oh, that part was sarcasm.