ex-candidate
Oh, so it's just sour grapes after he lost an election. I guess we can skip over this due to his agenda.
But wait...
[...] I put my hat in the ring early and I got tremendous support from across the city, from a lot of people in neighborhoods who are fed up with some of the policy of failures that they're seeing every day. But I got a very quick education in how activists pressure groups work. And in a very short time period as my campaign was gaining some momentum, I started getting barraged by harassment, by threats.
One individual from an activist group had posted hundreds of messages, threatening messages over the period of a few weeks. They had gone after my wife attempting to get her fired from her employer. She works at Microsoft. They had been posting white supremacists content to my family. And I'm a biracial family, interracial marriage. And [we] have mixed race kids. And then the final straw is they actually went after my kids, they started posting hateful messages to my eight year old son school, facebook page. And not only that, they let people know that they knew where I lived, and really just kind of engaged in a reign of terror. And I very regretfully withdrew from the race because it was a decision that I had to make for the best interest of my family.
And I felt conflicted because I deeply want policy change. But the political environment, as you've seen with in Seattle, as you've seen with Andy knows, reporting for city journal down in Portland, is saturated with the threat of violence.
Yikes.
Now I'm not sure. Should we discount the side that quotes a bad number from the media, having missed the Reddit post disproving it? Or should we discount the side that harasses and threatens a candidate, his wife and his children until he retires from an election?
Maybe they cancel out. Anyway, I'd suggest reading the whole transcript after all, $1 billion or not. There's some interesting stuff in there.