Should New York Mayor de Blasio resign?

[Ravi]

Imagine if the RWNJs had, as citizens, had killed Garner in the same manner.

They would have been charged with murder.

Why did the cops get a pass?

Why would you charge a cop with murder of a thug resisting arrest? Murder is only applicable when intentional or careless. Nothing of the sort happened.

Stop being an asshole.

He wasn't guilty of a crime aside from the imagination of the police. He may have been suspected of a misdemeanor

What makes you convinced that Garner needed to die?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The "silent majority" fantasy is nothing more than an example of self-delusion. You can't understand how someone you don't like could have won, so you come up with excuses - the "silent majority" must agree with you - because otherwise you'd have to accept that your views have been blatantly rejected by the voters.

So when only 10 - 20 people are making the decision for 10 million, will you see any merit to a majority of people who do not want to have a leader elected? Of course not! We must have a leader or the lemming wouldn't know what to do next.

So you're arguing that we should just eliminate the position of mayor?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

My point is voting is a sham and this particular election shows the tyranny of the minority loud and clear. Mean while everyone speaks about the majority like good cognitively impaired lemmings.

"Well, he got the majority! Fifteen out 28 votes! Woohoo"

"That's +50% - 1.1%!!!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was inevitable that many on the partisan right would contrive a revisionist account of Garner's death, and seek to advance the lie that the violence committed against Garner was 'justified.'

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "silent majority" fantasy is nothing more than an example of self-delusion. You can't understand how someone you don't like could have won, so you come up with excuses - the "silent majority" must agree with you - because otherwise you'd have to accept that your views have been blatantly rejected by the voters.

So when only 10 - 20 people are making the decision for 10 million, will you see any merit to a majority of people who do not want to have a leader elected? Of course not! We must have a leader or the lemming wouldn't know what to do next.

So you're arguing that we should just eliminate the position of mayor?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

My point is voting is a sham and this particular election shows the tyranny of the minority loud and clear. Mean while everyone speaks about the majority like good cognitively impaired lemmings.

"Well, he got the majority! Fifteen out 28 votes! Woohoo"

"That's +50% - 1.1%!!!"

So your point is that "elections are bad" in general, rather than anything to do with DeBlasio and the topic of this thread?

What do you suggest we use instead of elections?

 

[georgephillip]

What do you suggest we use instead of elections?

Appoint Bernie "Mayor for Life?"
"In 2009 Kerik pleaded guilty[2] before U.S. federal prosecutors to 8 charges including criminal conspiracy, tax fraud, and lying under oath.[3] Kerik was sentenced to four years in federal prison on February 18, 2010.[4]"
Bernard Kerik - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The "silent majority" fantasy is nothing more than an example of self-delusion. You can't understand how someone you don't like could have won, so you come up with excuses - the "silent majority" must agree with you - because otherwise you'd have to accept that your views have been blatantly rejected by the voters.

So when only 10 - 20 people are making the decision for 10 million, will you see any merit to a majority of people who do not want to have a leader elected? Of course not! We must have a leader or the lemming wouldn't know what to do next.

So you're arguing that we should just eliminate the position of mayor?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

My point is voting is a sham and this particular election shows the tyranny of the minority loud and clear. Mean while everyone speaks about the majority like good cognitively impaired lemmings.

"Well, he got the majority! Fifteen out 28 votes! Woohoo"

"That's +50% - 1.1%!!!"

So your point is that "elections are bad" in general, rather than anything to do with DeBlasio and the topic of this thread?

What do you suggest we use instead of elections?

Correct. I see the bigger picture rather than herpin derps.

Instead, elect yourself to be virtuous.

"Anarchy is no guarantee that people will not kill, kidnap, defraud or steal. Government is a guarantee some will."

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Could you please post the link for take down procedure used on Garner being prohibited? Wasn't their african american supervisor present during the arrest being made? Who was your source for that news?

Every single story on the incident says the attack was prohibited. I don't know where you get the idea that it wasn't.

The fact that a Black supervisor doesn't change anything.

I'm still waiting for that link, Doc.

I've already provided a link, I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Why don't you provide a link to your claim that the "report was wrong", and that the hold used was not prohibited?

You are the one claiming otherwise. It's your responsibility to prove your point and if you cannot? You don't have one. That is how it works in debates, Doc.

Actually, you've got that flipped around.

It's widely accepted by everyone that the hold used on Gardner was against police protocol.

You have made the claim that it was not, the onus of proof is on you.

Eric Garner died in an ambulance of complications from his asthma condition. What news source are you reading these days?

Look up the standard take down procedure officers used. You'll note it wasn't a choke hold. That was a false report.

No, it isn't because the grand jury found the police not guilty. They were not indicted - therein the onus of proof is on you. O'Reilly, Steve Malzberg, Midpoint and others are merely reporting the news. Of course they have opinions. Don't you? As for me, I am not interesting in arguing with you about it. It is clear we disagree and the reason is most likely that I am very conservative and you are not. It is understandable we would see the same story completely differently. Not a problem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "silent majority" fantasy is nothing more than an example of self-delusion. You can't understand how someone you don't like could have won, so you come up with excuses - the "silent majority" must agree with you - because otherwise you'd have to accept that your views have been blatantly rejected by the voters.

So when only 10 - 20 people are making the decision for 10 million, will you see any merit to a majority of people who do not want to have a leader elected? Of course not! We must have a leader or the lemming wouldn't know what to do next.

So you're arguing that we should just eliminate the position of mayor?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

My point is voting is a sham and this particular election shows the tyranny of the minority loud and clear. Mean while everyone speaks about the majority like good cognitively impaired lemmings.

"Well, he got the majority! Fifteen out 28 votes! Woohoo"

"That's +50% - 1.1%!!!"

So your point is that "elections are bad" in general, rather than anything to do with DeBlasio and the topic of this thread?

What do you suggest we use instead of elections?

Correct. I see the bigger picture rather than herpin derps.

Instead, elect yourself to be virtuous.

"Anarchy is no guarantee that people will not kill, kidnap, defraud or steal. Government is a guarantee some will."

While ideologically I'm not too far from what you're saying, practically it's impossible.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Every single story on the incident says the attack was prohibited. I don't know where you get the idea that it wasn't.

The fact that a Black supervisor doesn't change anything.

I'm still waiting for that link, Doc.

I've already provided a link, I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Why don't you provide a link to your claim that the "report was wrong", and that the hold used was not prohibited?

You are the one claiming otherwise. It's your responsibility to prove your point and if you cannot? You don't have one. That is how it works in debates, Doc.

Actually, you've got that flipped around.

It's widely accepted by everyone that the hold used on Gardner was against police protocol.

You have made the claim that it was not, the onus of proof is on you.

Eric Garner died in an ambulance of complications from his asthma condition. What news source are you reading these days?

Look up the standard take down procedure officers used. You'll note it wasn't a choke hold. That was a false report.

No, it isn't because the grand jury found the police not guilty. They were not indicted - therein the onus of proof is on you. O'Reilly, Steve Malzberg, Midpoint and others are merely reporting the news. Of course they have opinions. Don't you? As for me, I am not interesting in arguing with you about it. It is clear we disagree and the reason is most likely that I am very conservative and you are not. It is understandable we would see the same story completely differently. Not a problem.

The grand jury has nothing to do with police patrol policy.

Choke holds aren't illegal, they're just against regulations. It's up to IAB to make a determination on what should be done about the officer involved's use of that hold.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He should resign because he was not elected by a majority. The silent majority voted "no one".

No, actually, those who chose not to vote had a chance to have a say in this. They don't get a do-over.

He was elected. Period.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

O Reilly Incompetent De Blasio Cannot Run NYC Must Resign

Greg Gutfeld guest-hosted "The Factor" tonight, but Bill O'Reilly could not stay silent about the brutal murders of two NYPD officers. O'Reilly called in to the show to share his thoughts on the tragic situation and to call for the resignation of "incompetent" New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

"You have a mayor that comes in, a man named Bill de Blasio. He is a far left individual, who is incompetent," O'Reilly said. "He cannot run the city of New York."

O'Reilly lied because that's what O'Reilly does.

What did he have to say about the blatant and repeated race baiting by Guilani?

Not one word.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I've decided that it is always good err on the side of mercy and have decided not to discuss de Blasio any more, Doc. It was an interesting discussion. Feel free to continue on without me. I feel more inclined to read the thread on the missing plane in Asia and follow that story. Everything that could be said has been said here I think (for me) Have a nice evening.

p.s. I just noticed your signature about mercy! Wow, Doc! I am impressed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Every single story on the incident says the attack was prohibited. I don't know where you get the idea that it wasn't.

The fact that a Black supervisor doesn't change anything.

I'm still waiting for that link, Doc.

I've already provided a link, I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Why don't you provide a link to your claim that the "report was wrong", and that the hold used was not prohibited?

You are the one claiming otherwise. It's your responsibility to prove your point and if you cannot? You don't have one. That is how it works in debates, Doc.

Actually, you've got that flipped around.

It's widely accepted by everyone that the hold used on Gardner was against police protocol.

You have made the claim that it was not, the onus of proof is on you.

Eric Garner died in an ambulance of complications from his asthma condition. What news source are you reading these days?

Look up the standard take down procedure officers used. You'll note it wasn't a choke hold. That was a false report.

No, it isn't because the grand jury found the police not guilty. They were not indicted - therein the onus of proof is on you. O'Reilly, Steve Malzberg, Midpoint and others are merely reporting the news. Of course they have opinions. Don't you? As for me, I am not interesting in arguing with you about it. It is clear we disagree and the reason is most likely that I am very conservative and you are not. It is understandable we would see the same story completely differently. Not a problem.

Your first two sentences contradict each other.

There was no trial so its not possible for the officers to have been found "not guilty".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He should resign because he was not elected by a majority. The silent majority voted "no one".

No, actually, those who chose not to vote had a chance to have a say in this. They don't get a do-over.

He was elected. Period.

So if only 10 people voted it would still dictate to the other 10 million in town?

Thanks.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm still waiting for that link, Doc.

I've already provided a link, I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Why don't you provide a link to your claim that the "report was wrong", and that the hold used was not prohibited?

You are the one claiming otherwise. It's your responsibility to prove your point and if you cannot? You don't have one. That is how it works in debates, Doc.

Actually, you've got that flipped around.

It's widely accepted by everyone that the hold used on Gardner was against police protocol.

You have made the claim that it was not, the onus of proof is on you.

Eric Garner died in an ambulance of complications from his asthma condition. What news source are you reading these days?

Look up the standard take down procedure officers used. You'll note it wasn't a choke hold. That was a false report.

No, it isn't because the grand jury found the police not guilty. They were not indicted - therein the onus of proof is on you. O'Reilly, Steve Malzberg, Midpoint and others are merely reporting the news. Of course they have opinions. Don't you? As for me, I am not interesting in arguing with you about it. It is clear we disagree and the reason is most likely that I am very conservative and you are not. It is understandable we would see the same story completely differently. Not a problem.

Your first two sentences contradict each other.

There was no trial so its not possible for the officers to have been found "not guilty".

True. Let me rephrase this for you. They were not "indicted", Luddly. Which means the grand jury decided there would be no "trial". Which means the grand jury did not find them guilty of any wrong doing. Understand now? Good night.

 

[ScienceRocks]

**** YES...This piece of shit supported the rioters and thugs that were destroying peoples property. This kind of leadership led to those officers being killed.

**** blasio!

 

[Pogo]

Communists should not be permitted to run for public office.

Thanks! I needed a new sigline.

 

[Meathead]

About you dumb ******* asswipes, you're correct, there's nothing I can do but watch you slaughter each other, and not fast enough for my taste.

I am not black.

 

[Claudette]

**** YES...This piece of shit supported the rioters and thugs that were destroying peoples property. This kind of leadership led to those officers being killed.

**** blasio!

Yup and he's turned the entire NYPD against himself as well.

He's a ******* idiot who should fall all over himself apologizine to the NYPD. Failing that he better hope he never needs those guys cause they sure as shit ain't going to be there.

 

[Ravi]

Whatever happened to the cop that killed Garner?