Im not licking anyone’s boots as I have clearly stated I want him to have a legal process which you and several others have suggested is not necessary.

You have made a very pro-authoritarian claim as to how this should be handled

I am making one that we should follow the rule of law.

YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.

edit: mistook you for a different poster

No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.

I have to imagine Nazism isnt popular in France even in fascist circles.

And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.

“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”

I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.

If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.

You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.

Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.

we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.

Yes, because in absence of a trial it isn’t legal or appropriate.

So you don’t believe rule of law is important? If you believe what you claim you cannot support any form of a just government.

Yes, it is. He would be losing his elected position. He has not been proven guilty. We all suspect he is but that hasn’t been proven.

No elected politician should be removed without due process.

It is shocking how many pro-auth people there are here.

Trump is protecting Adams because he knows that Adams will deport people given the chance.

Regardless unless he has been convicted we can’t have governors removing mayors. This will permit others to just remove mayors they dislike.

Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.

Through his mother if I recall correctly

No but “boner” has also meant an error so depending on the time it was published it might not mean an erection

doesn’t Schutz mean protect? And in the case off the SS doesn’t it mean “guard”?

AfD are neonazis but im not sure the word choice is that odd.

Russia did not exist then.

Why do you think many of the nations that border Russia want protection from Russia? I’ll give you a hint it’s Russian nationalist superiority and their penchant for revanchism and imperialism.

Nothing Russia has done in Ukraine is justified. It is morally equivalent to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

You are defending the invasion and subjugation of a sovereign nation. Do not try to pretend you have any moral high ground.

so “vir” is the root for “were-“?

deleted by creator