Ok buddy, sure it isn’t. What is it called when you face a negative outcome due to your potential wrongdoing? Oh yeah that’s called a punishment.

Do you think the trial that never happened counts?

Do you need me to explain what a trial is?

The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.

The “they feel like it” would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this

And that action requires he be presented with the charges against him and he be provided the opportunity to defend himself.

The governor cannot legally just pull him from office. These procedures need to be followed.

Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.

Yes but “controlled/command/planned economy” refers to one where the state sets prices rather than letting market forces determine them. This is not possible to competently do right now with current technology.

Instead of ranting about deregulation why not look at how poorly controlled economies behave? There aren’t many functioning and what few exist aren’t doing great. Humanity is not smart enough to currently run a controlled economy effectively. That might change if actual AI exists but right now we cannot do it.

Remember the largest command economy in history, The USSR, collapsed mostly because of economic failures that were self created. The second largest command economy was the PRC who moved away from it to a hybrid system and has had greater stability since then.

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.

The White House spent months alleging a connection. It proves how little Americans understood about Iraq or Al Qaeda that they thought they would collude

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.

Also the wave of unemployment that is about to cone might push us into a recession

It’s sad that you have downvotes for this. It is a common practice in authoritarian states.