I started this debate off on the wrong foot. I know I said I conceded this, but I changed my mind. I did feel like I would be derailing the other thread with some intellectual gymnastics trying to explain myself. I think it's just better to start this over >.> but move this if need be.

Bill de Blasio has an image problem. He's the mayor of New York City, yet he's conjured up the appearance of having a less-than-favorable opinion of the police. This is a problem, because it could threaten his chances at re-election. He's consistently associated himself with people notorious for fueling anti-cop bias, chief among them the Rev. Al Sharpton, who's wrong about almost everything (ie, blame everything on racism). He's the loudest whenever a white person shoots a black person, but stunningly silent whenever it's reversed. Yeah, sure, he'll make a press release, but it's not like he'll be marching in the streets with their family at the protest he just arranged for them.

By 'associations,' I mean de Blasio having Sharpton behind him during his speeches.

Di Blasio also ran on a campaign promise to eliminate the controversial "stop & frisk" program by the NYPD. It involved firing the current commissioner at the time, Ray Kelly, and instead hiring Bill Bratton, who also supports the policy. There was really no other purpose to the move other than to satisfy the ignorant folks who actually believe it's a valid change. But part of the problem now is that Bratton is kind of a shill for de Blasio--in part because he wouldn't have his job without him. Who wouldn't support the person who hired them?

And regardless of how you feel about the Eric Garner grand-jury decision, de Blasio made some rather disingenuous statements about what he tells his son (as if Dante would even get in trouble like that, anyway). But more importantly, it was hardly a neutral reaction to the decision. There's an undertone of discontent that's tough to ignore.

So now I get to the question of Rachel Noerdlinger: should de Blasio have fired her? The controversy surrounding her being that she was the First Lady's chief of staff and her ex-con boyfriend made aggressively anti-cop statements on the Internet.

She's since been fired since the information came out. Did she really deserve it?

Let's take a look at the facts (Wikipedia has citations for now, can't be arsed to link this stuff individually):

-She did not disclose in her background questionnaire that she was living with a convicted felon
-She's had various troubles paying her taxes
-She was granted a residency waiver because she claimed her son was injured in a car accident, despite being healthy enough to play football (sounds awfully fraudulent, doesn't it?)

Her son also has a criminal record and has also bashed the cops online.

Should someone like the mayor really associate with someone like that? What message does that give, considering all the other things de Blasio has said and done so far? Are there really not any qualified people for that position who don't have so many legal troubles?

De Blasio didn't have much of a choice. If he wanted to save his image, and perhaps turn his first term around, he needed to fire her. Politically, he could not afford to keep her on-board. With a former mayor now coming at his throat, he's facing tremendous pressure to turn the ship around. He still has a long ways to go, but this is one of many steps de Blasio's going to have to take to save his career.

Any disagreements?

I don't disagree - but you also have to understand the power Al Sharpton has in terms of politics and minority communities - even without holding elected office.

I think this is perhaps the most recognition anyone has ever given Al Sharpton. Aside from awards or commendations, actually putting him on stage regularly.

"Political Official makes Politically-Motivated Firing: Tonight at 10"

Not exactly scandalous. And yeah, going behind on campaign promises is a dick move, but again - common in politics.

The problem being that it's not exactly working out well for Blaz.

No disagreement that his statements could have been slightly more neutral - but De Blasio also knows he was elected to represent the people of New York City, not the NYPD or the Police Union - he is going to play to that as well.

He needs to do a better job of keeping both happy. People don't really like when their mayor is so divisive that he seems to be pitting the city against itself.

First off - was she good at her job?
Second off - if you're firing her, you fire her for failing to disclose information on the hiring papers, or fraudulent housing waivers. You don't fire her because "Oh, she had an ex-boyfriend who has illegal activity" - because that is a shitty precedent to begin.

Given all of the illicit things she's already done, it gives the impression that she might share similar views. Not that that would have any truth, but you know, politics.

So, she can control what her son says? Again, it's a shitty precedent. You fire her on HER merits and whether she did something wrong, not because of what her family or ex-lovers do.

But why Blaz didn't fire her on her merits or wrongdoings?

That's the unanswered question to all of this.

Why didn't the mayor's office know about her legal issues? Or if they did, why did they still hire her? Blaz tried to defend her while he had Sharpton on stage behind him (who has his own fair share of tax woes). It all seems to imply pandering of some sort--that yes, you can break the law, publicly or otherwise, and have currently pending legal issues at the time of your hiring, and still be hired to work for the mayor, or any government official. And if he did know, did he really think he could get away with it (sort of like he does with Sharpton)?

I'd love to be hired that easily while having a criminal record half as long as hers.

Blaz dug his own hole. By firing Noerdlinger, he was doing what he had to do to stay afloat. Regardless of whether that's right or wrong, that's what he had to do to fix his own negligence.

It's divisive stuff, and it is not conducive to the appearance of supporting the law and those who enforce it.

lol the fags itt are going at it and not in the hot way

Muted.

Giuliani was a great mayor for NYC

Rudolf "9/11" Giuliani?

Quote from: Mad Max on January 07, 2015, 04:52:36 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 07, 2015, 03:08:51 PM

Giuliani was a great mayor for NYC

Rudolf "9/11" Giuliani?

His actions during and after the attack gave him the title of America's Mayor

Sure didn't keep him from talking about 9/11 any chance he got.