U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Rahm Emanuel Resign as Mayor of Chicago
Yes 70 56.91%
No 16 13.01%
Chicago is a Lost City. Doesn't Matter. 37 30.08%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2015, 04:38 PM
 
Location: NOVA
4,521 posts, read 5,219,292 times
Reputation: 1926

Advertisements

Now the short angry mayor is mad that his recent trip to cuba was "outed" by the press. It's suprising there already isn't a recall election to remove Emanuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2015, 08:29 PM
 
51,736 posts, read 41,660,095 times
Reputation: 32297
This is going to be the make or break moment for BLM.

If they cave because of political allegiance instead of actually seeking justice over the cover-up, the movement will have lost all moral high-ground and will die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 08:40 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,006 posts, read 6,224,986 times
Reputation: 9579
He should have his middle finger chopped, he is a thug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 08:45 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,330 posts, read 19,511,446 times
Reputation: 18436
I think he should resign. He has been largely ineffective in that city. It takes a more intelligent, creative person to bring stability to that magnificent city. Rahm is not the answer, and the corruption that plagues that city flourishes under his watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Humboldt Park, Chicago
2,703 posts, read 2,340,081 times
Reputation: 1733
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
I think he should resign. He has been largely ineffective in that city. It takes a more intelligent, creative person to bring stability to that magnificent city. Rahm is not the answer, and the corruption that plagues that city flourishes under his watch.
I think if evidence is presented that he participated in the cover up, then he should be removed from office. If not, then he has no reason to resign (But Chuy will probably win the next election anyways.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 05:36 AM
 
51,736 posts, read 41,660,095 times
Reputation: 32297
Quote:
Originally Posted by quigboto View Post
You seem like a reasonable person, so I can't believe I have to ask you this. Did you miss the last several days worth of thread after thread of conservatives complaining about the Black Friday protests right here on CD? Did you miss the threads where the protestors were generally dismissed as "thugs" and leeches and jobless welfare hood rats who had the audacity to inconvenience the hard working people of the world who just wanted to get a good deal at Macy's? I don't think their political allies are the ones trying to shut them down, dismiss them, and marginalize them.
BLM has not been placated by the dismissal of Supt. McCarthy and continue to call for the resignation of Rahm and the prosecutor Alvarez. What more do you expect them to do?
What would BLM "caving in" look like to you at this point? In my opinion that would be doing what most conservatives have been begging them to do and go away. (In other words, nothing to do with political "allegiance")
Fair enough, here are my thoughts:

1. This is between BLM and the City of Chicago.

Neither of which has any conservatives in power and I really don't care what some posters are whining about and please, tell me how they are shutting down the BLM? Honest question. Are BLM protesters sitting around questioning themselves because some turd like Rush Limbaugh calls them thugs?

2. What I would hope that they would do is continue to apply pressure. Increasing pressure. Basic civil rights stuff.

3. A few history flashbacks for you since you seem to think the dems wouldn't try to divert them when they became the targets.

a) MLK march re: housing discrimination. Essentially run out of town dealing a big blow to the civil rights movement.

b) Al Sharpton about 10+ years ago protesting gun violence in Chicago with sharp criticism of Mayor Daley over the disproportionate number of AA victims, housing segregation etc. Met with Daley, apologized muttered how Daley is working hard, shut up and left town. Later got key DNC speaking role. (Not exactly typical Sharpton to just fold up and scoot out of town is it?)

c) Chicago has longstanding institutionalized cronyism\racism in many of their service branches, especially the fire department.

You have to recognize that the NAACP and other groups are almost entirely comprised of democrats. Several have held political office, have direct ties to the DNC and so forth. There is an inherent pressure not to have "in fighting", conservatives do not have a seat at the card game.

Let me ask you a parting question. If there is no further political fall-out for the cover-up are you content? I'm not. If you think the people that signed off on the 5mil settlement and that knew about the tapes etc. should stay in power explain to me why? Then, if BLM backs down and doesn't keep up pressure (how long did the bus boycott last?) what will you say to me then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Humboldt Park, Chicago
2,703 posts, read 2,340,081 times
Reputation: 1733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Fair enough, here are my thoughts:

1. This is between BLM and the City of Chicago.

Neither of which has any conservatives in power and I really don't care what some posters are whining about and please, tell me how they are shutting down the BLM? Honest question. Are BLM protesters sitting around questioning themselves because some turd like Rush Limbaugh calls them thugs?

2. What I would hope that they would do is continue to apply pressure. Increasing pressure. Basic civil rights stuff.

3. A few history flashbacks for you since you seem to think the dems wouldn't try to divert them when they became the targets.

a) MLK march re: housing discrimination. Essentially run out of town dealing a big blow to the civil rights movement.

b) Al Sharpton about 10+ years ago protesting gun violence in Chicago with sharp criticism of Mayor Daley over the disproportionate number of AA victims, housing segregation etc. Met with Daley, apologized muttered how Daley is working hard, shut up and left town. Later got key DNC speaking role. (Not exactly typical Sharpton to just fold up and scoot out of town is it?)

c) Chicago has longstanding institutionalized cronyism\racism in many of their service branches, especially the fire department.

You have to recognize that the NAACP and other groups are almost entirely comprised of democrats. Several have held political office, have direct ties to the DNC and so forth. There is an inherent pressure not to have "in fighting", conservatives do not have a seat at the card game.

Let me ask you a parting question. If there is no further political fall-out for the cover-up are you content? I'm not. If you think the people that signed off on the 5mil settlement and that knew about the tapes etc. should stay in power explain to me why? Then, if BLM backs down and doesn't keep up pressure (how long did the bus boycott last?) what will you say to me then?
If there is no further political fall-out I too will be disappointed. I live in Chicago, and not in some posh neighborhood either, so of course I'm concerned about what's going on here. The problem with some people is they seem to think that if you're concerned about disproportionate police brutality towards Blacks (The focus of BLM), then you can't also be concerned about Black on Black violence. They seem to think that you can't be willing to condemn corruption in the government and also willing to condemn gangs and crime. I condemn all of it. I hate to see police (Not all police, not even most police, but still too many) violating the trust of the black community, and I also hate seeing the black community complain that the police don't do anything to help them while clinging to their stupid "no snitch" policy. (In the Tyshawn Lee case, word on the street was that everybody knew who killed him, but no one, not even his own father, would cooperate with the police. Partly because of some idiotic code, and partly because of a desire to dispense "street justice" which, sadly could involve the shooting of another innocent child)

Personally, I'd love it if bad cops would stop brutalizing black people, and if black people, particularly the idiot gangbangers, would stop brutalizing each other (and countless bystanders) BLM can't focus on every problem in the city, and yet they are continuously criticized for not doing so. And the people spearheading the criticism, like (as you mentioned) Limbaugh, aren't toothless demagogues. They may not cause BLM much consternation, but he and his ilk are very powerful when it comes to shaping the rest of the public's perception of the movement. They seem determined to make sure that that perception is negative, and make every effort to invalidate or marginalize BLM's concerns with the rest of the country.
Are there any influential conservatives expressing support for BLM? Or even acknowledging that there is an issue with disproportionate police brutality towards blacks, particularly black men?
You mentioned that in organizations like BLM or NAACP, conservatives aren't given a seat at the card game. Have they been trying to get one? If not, why not? Seems they're more interested in discrediting, marginalizing and dismissing the concerns of those movements/organizations than addressing injustices towards the Black community.

Regarding the $5mil. That has nothing to do with BLM. It wasn't paid to BLM. It was a (perfectly legal) out of court settlement paid to the family. Out of court settlements are commonplace, and non-disclosure/confidentiality clauses are very often part of them. After all, the point of a settlement is usually to avoid bad publicity. There is nothing illegal about that. It is a civil matter. The family are horrible people who abandoned and abused that kid all of his life, and got a payday out of his tragic death. My disgust with the settlement doesn't make it any less legal though.

Now, there is widespread assumption that Rahm was directly involved in a cover-up of the criminal investigation, but no evidence has been presented yet to back that up. (He wasn't the one at the crime scene bullying witnesses, writing false reports, and erasing surveillance videos and audio) If evidence comes out that he was involved, I will gladly call for his head, sign the recall petition, and cast my vote to oust him, but until all the information comes out (The FBI is still actively investigating) no one knows who is involved, or to what extent. I certainly believe that it is possible that he was involved, and his political connections have kept him insulated from the fallout, but I think this has become too high profile at this point for him to be protected if he was. I hope the truth comes out soon, and I too hope that BLM continues to apply pressure until the truth comes out, and until meaningful change happens.

On a final note: You've made some good points regarding the Chicago Dem's often contentious history with the Civil Rights movement, and I thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response. [MOD CUT/trolling]

Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-08-2015 at 04:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,113 posts, read 12,346,613 times
Reputation: 13871
I live in Georgia but I voted no because the people of Chicago voted for him twice and are getting EXACTLY what they voted for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 01:26 PM
 
Location: FLG/PHX/MKE
7,288 posts, read 13,459,532 times
Reputation: 11575
I voted #3. Chicago deserves the very person that it elected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Secure, Undisclosed
1,984 posts, read 1,287,649 times
Reputation: 3697
Not my circus, not my monkey...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top