Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

Rahm Emanuel: Impeachment isn't "a political tool"

Recommended Posts

I actually agree with him on this one. Impeachment shouldn't be weaponized as a political tool the way that it was against Clinton, and how Nunes is reportedly wanting to use it against Rosenstein and Wray. 

Quote

At an Axios event in Chicago yesterday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel told me midterm Democratic candidates are unwise to rely on the allure of impeaching President Trump as an issue in November's races.

His advice: "I lived through the Clinton White House. This is a serious legal and constitutional, not political, issue. ... I couldn't be angrier at Donald Trump. ... That said, you don't just flippantly say: We're for [impeachment]."

  • "When we get to it, we collectively as a country will know it — as we did with, like, Richard Nixon."
  • "[Y]ou don't just treat ... the policy standard of impeachment ... as a political tool. It's a constitutional standard and, when that standard has been met, we'll know about it. ... This is a case where the best politics is good policy."

The backdrop: The N.Y. Times reported that Republicans are trying to energize their base and lure moderate voters by warning that Dems "will immediately move to impeach President Trump if they capture the House."

  • Liberal N.Y. Times columnist Charles Blow bluntly spells out the politics of impeachment: "It is quite possible that trying to impeach and remove Trump could have the opposite effect than the one desired: It could boost rather than diminish his popularity and an acquittal by the Senate would leave an even more popular president in office."

https://www.axios.com/rahm-emanuel-democrats-impeachment-donald-trump-16548093-835a-45d7-abdb-17b5e8edab01.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

I actually agree with him on this one. Impeachment shouldn't be weaponized as a political tool the way that it was against Clinton, and how Nunes is reportedly wanting to use it against Rosenstein and Wray. 

https://www.axios.com/rahm-emanuel-democrats-impeachment-donald-trump-16548093-835a-45d7-abdb-17b5e8edab01.html

He’s right, but too late. Unfortunately both sides will accuse the other side of doing it. And both sides will be right. You and @Rebelbacker should have fun arguing about it, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

He’s right, but too late. Unfortunately both sides will accuse the other side of doing it. And both sides will be right. You and @Rebelbacker should have fun arguing about it, though. 

30+ pages here we come!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

He’s right, but too late. Unfortunately both sides will accuse the other side of doing it. And both sides will be right. You and @Rebelbacker should have fun arguing about it, though. 

 

16 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

30+ pages here we come!!!!

Nope. Not worth arguing about. It isn’t going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory I agree but coming from Emanuel it makes me feel dirty

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, retrofade said:

I actually agree with him on this one. Impeachment shouldn't be weaponized as a political tool the way that it was against Clinton, and how Nunes is reportedly wanting to use it against Rosenstein and Wray. 

https://www.axios.com/rahm-emanuel-democrats-impeachment-donald-trump-16548093-835a-45d7-abdb-17b5e8edab01.html

Of course it wasn't created to be used politically, just like a gazillion other things. But this day and age, obviously everything is. When you have people in the FBI going public with party politics, you know it's deadly bad. 

Rahm is just a total joke of a person and politician. This is a guy that's always been hyper political, but also very dirty. Like the time he was super pissed at a  Dem pollster for not making his candidates to Congress look better, so he sent him a package in the mail with big dead rotting fish just like the mob would send to you if you were about to get wacked. He's always thought he's a tough scary guy and that his enemies should be shaking in their boots if he's mad. Forget the mob/Godfather thing because he's too cool for that. He's known as the Rahmfather which is way scarier.

So when this guy decides to preach about not involving politics in impeachment or anything else, it's pretty funny. Ironically he's a total tool, and a political tool at that. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Nope. Not worth arguing about. It isn’t going to happen. 

What if I told you that Hillary Clinton is mostly guilty of being an old lady who doesn't know how to use email rather than a corrupt, criminal mastermind who should be in prison? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

 

What if I told you that Hillary Clinton is mostly guilty of being an old lady who doesn't know how to use email rather than a corrupt, criminal mastermind who should be in prison? 

Well, you wouldn't do that because we all know she's corrupt and should be in prison. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

 

What if I told you that Hillary Clinton is mostly guilty of being an old lady who doesn't know how to use email rather than a corrupt, criminal mastermind who should be in prison? 

You forgot about BENGHAZI!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

He’s right, but too late. Unfortunately both sides will accuse the other side of doing it. And both sides will be right. You and @Rebelbacker should have fun arguing about it, though. 

Rahm has never, or will he ever, be right!

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Well, you wouldn't do that because we all know she's corrupt and should be in prison. :)

Oh, I think I just did it! But please don't try to prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

So Rahm was right?  Every squirrel finds a nut....

Which is it though?

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Rahm has never, or will he ever, be right!

You can't say that every squirrel finds a nut, when you just said that he has never, and will never be right about anything. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, as even if he were to be "accidentally" right, he was still right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NVGiant said:

Well, clearly she had Seth Rich murder Ambassador Stevens in a Washington pizza shop.

Before hopping on the lolita express to go molest children while selling all of our uranium to Russia and pocketing millions of dollar in donations from Russian interests while laughing about how she personally had Vince Foster killed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

Which is it though?

You can't say that every squirrel finds a nut, when you just said that he has never, and will never be right about anything. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, as even if he were to be "accidentally" right, he was still right. 

I'm absolutely sure Rahm doesn't understand your question.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

I'm absolutely sure Rahm doesn't understand your question.

No, no, no... you don't get to just deflect. Which of your statements is correct? Was Rahm right? Or has he never been right, and will never be right about anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...