Cohen spills beans on Trump/Russia: Trump cancels on Putin

[_Maksutov]

Rather nicely, someone then asked Trump the obvious question:

Q: “If Cohen is such a bum, why did you hire him, have him on your payroll for 12 years and have him do so much of your dirty work?”

Trump: “Because a long time ago he did me a favor. A long time ago he did me a favor.”

So that's all right, then ...

Don't forget that MC also was Sean Hannity's attorney...

[_Maksutov]

It is, frankly, scary that the only defences of Trump mounted here are from people who make it clear that Trump could do, or be revealed to have done, pretty well anything (including Trump's own example of shooting someone dead on the street), and their support would not waver in the least.

I have no problem admitting this. I'll always be loyal to DJT.

This is not politics - which is about negotiation, compromise, and the building of support on the basis of common interests - it is a visceral loyalty akin to what we have seen on the MADboard from those who struggle to defend the CoJCoLDS come what may. That is not what I understood democracy, particularly the American kind, to be about either. The future looks dark and dangerous if this tendency continues.

Mitt Romney thought politics was about compromise, and building to support the basis of common interests. And where did it get him? Where did it get my interests as a conservative? Disenfranchised and irrelevant would be a good answer. It's as if people like John Kasich think supporting open borders, high taxes, a big welfare state, and crippling the military is going to win him Democratic votes. DJT got more Democrat crossover than Kasich would have ever gotten. Kasich would never have broken the blue wall. Not only are his policies bad for conservatives if they were implemented. They can't win the election either.

And you'll always be loyal to the treasonous slavers of the South. Loyal to lies and lynchings. How admirable.

[_ajax18]

That Republic is defined by its Constitution, which Trump is sworn to uphold. What if he violates that oath? Which do you go with then, the Constitution or Trump?

I guess border patrol agents were faced with a similar dilemma under Jeh Johnson during the Obama administration urging them to turn their heads and look the other way.

If you're asking between a leftist interpretation of the constitution and DJT, I think you know my answer. The Constitution would be closer to dead without DJT's supreme court appointments.

[_ajax18]

And you'll always be loyal to the treasonous slavers of the South. Loyal to lies and lynchings. How admirable.

One can be loyal to his state and the constitution while being outraged at lies and lynchings. It's take me a long time to realize this, but under a strict interpretation of the constitution as the founding fathers intended, the confederates were right. They didn't win, which is why history judges them as wrong, but they were right in principle.

[_Chap]

That Republic is defined by its Constitution, which Trump is sworn to uphold. What if he violates that oath? Which do you go with then, the Constitution or Trump?

[...]

If you're asking between a leftist interpretation of the constitution and DJT, I think you know my answer. The Constitution would be closer to dead without DJT's supreme court appointments.

So you will accept the provisions of the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts ... but only if you happen to like the judges?

I'd call that a very considerable mental reservation in your allegiance to the Republic. Are you happy if people whose political views differ from you take the same approach?

That would, of course, be the same as not having a Constitution in anything like the sense that the Founding Fathers intended it.

[_honorentheos]

...under a strict interpretation of the constitution as the founding fathers intended, the confederates were right. They didn't win, which is why history judges them as wrong, but they were right in principle.

Would you mind expanding on this, preferably with quotes? Starting a new thread would probably be appropriate, but I'm interested in where you've drawing this conclusion.

[_canpakes]

I have no problem admitting this. I'll always be loyal to DJT....


Mitt Romney thought politics was about compromise, and building to support the basis of common interests. And where did it get him? Where did it get my interests as a conservative? Disenfranchised and irrelevant would be a good answer. It's as if people like John Kasich think supporting open borders, high taxes, a big welfare state, and crippling the military is going to win him Democratic votes. DJT got more Democrat crossover than Kasich would have ever gotten.

ajax, this might make some sense if your interests were being served as a conservative. But the closest that Trump has come to anything on your list is planning to have asylum seekers remain outside the country while applying.

Otherwise, the trend remains the same for welfare applicants, assistance expenditures, trade imbalances and military strength, while simultaneously reserving any tax break for only the wealthiest, pushing the country into even greater debt, and presenting some sketchy economic scenarios with an ineffective strategy of tariffs. And no wall for you, either. Just an empty promise designed to sucker people into their ‘loyalty’.

So, is that trade-off worth it? And why?

[_ajax18]

So, is that trade-off worth it? And why?

Trading what? A man who promised but ultimately couldn't completely enforce the border versus a man who told us up front he had no intention of doing so?

[_ajax18]

Would you mind expanding on this, preferably with quotes? Starting a new thread would probably be appropriate, but I'm interested in where you've drawing this conclusion.

The founding fathers were for the most part against federalism. Remember they started out with the Articles of Confederation because even something like the Constitution forfeited too much power to the federal government. The legality of keeping slaves should have been a decision left up to each state. "All rights not explicitly reserved to the federal government belong to the states." We can argue about what the intent of that meant but I think the confederates were closer to what men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams intended. Why not let the south form their own country? Are there countries in the world where slavery is still practiced? Why don't we now invade these countries and free these people?

[_honorentheos]

Would you mind expanding on this, preferably with quotes? Starting a new thread would probably be appropriate, but I'm interested in where you've drawing this conclusion.

The founding fathers were for the most part against federalism. Remember they started out with the Articles of Confederation because even something like the Constitution forfeited too much power to the federal government. The legality of keeping slaves should have been a decision left up to each state. "All rights not explicitly reserved to the federal government belong to the states." We can argue about what the intent of that meant but I think the confederates were closer to what men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams intended. Why not let the south form their own country? Are there countries in the world where slavery is still practiced? Why don't we now invade these countries and free these people?

But we ended up with the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation failed. The option was on the table to leave it at that or forge something strong enough to cohere together as a nation and we are living in the results of the decision that won the day among the diverse and divided views. You seem to be arguing that when folks such as James Madison or Thomas Jefferson sought both the ratification of the Constitution while opposing Federal monetary efforts on the part of Alexander Hamilton of Broadway fame it signals they would have seen the nation they fought to unite collapse in a generation? You seem to think that the slave issue is the crux of the states rights debate for the founders rather than the issue they swept under the rug for future generations to deal with because it was too much for them to handle AND establish the new nation-state that was the United States of America. It's a misreading of their explicit statements as well as what can be inferred from their actions as conflicted and diverse as they may be to argue they would have seen the US consisting of constant Balkanization and reordering states shifting between coalitions of changing allegiances dependent on the whims of an era. Try imagining a world where the powers of Europe saw this situation instead of a unified and emerging nation going into the 1900s if you can...you could be speaking Spanish or German now depending on whether you ended up living in New Spain or New Germany, amigo.