If you are asking if I would trade my opposition to abortion for being assured of a permanent human presence on Mars then the answer is no. Not sure how that is relevant to anything at all.
Maybe don't chop everything out of what you're quoting. You said I was attempting to establish what some of your limits might be. When it comes to defending people that you dislike (or at least the positions that they hold).
Not sure why my opposition to elective abortions would ever be questioned. And most certainly not questioned when put against something utterly unrelated like a manned Mars program.
Have any of Trump's apologists come up with an explanation for why Papadopoulos, Gates, Flynn and Cohen lied to investigators? Was it just, like, for recreation?
What Alexander Hamilton would say about the Mueller report The Mueller report has finally brought us face-to-face with the need to address the “delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility” in the nation’s chief executive, as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 69. To quote the Mueller report: “The President has no more right than other citizens to impede official proceedings by corruptly influencing witness testimony.” In addition, the president bears a second burden of personal responsibility — not merely to execute the powers of his office (for instance, hiring and firing) but also to execute those powers “faithfully.” That question of faithfulness is what Hamilton had in mind when he referred to the “delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility.” The constitutional apparatus gave to Congress the power and responsibility of addressing that delicate matter. The most important question now before us is whether Congress will use its power — and indeed, rebuild it after a period of decline — to reinforce two core principles of the Constitution: that the president is not above the law and that he or she should be held to a standard of faithfulness. Hamilton was one of the leading architects of an energetic presidency and was also the person who was therefore most obliged to explain to the public how the country could be assured that such energy would not be misused. A key difference between the British crown and the new American president, he twice insisted in the Federalist Papers, was that the “person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable.” In contrast, the president was “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law.” The result of this was that, “In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?” Above all, what was materially to be feared was that the president would exercise the powers of his office not faithfully but corruptly. He would use lawful powers — again, say, hiring and firing — not for public good, but personal gain. To explain the expectation that the president will act “faithfully,” the Mueller report reaches to the 18th century, arguing, “A general ban on corrupt action does not unduly intrude on the President’s responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ … The concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office holder’s personal interests.” To understand the original meaning of “faithfully,” Mueller’s team cites a 1755 dictionary written by Samuel Johnson, which defines the term as “strict adherence to duty and allegiance.” The constitutional action of impeachment addresses “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors,” a broad remit that covers both violation of obstruction of justice laws and a failure to meet the constitutional requirement to exercise the powers of office faithfully. Importantly, the obstruction of justice laws comprehensively cover attempts to obstruct. Impeachment was designed, according to Hamilton, to ensure that, “In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President … would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.” In other words, think of the case of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois who was impeached under corruption charges in 2009. Where does this leave us? Congress has the power and responsibility to act. Congress should consider as one of its highest priorities reclaiming its powers, after decades of its decline in the wake of executive overreach. And it should come to a judgment about the legality and faithfulness of President Trump’s behavior. Political considerations should not outweigh constitutional responsibilities. In that regard, we face the delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility not only as it pertains to our chief executive but also as it applies to all our representatives. At the end of the day, the health of our democracy stands or falls on whether we can maintain our personal responsibilities to the Constitution.
I know what worries me most. That conservatives are so fucking tribalist, they're cool with that as a defense!! "See, they TRIED to do evil, but they're too fucking DUMB!! Suck it, libs!! ".
I think President Trump is deeply embarrassed at the idea he needed help from the Russians to beat Hillary Clinton. Though I'm just speculating.
Well, at least he is not some middle aged substitute teacher fuck up from the middle of nowhere Arkansas. That would be really embarrassing.
From what I've gathered the Mueller Report indicates nothing about the Trump campaign seeking assistance from the Russians during the campaign.
Not as hysterical as anyone assuming Donnie Boy has ever felt embarrassed by anything. And since when have you adopted British punctuation?
So even you agree that President Trump's actions with regard to the Russia investigation were motivated by petty personal concerns rather than the overall good of the country and his oath to "faithfully execute the office."
All Donald Trump ever had are "petty personal concerns". "faithfully execute the office" is a pretty ambiguous concept so it is difficult to see whether he violated it or not.
It's really not. It means acting in the best interests of the country and not abusing the power of the office to further one's own personal interests, be they legal, financial, or emotional.
Interesting how the only way to defend Trump is by following him into the world of murky amorality he has so long inhabited. Truth isn't truth. Good people on both sides. There are a lot of killers.
What if a president has determined that the best interests of the country and his or her personal interests are the same? That is possible you know.
Depends. What if this president is the only one running who can get a real nuclear deal with North Korea? No matter what else he does, you could make an argument that eliminating the North Korean nuclear threat trumps (no pun) anything else on the table. Not saying that's true. Just spit balling.
If all the information to date has taught us anything, we now know that Trump's character is un-impeachable, Trump's humility is un-impeachable, and Trump's honesty is un-impeachable. Guess we'll have to wait and see about Trump's conduct.
You're wrong. And I think you know it too, because if what you just said were true, they would have no reason to be embarrassed over their contacts with any Russians.