> he's saying that you are interpreting hamilton's words to suit your argument okay, let me post it all yet again kek. > it will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body ... > he would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that ... of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure. trump wants the "sole disposition" to appoint people who are largely inconsequential (i.e. a junior congressman and a part-time national guard major/tv presenter) to the most distinguished positions. he does this because they are loyal (i.e. pliant). what about this doesn't make sense to you?
United States