(02-15-2018 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.
But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).
If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....

Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.
But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.

I think Ted "Blonde in the Pond" Kennedy and Bill Clinton proved it long before Trump.

About Clinton, are you kidding me? Many on the right certainly cared about his character and used that against him. Notice how I said "we"?

...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

I am perfectly happy to use it against members of either party ... DOWN WITH HYPOCRISY.

(02-15-2018 09:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

How many times during the election did you hear people on the left actually use Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities against him?

(02-15-2018 09:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.
But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).
If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....

Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.
But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.

I think Ted "Blonde in the Pond" Kennedy and Bill Clinton proved it long before Trump.

About Clinton, are you kidding me? Many on the right certainly cared about his character and used that against him. Notice how I said "we"?

Whoever cared about either one, it was a minority. Did the "we" who cared about Clinton include you? It didn't really include me, because I thought he was actually a good president, and I sure as hell didn't want Al Gore in the White House.

(02-15-2018 04:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.

What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.

It was this:

"...being honest and open with one's spouse, etc."

It kind of smacks of a an inexperience in marital matters, like you think Trump should have told Melania, "Hey Hon, I'm going to have sex with a porn star tonight, don't wait up" and she would have answered "Fine darling, as long as you are honest and open about it". In other words, a bit idealistic.

Not that it doesn't happen. One of my cousins lives in a house with her husband AND her lover. However, that came about partially because her husband is a devout Catholic who will not divorce and also is a stubborn man who will not be run out of his house. But I bet she does not have his OK on the situation, even though she is honest and open about the matter. BTW, the most far left of my cousins, a LULAC member.

You should maybe reread what I said and digest it a bit more.

Quote: I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

My point with that comment was that I can understand how someone could judge someone's character for those transgressions, especially if the partner did not disclose their affair (by the way, there is a large swath of possible situations between the rather ludicrous one you posited, and a rather more realistic one of confessing to your partner following an affair). But that it is not enough of a character flaw to totally disqualify someone from higher office. I basically do not think the simple act of lying with another person is a disqualifier, but that you can begin to build an opinion of one's character based on how they handled the transgression.

If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence. I agree, I would not hold somebody ineligible solely on that. Not enough saints to get the job done. What i would do is try to be as forgiving of one side as the other. I didn't care about Bill and Monica very much, until he committed perjury, even though it was the kind of situation that can lead to sexual harassment charges that today would result in an immediate resignation. I didn't care that Teddy philandered, until he killed somebody. Kind of expected all that, given their history and background. I heard Gennifer Flowers interviewed live on the radio. Powerful and/or rich men often act that way.

I also didn't care about Reagan's or Trump's divorces. I am divorced myself, and now have been single for 34 years, in a large variety of relationships, and maybe my experience(s) make me more tolerant of marital problems than the average person. If Trump cheated on Melania, that is between them. If the lady tried to tried to blackmail him, that is his problem. If he paid her to be quiet, I can understand that. it all seems to me to be a BFD.

(02-15-2018 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

How many times during the election did you hear people on the left actually use Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities against him?

I was comparing the Lewinsky incident with the porn star thing, and it was you who said the porn star thing ought to be a bigger scandal than it is.

(02-16-2018 12:40 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

How many times during the election did you hear people on the left actually use Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities against him?

I was comparing the Lewinsky incident with the porn star thing, and it was you who said the porn star thing ought to be a bigger scandal than it is.

I did? If you could send me a link to that post, I'd really appreciate that. I seem to remember to be explicitly stating that actions between two consensual adults shouldn't be fodder for the public - and i think a porn star and Trump doing the dirty falls into that category.

The only portions of this situation that I have any qualms about is the fact that Trump appears to have paid this woman hush money in a rather circuitous way, as opposed to being honest about the situation, were it brought to light. Or the fact that it isn't clear where the money actually came from - Trump's personal account of the campaign.

However, I do agree that in any other admin this would be a bigger scandal, because it is such a fricken juicy, tabloid-esque situation. I mean, one of the stories floating around is that Stormy Daniels beat the POTUS with a rolled up Forbes magazine - it's hard to make this stuff up.

(02-15-2018 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.
But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).
If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....

Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.
But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.

I think Ted "Blonde in the Pond" Kennedy and Bill Clinton proved it long before Trump.

About Clinton, are you kidding me? Many on the right certainly cared about his character and used that against him. Notice how I said "we"?

Whoever cared about either one, it was a minority. Did the "we" who cared about Clinton include you? It didn't really include me, because I thought he was actually a good president, and I sure as hell didn't want Al Gore in the White House.

Your point?

The minority you're now talking about has stopped caring about character as they now support Trump, who has certainly exhibited many moral flaws. So since the Dems have never really been the party that billed itself as the moral authority, and those on the right who used to tout their morality now don't, I fail to see how my statement needs any rebuttal. Why do you think there needs to be a rebuttal?

As to my opinion about Clinton, I'm not sure how 8 year old me felt about a POTUS committing adultery. I imagine I didn't have a very strong opinion about that, at the time.

(02-15-2018 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.

What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.

It was this:

"...being honest and open with one's spouse, etc."

It kind of smacks of a an inexperience in marital matters, like you think Trump should have told Melania, "Hey Hon, I'm going to have sex with a porn star tonight, don't wait up" and she would have answered "Fine darling, as long as you are honest and open about it". In other words, a bit idealistic.

Not that it doesn't happen. One of my cousins lives in a house with her husband AND her lover. However, that came about partially because her husband is a devout Catholic who will not divorce and also is a stubborn man who will not be run out of his house. But I bet she does not have his OK on the situation, even though she is honest and open about the matter. BTW, the most far left of my cousins, a LULAC member.

You should maybe reread what I said and digest it a bit more.

Quote: I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

My point with that comment was that I can understand how someone could judge someone's character for those transgressions, especially if the partner did not disclose their affair (by the way, there is a large swath of possible situations between the rather ludicrous one you posited, and a rather more realistic one of confessing to your partner following an affair). But that it is not enough of a character flaw to totally disqualify someone from higher office. I basically do not think the simple act of lying with another person is a disqualifier, but that you can begin to build an opinion of one's character based on how they handled the transgression.

If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence. I agree, I would not hold somebody ineligible solely on that. Not enough saints to get the job done. What i would do is try to be as forgiving of one side as the other. I didn't care about Bill and Monica very much, until he committed perjury, even though it was the kind of situation that can lead to sexual harassment charges that today would result in an immediate resignation. I didn't care that Teddy philandered, until he killed somebody. Kind of expected all that, given their history and background. I heard Gennifer Flowers interviewed live on the radio. Powerful and/or rich men often act that way.

I also didn't care about Reagan's or Trump's divorces. I am divorced myself, and now have been single for 34 years, in a large variety of relationships, and maybe my experience(s) make me more tolerant of marital problems than the average person. If Trump cheated on Melania, that is between them. If the lady tried to tried to blackmail him, that is his problem. If he paid her to be quiet, I can understand that. it all seems to me to be a BFD.

I mean, we're pretty much on the same page here - so I'm not sure why I'm getting a lot of pushback. We both seem to agree that we wouldn't immediately disqualify someone over an affair because it isn't really our business. Perhaps you think I am disagreeing with you because you expect me to because you think I hate all things Trump?

I said in a recent post, the only reason this is scandal-worthy is because of how juicy of a story it is - it's straight out of a TV show.

(02-16-2018 07:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As to my opinion about Clinton, I'm not sure how 8 year old me felt about a POTUS committing adultery. I imagine I didn't have a very strong opinion about that, at the time.

A shameful lack of civic engagement, Lad! ;-)

(02-16-2018 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I do agree that in any other admin this would be a bigger scandal, because it is such a fricken juicy, tabloid-esque situation. I mean, one of the stories floating around is that Stormy Daniels beat the POTUS with a rolled up Forbes magazine - it's hard to make this stuff up.

The even ickier one is that he allegedly told her she reminded him of his daughter. Yet another EEEEWWW! moment the Donald making sexual comments about his daughters. Combined with things like picking out which 10 year olds he will "be dating" in 10 years, that just goes beyond icky.

But my main point in bringing this up was to 1) comment on how crazy it is that stuff that might be the lead story for months in other administrations aren't even the top story of the week in this admin and 2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

(02-16-2018 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:40 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

How many times during the election did you hear people on the left actually use Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities against him?

I was comparing the Lewinsky incident with the porn star thing, and it was you who said the porn star thing ought to be a bigger scandal than it is.

I did? If you could send me a link to that post, I'd really appreciate that. I seem to remember to be explicitly stating that actions between two consensual adults shouldn't be fodder for the public - and i think a porn star and Trump doing the dirty falls into that category.

The only portions of this situation that I have any qualms about is the fact that Trump appears to have paid this woman hush money in a rather circuitous way, as opposed to being honest about the situation, were it brought to light. Or the fact that it isn't clear where the money actually came from - Trump's personal account of the campaign.

However, I do agree that in any other admin this would be a bigger scandal, because it is such a fricken juicy, tabloid-esque situation. I mean, one of the stories floating around is that Stormy Daniels beat the POTUS with a rolled up Forbes magazine - it's hard to make this stuff up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...a4c926e8aa

(02-16-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.

It was this:

"...being honest and open with one's spouse, etc."

It kind of smacks of a an inexperience in marital matters, like you think Trump should have told Melania, "Hey Hon, I'm going to have sex with a porn star tonight, don't wait up" and she would have answered "Fine darling, as long as you are honest and open about it". In other words, a bit idealistic.

Not that it doesn't happen. One of my cousins lives in a house with her husband AND her lover. However, that came about partially because her husband is a devout Catholic who will not divorce and also is a stubborn man who will not be run out of his house. But I bet she does not have his OK on the situation, even though she is honest and open about the matter. BTW, the most far left of my cousins, a LULAC member.

You should maybe reread what I said and digest it a bit more.

Quote: I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

My point with that comment was that I can understand how someone could judge someone's character for those transgressions, especially if the partner did not disclose their affair (by the way, there is a large swath of possible situations between the rather ludicrous one you posited, and a rather more realistic one of confessing to your partner following an affair). But that it is not enough of a character flaw to totally disqualify someone from higher office. I basically do not think the simple act of lying with another person is a disqualifier, but that you can begin to build an opinion of one's character based on how they handled the transgression.

If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence. I agree, I would not hold somebody ineligible solely on that. Not enough saints to get the job done. What i would do is try to be as forgiving of one side as the other. I didn't care about Bill and Monica very much, until he committed perjury, even though it was the kind of situation that can lead to sexual harassment charges that today would result in an immediate resignation. I didn't care that Teddy philandered, until he killed somebody. Kind of expected all that, given their history and background. I heard Gennifer Flowers interviewed live on the radio. Powerful and/or rich men often act that way.

I also didn't care about Reagan's or Trump's divorces. I am divorced myself, and now have been single for 34 years, in a large variety of relationships, and maybe my experience(s) make me more tolerant of marital problems than the average person. If Trump cheated on Melania, that is between them. If the lady tried to tried to blackmail him, that is his problem. If he paid her to be quiet, I can understand that. it all seems to me to be a BFD.

I mean, we're pretty much on the same page here - so I'm not sure why I'm getting a lot of pushback. We both seem to agree that we wouldn't immediately disqualify someone over an affair because it isn't really our business. Perhaps you think I am disagreeing with you because you expect me to because you think I hate all things Trump?

I said in a recent post, the only reason this is scandal-worthy is because of how juicy of a story it is - it's straight out of a TV show.

We are in general agreement, as we so often are. it was just your phrasing that caught my attention.

Has anybody else realized that at the time Trump slept with the porn actress (I hesitate to call her a star), he was a Democrat, supporting Hillary Clinton at fund raisers?

(02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

Probably the lesser evil.

You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.

(02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

Probably the lesser evil.

You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.

...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.

How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...

(02-16-2018 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:40 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and many on the Blue Team care about Trump's character and use it against him. Equivalence, is the point you are missing.

How many times during the election did you hear people on the left actually use Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities against him?

I was comparing the Lewinsky incident with the porn star thing, and it was you who said the porn star thing ought to be a bigger scandal than it is.

I did? If you could send me a link to that post, I'd really appreciate that. I seem to remember to be explicitly stating that actions between two consensual adults shouldn't be fodder for the public - and i think a porn star and Trump doing the dirty falls into that category.

The only portions of this situation that I have any qualms about is the fact that Trump appears to have paid this woman hush money in a rather circuitous way, as opposed to being honest about the situation, were it brought to light. Or the fact that it isn't clear where the money actually came from - Trump's personal account of the campaign.

However, I do agree that in any other admin this would be a bigger scandal, because it is such a fricken juicy, tabloid-esque situation. I mean, one of the stories floating around is that Stormy Daniels beat the POTUS with a rolled up Forbes magazine - it's hard to make this stuff up.

You're right, it was a different poster.

IMO, Clinton banging an intern on his White House desk while using a cigar as a [censored word for a prosthetic naughty bit] is more salacious than Trump's story, but my point is it's all just turds in the cesspool.

In the movie Idiocracy, the president is a former porn star. It's one reason for his popularity. The truth isn't much stranger than fiction.

(02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I do agree that in any other admin this would be a bigger scandal, because it is such a fricken juicy, tabloid-esque situation. I mean, one of the stories floating around is that Stormy Daniels beat the POTUS with a rolled up Forbes magazine - it's hard to make this stuff up.

The even ickier one is that he allegedly told her she reminded him of his daughter. Yet another EEEEWWW! moment the Donald making sexual comments about his daughters. Combined with things like picking out which 10 year olds he will "be dating" in 10 years, that just goes beyond icky.

But my main point in bringing this up was to 1) comment on how crazy it is that stuff that might be the lead story for months in other administrations aren't even the top story of the week in this admin and 2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

Yeah, yeah, and the Blue Team is just as hypocritical in supporting the bank-owned neocons Obama and Clinton. It's all very tiresome.

(02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

Probably the lesser evil.

You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.

During the campaign, NPR regularly interviewed the pastor of the Baptist megachurch in Dallas. He said issues were important,
but those could be addressed later. For the moment, the Christian right was tired of losing, and Trump was a winner.

(02-16-2018 10:20 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.

Probably the lesser evil.

You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.

During the campaign, NPR regularly interviewed the pastor of the Baptist megachurch in Dallas. He said issues were important,
but those could be addressed later. For the moment, the Christian right was tired of losing, and Trump was a winner.

Ditto my above.