Ex-Trump World Tower doorman: Trump had affair resulting in a child

[DINGO Joe]

Are our laws not based on the Ten Commandments?

Without actually looking up the 10, I'm gonna say maybe five of them are actually against the law.

On edit:

I looked them up and three are actually against the law, though not coveting your neighbors ox or slaves is still fine advice.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I wonder how the evangelicals including Mike Pence would react if the God Emperor paid for an abortion? Probably they still wouldn't care as long as he appoints one of their own to the Supreme Court. Total hypocrisy anyway, Barack Obama would have been impeached for just a fraction of scandals.

Talking to you on this topic is different than talking to ProudModerate2 and company, for a variety of reasons.  I have a lot more faith in your good motives and objectivity.

Consider the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which son is Trump, and which son is Obama?  Which son, as President, has done more of the work of the Father, from a Christian perspective?

On abortion?

On marriage and family?

On Israel?

On the overall secularization of our society?

On acknowledging the Christian Foundations of our Republic?

On homosexuality, as it pertains to the Church (e. g. the Cake Baker issue)?

Obama is a man who has, in many ways, done the will of the Father in his lifetime, who spent much of his Presidency advancing policy that was NOT in line with the will of the Father, and pushed for much public policy that would encourage people to NOT do the will of the Father, and, indeed, drive them further from God.

Trump is a man who, in many ways, has blown off God and his dictates in his lifetime, whose Presidency has advanced policy that was in line with the will of the Father, and which would encourage people TO do the will of the Father, indeed, drawing them closer to God.

Are Evangelical Christians really hypocrites?  I don't mean those who are blatantly living secretly sinful lives.  I mean folks who cited Bill Clinton's immoralities (that not only involved his private life,  but the results of the advocacy of some of his policies) that are alive today having found themselves in 2016 with a choice between a woman who is anti-Christian in her public policy advocacies, and a man who was (and, sadly, still is) rather un-Christian in his public persona, but who advocated public policy that was far more aligned with Scripture than his opponent.  Which of these two (2) folks, for example, would have done more of the Father's Will to date; Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Donald John Trump?  That's the question Christians had to ponder in 2016; the "going forward" issue.  If you want to say that, going forward, Hillary Clinton would have been a "better President", that's one thing, but if you want to say that Hillary Clinton would have done a better job of lining her policy up with the Will of God, I would question that.

Now, personally, I am not in perfect sync with what most Evangelicals believe in as being "Godly Public Policy".  I do not believe Scripture mandates the Death Penalty; indeed, I believe that the New Testament forbids it.  I do believe that on some of "the least of my brethren" issues, Hillary would have been more Biblically correct than Trump.  And while Hillary endorses a Utopian Vision of the World, which is anti-Biblical, Trump does endorse some of the excesses of nationalism, which is un-Biblical, and, unfortunately, some of the latter has crept into the Church to the point where it has resulted in un-Scriptural teachings.  (God, by the way, holds His Teachers to a higher standard because of the responsibility they take on when they become teachers, and I do not believe He is happy about this.)

I am sharing this with you not to defend Donald Trump; he's a big boy and can defend himself.  I am sharing this to defend my Brethren in Christ, and to show the choice THEY face in voting.  If you believe that Evangelicals dismiss voting for a Democrat without any real prayerful consideration, you may be right, but it is also true that the Democratic Party's candidates and spokespersons have become more vocally hostile toward Evangelical Christians by the year.  I still vote for Democrats, but this posturing by Democrats has actually caused me to actually self-identify as a Republican; so alienating has the Democratic Party's spokespersons been to myself, who was once a partisan and politically active Democrat who's registered Republican status, up until now, has been quite a nominal thing.

I'm not going to tell people that Donald Trump is a good Christian man.  I don't know that he's a Christian, and I've not heard anything from him that I would consider to meet Biblical standards as a confession of Saving Faith, although it's possible that he has made such a confession.  It's quite possible he meant it if he made such a statement, and I don't rule it out that he was sincere when and if he made such a confession.  I note that the worst allegations against Trump all seem to be regarding behavior that happened over a decade ago.  But I don't know this, and I'm not going to pretend that Trump is what he hasn't said he is.  That, to me is the right issue with Christians; the issue of being honest with who and what Donald Trump has presented himself to be.  

Having voted for Bill Clinton twice, I suppose that's easier for me to do than it is for many who have been committed Christian conservatives for decades; I don't PERSONALLY share the contradiction that they do.  I do think that their dilemma is real when they go vote, but I view labeling them all as hypocrites as more than a little unfair.

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

I hear that a lot.  Does this mean that men and women, motivated by their Biblical Christian faith, cannot hold public office.  Or that voters must not judge who they vote for on Biblical principles?

Does that mean that a policy initiative advanced by fervent Christians is automatically unconstitutional because of the beliefs and motives of the sponsors?

Does that mean that fervent Christians are to be excluded from the political process?

It means that the United States should not and is not governed based on biblical principles, and that a policy should not be supported solely because of those principles. Pretending that Christians are in some way excluded from public service is absurd.

Are our laws not based on the Ten Commandments?

About as much as they're based on the Code of Hammurabi.

[twenty42]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

[Torrain]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

[Blair]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

And was given a DNA Test in the Starr report, and the story was found to be bogus.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The last time this story gained a lot of circulation (which was years ago), it fell apart when the identity of the child couldn’t be found.

Until somebody steps forward and passes a DNA test, this is fake news.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

[libertpaulian]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

Many Generation X and Millennial Evangelicals, such as Russell Moore, Rachel Held Evans, Jennifer Hatmaker, Matthew Vines, JD Greear, etc., have a very social justice-oriented approach to their religion and their politics.  Voting Democratic in their cases would advance social justice moreso than voting Republican would.

Also key is that Clinton herself is a longtime United Methodist.  Methodism has always had a mixed approach of evangelism and social justice to its religious principles.  Read up on John Wesley whenever you have the chance.

[dotard]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

Many Generation X and Millennial Evangelicals, such as Russell Moore, Rachel Held Evans, Jennifer Hatmaker, Matthew Vines, JD Greear, etc., have a very social justice-oriented approach to their religion and their politics.  Voting Democratic in their cases would advance social justice moreso than voting Republican would.

Also key is that Clinton herself is a longtime United Methodist.  Methodism has always had a mixed approach of evangelism and social justice to its religious principles.  Read up on John Wesley whenever you have the chance.

My grandparents are Methodists and they’re life long Democrats. They go to a mostly black church in a mostly black area so it skews Dem but their church is into that kind of stuff.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

No one forced Evangelical Christians to vote at gun point. No one had to vote for Hillary Clinton, any more than they had to vote for Donald Trump. Please explain where in actual Christianity it is taught that the ends justify the means.

And, while you're explaining things, maybe you can also enlighten us as to where in Jesus' teachings he explains that the godly, just, Christian thing to do when faced with a difficult choice is to embrace the (purported) lesser evil with all your heart? Or how about sharing the part of the Bible that explains how actively supporting a living example of all the worst human sins and vices in return for political power is the way of the Lord? Because it sure doesn't seem to be in any of the version of the book I have read.

[Doimper]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

Who can forget those timeless words of Jesus: "Thy shall vote for a lying adulterer if the libs shall thence be owned"

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

Trump definitely raw-dogged that housekeeper and knocked her up...it was right after those Muslims cheered 9/11 from the roof tops of NJ but not before Trump launched his investigation into Obama's birth certificate.

[pbrower2a]

Just out of curiosity, are we sure Bill Clinton doesn't have an illegitimate child somewhere?

There is a woman in Little Rock who claims that Bill Clinton is her son's father. But since Clinton has a D next to his name, this woman is shrugged off as a crackpot who is looking for attention.

Bill Clinton is a private citizen. Even if Danney Williams was his son (and Washington Post reporting suggests he isn’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-may-have-lost-his-grip-on-reality/), it has little political bearing on the current climate, anymore than revelations about the mistresses that Kennedy and Eisenhower kept.

Donald Trump on the other hand, is an incumbent president, seeking to win relection with the support of a coalition supported by family-values evangelicals.

Apples and oranges.

He gets the votes of Evangelicals for several reasons:

1.  Appointment of Conservative Judges
2.  Support for Religious Liberty (e. g. the Cake Baker)
3.  The open vocal hostility of Democratic pols toward Evangelicals
4.  Overt support for out military (Evangelicals are, generally, exceptionally patriotic)

If they voted for Hillary Clinton, they would have gotten the following:

1.  Appointment of Socially Liberal Judges
2.  Erosion of Religious Liberties through SCOTUS Decisions and Executive Fiat
3.  The open, vocal hostility of the President, and her entire party, toward Evangelicals
4.  Department of Education policies promoting anti-Christian values as part of curriculum

Please tell me why an Evangelical Christian should vote for Hillary Clinton if this is the choice of OUTCOMES.

The outcome includes that Evangelical Christians are getting a bad rap for supporting Donald Trump, a thoroughly ungodly person and a horrid politician.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the rise in Evangelical Protestantism looks to be connected to people finding an ideological home confirming their social and economic values, including nationalism, sexual repression, social-Darwinist economics, and nostalgia for a world that youth were then rejecting. Instead of "peace, love, and dope" it offered patriotism, order, and hierarchy.

But do their kids follow along? They can't reject Jesus, but they can certainly read the Bible and draw their own conclusions. So, yes, we have some Protestant evangelicals who have adopted a rather left-wing social agenda.

1. "Conservative" now means endorsement of economic inequality, harsh management, and crony capitalism. Donald Trump is appointing fanatical ideologues who believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as the Right People profit from it.

If this entrenches itself, it puts us at risk of some civil war over economic disparities.

2. I have debated the 'cake baker' issue, and I can think of positions for which I would stand for the right of a baker to reject certain requests. Sure -- a cake designed to look like a gravestone that has the message

A. DEFAULTING SCHMUCK

1972-2018

Didn't pay his gambling debt
Drowned in Lake Michigan for that error

would be the sort that one could refuse, unless the baker "gets an offer that he can't refuse".

...or maybe this one:

Celebrating manly love of a boy

What wonderful sex!

I'd call the cops!

...or perhaps I am a Jew and I get a request for

"Happy 130th birthday, Adolf (20 April 1889/2019)" complete with a swastika. In fact I don't need to be Jewish to find that offensive and suitable for rejection!

Now what is so bad about a wedding cake that has "Adam and Steve" as the new couple, complete with a same-sex couple figurine on top?

About as much as a wedding cake that has a mixed-race couple figurine on top. Live with it.

3. I can't speak for Hillary Clinton, but I didn't hear her lash out at people for being Protestant fundamentalists. It was for other, 'deplorable' stuff.

4. She is closer to Ronald Reagan in foreign policy than is Donald Trump.   

[Badger]

The OP is dumb enough to believe this, but the rest of you? C'mon.

I’m actually pretty skeptical of this and am hardly a Trump fan.

I’m indifferent to this specific claim, but let’s be honest, this is exactly the type of thing that would happen with Trump.

[Badger]

I wonder how the evangelicals including Mike Pence would react if the God Emperor paid for an abortion? Probably they still wouldn't care as long as he appoints one of their own to the Supreme Court. Total hypocrisy anyway, Barack Obama would have been impeached for just a fraction of scandals.

Talking to you on this topic is different than talking to ProudModerate2 and company, for a variety of reasons.  I have a lot more faith in your good motives and objectivity.

Consider the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which son is Trump, and which son is Obama?  Which son, as President, has done more of the work of the Father, from a Christian perspective?

On abortion?

On marriage and family?

On Israel?

On the overall secularization of our society?

On acknowledging the Christian Foundations of our Republic?

On homosexuality, as it pertains to the Church (e. g. the Cake Baker issue)?

Obama is a man who has, in many ways, done the will of the Father in his lifetime, who spent much of his Presidency advancing policy that was NOT in line with the will of the Father, and pushed for much public policy that would encourage people to NOT do the will of the Father, and, indeed, drive them further from God.

Trump is a man who, in many ways, has blown off God and his dictates in his lifetime, whose Presidency has advanced policy that was in line with the will of the Father, and which would encourage people TO do the will of the Father, indeed, drawing them closer to God.

Are Evangelical Christians really hypocrites?  I don't mean those who are blatantly living secretly sinful lives.  I mean folks who cited Bill Clinton's immoralities (that not only involved his private life,  but the results of the advocacy of some of his policies) that are alive today having found themselves in 2016 with a choice between a woman who is anti-Christian in her public policy advocacies, and a man who was (and, sadly, still is) rather un-Christian in his public persona, but who advocated public policy that was far more aligned with Scripture than his opponent.  Which of these two (2) folks, for example, would have done more of the Father's Will to date; Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Donald John Trump?  That's the question Christians had to ponder in 2016; the "going forward" issue.  If you want to say that, going forward, Hillary Clinton would have been a "better President", that's one thing, but if you want to say that Hillary Clinton would have done a better job of lining her policy up with the Will of God, I would question that.

Now, personally, I am not in perfect sync with what most Evangelicals believe in as being "Godly Public Policy".  I do not believe Scripture mandates the Death Penalty; indeed, I believe that the New Testament forbids it.  I do believe that on some of "the least of my brethren" issues, Hillary would have been more Biblically correct than Trump.  And while Hillary endorses a Utopian Vision of the World, which is anti-Biblical, Trump does endorse some of the excesses of nationalism, which is un-Biblical, and, unfortunately, some of the latter has crept into the Church to the point where it has resulted in un-Scriptural teachings.  (God, by the way, holds His Teachers to a higher standard because of the responsibility they take on when they become teachers, and I do not believe He is happy about this.)

I am sharing this with you not to defend Donald Trump; he's a big boy and can defend himself.  I am sharing this to defend my Brethren in Christ, and to show the choice THEY face in voting.  If you believe that Evangelicals dismiss voting for a Democrat without any real prayerful consideration, you may be right, but it is also true that the Democratic Party's candidates and spokespersons have become more vocally hostile toward Evangelical Christians by the year.  I still vote for Democrats, but this posturing by Democrats has actually caused me to actually self-identify as a Republican; so alienating has the Democratic Party's spokespersons been to myself, who was once a partisan and politically active Democrat who's registered Republican status, up until now, has been quite a nominal thing.

I'm not going to tell people that Donald Trump is a good Christian man.  I don't know that he's a Christian, and I've not heard anything from him that I would consider to meet Biblical standards as a confession of Saving Faith, although it's possible that he has made such a confession.  It's quite possible he meant it if he made such a statement, and I don't rule it out that he was sincere when and if he made such a confession.  I note that the worst allegations against Trump all seem to be regarding behavior that happened over a decade ago.  But I don't know this, and I'm not going to pretend that Trump is what he hasn't said he is.  That, to me is the right issue with Christians; the issue of being honest with who and what Donald Trump has presented himself to be.  

Having voted for Bill Clinton twice, I suppose that's easier for me to do than it is for many who have been committed Christian conservatives for decades; I don't PERSONALLY share the contradiction that they do.  I do think that their dilemma is real when they go vote, but I view labeling them all as hypocrites as more than a little unfair.

On all but the second and third to last categories, Obama. And I praise Obama for being on the right side of those issues as well.

We get it fuzzy. Your version of Christianity is a non-violent American Taliban. Point taken. The rest of us Christians are quite happy in our faith. And guess what? We haven't used the Bible to condemn integration or interracial marriage.

No matter how much they rely on their interpretation  of the Bible is being the in alterable word of God, Orthodox Christians just don't have all the answers I guess....

[Badger]

It's a shame you folks on the left made a big stink 20 years ago about how private sexual peccadilloes of the president shouldn't be held against them. Now you all come across as blatant, hollow hypocrites for criticizing a Republican president for the very things you defended against Clinton.

Love the morality lesson from Mr. Ross Catalog model who made a whiny, cucked  post about a women mod on here LOL

I'm pretty sure it's your side giving the morality lessons in this thread. Democrats were the party of sexual freedom until Trump came on the scene...but now you are more obsessed with the president's penis than you are with the economy or the world stage.

Apparently you can't identify images either. I'm clearly not a demcrat.
And whatever you are rambling about, the point is you made a weak and cucked thread where you cried about a mean person on the internet.

LOL.
I was thinking the same thing. Redneck Conservative is clearly not a Democrat or a liberal.
twenty42 falls apart, because he has nothing but "left" and "lib" ammunition to use and anything else thrown at him, "does not compute." His (one-directional) brain cant process and handle the situation; a clear sign of trump-cultism.

Yet none of you can make an argument as to why what was OK for Clinton is not OK for Trump. Y'all resort to personal attacks when you can't formulate a logical counterargument, but I'm used to that.

How's this answer? It wasn't right for either one of them, Republicans who decried it in the 90s staunchly defend Trump now, and Democrats frankly wouldn't care too much about this except it is the icing on a massive slimebag cake of misogyny and sexual abuse throughout Trump's life, not to mention vastly hypocritical the way he tries to attach himself to the religious right as shown buy fuzzy bears posts.

Oh, and as an addendum to that answer, Clinton would have probably had to resign today if you're done the same sort of things. It wasn't any less wrong then, but fortunately our society is less willing to accept it today.

[Badger]

Democrats were the party of sexual freedom until Trump came

This is dumb. Pretty sure most liberals (hell, most anybody) would find cheating on your wife to go rawdog a pornstar right after she gave birth to her child to be rather disgusting.

Anybody. Even sticking a cigar in an intern's twat isn't quite, emphasis quite, as odious as that.

[Badger]

I wonder how the evangelicals including Mike Pence would react if the God Emperor paid for an abortion? Probably they still wouldn't care as long as he appoints one of their own to the Supreme Court. Total hypocrisy anyway, Barack Obama would have been impeached for just a fraction of scandals.

Talking to you on this topic is different than talking to ProudModerate2 and company, for a variety of reasons.  I have a lot more faith in your good motives and objectivity.

Consider the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which son is Trump, and which son is Obama?  Which son, as President, has done more of the work of the Father, from a Christian perspective?

On abortion?

On marriage and family?

On Israel?

On the overall secularization of our society?

On acknowledging the Christian Foundations of our Republic?

On homosexuality, as it pertains to the Church (e. g. the Cake Baker issue)?

Obama is a man who has, in many ways, done the will of the Father in his lifetime, who spent much of his Presidency advancing policy that was NOT in line with the will of the Father, and pushed for much public policy that would encourage people to NOT do the will of the Father, and, indeed, drive them further from God.

Trump is a man who, in many ways, has blown off God and his dictates in his lifetime, whose Presidency has advanced policy that was in line with the will of the Father, and which would encourage people TO do the will of the Father, indeed, drawing them closer to God.

Are Evangelical Christians really hypocrites?  I don't mean those who are blatantly living secretly sinful lives.  I mean folks who cited Bill Clinton's immoralities (that not only involved his private life,  but the results of the advocacy of some of his policies) that are alive today having found themselves in 2016 with a choice between a woman who is anti-Christian in her public policy advocacies, and a man who was (and, sadly, still is) rather un-Christian in his public persona, but who advocated public policy that was far more aligned with Scripture than his opponent.  Which of these two (2) folks, for example, would have done more of the Father's Will to date; Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Donald John Trump?  That's the question Christians had to ponder in 2016; the "going forward" issue.  If you want to say that, going forward, Hillary Clinton would have been a "better President", that's one thing, but if you want to say that Hillary Clinton would have done a better job of lining her policy up with the Will of God, I would question that.

Now, personally, I am not in perfect sync with what most Evangelicals believe in as being "Godly Public Policy".  I do not believe Scripture mandates the Death Penalty; indeed, I believe that the New Testament forbids it.  I do believe that on some of "the least of my brethren" issues, Hillary would have been more Biblically correct than Trump.  And while Hillary endorses a Utopian Vision of the World, which is anti-Biblical, Trump does endorse some of the excesses of nationalism, which is un-Biblical, and, unfortunately, some of the latter has crept into the Church to the point where it has resulted in un-Scriptural teachings.  (God, by the way, holds His Teachers to a higher standard because of the responsibility they take on when they become teachers, and I do not believe He is happy about this.)

I am sharing this with you not to defend Donald Trump; he's a big boy and can defend himself.  I am sharing this to defend my Brethren in Christ, and to show the choice THEY face in voting.  If you believe that Evangelicals dismiss voting for a Democrat without any real prayerful consideration, you may be right, but it is also true that the Democratic Party's candidates and spokespersons have become more vocally hostile toward Evangelical Christians by the year.  I still vote for Democrats, but this posturing by Democrats has actually caused me to actually self-identify as a Republican; so alienating has the Democratic Party's spokespersons been to myself, who was once a partisan and politically active Democrat who's registered Republican status, up until now, has been quite a nominal thing.

I'm not going to tell people that Donald Trump is a good Christian man.  I don't know that he's a Christian, and I've not heard anything from him that I would consider to meet Biblical standards as a confession of Saving Faith, although it's possible that he has made such a confession.  It's quite possible he meant it if he made such a statement, and I don't rule it out that he was sincere when and if he made such a confession.  I note that the worst allegations against Trump all seem to be regarding behavior that happened over a decade ago.  But I don't know this, and I'm not going to pretend that Trump is what he hasn't said he is.  That, to me is the right issue with Christians; the issue of being honest with who and what Donald Trump has presented himself to be.  

Having voted for Bill Clinton twice, I suppose that's easier for me to do than it is for many who have been committed Christian conservatives for decades; I don't PERSONALLY share the contradiction that they do.  I do think that their dilemma is real when they go vote, but I view labeling them all as hypocrites as more than a little unfair.

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

I hear that a lot.  Does this mean that men and women, motivated by their Biblical Christian faith, cannot hold public office.  Or that voters must not judge who they vote for on Biblical principles?

Does that mean that a policy initiative advanced by fervent Christians is automatically unconstitutional because of the beliefs and motives of the sponsors?

Does that mean that fervent Christians are to be excluded from the political process?

No, no, and no. Nor has any liberal of any note whatsoever ever professed otherwise.

Fact you even think these issues are for debate shows what an unrealistic victim mentality Siege complex Orthodox Christians have. When in fact not that they're being shunted out of public life, it's merely a combination of man-made views about sex and Christian preeminence in America are being abandoned whether they like it or not, and hand in glove they're losing their automatic preeminence in policy-making.

Simply put, the religious right isn't able to comprehend the distinction between being unconstitutionally deprived of their Liberty and roll in the political process versus not automatically getting to set the agenda.