Who is saying it's no big deal?

I agree that any evangelical that tries to explain this away "should" lose all credibility.

The evangelicals who voted for Trump and have looked past his past and current behavior lost credibility a long time ago.

I think most evangelicals voted for Trump feeling he was the lesser of two evils. No one has ever accused Donald of exemplifying biblical values.

Who is saying it's no big deal?

veganerd wrote:

Who is saying it is? the evangelical base has been awfully quiet....

They usually justify it with this:


http://www.dictionary.com/...cast-the-first-stone

I make no claims to be a campaign finance expert. But this brings up a lot of FEC questions around in kind contributions, etc.

Do you think anyone who voted for Trump gives a shit?

I'm more interested to see if the Trump voters who were shrieking about Hillary's mishandling classified information can find one fuck to give about the security clearance issues rampant in this administration.

Kidding, obviously. Of course they won't.

Someday an invoice will surface showing $130,000 payment to the lawyer from trump but for something totally unrelated, of course!

It's amazing that people are so anti-gay, but infidelity, multiple divorces and sexual harassment...no big deal.

I think most evangelicals voted for Trump feeling he was the lesser of two evils.

Evangelicals always talked about values and how important it was to vote for someone who believed in God and had the family values that were so important to them. Mitt Romney had a struggle because he was Mormon and there was question if he shared their beliefs.

I have never heard an evangelical say to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, it was all about taking a stand and not compromising. They have looked sideways at everything Trump has done, remaining largely silent and offering only the slightest of criticism when the tapes were released.

They are hypocrites.

copy / paste from a smart friend:

"...let’s see what he didn’t say that the press are glomming onto:
In talking about the FEC complaint that he facilitated a payment from the Trump campaign to Ms. Daniels, he very carefully does not deny the truth of that allegation but says “the allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit”. This only addresses the papers that were filed, not the actual complaint.
Later he says:
“In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly”
“My own personal funds to “facilitate” a payment of $130k”
Now, that could mean he paid the $130 out of the goodness of his heart and Trump didn’t have anything to do with it. It does not state that he paid the $130. He paid funds to facilitate. That could mean he paid the transaction fees to set up the LLC that paid the money, and it could have been Trump’s money or his campaign’s money. Which makes more sense?
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford”
From the reporting we already knew that was true. Cohen, as he admits in his statement, set up an LLC which was the counterparty (payer) to the transaction. People want to read his statement broadly to include the transaction of the money being paid to the LLC - he didn’t say that, and he should be asked about that. This also is not a statement saying Trump or his campaign didn’t pay the money.
“(Trump) neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly”
But, here he means the payment to facilitate, so should that not mean Cohen paid the $130k, but instead said “I’ll pick up the transaction fees”, and then Trump didn’t reimburse him for that, this would still be a factually true statement.
These are smart people (the lawyers). Don’t think it’s far fetched to parse a lawyer’s language, especially if it looks carefully crafted."

TimeIsUp wrote:

Already off of FoxNews homepage after they ran it early this AM with the headline "WH calms the waters". Hahahhahaha.

-
It's there now, maybe just because there is a plausible explanation, but there none the less.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/14/michael-cohen-trumps-lawyer-says-paid-stormy-daniels-130000-out-own-pocket.html

I'm more interested to see if the Trump voters who were shrieking about Hillary's mishandling classified information can find one fuck to give about the security clearance issues rampant in this administration.

Kidding, obviously. Of course they won't.

I agree with Perseus that evangelicals had a choice to make between the lesser of two evils. As distasteful as Trump is, I can see him still being an easy choice over Hillary.

That being said, I would like to hear some of the mainstream evangelical voices being honest about him, or at least be quiet. Come to think about it, I've said that I prefer that preachers be silent on politics - so maybe some of them actually are.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time with evangelicals.

I try to keep my distance now but I am a Christian and attended a pretty conservative evangelical church in the U.S for 5 years. I'm pretty clear on what I heard in my men's groups about standing up for convictions against "liberal" politicians who want to destroy the fabric of the country with the erosion of family values. I'm pretty sure I haven't been sleeping for the last 40 years.

The evangelical silence on Trump is a disgrace.

The evangelical silence on Trump is tolerance.

I'm frequently astounded by how many comments I see on news stories, Facebook posts etc with the theme that Trump was somehow sent from God to save America. The guy embodies sleaze (always has, IMO, even before he ran for President) and some of the worst human behaviours and qualities - most of which are in direct conflict with supposed Christian principles and teachings - yet these people view him as their saviour. Fucking baffling.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.