Trump Lawyer Arranged $130K Hush Money to Keep Porn Star Quiet

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't assume that's the only reason every Christian cast a vote for Trump.  That's part of the reason you don't understand my "obsession."

I'm focusing on a segment of Christian Trump voters who didn't just walk into a voting booth holding their nose and voted for what they believed was the "least terrible option."  I might disagree with them, but I can at least understand that.  I'm talking about a prominent, vocal set of Christian Trump voters who not only voted for him, they vehemently defend him at practically every turn.  Oh, they'll couch it carefully to be sure their verbiage doesn't "condone sin," but they make every effort to redirect focus away from it, minimize how bad it is, or outright deny that it even happened.  In doing so, most of these same people show their hypocrisy compared to how they have spoken in the past on political leaders and the personal lives.  They also have greatly damaged the witness of Christianity in this country and beyond.  If you think this isn't the case, you're delusional and you should heed your own advice above in a different direction and spend some more time with people outside the Christian sphere and find out just how much this enthusiastic support of a man like Trump has repelled people from the church and the Gospel. 

I'm over a subset of Christians in this country who have so entangled their faith and their political beliefs that they have consciously or unconsciously come to believe (and unfortunately give off the same impression to others) that they are one and the same.  I suppose in some way it's not even mostly about the Christian Trump cheerleaders anymore (though I'd love for them to wake up to the hypocrisy) as it is about all those who aren't Christians at all who watch this spectacle and get a grossly distorted view of Christianity.  I don't want them to think that all evangelical Christians think like that.  I want them to be able to see that you can be an orthodox believer and not march lockstep with the Trumpists, the Tea Party or the Republican Establishment.  That as much as our faith unavoidably impacts our politics, some of us at least have our limits as to who we'll get in bed with just to further our political aims.  I'm just one guy and I don't purport to be anything close to perfect or believe my sphere of influence is that large in the grand scheme of things, but that's my motivation.  I want to call some to step back from the borderline idolatry they've allowed their politics to become and I want to demonstrate to others that not everyone who is a conservative Christian is like that.

Agree or disagree; it matters not to me.  But those are my major reasons for harping on it.  And I will continue to harp on it as long as I perceive it to be a continuing problem.

 

That isn’t an unreasonable response at all. Can you give a tangible example of this prominent bunch of Christian voters? I don’t disagree that “phony” Christians do damage in their portrayal Christianity (but I also know that Christianity has survived for 2000 years and it’s not dependent on the actions of sinners). However, I would question the authenticity of one’s claim to Christianity who rationalizes or excuses sin. I guess sometimes when you talk about it, it comes off as “the majority of conservative evangelical Christians excuse sin,” which is false.

The southern baptist convention hasn’t come out to celebrate sin or to minimize it. I’m not aware of any other Protestant denominations that have either. And while we’re at it, i can say the same for Catholics too. The voices at the forefront of Protestant theology haven’t come out and celebrated it. The dogmatics of the Christian faith haven’t changed. 

I’ve had the same feelings for years about those who preach the prosperity gospel. It doesn’t, at all, reflect true Christianity, but it does serve as a potential excuse for others to shun Christians. 

[homersapien 11,357]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You support his Presidency and I do as well. That doesn't equate to a celebration of his bad acts. Why people can't see past that is truly baffling. 

Trump is his presidency.    Making a distinction between Trump and his "presidency" is nothing more than a way to rationalize supporting him regardless of who and what he is.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Nice try, but this goes way past simple cheating on your wife - which pretty much every president has done except for maybe Carter.

I'm talking basic human decency and self awareness.

For all his faults, Clinton would never have mocked a physically disable person (for example).  It wouldn't have even occurred to him. Trump has the emotional maturity of a child.

Yet apparently, that has become the new benchmark for the president.

Ok? Trump would never hook up in the Oval Office and lie under oath about it.... what’s your point?

The new benchmark? Who the hell is running around and normalizing imitating the physically disabled now? Yes, Trump imitated him once. I certainly didn’t celebrate the act and embrace it as the new standard. I thought it was foolish. How has that sort of behavior become the new norm? Also, since you love technicalities so much, he wasn’t president when he did that sooo....

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump is his presidency.    Making a distinction between Trump and his "presidency" is nothing more than a way to rationalize supporting him regardless of who and what he is.

My goodness how incompetent. Does this apply to legislatures and judges as well? If not, why? 

Better yet, if I support Ben Roethlisberger as a qb, do I also support rape?

I mean heck I bet obama would be fun to grab a beer with but his presidency sucked bigly.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Just asking, but I thought everyone knew that Oreillys writings on this were basically imagined  with some facts scattered in. I never once thought that his books were accurate. I would never have sourced one quote  for them.  I just assumed every one else had basically the same opinion on this. I never heard anyone say they were anything more than historically set entertainment. 

[homersapien 11,357]

57 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok? Trump would never hook up in the Oval Office and lie under oath about it.... what’s your point?

The new benchmark? Who the hell is running around and normalizing imitating the physically disabled now? Yes, Trump imitated him once. I certainly didn’t celebrate the act and embrace it as the new standard. I thought it was foolish. How has that sort of behavior become the new norm? Also, since you love technicalities so much, he wasn’t president when he did that sooo....

I don't care about the sexual escapades.  That's between Trump and his wife, and many couples have arrangements.  To me, the only "value" the hooker incident has is to illustrate the moral hypocrisy of the people who used Clinton's behavior to condemn him.

Mocking the disabled is far more revealing in terms of character.  As is the demogoging of race and xenophobia.  It shows a total lack of human empathy. It's the sign of a psychopath.  Those sort of traits, combined with his general ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and narcissism and childlike emotional maturity has more to do with making him unfit for the job than does his sexual dalliances..  

The fact he demonstrated these traits prior to his election only proves he has lowered the apparent standards for the office.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't care about the sexual escapades.  That's between Trump and his wife, and many couples have arrangements.  To me, the only "value" the hooker incident has is to illustrate the moral hypocrisy of the people who used Clinton's behavior to condemn him.

Mocking the disabled is far more revealing in terms of character.  As is the demogoging of race and xenophobia.  It shows a total lack of human empathy. It's the sign of a psychopath.  Those sort of traits, combined with his general ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and narcissism and childlike emotional maturity has more to do with making him unfit for the job than does his sexual dalliances..  

The fact he demonstrated these traits prior to his election only proves he has lowered the apparent standards for the office.  

Now you’re throwing in labels derived from opinion. Perhaps it would be revealing of his overall character if he habitually imitated disabled people. Sure, you can string together some products of the witch hunt and jump to such a conclusion. 

Is Trump a racist? Is he xenophobic. I say he’s not, you say he is. 

And the discussion continues...

[homersapien 11,357]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now you’re throwing in labels derived from opinion. Perhaps it would be revealing of his overall character if he habitually imitated disabled people. Sure, you can string together some products of the witch hunt and jump to such a conclusion. 

Is Trump a racist? Is he xenophobic. I say he’s not, you say he is. 

And the discussion continues...

Yeah, lot's of opinion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201709/the-dangerous-case-donald-trump

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/depressing-psychological-profile-my-meeting-donald-trump-shows-his-obvious

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/355490-psychologists-march-through-ny-to-call-for-trumps-removal

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/04/trump-malignant-narcissistic-disorder-psychiatry-column/101243584/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/?utm_term=.02040f681755

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/03/how-the-psychology-of-cyberbullying-explains-trumps-tweets-215333

http://www.newsweek.com/president-trump-unstable-danger-nuclear-war-psychologists-warn-685029

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/should-psychologists-talk-about-president-trump

https://medium.com/@allanishac/psychologists-now-trace-onset-of-trumps-mental-illness-to-april-of-2011-ba381c63dba

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42580762

http://www.shrinktank.com/psychologists-analysis-donald-trump/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html

http://www.aaronbalick.com/blog/the-psychology-of-trumps-tweets/

......... I could go on.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

13 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

So here's my perspective as a non-religious guy.  For years, conservative Christians hace preached the importance of family values and morality in government.  Then, in 2015 (because it started then), many of those people supported and subsequently voted in a direct opposite manner from what they have vociferously said for a long time.  So that leads me to one of two conclusions:

1)  they're hypocrites, or

2) family values were really never a big deal in politics to them at all

Look, maybe they did see voting for Trump as a better option than Hillary.  I can buy that from a judicial and policy level.  But I can't buy it completely because there was ample opportunity for those Christians to vote for another Republican in the primary.  Yet the numbers of evangelicals that I personally know and big names who came out and backed this man from the beginning lead me to believe that morality was never important to their cause.

I just wish these folks were more honest with themselves about it.

You must live among some different "evangelicals" than I do in Auburn. Few if any of my Christian friends voted for Trump in the primary. My wife and I both voted for Ben Carson. But in the Nov. election it was an easy choice. Trump for what he is or crooked Hillary. Thank goodness Trump won. In spite off his faults he is doing a good job and doing well at keeping his promises. JMHO.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Just asking, but I thought everyone knew that Oreillys writings on this were basically imagined  with some facts scattered in. I never once thought that his books were accurate. I would never have sourced one quote  for them.  I just assumed every one else had basically the same opinion on this. I never heard anyone say they were anything more than historically set entertainment. 

Everyone of his books have been on the NYT best seller list. I ask again..... why would he want to distort facts?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Everyone of his books have been on the NYT best seller list. I ask again..... why would he want to distort facts?

Just because it's on the NYT best seller list doesn't make it accurate.  The Da Vinci Code was a best seller too.  Does that make it anywhere near factual?  Not at all.

Distorting facts makes the read more interesting to the average consumer.

[alexava 6,973]

32 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You must live among some different "evangelicals" than I do in Auburn. Few if any of my Christian friends voted for Trump in the primary. My wife and I both voted for Ben Carson. But in the Nov. election it was an easy choice. Trump for what he is or crooked Hillary. Thank goodness Trump won. In spite off his faults he is doing a good job and doing well at keeping his promises. JMHO.

Trump won most red states in ______g landslides. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

23 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Everyone of his books have been on the NYT best seller list. I ask again..... why would he want to distort facts?

To make $$$ selling books for entertainment...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, lot's of opinion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201709/the-dangerous-case-donald-trump

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/depressing-psychological-profile-my-meeting-donald-trump-shows-his-obvious

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/355490-psychologists-march-through-ny-to-call-for-trumps-removal

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/04/trump-malignant-narcissistic-disorder-psychiatry-column/101243584/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/?utm_term=.02040f681755

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/03/how-the-psychology-of-cyberbullying-explains-trumps-tweets-215333

http://www.newsweek.com/president-trump-unstable-danger-nuclear-war-psychologists-warn-685029

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/should-psychologists-talk-about-president-trump

https://medium.com/@allanishac/psychologists-now-trace-onset-of-trumps-mental-illness-to-april-of-2011-ba381c63dba

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42580762

http://www.shrinktank.com/psychologists-analysis-donald-trump/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html

http://www.aaronbalick.com/blog/the-psychology-of-trumps-tweets/

......... I could go on.

So my point stands.

Hahaha did you read every single article or just do a quick google search and view headlines?

 Is this how you reinforce your notion? What if I do a similar google search and find just as many or more rebuttal articles? 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

30 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Everyone of his books have been on the NYT best seller list. I ask again..... why would he want to distort facts?

As if being on the NYT best seller list connotes any percentage of verified factual content.

As far was why he'd want to distort facts...maybe because sex sells?  Salacious rumor is more interesting than real history to many?  As a way to stand out from the other books on Reagan that have been written?  But I think you have the question wrong.  The one you should be asking instead is, if he has the evidence for these claims about Reagan's sexual promiscuity, why wouldn't he provide it in the footnotes and citations?  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and he offers none.  Yet you still lean toward believing him?  You aren't that gullible are you?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, alexava said:

Trump won most red states in ______g landslides. 

He won most republican states by a lot. So?

[SaltyTiger 7,775]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So my point stands.

Hahaha did you read every single article or just do a quick google search and view headlines?

 Is this how you reinforce your notion? What if I do a similar google search and find just as many or more rebuttal articles? 

Good luck with your search Nola. I tried that......................Everyone that writes these opinions  think Trump is crazy as hell  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

As if being on the NYT best seller list connotes any percentage of verified factual content.

As far was why he'd want to distort facts...maybe because sex sells?  Salacious rumor is more interesting than real history to many?  As a way to stand out from the other books on Reagan that have been written?  But I think you have the question wrong.  The one you should be asking instead is, if he has the evidence for these claims about Reagan's sexual promiscuity, why wouldn't he provide it in the footnotes and citations?  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and he offers none.  Yet you still lean toward believing him?  You aren't that gullible are you?

So what about all the other books where there was no sex involved such as "Killing Jesus' where it would be difficult to distort facts?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

To make $$$ selling books for entertainment...

You mean like Hillary's book and the one by Wolff about Trump?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

So what about all the other books where there was no sex involved such as "Killing Jesus' where it would be difficult to distort facts?

I don't see how that's relevant.  We're talking about Killing Reagan and very specific claims he makes about Reagan's sexual behavior.  If he did a better job on Killing Jesus or any other book, bully for him.  The point still remains:  he made claims about Reagan that not only does no other reputable biographer make about him, but offers not one scintilla of evidence or support for those claims.  Until you can address that issue, it 100% deserves the derision and disrespect it has earned and you look completely foolish for regarding it with any seriousness.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

You mean like Hillary's book and the one by Wolff about Trump?

Whataboutism is to Proud what heroin is to a junkie.  He can't quit it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Whataboutism is to Proud what heroin is to a junkie.  He can't quit it.

 Titan don't like them because it often weakens his position and hence don't sit well with him.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

 Titan don't like them because it often weakens his position and hence don't sit well with him.

I don't like them because they are irrelevant and they are logical fallacies.  By default, not one of them has ever weakened a position I've ever taken.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

28 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't like them because they are irrelevant and they are logical fallacies.  By default, not one of them has ever weakened a position I've ever taken.

Of course not. I could have written your response for you. Moving on, I'm surprised you participated at such length in an off topic discussion. But such is the privledge  of an Admin/Mod. Lighten up, let a little humor creep into your life.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

49 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Of course not. I could have written your response for you. Moving on, I'm surprised you participated at such length in an off topic discussion. But such is the privledge  of an Admin/Mod. Lighten up, let a little humor creep into your life.

If it only happened once in a blue moon maybe I would.  But if you have a dozen arrows in your argumentative quiver, 10 of them are made up of whataboutism.  It gets old.  You're not a stupid person and you could do better.