Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Definitely. And people should apply the same to other articles as well. I've lost track of how many articles I've read that were posted here that didn't match the headline and/or OP title, spanning many subjects (though it seems politics holds the #1 spot for people citing articles wanting them to say something they don't actually say).
In that case I hope the intimidation never happened as a President Pence worries me far more than Trump.
My biggest problem with Pence is replacing RBG.
Trump is an idiot, and this comes out in his ambiguous, seemingly cryptic, language. Where in the article does it say Trump threatened Cohen's family? What did Trump say to threaten them? The answers fall in line with "what is it that 'Second Amendment' people can do?" Sometimes it's very clear, such as offering to pay legal fees for attacking someone, but other times it's not. Trump saying to look into someone's money isn't much of a threat. This article really doesn't even mention Trump bringing up Cohen's family, asides from a vague remark that Cohen's father-in-law should be investigated. To me, it seems more of a case of guilty conscious (as Trump has often denied the assistance he received from his own father/family money) than any threat. Trump saying he was going to reopen the case into Hillary and have her imprisoned, that is a threat.
If real, one would expect some evidence...something more than convenient claims.
Those concerns were equally valid with Trump, who embedded himself with the Evangelicals. It's why he put two Conservatives on the bench. Ginsberg going out is a concern with either Trump or Pence, and if either one gets to replace Ginsburg it's people who voted for Trump who are to blame, for it is because of Trump's win that Conservative Evangelical ideology still holds the Supreme Court. It has no business having that power, and the one good thing about a Hillary Presidency is that power would have ended. Obama, had he gotten his rightful appointment, would have pushed Conservatives against the edge, and with a Hillary appointment there would have been no chance of Conservative Evangelical ideology making legal policy for the foreseeable future.
That would be libel/slander (depending on written or spoken), not a threat.
Trump strikes me as less the "good Christian" than Pence, who is not
Doubtful as we have a Supreme Court ruling that is in line with Evangelical thought rather than being based on what science and medicine tells us.
Could be worse.
That's true. Neither of his SC picks have been the religious zealots that some on the right dream of.
I've long been suspicious that Trump is not a very doctrinaire Christian.
Was " Two Corinthians " a hint?
I ain't got no Bible learn'n, so it meant nuthin.
While that's true, it can't be ignored he did pick Pence for his VP and he did reach out to the Evangelical crowd even before the 2016 election. Selecting Pence alone screamed that Trump would have to play to Evangelical wants. Sure, he said a lot of things, but actions speak louder than words. Picking Pence screamed much louder than Trump spoke when he said transgender people would be protected under him and he invited Caitlyn to use the women's restroom at Trump Tower. Sort of like how he said he would be pro-weed, then appointed an extremely anti-weed guy to the top law enforcement position in the Union.