Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

In general, you'll only ever see me talking about policy or my opinions on it. I literally cannot criticize the President (and I generally take it back to "previous Presidents". I don't write much of what I think about WJ Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, or Trump personally. In general, I even avoid writing what I think about their agenda. For instance, I don't mind talking about the pro-business aspects of the new Tax law, or how I fare under the ACA. But I won't say something like "Thank the Lord Obama is smart enough to pass the ACA" or "Our dear new Leader is Making America Great!" (Other than pointing out that I didn't vote for either).

Not me, no. In the abstract, America is supposed to be strong enough to fend off attacks on us, diplomatically, informationally/intelligence-wise, militarily or economically (DIME). The fact that our media sources (mainstream or not) have by-and-large been co-opted into providing their own agenda is neither a novel occurrence nor one that hasn't been exploited to disastrous results. Without going into security matters, there have been many countries, peers and competitors, who have done one or more "acts of war" in attempts to destabilize our economy, turn popular opinion/add propaganda, weaken our military or weaken our alliances. When they fail, we generally don't do a whole lot (write your congressman if you aren't cool with that, not me. ).
For Russian "pandering" in general, I'd say that if you look to Putin's actions (now that I can talk about his nuclear weapons) in the wake of how he doesn't like what Trump is doing, you'd see that he doesn't pander to everything. I think you'd find that he generally (rightly or wrongly) puts the American economy first in much of his decision-making, whether it's tariffs, opening up new oil wells, new tax laws, different health care, selling off national park land, etc. You can absolutely say you disagree with him doing so, but I don't think you can say that he's constantly pandering to Russian interests.
Is it just that it's Russia that you think it's inappropriate to pander to? Or Gulf States? Or EU nations? Or China? Without going into a "Obama/Bush/Clinton did it!11!" realm, I'd say that we've bent over backwards to a lot of countries in the last two decades that I don't agree with, in many different (sometimes unilateral) actions (between granting MFN status, honoring disputed agreements, paying off hostage takers, negotiating with terrorists, paying off corrupt politicians, upending elections, etc), in the name of "national interests" that we plebians haven't been deigned smart enough to fathom. I don't know why with Trump it's a firestorm issue, other than the polarization around Hillary's loss (I don't want to say "Trump's win", b/c I think that if Rubio or Huckabee or Bush would've beaten her there would be similar aspects fueled by the losing party, who went all-in for her).

The "lack of security" of Hillary's emails is about the 1977th-reason for me not to vote for her. I put much more into her pathological need to make herself look better while still doing all the dirty things to get ahead, and in thinking that rules don't apply to her. The "lack of security" of Hillary's emails was only the reasoning put forward for the questions of "why is it wrong to do what she did?" "Because it's illegal." "Why?" "Because we have rules in place to prevent security issues, like non-cleared personnel getting access to material classified such that 'release of such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available'."
What I find interesting (if I could answer a question with a question) is this: If Trump (or anyone else) somehow did something illegal with illegal people to illegally make it so that the rightful winner of the Presidential election didn't win, wouldn't that be something that caused "grave (for Top Secret)" or "serious (for Secret)" damage to the US? All because Hillary thought that she was above the rules and was grossly negligent extremely careless with her information security?

While I think those are both "alleged" at this point (I literally hadn't heard about a Playboy Bunny and the porn star is something that, if it did happen, happened a decade before he ran for President), I've long since given up on looking to the President for moral advice. The President of the United States ceased to be "the Greatest Man in America" about the time of Washington. As someone pointed out above, if infidelity, broken marriages and offenses against God were barriers to political entry, there would be a lot fewer candidates. I'm not looking to my President for what goes on in his or her bedroom. I'm looking to my President to act in the best interests of the country, not his- or herself.

This probably didn't answer everything the way you wanted, but one man's opinion on your questions.

 

As what one might call a "bible thumper", I literally don't care about locker room talk because I've seen much worse and, afaik, no one (including the entire #metoo movement) has been able to show he's done anything untoward to a woman. In 50 years of messing around. Everyone who's been paid to come forward has had their story debunked. You'd think that, if there was, it would've been used against him before now. As I said above, I first of all don't look to politicians for moral and spiritual guidance in the bedroom. I'm much more intrigued by his or her overall character. (One of the reasons neither Trump nor Hillary got my vote). But accepting that our President is who he is and, if not supporting him, not working to remove him (a much tougher battle in the last 8 years among bible thumpers than now, I'd surmise) is kind of what we read about when we thump our bibles.

 

No specific offense taken. I understand. And I didn't say he didn't have affairs (in fact, I think I have stated that in other threads), but I still can't (and I don't think anyone can, or else they would've) pinned anything criminal on him.

However, if your postulation is that, as a "bible thumper" I can't support a President who has affairs without being a hypocrite, how can I support a President who, say, smokes pot? Or is divorced? Or who attends a church run by a racist pastor of questionable theological background? Or openly believes in what I would term heretical theological stances? And if all those make me a hypocrite, why should I care if affairs make a difference? Was I supposed to set the White House on fire when Bill came all over the face and dress of an intern in the Oval Office? And got impeached not for doing it, but for lying about it under oath? And still got to sign orders sending people to their death in Kosovo?

 

I think one issue might be the selective self-association as a Christian when it helps out one's cause. I might, as a professing bible thumper, believe that there is no good reason to abort a child. I might, as a voter, understand if a budget is passed that does a whole bunch of things (namely, pay the families of military members at war overseas) and that includes the parts I don't like, but my reps negotiated into (like not paying for some healthcare buy still paying Planned Parenthood reimbursements, allowing them to spend $20M in mid-term 2018 lobbying--about 3M less than the entire NRA spent from 1989-2016). I might dislike shooting my (global) neighbor, but I understand that that sometimes has to be done to protect others. A firm pro-lifer from KY might like that coal subsidies go up on the same bill where abortion factories are supplemented. A military officer might get a bigger paycheck this year but hate that it took a 1T budget deficit to do so. Hypocrisy brought up only when it deals with sexual sin seems short-sighted.
I should also be clear that I question no one's faith or salvation. That's between them and God. A member of my church, who's placed themselves under the authority of our pastors and elders in matters of faith, and who's eaten under my roof and prayed with me, is much more important to me than a politician. For all I know Trump repented of his infidelity years ago and has thrice-daily prayer sessions. The Office of the President is just that, an office. We bible thumpers have been taught that authorities on earth have been placed there by Heaven, for whatever reason. That's for another topic. We bible thumpers are called to support him. We military bible thumpers doubly so.

 

Biblically, your second statement is accurate.

 

Again, the forgiveness (or not) is not mine to give. And that doesn't mean that "bad things" can't come from that sin. As far as I know, he hasn't publicly repented of his affairs or divorces.