Pro-Trump preachers on message against impeachment probe

“Evangelicals understand that the effort to impeach President Trump is really an effort to impeach our own deeply-held faith values, and we’re not going to allow that to happen,” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, said Nov. 1 on Fox Business. “That’s why you’re getting such pushback to impeachment from his evangelical base.” - BNG

2534 reads

There are 66 Comments

Darrell Post's picture

Once again, it appears its time to point out the fact that in the 2016 GOP primary process, Trump was NOT the favorite of evangelicals. The data clearly shows this. Trump got the nomination because the GOP was splintered among so many other candidates. The data is pretty easy to find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

Here are the actual percentages of voters who voted for Trump in each state, in chronological order, showing the number of candidates in parenthesis. And keep in mind that several states are open-primary, meaning Democrats and independents could ask for the GOP ballot. And they did. Given the Democrat primary was fixed so Clinton would win, the voters were free to ask for the GOP ballot and mark Trump, believing at the time that he was the easiest out in the General Election. 

IA: 24.3% (12 candidates)
NH: 35.2% (10 candidates)
SC: 32.5% (6 candidates)
NV: 45.7% (5 candidates)
AL: 43.4% (5 candidates)
AK: 33.5% (5 candidates)
AR: 32.8% (5 candidates)
GA: 39% (5 candidates)
MA: 49% (5 candidates)
MN: 21% (5 candidates)
OK: 28% (5 candidates)
TN: 39% (5 candidates)
TX: 27% (5 candidates)
VT: 33% (5 candidates)
VA: 35% (5 candidates)
KS: 23% (4 candidates)
KY: 36% (4 candidates)
LA: 41% (4 candidates)
ME: 33% (4 candidates)
HI: 43% (4 candidates)
ID: 28% (4 candidates)
MI: 37% (4 candidates)
MS: 47% (4 candidates)
DC: 14% (4 candidates)
WY: 7.2% (4 candidates)
FL: 46% (4 candidates)
IL: 39% (4 candidates)
MO: 40.8% (4 candidates)
NC: 40% (4 candidates)
OH: 36% (4 candidates)
AZ: 46% (4 candidates)
UT: 14% (4 candidates)
WI: 35% (4 candidates)
NY: 59% (4 candidates)

As one can easily observe, it wasn't until the NY primary (Trump's home state) that Trump finally got more than 50% in a primary. Earlier he came close in Massachusetts, but are there even any evangelicals at all in that state?

If you go back and read the narrative, even as late as the FL and OH primaries, GOP party operatives were hoping that it was still possible to stop Trump if they could just get down to Trump vs one other candidate. But each of Cruz, Rubio and Kasich refused to agree to be of the ones to drop out to help the other beat Trump, and so Trump got the nomination getting on average only about 1/3 of the vote of GOP voters. The vast majority wanted some other candidate.

But it is true that some outspoken preachers who wear the evangelical label were for Trump during the primary, and so now its easy for some to make the claims that evangelicals as a whole were for Trump during the 2016 primary, when in fact the data shows otherwise. 

Of course the 2016 general election was a different question, because evangelicals had to choose between two immoral candidates, Trump and Clinton, and of the two many figured they would rather have Trump due to his SCOTUS nominee promises, which in fact he has kept. 

But the media loves to paint evangelicals as moral hypocrites, and so the narrative goes that all evangelicals endorsed immorality in 2016 when in fact that was not the case in the GOP primary process, and morality was not an option on the general election ballot. 

 

G. N. Barkman's picture

You nailed it.

G. N. Barkman

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Darrell Post wrote:

But the media loves to paint evangelicals as moral hypocrites, and so the narrative goes that all evangelicals endorsed immorality in 2016 when in fact that was not the case in the GOP primary process, and morality was not an option on the general election ballot. 

This is so intuitively obvious that it's a wonder it has to be explained over and over.  I guess that means the media is doing a pretty good job pushing that false narrative.

Dave Barnhart

Steve Davis's picture

I'm in Cameroon teaching pastors we've been working with for three years. Several have asked me about Trump. Most are glad he's president from their corner of the world. My response is simple and I might be one of those simpleton white male evangelicals who believe that at this time the choices are bad and worse. That's usually the case. There's much about Trump I dislike. There's much he's done I applaud. Our church in Philly is made up mostly of immigrants and we don't endorse candidates in any way. We are not obsessed with politics or overly concerned about who becomes president. It's a blip in world history. We pray for Trump just as we prayed for Obama. As a citizen I refuse to vote for someone who believes it's not only okay to kill babies but extol it and push a godless agenda. If I voted for the moral candidate I wouldn't have anyone to vote for. If there were an electable third party candidate I would consider that. Until then for me the choice is simple. Others disagree. That's our system. It's far from perfect but I prefer that to a system where the same president has been in power for over 35 years as it is here. We get to actually vote. So vote your conscience, take the moral high ground or low ground.  Let none of us think we are more obedient to God, more godly, or more insightful in our choice to the point where we demean others. As a believer the main thing is the gospel, the main problem is sin, the only solution is a Savior. There's no political solution. God has his own agenda and he will accomplish his purposes. 

G. N. Barkman's picture

You nailed it as well!

G. N. Barkman

G. N. Barkman's picture

Your information is very insightful, and exposes the lie about the so-called hypocritical evangelicals.  

G. N. Barkman

Bert Perry's picture

Eric Ciaramello, the leaker, was leaking classified information--a felony--about actions of President Trump which were not in effect criminal.   And yes, I'm saying "leaker" and not "whistleblower" for a reason here, because Ciaramello's actions don't qualify under the law.  

And Adam Schiff is enabling these crimes, which implicates him (and other Democrats) in this as well.  I think I remember that Democrats used to be worried about this kind of thing, but apparently my memory is faulty here.  One does not need to love Trump--I certainly didn't like him in the primary season and held my nose to vote for him--to say "um, something's out of line here, and it's not in the White House."  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

So Bert knows more about the law than the multiple officials who read the WB's complaint and decided it was credible (including some who were appointed by Trump himself). Bert in his infinite wisdom declares that there was no crime in the WH and it is actually the WB who committed a crime! I would love to know where Bert gets his insight (other than conspiracy theory radioland).

And Bert knows who the whistle blower is! I would love to know how he knows that for sure since there are plenty of people that are in the know who admit they don't know for sure and the name is only published on whacky conspiracy theory sites. I would also like to know why he thinks it is OK to help expose the man who may not even be the WB to violence at the hand of some of Trump's many nutty zealots.

I don't know a lot of things Bert but here is one thing I do know: you don't have a clue about what you are talking about and there are plenty of people who do actually know the law who disagree with your armchair legal theories.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

GregH wrote:

... there are plenty of people who do actually know the law who disagree with your armchair legal theories.

Sure enough.  And there are also lawyers who disagree with those lawyers.  So what we have is the battle of competing experts, which means most of us have to let it play out to know the actual truth (assuming we'll know it even then).  In the meantime, we can certainly use our intuition and common sense given the evidence we do see to at least have a reasonable opinion on what is happening, if not an expert one, or one guaranteed to be true.  That's how most of us operate on most subjects, since we can't be experts on very many things.  Of course, that may mean what I find obvious you find ridiculous, and vice versa.

Dave Barnhart

GregH's picture

I would like to appeal to SI to remove the name of the possible WB from Bert's post. Again, the only people naming that person are discredited conspiracy theory websites and that news is not confirmed. Even Fox News has the decency not to name that person.

Here is one thing I would hope we can agree on. If that person were our son, we would not want him exposed to danger from alt-right morons even if we did know he was the WB (and don't know he is). There is simply no reason for SI to contribute to the potential of that person being harmed.

Mark_Smith's picture

Multiple conservative personalities have contacted the WB's lawyer and offered free time for them to publicly state that they are not the WB. If they refuse to deny, that is on them.

Eric Ciaramello is his name. Own it bro... you know you want to because Trump is so evil...

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

GregH wrote:

...the only people naming that person are discredited conspiracy theory websites and that news is not confirmed.

I'm guessing that means you think Real Clear Investigations and Washington Examiner are "discredited conspiracy theory websites."  I disagree with that opinion.  As long as that info is public on sites like those, removing the theory about the WB identity from SI (which presumably has an order of magnitude smaller readership, and most of whom would be unlikely to have a propensity for violence) is rather pointless.

Dave Barnhart

G. N. Barkman's picture

I don't know where gregH is getting his information, but Donald Trump, Jr, has named the Whistleblower and is being castigated for doing so, but I'm not aware that anyone is denying this identification.  (Which he says was previously reported on Drudge, and he simply re-tweeted that information.)

It would appear that the WB has been "outed" and he turns out to be an active Democrat with personal ties to Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, etc.  His attorney stated in 2017 that "the coup has begun."  It is smelling more and more like a six day old kettle of fish.  I think Bert is exactly right.  The so-called WB is no whistleblower, he's a political leaker.  Funny how the CBS/ABC Whistleblower was afforded no consideration or protection, but the Trump leaker must be protected.  Why isn't the left calling for the protection of the ABC whistleblower?  Are WB's supposed to be protected or not?  Or does it all depend upon whose political position they hurt?

G. N. Barkman

Joeb's picture

Bottomline.  President Trump is not going to get convicted on the Impeachment charges even if he is guilty.  Trump is going to be our President until 2024.  Enjoy the ride guys because we are headed for a brick wall   It's called the end of the line.  We are BROKE and Trump will be gone when it needs to be fixed.  

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Joeb wrote:

We are BROKE and Trump will be gone when it needs to be fixed.  

That's one of my personal pet peeves about the candidates.  No matter who gets in, no one is going to do anything about the deficit or debt.

Dave Barnhart

mmartin's picture

Debating over absurd theater is correct.  This is smelling more and more like the Russia collusion and Kavannaugh fiascos where there was this initial unhinged outrage only to have the accusations fall apart and be found as lies.  This, as apposed to the corruption by the Clintons & Bidens, which the Democrats and lefty media give a total pass.

Not that the Republicans are all that great themselves often enough, but the Democrats have totally gone off the rails as they work to out-left each other.

I believe Darrell Post is correct that Trump was not the favorite among evangelicals during the 2016 Republican primaries.  I remember my pastor saying from the pulpit during the 2016 election campaign that it was a race between a Corrupt-o-crat and a Clown.

Greg H's appeal to SI to remove the name of the alleged WB is ridiculous.

Steve Davis' post is spot on!

GregH's picture

I have been wondering for some time when I should leave SI. I have been here for at least 10 years probably but I have known for some time that I really don't belong here for a few reasons. I won't go into all the reasons but one of them is the fact that I just can't stomach what is happening in evangelicalism in two areas that get a lot of attention here: Donald Trump and domestic abuse.

While it is true that SI has a tiny reach compared to other sites that have named the alleged WB, it is still incredibly stupid and anti-Christian to contribute to potential violence by exposing that man to the hate of the Trump mob, especially when you don't even know if he is the WB. Again, even Fox News has enough decency not to do that.

Some of you who know nothing think you know more than the numerous experts in reputable organizations who have refrained from engaging in that even though doing so would increase their revenue. Mark and Bert: you should be ashamed. Your actions are anti-Christian. Your Christianity is not something I want anything to do with. Those of you that defend their actions should be ashamed. Your defense is anti-Christian.

I am doing a lot of soul searching and it is clear to me that my life would be better if I distance myself as much as possible from the drama of today's politics and some of the other topics discussed here. Frankly, more of you need to do likewise. If you stopped reading/watching your partisan conspiracy theory sources, you might actually start sounding intelligent again. At the moment, some of you are regurgitating the BS you get from Breitbart like it is gospel. Folks, that is drivel for the uneducated morons. If you don't want to get offended by being called an uneducated white male, stop acting like one.

This is my last post here. Many of you will say good riddance about me and I am saying it about many of you too.

On the flip side, many of you are good people and to you I say, thanks for the interactions over the years. I am not upset with everyone; I am leaving just because it will be helpful to my quality of life to step out of this.

Aaron, please terminate my membership.

Bert Perry's picture

Regarding Greg's comments, first of all, when one is taking ad hominem fire, as Greg H loves to do give, one might infer one is over the target.  Edit: and if Greg H. desires to confront someone over an anti-Christian attitude, perhaps he ought to address his habit of making personal attacks and mocking brothers in Christ? That is, after all, a big reason why politics can at various times turn injurious and even lethal.  You want the temperature turned down, Greg?  It starts at home.

Regarding Mr. Ciaramella, precisely why should he get a pass when he (a) provided only legally inadmissible evidence, (b) has an obvious huge bias shared by his lawyer and his handler, Adam Schiff, and (c) the whole deal is inextricably linked to protecting the interests of the real criminal here, Joe Biden?  If he were a real whistleblower--providing legally admissible evidence about the conduct of members of the State Department or such--then we would come to a different conclusion.  However, what we have here is little more than a political "hit" on the President that ignores the fact that we actually want things like Hunter Biden's sinecures to be investigated.   Or does Greg H perhaps not care that the Bidens are cashing in, big time, on so-called public "service"?  

(and I would say the same thing about President Obama's $60 million book deal....there is no way that the publisher is going to recoup that much from the sale of the book)

Sorry, you do a "hit" on the President, you don't get your identity protected.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

G. N. Barkman's picture

On the one hand, I will miss GregH.  It can be helpful to hear the thoughts of those on the Left, and to be able to interact with them.  On the other hand, it will be nice not to be scorned, derided, and castigated for opinions that have as much, if not more substance then his.  GregH tells us to quit reading news sources of which he disapproves.  (I, for one, do not read Brietburt, and doubt that many others on SI do either.)  I have encountered similar statements from Leftists in the past.  I don't think I have every scolded GregH or anyone else for their preferred news sources, even though I suspect GregH is getting his views from biased sources.  He's free to choose the sources he thinks are best.  I wish he would grant me the same liberty.  I have read his statements, and posted my disagreement when appropriate.  I have never derided him personally.  Why do so many on the Left accuse those on the Right of being disrespectful of others and yet fail to recognize their own scornful attitudes, which seem to me to be usually greater than the ones about which which they take offense?  I think GregH would be helped if he would stay on SI, and listen respectfully to opinions that differ from his own, instead of sarcastically attacking those with whom he differs.

G. N. Barkman

Mark_Smith's picture

With all due respect, you have no idea what I believe.

As for defending "rapists," all I have done is oppose knee-jerk responses to things none of us know anything about. NONE OF US KNOW what happened at SWBTS with Patterson. That was my point the entire time. Plain and simple. All we have is the loud report of the person saying they were victimized. One side. That's what we have, and no independent investigation.

The same goes for a lot of other allegations. Show me some evidence and I am your strongest supporter. Take the latest claims against the pastor candidate at FBC Clarksville, Wes Feltner. The photos are enough to show something isn't right. Seminary students should not be hanging on to 18 year old women the way he does in many photos. That alone raises problems. Las Vegas vacations... three girlfriends... Christmas meals with three women's families. On and on. Not good. Like I said, give evidence and I am with you.

As for Trump... I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that. I mean politically here. I do not think Trump is a racist by the way. He is not a white nationalist and all that nonsense. Read his speeches and comments. The full comments and not something posted on Politico or Vox. If I could would I have picked a better Republican candidate in 2016? Yes. Who? I have no idea. They all have flaws. None of that matters now. It is Trump in 2020 or $52 Trillion just for healthcare. Which is worse?

Whistleblower- please... EVERYONE KNOWS who the guy is. EVERYONE. His life is not threatened anymore than anyone else. And, if you want protection, act like it. Don't call the DNC to arrange a lawyer to write your whistleblower report, then parade around to all the people in the know while claiming protection. He is the one who should be ashamed of himself!

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

G. N. Barkman wrote:

GregH tells us to quit reading news sources of which he disapproves.  (I, for one, do not read Brietburt, and doubt that many others on SI do either.)  I have encountered similar statements from Leftists in the past.  I don't think I have every scolded GregH or anyone else for their preferred news sources, even though I suspect GregH is getting his views from biased sources.  He's free to choose the sources he thinks are best.  I wish he would grant me the same liberty. 

Politically, I read pretty much everything from left to right, everything between Mother Jones and Breitbart.  However, I've found I can't take as much of the radical sites like those two, and prefer stuff more toward the middle.  I actually find it most useful to read the opposition writers on sites from center right to center left.  I like reading right-leaning writers on say, NY Times or USA Today (and there are a few) and some of the opposition on Fox News, because I find those are the ones that make me think a little.  Too much of the news today (let alone commentary) is too "Rah Rah" for their side, whether you read Fox or MSNBC.  For world news, I read a lot from Europe, because while most of Europe is left-leaning to our thinking, you'll many times get more honest news than here.  I watch the German Tagesschau (their nightly news program on the main German network) regularly, and while it's obvious that they have a mainstream European (i.e. center-left) point of view, they are actually more fair to Trump (or people on the left) than most sites here -- you'll actually hear what happened, and when they agree they say so as easily as when they disagree.  Pretty refreshing compared to the constant onslaught of outright partisanship here.

Dave Barnhart

TylerR's picture

Editor

My news sources:

  • NYT subscription (spend most time here)
  • WSJ subscription (spend some time here; excellent stuff)
  • BBC (good for broader perspective; there is a world beyond the USA)
  • USA Today (rarely look at, but it's there)
  • Al Jazeera English (same as BBC)

I've considered subscribing to the Times of London, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Quite possibly the best news source out there right now is Washington Examiner. They have a fair amount of Trump defenders but also Trump critics, so you get perspectives. National Review is still doing a decent job, though a few too many Trump justifiers.

The Bulwark is all anti Trump, all the time.

The Morning Dispatch, just getting off the ground, is pretty critical of Trump, but without all the tonal problems at the Bulwark, and more fact focused.

As for Trump... I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that.

Yes, it's very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field). But this irrationally narrow selectivity is what has brought the GOP to its current low point. It will continue to pull it lower until more leaders recover their backbones and start calling spades spades... in other words, until they come to realize that they're not even doing pragmatism very well anymore! Even reasonably well-executed pragmatism would yield better results than the current incoherent mess that is the GOP and just about all of "conservative" talk radio and TV.

Bert Perry's picture

I of course read nothing but Drudge, Breitbart, WND, and FoxNews....and that's the least of it, as I also read CNN, Washington Post, and NY Times articles at times.   Shame on me!  Actually, I only rarely read Drudge or Breitbart, and WND mostly rehashes what you'll see on Fox or CNN.

Seriously, I've found that if someone claims that he is not biased, or his sources are not biased, that's generally the most biased person you'll meet that month.  The trick is that if we all have a filter--and we all do--then the person arguing he's unbiased is merely in denial about his own filter, and will be moreover prone to attacking you without knowing where you're coming from simply because he is compelled to blame you for the disparity between what he sees and what you see.  And the trick to being as unbiased as possible is....to concede and own your own filter.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

I'll miss Greg because my positions run very close to his politically.  Plus he is a fellow Iowan. Greg always added spice to the stew in our discussions hear.  
 

However I don't agree with him regarding Bert and Mark.  I have learned much here regarding my fellow Brothers in Christ.  We all hold are central beliefs in our Lord but differ in areas that should not effect our ability to fellowship with each other.  I will be honest since Bert likes a cold craft beer as much as I do Bert is a special Buddy to me on SI.  Even though we my differ politically my politics are in flux.  
 

Unfortunately I only have had the privilege to meet Jim personally many years ago when we were both young pups, but Jim's sense of humor is greatly appreciated.  To bad for Jim he had to meet me personally.  Sorry Jim you may have been cursed by meeting me.  Hopefully I haven't ruined your life to much. 

Oh well good bye Greg.  

mmartin's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

As for Trump... I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that.

Yes, it's very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field). 

Aaron, I do not think most people who voted for Trump (as a vote against Hillary) actually think Trump is "the chosen one."  We were simply making a choice between two very bad, worst possible options and taking from Mark's point, Trump at his worst is better than the Socialist, $52 Trillion Healthcare, & Abortion & LGBTQ loving candidate.  Are there some who think Trump is "the chose one," sure, but most do not.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Many from the Left assume that my difference of opinion comes from listening to only radical, far Right-wing news sources.  Actually, I don't read anything of that kind.  I don't have time for propaganda from either side.  I'm looking for factual information, knowing that it can sometimes be difficult to find.  Because I can't spend hours each day following the news, I get most of my information on line, primarily from Fox News, but also CNN and similar outlets. I used to enjoy reading Huffpost until it became too biased to be helpful.  I usually have the Wall Street Journal coming to my house.  I also listen to NPR (National Public Radio) when I'm in the car.  I'm disappointed at the leftward drift at NPR.  They used to make a greater effort to be fair, including people from both political parties in their interviews, etc.  Now, they are far more weighted to people on the Left, at least 75% or more of the time.  But it helps me understand the news from different perspectives.

Often, though, I find that those on the Left refuse to expose themselves to sources except the ones they agree with.  They are usually entrenched in their views because they seldom hear a different perspective, yet generally pride themselves in being intelligent and well informed.  Hmmm.

G. N. Barkman

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

G. N. Barkman wrote:

I don't have time for propaganda from either side.  I'm looking for factual information, knowing that it can sometimes be difficult to find.

I agree.  If there were actually real news sites that would just give the facts (good, bad, and ugly) about any and all sides, I'd read that.  Since all or very nearly all new sources these days have a fair amount of propaganda, I wade through enough of it to try to get a good picture of what is really happening, so I can make up my own mind about it.  It consumes more time than I would like, but in my mind, the alternative is to remain ignorant, and I can't exercise good citizenship (of any kingdom, God's or otherwise) by doing that.

Dave Barnhart

Dan Miller's picture

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-...

Every time the fake news refers to Trump asking for Ukraine to look into Biden and his sons corrupt dealings, they clearly think of it entirely as Trump doing bad by seeking dirt on a political opponent. I just don't see it that way at all. To me, this is obvious corruption on Biden's part and it should be uncovered. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that if it was Obama responding to something a Bush offspring had done in a foreign country and asking for the other country to investigate, the fake news would not for a moment think of it as bad on Obama's part. 
 

And the news completely ignores the dirt on Biden's part. He gets a pass with zero investigation.

There's a lot about Trump not to like. People object to the tweeting and unpresidential speaking. I don't mind that one bit. If you have someone in office who is not a career politician, you will get politically incorrect stuff. You can't say, "We need an outsider to fix things in Washington" and then complain when when he doesn't talk like a politician.

 How many saw and considered the importance of this story:?

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to-be-made-in-...

Pages