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

2541 reads

There are 66 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

We do not have to choose between supporting the Democrats' whole political agenda and uncritically supporting Donald Trump. Those two options are not even the in the top five best alternatives (maybe not even the top ten!).

...so many evangelicals love "winning" more than they love truth. It's a shame.

Mike Harding's picture

Aaron,

 

If the demoncrats impeach Trump for calling for an investiation against the Bidens' for their obvious quid pro quo with Ukraine in the 2016 election and the 1.5 Billion dollar deal with China (1 Billion in aid if they will fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's energy company in Ukraine), that is their choice.  It is entirely political.  Yet, I have also heard the leftists say that they want to impeach the Vice-President as well.  In addition to Pence, they want to impeach Bret Cavanaugh too.  If Pence became the President I would be very happy.  I like him much, much more than Trump. The attacks against Pence, however, would be worse than those against Trump, because Pence is a genuine Christian.  Trump just thinks he is a Christian (and he is not).  In November 2020 your choice will be to vote for the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee, a third party vote which will be meaningless, or not vote at all for a president.  I will vote for the Republican nominee because I agree for the most part with the Republican platform and I oppose the socialist platform of the democratic party which has moved so far left that it makes President Obama look like a moderate.  Those are the choices as I see it.

Pastor Mike Harding

GregH's picture

There are two groups that have put Trump in office: evangelicals and white males without a college education and there is enormous overlap between the two. 

In other words, evangelicals hold all the cards. They could stand up and say: we support conservatism but we no longer support Trump. We want Pence instead. 

And if they did that, this Trump nightmare is over. Immediately. And ironically, evangelicals would then have what they at least say they want: a Christian conservative that is not an immoral national embarrassment.

But they won't do that. Why? I have no idea but I suspect it is because they secretly like the way Trump operates. 

pvawter's picture

Mike Harding wrote:

Aaron,

 

If the demoncrats impeach Trump for calling for an investiation against the Bidens' for their obvious quid pro quo with Ukraine in the 2016 election and the 1.5 Billion dollar deal with China (1 Billion in aid if they will fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's energy company in Ukraine), that is their choice.  It is entirely political.  Yet, I have also heard the leftists say that they want to impeach the Vice-President as well.  In addition to Pence, they want to impeach Bret Cavanaugh too.  If Pence became the President I would be very happy.  I like him much, much more than Trump. The attacks against Pence, however, would be worse than those against Trump, because Pence is a genuine Christian.  Trump just thinks he is a Christian (and he is not).  In November 2020 your choice will be to vote for the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee, a third party vote which will be meaningless, or not vote at all for a president.  I will vote for the Republican nominee because I agree for the most part with the Republican platform and I oppose the socialist platform of the democratic party which has moved so far left that it makes President Obama look like a moderate.  Those are the choices as I see it.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge there are actually 4 options. Many evangelical Trump voters have argued constantly since 2016 that there were only 2. Imo, the 3rd party vote is only meaningless because so many voters continue to believe so. 

G. N. Barkman's picture

Which could be based upon the many failed efforts of third party candidates over the past several decades.  It's pretty obvious that third party candidates siphon votes from the two major party candidates, one of whom is always going to win.  When you take votes from a candidate who disappoints, you end up helping a candidate who is worse.  Not a winning strategy.

Blame it on our system, but that's the way it works.  If we had a British style of government, third, fourth, fifth, and more party candidates make sense.  Or look at the way elections work in Israel.  (with many similarities to Great Britain)  Minority parties have a lot of leverage in deciding who will become the next prime minister.  They often have to be coaxed by a major party to help form a government.  Not so in the USA.  One of the two major parties wins.  Failing to support either usually helps the least desirable.

G. N. Barkman

Mark_Smith's picture

GregH wrote:

There are two groups that have put Trump in office: evangelicals and white males without a college education and there is enormous overlap between the two. 

That's right Greg, we Trump supporters are just a bunch of stupid hicks... we lack us n edjukashun... so we just listen to Rush Limbaugh while we are beating our wives and reading the Bible to find out the timing of the Rapture...

Man, I wish I could be really educated like the urban core, and the Prius driving, pro-abortion, pro-socialist, anti-God pioneers in suburbia!

 

GregH's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

There are two groups that have put Trump in office: evangelicals and white males without a college education and there is enormous overlap between the two. 

 

 

That's right Greg, we Trump supporters are just a bunch of stupid hicks... we lack us n edjukashun... so we just listen to Rush Limbaugh while we are beating our wives and reading the Bible to find out the timing of the Rapture...

Man, I wish I could be really educated like the urban core, and the Prius driving, pro-abortion, pro-socialist, anti-God pioneers in suburbia!

 

No need to get all offended by the truth. That those two groups are who put Trump in office is indisputable fact based on numerous surveys. 

TylerR's picture

Editor

Mike wrote:

In November 2020 your choice will be to vote for the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee, a third party vote which will be meaningless, or not vote at all for a president.

Actually, I already know WA State is going blue and all its electoral votes are going for the Democratic candidate! My individual vote is only meaningful at the national level insofar as the WA State popular vote goes my way. Which is fine with me - there is a method to the electoral college's madness. 

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?

dgszweda's picture

GregH wrote:

No need to get all offended by the truth. That those two groups are who put Trump in office is indisputable fact based on numerous surveys. 

 

My take, is that it is not that simple.  There was just as much disdain amongst these groups for Clinton as there was a passion for Trump.  Since Trump did not win the majority vote, you could argue that if any minimally sizeable group reversed their position on Trump, he would not have won.  It is easy to pick the majorities as those who allowed him to win, but that is just bad math and bad statistics.  You could just as easily say that Independents put him in office.  The independent vote was greater than the Republican vote and almost eclipsed the Democrat vote in turnout.

You could also say that if Clinton had turned just a small number of votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (typically Democratic states), she would have won.  Here he won on razor thin margins as a result of working class white Americans.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

dgszweda wrote:

My take, is that it is not that simple.  There was just as much disdain amongst these groups for Clinton as there was a passion for Trump. 

Indeed.  The comparison I saw recently was playing Russian roulette with Trump vs. using a gun on yourself with all chambers loaded with Clinton.

Dave Barnhart

pvawter's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Which could be based upon the many failed efforts of third party candidates over the past several decades.  It's pretty obvious that third party candidates siphon votes from the two major party candidates, one of whom is always going to win.  When you take votes from a candidate who disappoints, you end up helping a candidate who is worse.  Not a winning strategy.

Blame it on our system, but that's the way it works.  If we had a British style of government, third, fourth, fifth, and more party candidates make sense.  Or look at the way elections work in Israel.  (with many similarities to Great Britain)  Minority parties have a lot of leverage in deciding who will become the next prime minister.  They often have to be coaxed by a major party to help form a government.  Not so in the USA.  One of the two major parties wins.  Failing to support either usually helps the least desirable.

Yep, you keep proving my point. 3rd party candidates don't work because voters buy into the idea that they can't. 

dgszweda's picture

dcbii wrote:

 

dgszweda wrote:

 

My take, is that it is not that simple.  There was just as much disdain amongst these groups for Clinton as there was a passion for Trump. 

 

 

Indeed.  The comparison I saw recently was playing Russian roulette with Trump vs. using a gun on yourself with all chambers loaded with Clinton.

One of the challenges is that people are looking at who carried Trump as if this was a popular vote.  If a ton more people in South Carolina voted for Trump, it wouldn't have mattered one bit, as the state was already carried.  While Greg is proposing it is uneducated religious white males, because that is what a large number of voters were classified as, the reality is that most likely what carried Trump was 68,236 voters in Pennsylvania, 11,837 voters in Michigan, and 27,257 voters in Wisconsin who classified themselves as blue collar factory workers.  These were the three states that flipped from historically democrat to Trump, and there electoral votes would have carried Clinton.  That is only 107,330 voters.  Now while Greg is right that Trump's strongest and most vocal supporters fall into the class that he outlines.

The broader concern that I have over the impeachment process is that politics are becoming more and more partisan.  This impeachment process just further drives the issue.  Is Trump innocent?  No, but lets not kid ourselves that Washington isn't loaded with this garbage.  The Democrats are pissed and they are going to take it out.  We aren't really solving anything as a country.  The reason why we have crummy candidates is that the good people don't want the headache of being a leader.  What we are stuck with is a bunch of leaders that are highly partisan, and are just doing things through executive order and are skipping the legislative process.  Trump is just feeding into what has already been building.  Come on.  We ridicule Trump for lying and saying he is going to do things like build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, yet we have Warren who claims she was Native American and is proposing plans that are so far off reality it isn't funny.  I am not really seeing the difference.  Washington has been loosing its way for quite some time, and the rigorous brain power is gone on both sides of the aisle.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

G. N. Barkman

GregH's picture

dgszweda wrote:

 

dcbii wrote:

 

 

dgszweda wrote:

 

My take, is that it is not that simple.  There was just as much disdain amongst these groups for Clinton as there was a passion for Trump. 

 

 

Indeed.  The comparison I saw recently was playing Russian roulette with Trump vs. using a gun on yourself with all chambers loaded with Clinton.

 

 

One of the challenges is that people are looking at who carried Trump as if this was a popular vote.  If a ton more people in South Carolina voted for Trump, it wouldn't have mattered one bit, as the state was already carried.  While Greg is proposing it is uneducated religious white males, because that is what a large number of voters were classified as, the reality is that most likely what carried Trump was 68,236 voters in Pennsylvania, 11,837 voters in Michigan, and 27,257 voters in Wisconsin who classified themselves as blue collar factory workers.  These were the three states that flipped from historically democrat to Trump, and there electoral votes would have carried Clinton.  That is only 107,330 voters.  Now while Greg is right that Trump's strongest and most vocal supporters fall into the class that he outlines.

The broader concern that I have over the impeachment process is that politics are becoming more and more partisan.  This impeachment process just further drives the issue.  Is Trump innocent?  No, but lets not kid ourselves that Washington isn't loaded with this garbage.  The Democrats are pissed and they are going to take it out.  We aren't really solving anything as a country.  The reason why we have crummy candidates is that the good people don't want the headache of being a leader.  What we are stuck with is a bunch of leaders that are highly partisan, and are just doing things through executive order and are skipping the legislative process.  Trump is just feeding into what has already been building.  Come on.  We ridicule Trump for lying and saying he is going to do things like build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, yet we have Warren who claims she was Native American and is proposing plans that are so far off reality it isn't funny.  I am not really seeing the difference.  Washington has been loosing its way for quite some time, and the rigorous brain power is gone on both sides of the aisle.

I am trying to make a different point and if the uneducated thing gets in the way, I will withdraw it. 

My point is this: 25% of the country is evangelical and 80+% are Trump supporters. That is a huge voting block that represents maybe 40% of the people voting for him and up to 50% of those claiming he is doing a great job.

If just half of those evangelicals stood up and said they would not support him, Trump's numbers would drop 10% which would be way more than enough for the Republican senators to suddenly find their "morality" again and support impeachment. Pence would finish out the term and likely be the Republican nominee in 2020. 

dgszweda's picture

GregH wrote:

I am trying to make a different point and if the uneducated thing gets in the way, I will withdraw it. 

My point is this: 25% of the country is evangelical and 80+% are Trump supporters. That is a huge voting block that represents maybe 40% of the people voting for him and up to 50% of those claiming he is doing a great job.

If just half of those evangelicals stood up and said they would not support him, Trump's numbers would drop 10% which would be way more than enough for the Republican senators to suddenly find their "morality" again and support impeachment. Pence would finish out the term and likely be the Republican nominee in 2020. 

Defintely this could happen.  I can't prove what I am about to say, but I would be interested if there is research out there on this.  My gut says that most of the evangelical supporters of Trump are more of a supporter because they are against the other side of the fence.  I know that you have these preachers saying crazy things, but I wonder if the actual people themselves are more scared of opposing individuals than they are of Trump.  Most of the people I have talked to, don't really like Trump, but they really, really, really don't like Sanders, Warren, AOC...  And so they put up with Trump.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Only those on the left seem to be convinced that Trump has done anything rising to the level of impeachment.  Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall when Republicans favored his impeachment.  So far, only Democrats seem to be convinced.  Witness the recent vote on the House, and hear the even more recent statement by McConnel in the Senate.  Scolding Evangelicals for not supporting impeachment assumes that they are unprincipled and need to come to the sensible position of the Left.  But maybe they have sound reasons for believing this is an underhanded scheme without sufficient basis.  That may change if more substantial evidence is produced.  But after more than two years of fruitless, frenzied searching, it looks like an unprincipled ploy to reverse a legal election.  Why does the Left assume that they are the only ones who see things clearly or who act morally?  Why are they so blind to their own foilbles?  

G. N. Barkman

mmartin's picture

This silly notion that evangelicals shouldn't vote for Trump because, Trump, while repeatedly failing to acknowledge the gigantic leap leftwards of the Democrats (including jumping farther to the left on abortion), is asinine.  According to some on this thread, you get the feeling that we evangelicals are scum if we vote for Trump even as a vote against the Democratic (pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, etc, etc.) candidate, never mind actually "supporting" him.

Some people on this thread seem to understand that balance.  Others . . .  WOW!

But, go ahead and keep railing against white, uneducated, evangelical voters.

I will be voting republican in 2020. 

Perhaps some of you would prefer Warren???

GregH's picture

Just because they are left does not mean they are wrong.

Just because they are left does not mean they are not moral.

In this case, the left is more correct and more moral than the right.

Regarding your comment about substantial evidence, it is very clear by now that no evidence produced is going to be "substantial evidence" to those determined to protect Trump. It is very interesting to watch crooked Republicans trying to spin Sonderland's reversal which is about as substantial as you can get if you are a normal person. At some point, you just have to accept that these people don't care about truth. Their entire worldview is pragmatic and geared toward their own political survival. The only thing that will change their minds on what is true is Trump's approval numbers dropping.

pvawter's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side. 

dgszweda's picture

GregH wrote:

Just because they are left does not mean they are wrong.

Just because they are left does not mean they are not moral.

In this case, the left is more correct and more moral than the right.

Regarding your comment about substantial evidence, it is very clear by now that no evidence produced is going to be "substantial evidence" to those determined to protect Trump. It is very interesting to watch crooked Republicans trying to spin Sonderland's reversal which is about as substantial as you can get if you are a normal person. At some point, you just have to accept that these people don't care about truth. Their entire worldview is pragmatic and geared toward their own political survival. The only thing that will change their minds on what is true is Trump's approval numbers dropping.

Lets be honest here though.  Impeachments are almost always along party lines and the incumbent party is always entrenched in protecting their leader.  Not a single Democrat voted Clinton to be guilty.  We had plenty of evidence on Clinton and the same speech went around, "no evidence produced is going to be enough to those determined to protect Clinton".  Everyone is going to spin this.  The Democrats have done just as much spinning as the Republicans.  I don't really care too much about whether he stays in office, is impeached or goes to jail.  The more the government fights amongst themselves, the more they stay out of my life.  Ha!

G. N. Barkman's picture

GregH, the things you say about the Right can equally be said about the Left.  That's part of the problem.  The Left believes they are the only ones who are correct, and that everybody on the Right is either immoral or stupid.  Those on the Right have a similar perspective of the Left.  To you, impeaching Trump is clear, and you can't see how anyone can objectively deny it.  To the Right, impeaching Trump is anything but clear, and they can't see how anyone can reasonably justify it.  

However, as mmartin said above, there is a clear difference between the Left and the Right when it comes to Christian values.  I think many continue to support Trump, not because they like him, but because he is the only thing standing in the way of the Left controlling our country, and moving it further away from the Bible.

G. N. Barkman

G. N. Barkman's picture

He claims to know that Hunter Biden took millions of dollars "off the books" from Burisma.  Why isn't the left demanding an investigation into the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal?  No one's accusing Trump of profiting financially from his dealings with Ukraine.  If Donald Trump Sr. or Jr. were accused of what the Biden's are accused of, all hell would break loose.  I doubt that many would deny that such activities, if true, rise to the level of impeachment.  The Left would have a whole lot more credibility if they demonstrated a little bit of even handedness.  The blatant and glaring double standard is what convinces many Americans that the Trump issue has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with politics.

G. N. Barkman

mmartin's picture

pvawter wrote:

 

G. N. Barkman wrote:

 

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

 

 

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side. 

Honest questions:  When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics?  How would you see a 3rd party become relevant & effective in today's American political scene. 

Just curious about your perspective.

Thanks!

 

pvawter's picture

mmartin wrote:

 

pvawter wrote:

 

 

G. N. Barkman wrote:

 

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

 

 

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side. 

 

 

Honest questions:  When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics?  How would you see a 3rd party become relevant & effective in today's American political scene. 

Just curious about your perspective.

Thanks!

 

Well, since we no longer have the Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Whig, Bull Moose parties, etc. I'd say the ability of a 3rd party to topple an existing party has a pretty strong history in the United States. People act like since we don't see 3 parties sharing power a 3rd party is ineffective. I think that's short-sighted, but as long as it continues to be the dominant thinking in this country, many who would otherwise vote 3rd party and provoke real change will simply hold their noses and vote for less than desirable candidates in the party with which they traditionally identify. This will result in even less desirable candidates in the future for both major parties. 

Larry's picture

Moderator

When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics?

While it's hard to know for sure, in 1992 a 3rd party likely gave us Clinton instead of Bush 41 which resulted in eight years of Clinton. It also probably gave us the Republican Revolution of 1994 that probably pulled Clinton to the right a good deal. What would have happened had Perot not run is of debate, but it certainly appears to have changed things significantly in many way. A third party in 2000 probably gave us Bush. Overall in 2000, 3rd parties garnered almost 4 million votes. Again we don't know what might have happened otherwise, but it is difficult to say that didn't cause a sustained and effective impact.

A third party in Kentucky last night probably elected a Democrat. We don't know what the lasting impact of that would be. 

Joeb's picture

All this talk of impeachment is absurd theater and nothing is going to happen.  Wishful thinking on Never TRUMPERS and Democrats and Independents who don't like Trump.  I don't like Trump either but at least I acknowledge reality.  
 

The Pastors who support Trump have nothing to worry about even if the Congress votes to impeach Trump.  The Senste for appearances sake will hear out the evidence and quickly vote for no conviction. Good Bye impeachment.  
 

Trump will run for 2020 and tear up the Democrat nominee and be our President for another 4 years.  The Democrats have no body to run against Trump.  However the demographics are shifting.  This shifting is showing up in the suburbs of Philly and in Texas and Colorado and other Red States.  Two counties outside Philly just went decidedly to the Democrats.  One has not been in the Democrats hands since the Civil War.  So Trump and the Republicans are safe for another 4 years.   After that probably not.  If the millennials are fleeing the church as we have heard the Evangelical vote will have less of an impact unless the church concentrates on changing hearts and minds through Christ instead of through the ballot box and right wing legislation.  

Joeb's picture

All this talk of impeachment is absurd theater and nothing is going to happen.  Wishful thinking on Never TRUMPERS and Democrats and Independents who don't like Trump.  I don't like Trump either but at least I acknowledge reality.  
 

The Pastors who support Trump have nothing to worry about even if the Congress votes to impeach Trump.  The Senate for appearances sake will hear out the evidence and quickly vote for no conviction. Good Bye impeachment.  
 

Trump will run for 2020 and tear up the Democrat nominee and be our President for another 4 years.  The Democrats have no body to run against Trump.  However the demographics are shifting.  This shifting is showing up in the suburbs of Philly and in Texas and Colorado and other Red States.  Two counties outside Philly just went decidedly to the Democrats.  One has not been in the Democrats hands since the Civil War.  So Trump and the Republicans are safe for another 4 years.   After that probably not.  If the millennials are fleeing the church as we have heard the Evangelical vote will have less of an impact unless the church concentrates on changing hearts and minds through Christ instead of through the ballot box and right wing legislation.  
 

Note: I am firmly in Greg and Aaron's camp but I truly believe none of this will stop Trump.  The only thing that can stop Trump is if the economy goes into the toilet quickly.   

mmartin's picture

My main problem with Trump is:

His constant Tweeting, which often includes a childish tone and abrasive language.

Bert Perry's picture

Is simple; why is Hunter Biden's three million bucks from Burisma no big deal when his only qualification for the job was being the VP's son, and why was it no big deal that Joe Biden explicitly threatened to withhold aid if the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden was not fired, but it suddenly is a huge deal when Donald Trump asks for the matter to be revisited?

Do Democrats get a pass on obvious corruption for some reason, but Republicans aren't even allowed to ask that it be investigated?

Let's remember as well that Adam Schiff is the same guy who was, well before this fiasco broke, arguing that there was enough evidence to indict Trump even though Robert Mueller had said just the opposite, and his report backed that up.  So if Schiff had any evidence to back that up, he was more or less in huge violation of confidentiality laws.  If not, he was lying on very important matters.

So why on earth is he heading this panel?  Again, does obvious corruption by Democrats not matter, but implied problems with Republicans are a huge deal?  Really?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages