And Some Evangelicals Still Trust Him…

Donald Trump appears to be softening his immigration policy.

Politicians flip-flop all the time in order to win elections and fulfill their ambitions. But Trump is not merely shifting on some tangential issue or moving more to the center in order to win in November.  Trump rode his hard stand on immigration all the way to the GOP nomination.  Don’t forget his appeal to Operation Wetback.

Frankly, I don’t think Trump really cares one way or the other on immigration.  He just wants to win the White House.  At this point his only hope is to harness anti-Clinton sentiment.  If he softens on immigration he just might get more anti-Clinton voters to back him in November.

I hope evangelicals are watching closely.  Can those evangelicals who support Trump because he will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices really trust him?  Something to think about.

Here is what I wrote on that topic a couple of weeks ago:

But can evangelicals really trust Trump to deliver on his Supreme Court promises? According to the bipartisan website PolitiFact, 85 percent of the claims Trump has made on the campaign trail (or at least the statements PolitiFact checked) are either half true or false. (Compare that with Clinton, at 48 percent).

Of course many evangelicals will respond to such an assertion by claiming that at least they have a chance to change the court with Trump. Though he may be a wild card, evangelicals believe that Clinton would be much more predictable. A Clinton presidency would result in a crushing blow to the Christian right’s agenda — perhaps even a knockout punch.

So this is where many evangelicals find themselves. They want the Supreme Court so badly they are willing to put their faith and trust in someone who is nearly incapable of telling the truth.

Let’s remember that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Read the entire piece here.

4 thoughts on “And Some Evangelicals Still Trust Him…

  1. I don’t get the evangelical vs Trump thing as opposed to any of the other choices. There are no John Wedleys nor Benedictine monks in the running. We are invited, if we so choose, to participate in the election of a Caesar. Given a choice between Decius and Constantine (who each did their own kind of harm) I choose Constantine without regard for the legitimacy of his professed beliefs.

    Like

  2. Bringing up the 85% figure was a false premise from the first. Garbage. Trump does not lie 85% of the time. When he says “Good Morning,” it’s morning. When he says “Hillary is a liar,” he’s on solid ground. The qualifier

    (or at least the statements PolitiFact checked)

    is still GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out, John. “My source is admittedly suspect” does not qualify as intellectual honesty, and I helped you explain to your audience why.

    I do not think Hillary lies 48% of the time either. That is garbage too.

    None of what PolitiFact spouts is probative as to whom Trump might nominate to the Supreme Court, which is your core argument. And mine. The pro-Trump argument is only that we know for sure the sort of person President Clinton will nominate. She is on record for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which would put the US government in the business of paying to abort our children. A Hillary court might very well overturn the Hyde Amendment by judicial fiat. No lie, John.

    Like

  3. According to the bipartisan website PolitiFact, 85 percent of the claims Trump has made on the campaign trail (or at least the statements PolitiFact checked) are either half true or false.

    Only a leftist accepts “PolitiFact’s” claim of neutrality.

    http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

    And the highlighted statement is wrong on its face: Not 85% of what Trump says on the campaign trail, but 85% of the statements PolitiFact chooses to evaluate. One must accept PolitiFact’s sample selection as unbiased, which of course is impossible even if it weren’t biased.

    The statement fails any critical analysis, as does the essay depending on this premise, which is faulty on multiple levels.

    Like

    • “And the highlighted statement is wrong on its face: Not 85% of what Trump says on the campaign trail, but 85% of the statements PolitiFact chooses to evaluate.” Read the post more carefully, Tom. I acknowledge this.

      Like

Comments are closed.