Owning the ‘libs’ isn’t a policy win?
But are they?
“Under Trump’s administration, Planned Parenthood has done exceptionally well, with massive support from Americans shelling out a record level of donations. At the same time, the Planned Parenthood annual report showed record highs in 2019 for government funding and abortions.“
Oh, I don’t mean ‘owning the libs’ is any sort of measurable sense. It’s more an emotional response to make one feel better.
Trump has sign some EO as to religious freedom. RawStory, one of those news sites is extreme left wing.
And some Evangelical leaders went to Israel when the new embassy opened in Jerusalem. <----- That’s an Evangelical belief system. I’m not really into that viewpoint for the record, FTR.
The article is false and that’s without doing a lot of research.
So says Trump.
African Americans have voted for the Democrats for decades and what have they done for them?
It is going to just kill you guys when he wins again. I can’t wait.
I’m so bored of these attacks on Evangelicals for not voting the vile Hillary Clinton. No wonder Trump won. And probably will win again. I don’t even like Trump but watching the nasty smug commentators at Raw Story (and others) despair when Trump wins again, if it happens, will be fun.
Evangelicals knew by upholding Christian teachings on a number of issues they would be hated by left-wing publications and politicians. No wonder they drifted to the Republicans decades ago. A good portion don’t see eye-to-eye with Republicans on everything but they know the Democratic Party is hostile towards them.
Which poison would they pick? The one that openly hates them or the one that takes advantage of their votes?
Do the people who write these things actually know anything about Evangelicalism? As someone who actually has an idea and is partially in that world, it’s amusing. In any other industry they would have lost their jobs for incompetency. It’s like making a stock broker who’s never studied any biology into an ER doctor.
White Evangelicals are the Democrats’ Mitt Romney’s “47%” except Romney never had any animus towards the people Romney thought didn’t like him or the Republicans.
Did these articles attack Evangelicals for not voting for Hillary Clinton, whom you describe so luridly? I seem to have missed it in the articles linked.
The Rawstory article is a story about this:
The author is Napp Nazworth, who worked for eight years and served as editor at the Christian Post. He resigned he position there, “saying his former employer has chosen to make a ‘business decision’ to align itself with the President rather than follow its moral principles.”
The other bulwark article was written by Steve Waldman. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling book Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty and is a columnist covering spirituality and politics for The Wall Street Journal Online. 
You may disagree with them, but it seems that their are not as ignorant of the subjects that they write about, as you suggest.
I did not bother to read the article but judging by the “it’s all about anti-choice judges taking over” statement in the preview i think it a very safe bet that the whole article is Trash and not worthy of my time.
If you do not like the perspective of Rawstory you might read the Bulwark articles that it was reporting on linked in post#11.
But it is already clear that the author of the source story does.
Exactly! No doubt what side this source leans to.
The source worked for eight years and as editor of the Christian Post.
Is this reality consistent with your “no doubt”?
Christian Post editor or not, using the phrase “anti-choice” certainly leaves little to wonder about that persons political leanings.
The good book tells us, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, just read the 10 Commandments.
Mr. Nazworth did not use the phrase “anti-choice”.
He worked for eight years and served as editor of the Christian Post.
He does not use the term “right-wing Christians” in his article.