As for data support, look at the primary voting data. Most evangelicals voted for someone else during the primaries until the very end.

That’s most likely true. Remember most evangelicals voted against Trump in the primaries. And a great many of them held their nose and voted for Trump when it was clear he was the only alternative to Clinton. Furthermore, “evangelical” is a pretty broad term that relies on self-identification and no definition.

None of this information answers my questions.

“It is settled law that the Constitution entrusts the conduct of foreign relations exclusively
to the Executive Branch, as it makes the President “the sole organ of the federal government in
the field of international relations.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304,
320 (1936); see also Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 109
(1948) (“The President also possesses in his own right certain powers conferred by the
Constitution on him as … the Nation’s organ in foreign affairs.”). In keeping with Supreme
Court precedent, the Executive Branch has consistently taken the position, across administrations of both political patiies, that the President has exclusive authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations.”

“With all respect, the Constitution assigns the President the role of charting the course of U.S. foreign policy and detetmining which diplomatic communications advance the national interest. Policy disagreements with the President’s decisions on those matters do not create a legislative right to review the President’s diplomatic communications with foreign leaders”

Source https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5777433/Cipollone-Putin.pdf

What was “fake” about Trump keeping his meetings with Putin secret? or how Trump made excuses for Putin’s behaviour?

Maybe because they could see it was obviously a fake story.

Not sure how that article was relevant to the issue of EU countries who do not rely on gas and oil from the North Sea becoming increasingly reliant on Russian energy sources, and working to fortify that line of supply for the long term while enjoying the protection that NATO affords. For Trump to kick the NATO table over and publicly call out Germany in particular for depending on American taxpayers’ defense dollars to keep Russia in check, at the very same time that they are increasing their own indefinite dependency on Russia, is a VERY odd play for a man who is allegedly in Putin’s pocket. Especially given the comparatively dinky benefits Trump allegedly hopes to glean from being a Russian pawn.

Doesn’t add up. At all. Add to that the source of most of the Russia/Trump apoplexy, and that explains why this evangelical has more pressing concerns.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annalisagirardi/2018/12/12/growing-dependent-on-russia-the-gas-routes-in-europe/#3f154feb62b0

It isn’t as simple as you make it seem. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trumps-iran-waivers-rather-than-his-deregulatory-push-have-lowered-oil-prices

Nathankc, I appreciate the corroboration! We see some of the same things. I like your expression of “the term left me, I didn’t leave the term.” I have said on several occasions that I feel like I am moving left politically, but upon consideration I think my views have held fairly steady, and so my sense is instead that many of those around me are moving further right. I still hold to “politically moderate evangelical,” but just *barely* and entirely on the basis of certain theological approaches (think Bebbington quadrilateral) rather than the increasingly politicized connotation of the term.

I understand your “pro-life – whole life” terminology. I consider myself pro-life, but I also want to be as consistent as I can be in that view beyond just the concept of abortion. If I really am “pro-life,” I want other policies to value and support the life I claim to value, rather than considering a legal prohibition of abortion to represent “job accomplished.” It frustrates me to no end that people who (like me) wish to see pregnancies carried to term then turn around and support policies that make it vastly more difficult for those young lives that are delivered (and their mothers). A true pro-life view extends beyond just the matter of a child being born, it also has many considerations throughout the child’s life and into its old age. I don’t doubt that many politicians are sincere in their “pro-life” views as regards birth, but then they push for policies that make that newborn life far more difficult. Other politicians (as you point out) are probably just cynically milking the issue because they know it locks up a high percentage of the evangelical vote. Many of that latter group probably don’t want any changes made on abortion policy because it serves as a good fundraising and “get out the vote” issue with the base.

And it also frustrates me to no end how the abortion issue gets used by many fellow evangelicals as (no pun intended) a trump card. As in, any time the slightest criticism is made of Trump, his administration, or the GOP, the quick retort is, “oh, I guess you would rather see babies being killed.” That tactic is constantly used as a discussion-stopper and therefore directly or indirectly is used to excuse a whole host of problematic policies and improper/immoral behavior.