I agree, Trump much more dangerous for his lack of self control. Pence though, is a political animal who follows the scent of success for himself at all cost, even fealty to a clearly immoral leader. So, should he become President, the dangers he presents would be his aberant view of Christian faith’s place in American society and how low he would sink to keep his new position. The Pences of this world are the kind of people the Trumps of this world use to gain power & wealth. We can hope for the best and pray he (Pence) would rise to be a better leader than his past.

A few names of influence (Richard Foster, Rich Mouw, Ron Sider), but it’s a little disappointing that they only got 15 signers compared to the 200 or so Court Evangelicals who signed the pro-Trump letter. I had hoped to see some more influential names that I’m pretty sure are opposed to the Court Evangelicals, like Tim Keller or Scot McKnight or Beth Moore or Phillip Yancey or Boz Tchividjian.

Perhaps, Trump strikes me as a more dangerous version but I am trying look at this from the perspective of a Trump supporter. When they say the choice is Trump v. liberal Dem, I counter that is not true. It is Trump v. Pence.

When I look at Pence I see a milk-toast, wimpy yes-man for Trump’s lies and he manages to get in a few of his own. How these Christians ever think they’ll get to see their god is beyond my ken.

Mike Pence = Trump minus the crude vitriol = minor, superficial improvement. Sigh.

Convicting Donald Trump does not undo the 2016 election. Mike Pence would become president.

Thing is, white evangelicals don’t want Pence, they want Trump. Pence is seen as part of the political establishment they hate, and they love the way Trump continually attacks that establishment. And while Pence would almost certainly be a reliable ally of the evangelicals, and in many ways he’d be far more effective than Trump because of his strong ideological bent, they simply don’t trust him to “stick it to the man” like they believe Trump is doing.

When half of the populace leans one way and another third the other way, the perspective of truth can be elusive. There appears to be no bipartisan support for impeachment, which many would take to indicate it is not as cut and dry as you would think

You may call me disingenuous, I hardly think it was an attack. More like a question.

Because publishing after the impeachment but before the senate trial sends a message to the repubs in the senate that support for trump isn’t as strong as they may think. There was no need to send a message to the house, because it was clear that they were going to impeach. Just as it seems clear the senate won’t vote to remove him from office.

Articles like this one (esp. if it prompts more like it, like Warren’s), could influence enough in the senate to have a real trial on the issues rather than just a quick vote not to remove from office. Further, spreading the message among christians that the choice isn’t between Trump and Sanders/Warren/Biden, but between Trump and Pence can also have an impact on christians’ stance on the issue.

I think now is the right time for the CT article.

One’s thoughts or opinions on impeachment do matter.. The motive isn’t important, only the truth of his article and one’s understanding of it. Attacking his motive is disingenuous.