Trump Taps Extremists, Anti-Choice Advocates in Effort to Woo Evangelicals

Jun 28, 2016

By Ally Boguhn

Making a play to win over the evangelical community, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump met with more than 1,000 faith and anti-choice leaders on Tuesday for a question-and-answer event in New York City and launched an “evangelical advisory board” to weigh in on how he should approach key issues for the voting bloc.

The meeting was meant to be “a guided discussion between Trump and diverse conservative Christian leaders to better understand him as a person, his position on important issues and his vision for America’s future,” according to a press release from the event’s organizers. As Rewire previously reported, numerous anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ leaders—many of them extremists—were slated to attend.

Though the event was closed to the media, Trump reportedly promised to lift a ban on tax-exempt organizations from politicking and discussed his commitment to defending religious liberties. Trump’s pitch to conservatives also included a resolution that upon his election, “the first thing we will do is support Supreme Court justices who are talented men and women, and pro-life,” according to a press release from United in Purpose, which helped organize the event.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

43 comments on “Trump Taps Extremists, Anti-Choice Advocates in Effort to Woo Evangelicals

  • Trump’s pitch to conservatives also included a resolution that upon his election, “the first thing we will do is support Supreme Court justices who are talented men and women, and pro-life,” according to a press release from United in Purpose, which helped organize the event.

    These low-life politicians will pervert any system and sell out to any bunch of clowns who will offer them votes!



    Report abuse

  • hi,

    i thought this was a humanist/atheist site, not a marxist/pro Hillary/SJW site.

    I hope Donald Trump wins, just as i’m glad the UK voted out of the EU.

    I’m an atheist.
    so whats the problem? He is only doing politics, and he needs the evangelical vote. Hillary needs the religious vote too, as it goes.

    atheism means disbelief in God. It doesn’t mean, necessarily, Marxism, Socialism, etc.

    atheism doesn’t mean one should support Hillary and the Democrats.

    Cant stump the Trump!



    Report abuse

  • anton

    Why the crappy attitude? Did someone (American) hold a gun to your head and make you join the atheist liberal party? Just quit your carping and make your case just like everyone else here. It’ll stand or fall on its own merit. I do believe that’s what this website is about.



    Report abuse

  • @ Anton –

    Hillary doesn’t “need” the religious vote. In fact, she won’t get too much of the strident evangelical vote regardless. They will (the majority) either vote Trump or other. Here’s what Trump won’t get:

    Latino voters
    Women voters
    African American voters
    College educated voters

    Er, I think that may be a few votes. But good luck with that Drumpf and Drumpf lovers. I always wondered why candidates pander to their base. Evangelicals by and large don’t vote for democrats. But hey, there is hope. We all know Drumpf has the bigot vote all tied up in a big, sweet knot.



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB,

    It seems to me that this site has recently been promoting anti Trump articles, and pro EU anti Brexit articles.
    I just wanted to say. we live in a Liberal democracy, but at the same time, not every humanist and atheist is necessarily a leftist or liberal, and in favour of mass immigration etc. etc.

    , you are free to support that Hillary Clinton. Where’s Monica Lewinsky these days?



    Report abuse

  • anton

    It seems to me that this site has recently been promoting anti Trump articles, and pro EU anti Brexit articles.
    I just wanted to say. we live in a Liberal democracy, but at the same time, not every humanist and atheist is necessarily a leftist or liberal, and in favour of mass immigration etc. etc.

    None of this is news to me and none of it bothers me particularly and I am well aware that I can support anyone I want to and don’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

    Where’s Monica Lewinsky these days?

    Um. Does anyone really give a shit Anton? I’m sure I don’t.



    Report abuse

  • @anton

    Trump reportedly promised to lift a ban on tax-exempt organizations from politicking and discussed his commitment to defending religious liberties.

    Tax-exempt. Read religious organizations. This would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. You might want to tell you candidate, Trump, that he can do no such thing as we have a balance of power in this country. The Supreme Court would rule against him here, even the most conservative members would do that.
    Now, some churches have been pushing the Establishment Clause envelope, but as an atheist this should concern you as well as the rest of the atheists here. In our secular liberal Democratic Republic we keep a lid on the delusional-oids, Trump seems to think, or he want the evangelicals to think, that he can lift this lid of secularism.

    Vote for whom you wish but be careful with your vote as you only have one.



    Report abuse

  • Perhaps some US posters can provide some details on funding systems and conditions on loans if these are known!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-ups-personal-spending-campaign-even-polls-go-his-way-n508311

    Trump released new financial data about his campaign late Sunday night, as required by federal election law, and the numbers suggest an operation built for the long haul.

    Over the past three months, Trump funded his campaign with $10.8 million in loans and a $100,000 donation, his largest personal investment to date. Supporters also donated $2.6 million, with the most money coming from Florida and California.

    The new numbers reveal a major shift in who is powering Trump’s campaign.

    While the billionaire candidate often boasts about self-funding, in the previous quarter, small donors actually provided more money to the campaign than he did. The new data shows Trump is willing to invest more of his own wealth, even as he succeeds in the polls.

    That doesn’t mean, however, that he’s throwing money around.

    Trump spent far less than most of his rivals last quarter. Clinton and Sanders both topped $30 million, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz each spent about $15 million, while Trump spent just $6.9 million.

    Who repays this $10.8million of loans if he loses? – and who repays it if he wins?

    Does Trump stand the loss and repay it from his assets?
    Do some lenders stand the loss?
    Does bankruptcy come into it, as in some of his former enterprises?
    Does the Republican Party repay it?

    Borrowing money and spending it on a campaign where presumably it is irrecoverable, must have implications.



    Report abuse

  • It would appear that both Anton and Blue have been registered here for less than two months. I suppose they are the two Trump sock puppets designated to blow smoke in atheists’ eyes. I don’t think anyone will fall for it for a minute. Trump is the most unsuitable candidate for high office we have had in a long, long time. One has to be ill in the head to vote for such a man. He is racist, sexist and revels in bullying others. His supporters I have encountered in comments sections are vile, foul-mouthed bullies just like him. If he gets more than 19% of the vote in November, it would be a sad commentary on the American voting public.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #13
    Jun 29, 2016 at 7:10 am

    The Scots and Scottish courts did not seem to have much difficulty in weighing up Trump’s argument quality and dismissing his claims when he tried to sue there!



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Pinball1970 says:

    @#5“It seems to me that this site has recently been promoting anti Trump articles”

    He has claimed his favorite book is the bible we are hardly going to be big fans of the man.



    Report abuse

  • Hilary Clinton gets 20% of her campaign funding from the Saudi rulers, Muslims to a man. Now it seems that Trump wants the Christians on his side.

    Hmm. Tough choice: the Religion of Peace or the Religion of Righteousness.

    No, it’s an easy choice. I’ll settle for the Jesus people.



    Report abuse

  • It seems that the SJW’s are trying to take over this site as well. Given that this is an atheist focussed discussion, they might be better informed at criticism of anyone’s opinion if they viewed actual debates by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray where the facts are the weapons instead of temper tantrums.



    Report abuse

  • Jannice #20

    It seems that the SJW’s are trying to take over this site as well

    Please, please please name names. Go on, you can. No one will shout…but you will have to back it up with evidence and reason…



    Report abuse

  • godfrey.johnson #16
    Jun 29, 2016 at 9:46 am

    Hilary Clinton gets 20% of her campaign funding from the Saudi rulers,

    Top Contributors – Senator Hillary Clinton https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

    I don’t see them on this disclosed list of top contributors!

    LaurieB #18
    Jun 29, 2016 at 9:55 am

    I’d be interested to see your source for this information.

    I can show you the absence of it! Will that do?



    Report abuse

  • Oh Alan. There is a long list of sources for this on google. All sources are not equal. I just want to see which one he will choose. Waiting patiently.

    Jannice #20

    I agree with Phil. Please point out the incidents of SJW action. I’m not trying to be snarky it’s just that I can’t see it.



    Report abuse

  • I am voting for Hillary Clinton, NOT for Donald Trump thats for sure!

    “Freedom of religion” is actually a move towards a theocracy. That is scary. In the US people will become slaves to the pulpit pounding, Jesus jumping, Bible thumping idiots. It will be back to the Dark Ages.



    Report abuse

  • Hillary Clinton has been maligned for years and years in an unprecedented way. Of course she has a “trust issue.” Is she perfect? Of course not. She’s too conservative. But she’s the best we’ve got. Is she enormously intelligent? Yes. Is she capable? Yes. Is she sane? Is she qualified? Yes. Does she have many fine qualities? Yes. Will she win? Yes. Is Trump a repulsive reactionary with no core?

    Whitewater. They spent god knows how much on that. Nothing! Nothing came out of it. That should tell you something right there.

    Bingaze. They spent more time and money (billions!) on those eight investigations which were closed to Democrats, than they did on 911 and Watergate combined. It was unprecedented, politics at its worst, and obscene. Guess what! Very little came from that either! It was even declared by a Republican to be an attempt to derail her road to the white house, had nothing to do with any real concerns other than that. The guy who said that was denied the position of Speaker, btw, And now we have Ryan.

    Trump IS the establishment, and appeals to the lowest common denominator.

    Here, read this: I am posting this again, and don’t kill the messenger. In fact, I won’t tell you who wrote it. Ha!

    Now, the actual policies of the Republicans, whether it’s Paul Ryan or Donald Trump, to the extent that he’s coherent, Ted Cruz, you pick him, or the establishment, is basically enrich and empower the very rich and the very powerful and the corporate sector. You cannot get votes that way. So therefore the Republicans have been compelled to turn to sectors of the population that can be mobilized and organized on other grounds, kind of trying to put to the side the actual policies, hoping, the establishment hopes, that the white working class will be mobilized to vote for their bitter class enemies, who want to shaft them in every way, by appealing to something else, like so-called social conservatism—you know, abortion rights, racism, nationalism and so on. And to some extent, that’s happened. That’s the kind of thing that Fritz Stern was referring to in the article that I mentioned about Germany’s collapse, this descent into barbarism. So what you have is a voting base consisting of evangelical Christians, ultranationalists, racists, disaffected, angry, white working-class sectors that have been hit very hard, that are—you know, not by Third World standards, but by First World standards, we even have the remarkable phenomenon of an increase in mortality among these sectors, that just doesn’t happen in developed societies. All of that is a voting base. It does produce candidates who terrify the corporate, wealthy, elite establishment. In the past, they’ve been able to beat them down. This time they aren’t doing it. And that’s what’s happening to the so-called Republican Party.

    We should recognize—if we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally. Just take their position on the two major issues that face us: climate change, nuclear war. On climate change, it’s not even debatable. They’re saying, “Let’s race to the precipice. Let’s make sure that our grandchildren have the worst possible life.” On nuclear war, they’re calling for increased militarization. It’s already way too high, more than half the discretionary budget. “Let’s shoot it up.” They cut back other resources by cutting back taxes on the rich, so there’s nothing left. There’s been nothing this—literally, this dangerous, if you think about it, to the species, really, ever. We should face that.



    Report abuse

  • Re: Lewinsky scandal

    Your man Trump was caught on tape defending Bill Clinton, when that scandal was unfolding.

    But you’re not interested in that, are you, Anton?

    There should be no “automatic support” from atheists and scientists for ANYTHING. No, you’re right. Thanks. Good point. Brilliant.



    Report abuse

  • Trump vs Clinton is not primarily an atheist vs religion issue, altho there is a component of that.

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the plight of women, she should confront her own husband.

    Can’t stump the Trump!



    Report abuse

  • anton

    I’m telling you for a fact that there are women in this world who suffer torment and persecution every day of their lives. They have no access to birth control or abortion and they can hardly keep their children alive from one day to the next. We have religion giving men permission to beat the crap out of their wives for no reason whatsoever. Women aren’t allowed to control their own money in some places and the list of additional human rights violations goes on without end.

    The problem that came between Hillary and Monica is between the three of them and only a puritanical ass would find it interesting. The guy got a blow job. Who gives a shit? Nobody, that’s who. Why don’t you put your little mind onto a more weighty matter that actually makes a difference in this world.

    anton the feminist.

    shit.



    Report abuse

  • @dan #28

    I read somewhere that the investigation into Bill’s Blowjob was better funded than the 9/11 commission. Anyone care to fact-check that, I don’t want to be spreading Urban Legends.

    And has anyone an authoritative source for the levels of funding for anti-Hilary investigations vs Watergate, 9/11?



    Report abuse

  • OHooligan

    The Benghazi sham investigation was longer than the watergate investigation and I am virtually certain, as they had a blank check, was far better funded than the 911 commission, and was one of the the longest investigations in US history. (Correction: I said billions; more like 200 million.) There was no real, serious 911 investigation of Bush or Cheney, any Republican, or anyone working for Bush, as far as I know. And if there was it doesn’t compare.

    Totally partisan. Democrats were excluded. The Republican assholes wanted to derail her political career.

    http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/

    “When the [911] commission finally succeeded in its demand that Bush testify before it, the arrangement was that only two commission members could be present at a White House meeting where the president was to be questioned for only one hour, without being put under oath and with no notes taken, and with Vice President Cheney present. In fact, the administration fought the commission at nearly every turn. Hamilton and Kean later wrote that they felt that the commission had been “set up to fail”—it had been rushed, its funding was insufficient and it didn’t have adequate administration cooperation.” –E. Drew at NYR Daily, Oct, 2015



    Report abuse

  • Anton,

    You are correct that technically there is no automatic dependency between atheism and the Democratic party. That’s a typical Republican statute of plausibility, and wilful avoidance of context and relativity……the ‘half-truth’, and you run with it, like it’s the 11th commandment.

    However, if a weatherman tells you there is a98% chance of a hurricane on a certain day, are you still going to plan your outdoor wedding for that day ?

    Bigotry is based on ignorance, and is entirely driven by religion. The vast majority of Republicans are god fearing Christians. It is not a statistical coincidence that almost all of the anti-muslim sentiment comes from Republicans.

    You keep clinging to your assertions that atheism is not automatically anti-Republican, meanwhile there are multiple areas where it is illegal to be elected to office if you are an atheist…..these are all Republican based areas.
    The reality is there is a statistical relationship, even a propensity for a Republican to be a bigot and in some cases a legal requirement to be anti-atheist.
    In short, your implied message is completely wrong.

    [Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use.]



    Report abuse

  • @Laurie #32

    “Anton the feminist.”

    Funny!

    Your words above that were anything but funny. Excellent point, And very poignant. I wish all the Antons of the world could read that.

    (Sorry, Anton, if you’re reading; I do not wish to vilify you. Try always to keep an open mind. And I will do the same.)



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    We haven’t awarded our (informal) DARLING OF THE FEMINISTS award lately, have we Dan? I nominate anton for his effusive expressed concern for the state of the relationship between Hillary and Monica.

    May all of the force and attention of the feminists be with you now anton. You’ve earned every bit of it!

    The trophy is a six foot tall bronzed tampon. It’s on its way in the mail as we speak!



    Report abuse

  • anton #25
    Jun 29, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    The issue of atheism and science is not linked to automatically support for Clinton or the EU.

    Most of those atheists in Europe who are not Americans, are in no position to support Republicans or Democrats.
    The FDFS site has world wide coverage way beyond America!

    The issue of atheism and science is not linked to automatically support for Clinton or the EU.

    However, A survey of fellows of the Royal Society {top scientific body} found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36499790
    Leading scientists have been particularly vocal in arguing against the UK leaving the European Union. But how would Brexit really affect UK science?
    Sitting in a corner of his lab at the Department of Veterinary Medicine in Cambridge epidemiologist Dr Olivier Restif explains why he wanted to come and work in the UK.
    “Infectious diseases spread across borders and we need to work together, but also develop policies together, to control these diseases and fund large research programmes, and that can only be done within the EU.”

    He’s not alone. More than a third of the research scientists working at Cambridge are overseas nationals. 23% are from other EU countries. A reflection of the international nature of modern scientific collaboration.

    Cambridge, and UK science, has thrived in this collaborative, internationalist environment, emerging as Europe’s scientific powerhouse and punching well above its weight in terms of research papers published, citations, university rankings and Nobel Prizes.

    All of which helps to explain why 13 of Britain’s leading scientists, including the physicist Professor Peter Higgs and the President of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse, added their voices over the weekend to the chorus of dons, dames, knights and Nobel laureates who have come out emphatically for “Remain”.

    In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, the group said science should be “front and centre in the EU debate” and that losing European funding would put UK research “in jeopardy”.

    Atheism is clearly statistically related to top scientists, and top scientists oppose Brexit!



    Report abuse

  • Laurie 38

    Well, to be precise, the DOTF award was conceived (by yours truly) as an award to be given to people on the site or elsewhere who say nice things that they don’t mean, as a way to gain popularity and praise.

    It is clear, however, that Anton is the real deal; he is truly concerned about the plight of women all around the world. He is earnest, conscientious, and is as courageous as he is outspoken on this issue.

    But I am flexible. Let’s change the DOTFA and have it include both the phonies and the non-phonies. From now on, a “DARLING OF THE FEMINISTS” will include both. (It behooves us, going forward, to make it clear who is being a phony and who isn’t.)

    Anton is clearly NO phony. He cares deeply about women. I second the nomination. 😉

    -Dan, President of the DOTFA comittee



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.