He is a symptom of a sickness that began before him, which is the hyper-politicization of the American church.
That's nice in a hypothetical, all-things-being-equal world. In the real world in which we live, one political party is less than a step away from placing antagonism to religious freedom in their party platform. That party's 2016 candidate specifically said that religious people have to change. She and Trump were the only realistic alternatives in 2016. Do I love this one-or-the-other reality? Do I love having a real world choice between a party whose leadership is expressly hostile to me and my rights and whatever else? No, but that is reality. My voting for Snoopy won't change reality, only take my vote away from the candidate who, at worst, will do significantly less harm.
With profound love and respect, we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: their unconditional loyalty.
That is not "profound love and respect", that is a Democrat Party talking-point devised to divide Evangelical Christians by luring us into buying a straw man argument. CT should be ashamed to parrot a political party's arguments. And have the "profound love and respect" for their brothers and sisters to realize that just maybe they made rational choices based on their understanding of their faith. And since they ask such an offensive question, I'l take the liberty of giving a blunt answer:
I'm not stupid enough to "give to Caesar what belongs only to God", my "unconditional loyalty".
As for how/what Evangelical Christians are "associated with", I can't control the accuracy or truthfulness of other people's associations. Nor do I fear others' views of me. For some reason CT imagines we can control people's impressions and have fallen into fearing others. Worse still, CT thinks
I have to change to alleviate their fears - fearfulness and arrogance.