TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Graeme Decarie said:
Oh course, Jae, we all know that Canadian evangelicals are more evangelical than American ones.
Click to expand...

Hmm... don't know about that Graeme.

However - this much I know - I'm a member of an evangelical church in an evangelical denomination, and I'm a student in Canada's top evangelical postsecondary institution, and there are very few Canadian evangelicals in my experience who support Trump.
 
Jae said:
Hmm... don't know about that Graeme.

However - this much I know - I'm a member of an evangelical church in an evangelical denomination, and I'm a student in Canada's top evangelical postsecondary institution, and there are very few Canadian evangelicals in my experience who support Trump.
Click to expand...

I think this wins some kind of prize for most uses of the word "evangelical" in a single sentence. :D

This actually does not surprise me. Most of the Canadian evangelicals I have known have been conservative theologically and socially to be sure, but don't seem to take the political hardlines we see south of the border.
 
chansen said:
Then who is supporting Doug Ford?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, at 40% (current average on the CBC's poll tracker), his support is too high to be explained by just evangelicals. A lot of political fiscal conservatives and even some middle-of-the-road folks are backing him, too. The problem is that if you want to get rid of Wynne and believe the NDP is just more of the same (true to some degree), Ford's your guy. And, to be honest, he isn't playing the socon card that hard, just enough to keep Granic Allan supporters interested (though I understand some were pissed off enough that they were talking about defecting to fringe conservative parties like Christian Heritage). I imagine a PC government would be rather like the Harper Conservatives. They'll talk a good so-con line when the base is listening but not take a lot of action. For instance, Harper never touched abortion rights domestically, just did some fiddling with foreign aid to cut off agencies that supported family planning overseas. Certainly, that's where Brown was going.
 
Mendalla said:
I think this wins some kind of prize for most uses of the word "evangelical" in a single sentence. :D

This actually does not surprise me. Most of the Canadian evangelicals I have known have been conservative theologically and socially to be sure, but don't seem to take the political hardlines we see south of the border.
Click to expand...

Tis the best example of vanities expressed ... not much for humility! Humility is a lesser thing further soude ... thus the cover your hind statement!
 
Mendalla said:
Unfortunately, at 40% (current average on the CBC's poll tracker), his support is too high to be explained by just evangelicals. A lot of political fiscal conservatives and even some middle-of-the-road folks are backing him, too. The problem is that if you want to get rid of Wynne and believe the NDP is just more of the same (true to some degree), Ford's your guy. And, to be honest, he isn't playing the socon card that hard, just enough to keep Granic Allan supporters interested (though I understand some were pissed off enough that they were talking about defecting to fringe conservative parties like Christian Heritage). I imagine a PC government would be rather like the Harper Conservatives. They'll talk a good so-con line when the base is listening but not take a lot of action. For instance, Harper never touched abortion rights domestically, just did some fiddling with foreign aid to cut off agencies that supported family planning overseas. Certainly, that's where Brown was going.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the other major party leaders are all staunchly pro-choice.

So for voters who are pro-life, and want to vote only or largely on that one issue, voting for Ford seems the correct thing to do.

While I am pro-life, I believe other issues must be considered as well.
 
Mendalla said:
Unfortunately, at 40% (current average on the CBC's poll tracker), his support is too high to be explained by just evangelicals. A lot of political fiscal conservatives and even some middle-of-the-road folks are backing him, too. The problem is that if you want to get rid of Wynne and believe the NDP is just more of the same (true to some degree), Ford's your guy. And, to be honest, he isn't playing the socon card that hard, just enough to keep Granic Allan supporters interested (though I understand some were pissed off enough that they were talking about defecting to fringe conservative parties like Christian Heritage). I imagine a PC government would be rather like the Harper Conservatives. They'll talk a good so-con line when the base is listening but not take a lot of action. For instance, Harper never touched abortion rights domestically, just did some fiddling with foreign aid to cut off agencies that supported family planning overseas. Certainly, that's where Brown was going.
Click to expand...

Harper used it very much to his advantage. He let his opponents repeatedly spout off about the secret so-con agenda of his government, which actually in the end made him look more moderate because even after he got a majority the secret agenda never really appeared. But the fear of the secret agenda sure kept a lot of attention off the real agenda - which was to shift the balance of power in Confederation further and further away from the federal government toward the provinces by draining the federal treasury (remember that the surplus built up by Chretien and Martin was gone long before the recession hit) and getting the federal government out of areas that belonged to the provinces (so unilateral adjustments to federal health care transfers, a general refusal to enforce the Canada Health Act and a refusal to even consider new federal social programs were three of the big examples of that.) Every now and then Harper would let a so-con off his leash in Parliament to make a speech about abortion, which would rev up the secret agenda argument again.
 
Mendalla said:
A counterpoint from a prof at Huron University College here in London. Short version is that the movement towards peace in Korea is more about regional realities and players than Trump. Certainly my reading of it at this point is Moon Jae-in and Kim Jung-Un should get most of the credit.

To give Trump full credit on North Korea is to deny regional realities
Click to expand...
thank you for this :3

i think people (which includes world leaderz) can get caught in ruts and not think outside their beliefs or what had worked before...Einstein said a problem cannot b fixed with the same thinking that caused it...


and complex realities (which includes but is not limited to biological systems, us, and reality itself) is not parsimonious...

45 isn't a causeless cause but rather a part of the whole.

i'm glad there r people trying to fight Trump Derangement Syndrome; the rut caused by those people who are living in the "other movie reality" and which causes uneeded stress and even pain to other peeps...where the average American can not even identify or even grok another which happened before 45 came into power...

love will change the world
 
Lastpointe said:
Can you imagine the discussions about giving the peace prize to that pig?

Yikes

Of course they gave it to Obama just for being hopeful and wishfully optimistic so you really never know
Click to expand...
yeah and Obama historically did more horrific things than 45 has done yet.
so it could b possible that he could get it.
(Kissinger got it and he was quite the warmonger)
 
Inannawhimsey said:
What was that famous Margaret Mead quote again? :)

Donald Trump cannot block anyone on Twitter, court rules
Click to expand...

OTOH, it was a federal court. His lawyers could just take this up the ladder.

In the end, it comes down to does the right to free expression include the right to be heard? After all, Trump blocking them doesn't stop them from tweeting whatever the hell they want about him. It just means he won't see any of it.

EDIT: Ah, hadn't realized that Twitter's block function also stops the blocked person from seeing the blocker's tweets, unlike our Ignore which is only one way. Now this makes more sense. Yes, participating in a public forum does require one to be able to read what is being discussed and blocking could arguably interfere with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top