Christianity Today again slams Trump, raises issue of 'unconditional loyalty'

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

The only reason it is sometimes used as an insult by the right is because so many people confuse liberalism with leftism. 
 

Traditional liberals have much more in common with conservatives in the US than leftists. 

Yes the bottom line is of course that we use the word differently. It appears that the US has it's own in interpretation although some other countries may have adopted that somewhat unusual take on it. 

 

"Traditional liberals have much more in common with conservatives in the US than leftists." 

I think what you actually mean is "Libertarians" not Liberals,  broadly those believing in small state politics with minimum government interference and of course low taxes. Such people expect to have an army etc  paid for with magic beads, but thats another topic.

 

Any workable government has to have a system that keeps the poor happy up to the point, where they stop feeling that they have nothing left to lose by insurrection. The French, Russian, and Chinese rebellions and many others make this point. All governments that work, have some sort of financial security net to achieve this, and the US is no exception. What Europeans call Liberal values are based on respect for the rights and welfare of all our fellow citizens. These values are shared by all decent people, the vast majority of whom, don't feel any need for the sky fairy story, to encourage them to have them. 

 

What we see in this topic is that even some of the people as nutty as the Evangelicals are, whose values are very far from Christian ones IMO, have come to the point where they reject Trump, a man who they can see has no idea what values actually mean. 

 

Note:-When we talk about Liberals politically rather than socially, Liberal parties in European politics, tend to be in the middle of the political spectrum, along with Social Democrats. Left wing parties cover quite a broad spectrum from what are essentially Liberals to Socialists. Communists are basically a fringe group. Talking about Communists in a US context is farcical, it is just a pejorative word like Facist. Using Socialist and Liberal in a similar way is silly, even Bernie Saunders for example, is not remotely a Socialist in the real meaning of the word. 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, candide said:

I guess in several other countries (I.e in Europe), what is called a liberal political platform in the US would be called moderate right wing, and what is called leftist or even socialist would be called liberal or social democrat.

Speaking for the Netherlands, the liberals are D66 and VVD. D66 being slight to the left of center, VVD to the right economically, but liberal on social issues like abortion, euthenesia etc.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

“Traditional liberals have much more in common with conservatives in the US than leftists." 

I think what you actually mean is "Libertarians" not Liberals...

No, I did not mean Libertarians. 

 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

No, I did not mean Libertarians. 

 

Did you mean librarians?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, in the US liberal has been co opted by the right as an insult for the left. In other countries 'liberal' still has the traditional meaning. Don't know about all countries though, how about NZ e.g.?

NZ? I never heard the term being used here. Stupid version of MMP NZ was conned into has so ruined the political map that it's hard to know what the myriad of parties stand for. The greens apparently don't want any development and for everyone to ride bicycles; the Nats used to be the party of business and farmers but wandered off into the weeds a while back when Key was ruining the country; Labour used to be for the workers, but now seem to be for whatever gets them loved; the rest of the parties I have no idea what any of them stand for. Whatever, none, so far as I know, call themselves "liberal", whatever that even means anymore.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

even some of the people as nutty as the Evangelicals are, whose values are very far from Christian ones IMO, have come to the point where they reject Trump,

A magazine does not represent every Evangelical. They may buy it but it doesn't mean that they run their lives according to what it says, but you know that, don't you?

 

8 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Such people expect to have an army etc  paid for with magic beads

and some countries just give up and hardly bother having one, preferring to let the USA protect them for free.

[mogandave]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A magazine does not represent every Evangelical. They may buy it...

More like they get in their junk box. 
 

The number of subscriptions includes the digital edition...

[ThaiBunny]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you not understand what IMO means?

However, deflect away, deflect away.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-buddhism-a-philosophy-_b_10176992

Since Buddhism does actually have a clear belief system on the afterlife, I would say it is more than a “way of life” or “lifestyle” as some people say. However, calling Buddhism a philosophy is pretty accurate.

I certainly understand what IMO means and we now have proof of the value of your opinions

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I certainly understand what IMO means and we now have proof of the value of your opinions

That someone qualifies a statement as an opinion rather a fact generally makes what they say more credible, not less. 
 

On the contrary, people that regularly state their opinions as fact generally make what they say less credible. 

[candide]

Some people used to hear holy voices. For Trump It's tweets

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1210753632976531456?s=20

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Buddhism have been removed.