Re the verbal attack on the Pope. There are over 79 million Catholics in the USA and apparently thosr who voted voted 55% for Trump in 2024. Crude arithmetic suggests that was maybe about 8 to 10 million votes for Trump out of the 80 million he got. (I’m guessing a lot of that related to Roe v Wade.)
He won’t be standing in 2028, but I guess his attack has done some further damage to the GOP mid term prospects.
I note also that J D Vance is Catholic. I haven’t seen any comments from him re Trump’s anti-Catholic outburst. Has there been anything?
JD Vance made some comment about how the Pope should stick to moral issues. Which I am fairly sure is what the Pope had been doing
Vance isnt the first politician who would prefer it if religious leaders concentrated on matters of personal ethics and sterred clear of the public sphere.
JD Vance made some comment about how the Pope should stick to moral issues. Which I am fairly sure is what the Pope had been doing
Vance isnt the first politician who would prefer it if religious leaders concentrated on matters of personal ethics and sterred clear of the public sphere.
Heck, I've heard arguments that the "Christian" "Right"'s obsession with policing sex became predominant precisely to avoid attention to the incongruity of their support for slavery and, later, segregation.
JD Vance made some comment about how the Pope should stick to moral issues. Which I am fairly sure is what the Pope had been doing
Vance isnt the first politician who would prefer it if religious leaders concentrated on matters of personal ethics and sterred clear of the public sphere.
Ah but Hegseth is a political leader! (I know he shouldn’t be). Freedom of speech allows him to say anything.
Ah but the Pope is not American. Oh, bugger, so he is! But he’s in an international office and that obviously makes a difference. Not really American any more. Too global.
Re the verbal attack on the Pope. There are over 79 million Catholics in the USA and apparently thosr who voted voted 55% for Trump in 2024. Crude arithmetic suggests that was maybe about 8 to 10 million votes for Trump out of the 80 million he got. (I’m guessing a lot of that related to Roe v Wade.)
He won’t be standing in 2028, but I guess his attack has done some further damage to the GOP mid term prospects.
I think if you're the kind of Catholic who voted Republican to overturn Roe v Wade, there's a good chance you're not gonna ever gonna vote Democrat, regardless of what Trump is saying about the Pope.
JD Vance made some comment about how the Pope should stick to moral issues. Which I am fairly sure is what the Pope had been doing
Vance isnt the first politician who would prefer it if religious leaders concentrated on matters of personal ethics and sterred clear of the public sphere.
Henry II?
In the 1980s, the centre-left Canadian PM Trudeau introduced an economic austerity program, and after being criticized by the Catholic bishops, replied "They should stick to handing out Communion." I don't think that stayed in the news for more than a few days.
I think if you're the kind of Catholic who voted Republican to overturn Roe v Wade, there's a good chance you're never gonna vote Democratic, regardless of what Trump is saying about the Pope.
Bishop Mariann Budde was on CNN re Trump and the Pope. Also J D Vance said he thought the Pope should be careful in his theology(!). Yes really.
Raphael Warnock was on as well, talking about how fascists urge religious leaders to “stay in their lanes”.
Not sure I can get a link to it yet, nor do I want to oversimplify by summary but it was a very good segment.
(Bishop Budde got into hot water because of her sermon at Washington Cathedral just before Trump's second inauguration. She talked about mercy. Got flak from Trump and the loyalists, amounting to “inappropriate on the day, stay in your lane” but a lot of support from Christians across the denominations and the world. I must say I really rate her.)
Oh I’m sure some of that 55% will stay loyal to Trump regardless. That’s in the nature of MAGAism.
But when the numbers come in I wouldn’t be surprised to see Catholic support significantly down in the mid-terms.
The real problem for Trump is he gets trapped in the extremism of his own rhetoric. Plus he always doubles down. There was quite an easy way of producing a respectful response but his ego always gets in the way of it.
Oh I’m sure some of that 55% will stay loyal to Trump regardless. That’s in the nature of MAGAism.
But when the numbers come in I wouldn’t be surprised to see Catholic support significantly down in the mid-terms.
The real problem for Trump is he gets trapped in the extremism of his own rhetoric. Plus he always doubles down. There was quite an easy way of producing a respectful response but his ego always gets in the way of it.
Trump seems to be perpetually in the grip of the shower arguments in his own head.
I think if you're the kind of Catholic who voted Republican to overturn Roe v Wade, there's a good chance you're not gonna ever gonna vote Democrat, regardless of what Trump is saying about the Pope.
If a bunch of them sit the next election out, that will already be a problem for the Republican party.
It’s important not to collapse the Roman Catholic vote into MAGA. National data from 2024 shows that a substantial share of Roman Catholics voted for Harris, and Roman Catholics have a long history of supporting Democratic candidates, especially on economic and social‑justice grounds. Roe v. Wade is only one factor shaping Roman Catholic political behavior, and it has never been the sole determinant. If Democrats articulate a platform that focuses on social teaching themes—human dignity, workers’ rights, immigration, poverty, and the common good—they are likely to draw many Roman Catholics who don’t see themselves reflected in the current Republican coalition.
The major issue that Trump focused on in 2024 was affordability. However, his presidency broke the social contract he had developed with the majority of his voters with imposing illegal tariffs and now the war. It will be a very hard slog for the Republicans to heal that break with the American public both in the mid-terms and then the general election. I would argue the pocket book of a Roman Catholic voter will speak larger than their feelings about the freedom reproductive choice.
Re Bishop Mariann Budde and CNN. I googled and found a link to Facebook which covers the final two minutes of the interview. I won’t provide the link but it’s easy to get to if you’re comfortable with that route. She talks about moral courage. It’s not the whole interview but it’s good.
The major issue that Trump focused on in 2024 was affordability. However, his presidency broke the social contract he had developed with the majority of his voters with imposing illegal tariffs and now the war. It will be a very hard slog for the Republicans to heal that break with the American public both in the mid-terms and then the general election. I would argue the pocket book of a Roman Catholic voter will speak larger than their feelings about the freedom reproductive choice.
Okay, but for these Catholic voters whose pivotal issue is affordability, their main concern in November is going to be whether or not they still think Trump is crashing the economy. Not outrage over his insults against the Leo XIV.
Basically, for a Catholic's vote to be in play on religious grounds, he'd have to be someone who was cool with Trump, tariffs, wars and all, up until April 4th, but then got supremely alienated by a post calling the Pope "soft on crime".
The BBC has an article up today with a headline about how Trump's spat with Leo is "costing him valuable support", but most of the quotes come from two conservative Catholics: Bishop Strickland, who spoke at a CPAC event in 2024, and a guy named Peter Wolfgang, who heads something called The Family Institute Of Connecticut. Both men seem pretty strongly opposed to the war against Iran, though Wolfgang does qualify it by saying that the Pope is not above criticism.
Basically, for a Catholic's vote to be in play on religious grounds, he'd have to be someone who was cool with Trump, tariffs, wars and all, up until April 4th...
Sorry. April 12th was the date of that Truth Social.
For lack of a better place to ask, without starting a new thread, is there much discussion in the UK whether the King should call off his planned visit to the US?
I don't know if there's been a lot of discussion, but Starmer is on record as saying that the visit should go ahead. His rationale appears to be that good US-UK relations ought to be maintained, as they transcend the periods of office of leaders.
The Greens and Liberal Democrats want the visit to be cancelled - I'm not sure what Reform or the increasingly-irrelevant Tories think.
The King must be dreading his forthcoming ordeal. After all, he's elderly, and not in perfect health - a diplomatic illness, or being forbidden by his doctors to fly, are possibilities...
Basically, for a Catholic's vote to be in play on religious grounds, he'd have to be someone who was cool with Trump, tariffs, wars and all, up until April 4th, but then got supremely alienated by a post calling the Pope "soft on crime".
Not necessarily. You could have someone who has been getting more and more frustrated with Trump, and this is just the last straw. That seems to me a rather likely scenario, to tell the truth.
Thanks Caissa, I had been wondering about this. My thoughts:
- initially I had hoped for a diplomatically timed health scare that meant the king would be unable to make a transatlantic flight. It would be fairly plausible: he's not young and has been receiving treatment for cancer.
- since it's seems the visit is going ahead (unless they're cutting it very fine to announce a "health scare"), I'm now wondering whether HM Government is going all in on the flattering Trump's ego thing (and 47 must be feeling rather lacking in friends at the moment, even with his cast iron self image) calculating that backing out now would be more damaging to diplomatic relations, bad as they are.
- or they're sending Charles to do a dementia test. State visits must involve some one on one time between the respective Heads of State, and they have met before so perhaps they think any insight that Charles may be able to give into just how far Trump has deteriorated, might be worth the trip.
I think the King can handle it and may want to. It moves him a little out of his safe constitutional monarch role.
Fair comment. It'll be interesting, at any rate, to see what happens. Trump may well be indiscreet, but Charles will indeed be able to handle that, as you say.
I meant that Trump would probably be happier at having the King postpone his visit - thereby showing how bigly and important he (Charles) thinks Trump to be - rather than having an unimportant pup substituted...
I think there might be a pond difference here. Correct me if I am wrong, it is Starmer who wants to flatter Trump by sending the king over here. Trump would be flattered. He always likes ViPs to cow tow to him. But if the king is too ill, and may never be well enough to travel, it stands to reason the heir to the throne could represent the monarchy. Trump may not like it, but I would think monarchists would like to keep Charles around just a little longer.
I think there might be a pond difference here. Correct me if I am wrong, it is Starmer who wants to flatter Trump by sending the king over here. Trump would be flattered. He always likes ViPs to cow tow to him. But if the king is too ill, and may never be well enough to travel, it stands to reason the heir to the throne could represent the monarchy. Trump may not like it, but I would think monarchists would like to keep Charles around just a little longer.
Yes. I don't know if John Bolton has actually hired himself out as a consultant to world governments, or if he just likes to get interviewed on a weekly plus basis by TV networks around the globe. But "If you're trying to get something from Trump, give him something that'll benefit him personally" is a piece of his advice that some leaders have been putting to good use, and if Trump thinks that being seen touring around with King Charles will help him electorally, that could be to the UK's at least temporary advantage.
Basically, for a Catholic's vote to be in play on religious grounds, he'd have to be someone who was cool with Trump, tariffs, wars and all, up until April 4th, but then got supremely alienated by a post calling the Pope "soft on crime".
Not necessarily. You could have someone who has been getting more and more frustrated with Trump, and this is just the last straw. That seems to me a rather likely scenario, to tell the truth.
Well, basically we're talking about someone who voted for Trump in 2024 expecting him to do good things, but is now starting to form the impression that he's creating an omnishambles, but prior to three days ago was still undecided about whether or not to vote Republican in November.
I think that's a pretty narrow constituency to try and pinpoint, because among those Catholics who voted for Trump in 2024, there are at least some who are either religious-right or MAGA(*), and will never be disillusioned with Trump because they assume all the problens are someone else's fault; AND "affordability" voters who had already decided that Trump is making things worse and that they wouldn't be rewarding him in the November election.
I'm personally doubtful how many Catholics would be in our third category of "Willing to give Trump benefit of the doubt until he attacked the Pope." Though I can't deny that there are at least a few of them, and could make a difference here and there, if only, as referenced by @Gwai, by staying home.
(My own view is these sorts of controversies can be more pivotal in economically good-time elections where voters start out more open-minded, and usually in a passive sorta fashion, to both parties. See Bush vs. Dukakis and Willie Horton.)
(*) Two different groups, both about equally loyal to Trump right now, but the former more likely to stray outside the tent.
I was thinking, "Considering the faint possibility of supporting Trump until he committed undoubted blasphemy in a way that makes it look like he's at least a small-a antichrist."
I could see that. Concerns about the pope, not so much.
I was thinking, "Considering the faint possibility of supporting Trump until he committed undoubted blasphemy in a way that makes it look like he's at least a small-a antichrist."
I could see that. Concerns about the pope, not so much.
Sure. But in the absence of Trump's Jesus meme, how many among the "faint possibility" bloc woulda would landed on the side of voting Republican?
And by "at least a small-a antichrist", I assume you mean his flouting of Christian pieties around Jesus and the implied theological heterodoxy? FWIW, some of the far-right Catholics seem to believe that he's not just sacrilegious, but under the effective influence of literal demons. They usually don't him as the big-A antichrist, though.
...some of the far-right Catholics seem to believe that he's not just sacrilegious, but under the effective influence of literal demons. They usually don't label him as the big-A Antichrist, though.
Just read on a Candace Owens subreddit that that Israel has been hit by a swarm of bees, and that this apparently fulfills a dream Candace had about bees after Charlie Kirk died. Someone said that this is a normal event in Israel during the spring, but another redditor said it was a sign of God's biblical-style punishment of Israel, and threw in that Trump is perhaps the Antichrist.
I still say that the high-profile right-wing Catholic apostates from MAGA have disproportionate visibility relative to their actual influence, but just noting an instance of Catholics calling Trump the Antichrist.
I was thinking, "Considering the faint possibility of supporting Trump until he committed undoubted blasphemy in a way that makes it look like he's at least a small-a antichrist."
I could see that. Concerns about the pope, not so much.
Sure. But in the absence of Trump's Jesus meme, how many among the "faint possibility" bloc woulda would landed on the side of voting Republican?
And by "at least a small-a antichrist", I assume you mean his flouting of Christian pieties around Jesus and the implied theological heterodoxy? FWIW, some of the far-right Catholics seem to believe that he's not just sacrilegious, but under the effective influence of literal demons. They usually don't him as the big-A antichrist, though.
I mean that the man fits the criteria of 1 John, particularly this bit:
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.... 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist... (1 John 2:18, 21-22)
Given his attempt to take Jesus' place (not just this particular image,he's been on this trajectory for a long time), he's earned the name (note the lowercase; I have no opinion about whether he's got a shot at the capital A, except to say that it would be hella embarrassing to have him in that role. I mean, I've always expected that guy to have some dignity, some gravitas in his evil...)
Being (much more) serious, then.
I don't appreciate the blasphemy. But I am far more disturbed by the millions of people who've died as a result of his actions. That goes all the way back to his handling of the pandemic, but also includes all those who've died from the lack of the U.S. aid they depended on to live, and now victims of the current war. Also any number of immigrants and refugees, including one known to me. Making yourself out to be Jesus Christ while giving mass death instead of life is a prime criterion for being an antichrist.
For lack of a better place to ask, without starting a new thread, is there much discussion in the UK whether the King should call off his planned visit to the US?
As BF said the government want it to go ahead. The leader of the Liberal Democrats raised the issue at PM Questions. There seems not to be much debate about it in the public at large. Personally I hope not. I don’t want us to look like we approve of what Trump is doing.
What do they think in Canada? He is your King as well.
For lack of a better place to ask, without starting a new thread, is there much discussion in the UK whether the King should call off his planned visit to the US?
Not a lot of discussion that I've noticed. A general sense of "Poor old Charles - still, I suppose it goes with the job" maybe.
Hugal, I have not seen any discussion in Canada. I am sure it will be covered in the Canadian news when Charles is the US. I think we tend to see Charles more as our distant King until he visits.
Trump is easily distracted by boosts to his ego. Therefore, I have little doubt that the visit of Charles will go ahead and so for a couple of days the UK will be less despised by Trump. Then, after Charles has left, something else will happen and Trump will HATE the UK again. And so it goes on and on....
For lack of a better place to ask, without starting a new thread, is there much discussion in the UK whether the King should call off his planned visit to the US?
Not a lot of discussion that I've noticed. A general sense of "Poor old Charles - still, I suppose it goes with the job" maybe.
True, I think. I suspect that at least some people are wondering what insult Trump might come up with, probably not directed to Charles personally, but (more likely) to the feckless and faint-hearted 'perfidious Albion' which refuses to join in with his bloody war-games.
I've hoped from the start that the trip can be called off somehow. Currently I wonder whether a diplomatic reason might be: it's going to coincide with the end of DT's most recent deadline on Iran, can the King just say, for everyone's good, wouldn't it be beneficial if the US government didn't have any unnecessary distractions at this specific time?
There has been some talk about Trump sending JD Vance on a humiliation tour like sending him to Pakistan to engage in a one day negotiation effort everyone knew would fail. Vance has also had to defend Trump in relation to the Pope. Last week, JD was to speak at a Turning Point rally in Georgia. Turning point rented an 8,000-seat arena, but only 2,000 people showed up. Seems like the big T is trying to make jd as small as possible. https://www.aol.com/articles/jd-vance-humiliated-once-again-020037311.html
Hugal, I have not seen any discussion in Canada. I am sure it will be covered in the Canadian news when Charles is the US. I think we tend to see Charles more as our distant King until he visits.
Yeah, by and large, I don't think Canadians feel much sense of "ownership" over the actions of the British monarch, unless they somehow relate directly to Canada.
Comments
True. All the ones I’ve read make the same point. I think Jim Wallis’s quote is original, making the same point in a different way.
He won’t be standing in 2028, but I guess his attack has done some further damage to the GOP mid term prospects.
I note also that J D Vance is Catholic. I haven’t seen any comments from him re Trump’s anti-Catholic outburst. Has there been anything?
Vance isnt the first politician who would prefer it if religious leaders concentrated on matters of personal ethics and sterred clear of the public sphere.
Heck, I've heard arguments that the "Christian" "Right"'s obsession with policing sex became predominant precisely to avoid attention to the incongruity of their support for slavery and, later, segregation.
Henry II?
Ah but the Pope is not American. Oh, bugger, so he is! But he’s in an international office and that obviously makes a difference. Not really American any more. Too global.
I think if you're the kind of Catholic who voted Republican to overturn Roe v Wade, there's a good chance you're not gonna ever gonna vote Democrat, regardless of what Trump is saying about the Pope.
In the 1980s, the centre-left Canadian PM Trudeau introduced an economic austerity program, and after being criticized by the Catholic bishops, replied "They should stick to handing out Communion." I don't think that stayed in the news for more than a few days.
Raphael Warnock was on as well, talking about how fascists urge religious leaders to “stay in their lanes”.
Not sure I can get a link to it yet, nor do I want to oversimplify by summary but it was a very good segment.
(Bishop Budde got into hot water because of her sermon at Washington Cathedral just before Trump's second inauguration. She talked about mercy. Got flak from Trump and the loyalists, amounting to “inappropriate on the day, stay in your lane” but a lot of support from Christians across the denominations and the world. I must say I really rate her.)
Oh I’m sure some of that 55% will stay loyal to Trump regardless. That’s in the nature of MAGAism.
But when the numbers come in I wouldn’t be surprised to see Catholic support significantly down in the mid-terms.
The real problem for Trump is he gets trapped in the extremism of his own rhetoric. Plus he always doubles down. There was quite an easy way of producing a respectful response but his ego always gets in the way of it.
Trump seems to be perpetually in the grip of the shower arguments in his own head.
AFF
The major issue that Trump focused on in 2024 was affordability. However, his presidency broke the social contract he had developed with the majority of his voters with imposing illegal tariffs and now the war. It will be a very hard slog for the Republicans to heal that break with the American public both in the mid-terms and then the general election. I would argue the pocket book of a Roman Catholic voter will speak larger than their feelings about the freedom reproductive choice.
Okay, but for these Catholic voters whose pivotal issue is affordability, their main concern in November is going to be whether or not they still think Trump is crashing the economy. Not outrage over his insults against the Leo XIV.
Basically, for a Catholic's vote to be in play on religious grounds, he'd have to be someone who was cool with Trump, tariffs, wars and all, up until April 4th, but then got supremely alienated by a post calling the Pope "soft on crime".
Sorry. April 12th was the date of that Truth Social.
The Greens and Liberal Democrats want the visit to be cancelled - I'm not sure what Reform or the increasingly-irrelevant Tories think.
The King must be dreading his forthcoming ordeal. After all, he's elderly, and not in perfect health - a diplomatic illness, or being forbidden by his doctors to fly, are possibilities...
Not necessarily. You could have someone who has been getting more and more frustrated with Trump, and this is just the last straw. That seems to me a rather likely scenario, to tell the truth.
- initially I had hoped for a diplomatically timed health scare that meant the king would be unable to make a transatlantic flight. It would be fairly plausible: he's not young and has been receiving treatment for cancer.
- since it's seems the visit is going ahead (unless they're cutting it very fine to announce a "health scare"), I'm now wondering whether HM Government is going all in on the flattering Trump's ego thing (and 47 must be feeling rather lacking in friends at the moment, even with his cast iron self image) calculating that backing out now would be more damaging to diplomatic relations, bad as they are.
- or they're sending Charles to do a dementia test. State visits must involve some one on one time between the respective Heads of State, and they have met before so perhaps they think any insight that Charles may be able to give into just how far Trump has deteriorated, might be worth the trip.
Fair comment. It'll be interesting, at any rate, to see what happens. Trump may well be indiscreet, but Charles will indeed be able to handle that, as you say.
Now, why would I want to flatter him? Starmer might, but I don't.
I meant that Trump would probably be happier at having the King postpone his visit - thereby showing how bigly and important he (Charles) thinks Trump to be - rather than having an unimportant pup substituted...
Yes. I don't know if John Bolton has actually hired himself out as a consultant to world governments, or if he just likes to get interviewed on a weekly plus basis by TV networks around the globe. But "If you're trying to get something from Trump, give him something that'll benefit him personally" is a piece of his advice that some leaders have been putting to good use, and if Trump thinks that being seen touring around with King Charles will help him electorally, that could be to the UK's at least temporary advantage.
Well, basically we're talking about someone who voted for Trump in 2024 expecting him to do good things, but is now starting to form the impression that he's creating an omnishambles, but prior to three days ago was still undecided about whether or not to vote Republican in November.
I think that's a pretty narrow constituency to try and pinpoint, because among those Catholics who voted for Trump in 2024, there are at least some who are either religious-right or MAGA(*), and will never be disillusioned with Trump because they assume all the problens are someone else's fault; AND "affordability" voters who had already decided that Trump is making things worse and that they wouldn't be rewarding him in the November election.
I'm personally doubtful how many Catholics would be in our third category of "Willing to give Trump benefit of the doubt until he attacked the Pope." Though I can't deny that there are at least a few of them, and could make a difference here and there, if only, as referenced by @Gwai, by staying home.
(My own view is these sorts of controversies can be more pivotal in economically good-time elections where voters start out more open-minded, and usually in a passive sorta fashion, to both parties. See Bush vs. Dukakis and Willie Horton.)
(*) Two different groups, both about equally loyal to Trump right now, but the former more likely to stray outside the tent.
I could see that. Concerns about the pope, not so much.
Sure. But in the absence of Trump's Jesus meme, how many among the "faint possibility" bloc woulda would landed on the side of voting Republican?
And by "at least a small-a antichrist", I assume you mean his flouting of Christian pieties around Jesus and the implied theological heterodoxy? FWIW, some of the far-right Catholics seem to believe that he's not just sacrilegious, but under the effective influence of literal demons. They usually don't him as the big-A antichrist, though.
Just read on a Candace Owens subreddit that that Israel has been hit by a swarm of bees, and that this apparently fulfills a dream Candace had about bees after Charlie Kirk died. Someone said that this is a normal event in Israel during the spring, but another redditor said it was a sign of God's biblical-style punishment of Israel, and threw in that Trump is perhaps the Antichrist.
I still say that the high-profile right-wing Catholic apostates from MAGA have disproportionate visibility relative to their actual influence, but just noting an instance of Catholics calling Trump the Antichrist.
I mean that the man fits the criteria of 1 John, particularly this bit:
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.... 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist... (1 John 2:18, 21-22)
Given his attempt to take Jesus' place (not just this particular image,he's been on this trajectory for a long time), he's earned the name (note the lowercase; I have no opinion about whether he's got a shot at the capital A, except to say that it would be hella embarrassing to have him in that role. I mean, I've always expected that guy to have some dignity, some gravitas in his evil...)
Being (much more) serious, then.
I don't appreciate the blasphemy. But I am far more disturbed by the millions of people who've died as a result of his actions. That goes all the way back to his handling of the pandemic, but also includes all those who've died from the lack of the U.S. aid they depended on to live, and now victims of the current war. Also any number of immigrants and refugees, including one known to me. Making yourself out to be Jesus Christ while giving mass death instead of life is a prime criterion for being an antichrist.
And Powell has the support of an influential GOP Senator.
It may be yet another Trump distraction of course. But pretty self-defeating.
As BF said the government want it to go ahead. The leader of the Liberal Democrats raised the issue at PM Questions. There seems not to be much debate about it in the public at large. Personally I hope not. I don’t want us to look like we approve of what Trump is doing.
What do they think in Canada? He is your King as well.
Not a lot of discussion that I've noticed. A general sense of "Poor old Charles - still, I suppose it goes with the job" maybe.
trump said "I've held back firing him. I've wanted to fire him, but I hate to be controversial,"
😂😂
True, I think. I suspect that at least some people are wondering what insult Trump might come up with, probably not directed to Charles personally, but (more likely) to the feckless and faint-hearted 'perfidious Albion' which refuses to join in with his bloody war-games.
Charles could, I suppose, tell the PM that medical advice is against the visit, and I don't see that anyone could object to that.
Yeah, by and large, I don't think Canadians feel much sense of "ownership" over the actions of the British monarch, unless they somehow relate directly to Canada.
Maybe. But for all practical purposes, outside the Church Of England, they're just his own personal views.