Inconvenient fact for trumpanzees

guno said:
Like the tumultuous adolescent years of human development, the changes during the teen years of the 21st century disrupted American identity as we’ve known it. These transformations have come upon us quickly, upending long-standing assumptions — particularly among white Christians — about the American social fabric. And as with teenagers, they have created a lot of anxiety and fear about the future.

Of all the changes to identity and belonging, the century’s second decade has been particularly marked by a religious sea change. After more than two centuries of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance, the United States has moved from being a majority-white Christian nation to one with no single racial and religious majority.

The percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points.

In the world of demographic measurement, where changes typically occur at a glacial pace, this drop in self-identified white Christians, averaging 1.1 percentage points a year, is remarkable. Changes of this magnitude are large enough to see and feel at the local level, as church rolls shrink and white Christian institutions hold less sway in public space.

The percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points.

In the world of demographic measurement, where changes typically occur at a glacial pace, this drop in self-identified white Christians, averaging 1.1 percentage points a year, is remarkable. Changes of this magnitude are large enough to see and feel at the local level, as church rolls shrink and white Christian institutions hold less sway in public space.

Since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. While white evangelical Protestants have enjoyed an outsized public presence over the last four years because of their predominance in President Donald Trump’s unshakeable base, it is notable that today they are actually roughly the same size as their white mainline Protestant cousins (15 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively).

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/2010s-spelled-end-white-christian-america-ncna1106936
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. They have the electoral college.
 
Woko Haram said:
I agree, although I see a similar problem with progressivism. Progressivism functions much like a religion with the assumptions it never questions. Its followers also like to use government to force their ideals onto society. This is most often demonstrated regarding trans issues.
Click to expand...

The trans issue is of little significance compared the the income and wealth disparity issue; what are we going to do about unregulated plutocracy?????
 
Trumpet said:
The trans issue is of little significance compared the the income and wealth disparity issue; what are we going to do about unregulated plutocracy?????
Click to expand...

I would argue regulation is a large part of why plutocracy exists. Most regulation serves to favor certain companies over others or to create barriers to entry to markets (thereby limiting competition).

Probably the best example of how law and regulation favor big business is the corporate veil. Corporations, in and of themselves, have more rights than individuals due to the legal structures that define corporations.

If the corporate veil ceased to exist (and the structure we know of as a corporation), then accountability would apply directly to those who run big business. For example, if a big business went under financially, without the corporate veil, the resulting bankruptcy would touch the personal finances of the ownership of the business. Because of the way that corporate law and the corporate veil work, this doesn't happen.

Direct accountability in ownership of big business would dramatically change how big business operates, and fewer risks would be taken. This would probably mean less economic growth, but it would also mean more sustainable growth and fewer booms and busts.
 
Woko Haram said:
I would argue regulation is a large part of why plutocracy exists. Most regulation serves to favor certain companies over others or to create barriers to entry to markets (thereby limiting competition).

Probably the best example of how law and regulation favor big business is the corporate veil. Corporations, in and of themselves, have more rights than individuals due to the legal structures that define corporations.

If the corporate veil ceased to exist (and the structure we know of as a corporation), then accountability would apply directly to those who run big business. For example, if a big business went under financially, without the corporate veil, the resulting bankruptcy would touch the personal finances of the ownership of the business. Because of the way that corporate law and the corporate veil work, this doesn't happen.

Direct accountability in ownership of big business would dramatically change how big business operates, and fewer risks would be taken. This would probably mean less economic growth, but it would also mean more sustainable growth and fewer booms and busts.
Click to expand...

but created booms and busts are how they fatten and sheer society, and make money on timing to boot!
 
Woko Haram said:
I would argue regulation is a large part of why plutocracy exists. Most regulation serves to favor certain companies over others or to create barriers to entry to markets (thereby limiting competition).

Probably the best example of how law and regulation favor big business is the corporate veil. Corporations, in and of themselves, have more rights than individuals due to the legal structures that define corporations.

If the corporate veil ceased to exist (and the structure we know of as a corporation), then accountability would apply directly to those who run big business. For example, if a big business went under financially, without the corporate veil, the resulting bankruptcy would touch the personal finances of the ownership of the business. Because of the way that corporate law and the corporate veil work, this doesn't happen.

Direct accountability in ownership of big business would dramatically change how big business operates, and fewer risks would be taken. This would probably mean less economic growth, but it would also mean more sustainable growth and fewer booms and busts.
Click to expand...

Also, don't forget that big corporations have got lots of cash with which to buy off politicians, it's called lobbing and political contributions.
 
Trumpet said:
Also, don't forget that big corporations have got lots of cash with which to buy off politicians, it's called lobbing and political contributions.
Click to expand...

That's an issue as well, although it's a hard one to address due to the Citizens United ruling. It will probably take an Amendment to properly deal with it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
couldn't citizens united be reversed?
Click to expand...

Theoretically. Some Supreme Court rulings have been overturned (like Separate But Equal), but it's rare. It also usually doesn't happen until decades after the original ruling (when the Court usually has a very different group of Justices).
 
RB 60 said:
So do you. It's not our fault you're too stupid to use it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that I have the electoral college. Are you sure you're not the angry guy in your avatar?

Anyway, the electoral college rigs the elections for the Republicans. So these kind of population changes don't matter much. Now something like Texas' Hispanic population growing, that might actually hurt Republicans eventually.
 
StoneByStone said:
I wasn't aware that I have the electoral college. Are you sure you're not the angry guy in your avatar?

Anyway, the electoral college rigs the elections for the Republicans. So these kind of population changes don't matter much. Now something like Texas' Hispanic population growing, that might actually hurt Republicans eventually.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit! Quit your damn crying. You have the same opportunity to use the electoral college as any candidate.
Sorry, the strength of this nation lies in the rural areas. Of course, policy matters to us. It always has. It always will.
And no, the person in my avatar more accurately describes you. I'm not crying or complaining, you are.

(although I have been cosidering changing my avatar)
 
RB 60 said:
Oh bullshit! Quit your damn crying. You have the same opportunity to use the electoral college as any candidate.
Sorry, the strength of this nation lies in the rural areas. Of course, policy matters to us. It always has. It always will.
And no, the person in my avatar more accurately describes you. I'm not crying or complaining, you are.

(although I have been cosidering changing my avatar)
Click to expand...

Calm down, I'm just pointing out a fact. No need to get mad and scream at your monitor.
Anyway, the rural areas are more conservative, the cities are more liberal, and most of the country is rural. So by having the electoral college, the elections are rigged for Republicans.
And policy doesn't matter to the Right, personality does. That's why they vote for characters like Trump instead of true "small government" guys like Ron Paul. Granted, the character has to at least present himself as conservative, but the actual issues matter far less than the label.
 
StoneByStone said:
Calm down, I'm just pointing out a fact. No need to get mad and scream at your monitor.
Anyway, the rural areas are more conservative, the cities are more liberal, and most of the country is rural. So by having the electoral college, the elections are rigged for Republicans.
And policy doesn't matter to the Right, personality does. That's why they vote for characters like Trump instead of true "small government" guys like Ron Paul. Granted, the character has to at least present himself as conservative, but the actual issues matter far less than the label.
Click to expand...

It's amusing you telling me and my rural colleagues what our voting concerns are. Issues matter.
 
StoneByStone said:
I wasn't aware that I have the electoral college. Are you sure you're not the angry guy in your avatar?

Anyway, the electoral college rigs the elections for the Republicans. So these kind of population changes don't matter much. Now something like Texas' Hispanic population growing, that might actually hurt Republicans eventually.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. It just means that rural areas don't get completely ignored.

For a long time, Democrats supported rural areas more. That resulted in a lot of Democratic presidents over the years. Because the Democrats have largely abandoned rural voters, they allow the GOP to have certain strategic electoral advantages.

Nothing about the system has changed. So, they shouldn't be surprised when they lose the electoral vote despite having the popular vote sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top