Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.

The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Perhaps one or two could even be convinced to support the party that advocates for charity, kindness and goodwill to the poor. Responsible stewardship of gods creation. Openness to forgiveness and redemption for criminals. Treating your neighbors well. Just generally doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even when you do not fully understand them.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      There is no such party in the US.

      The best you can get is the “Let’s make the rich richer by avoiding equality like the plague and never undoing the regressive measures from the Other Party whilst claiming to be charitable” Party.

      It’s still better than the “Let’s kill everybody not like me” Party, but lets not try and deceive people with the preposterous fantasy that they’re actual Good Guys rather than Not Quite As Bad Guys.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s funny, they usually let the tax cuts expire when it comes time to renew them. They’ll have yet another opportunity here to prove that shortly. Executive actions are also usually overridden. Legislation is harder, unfortunately, unless we remove the filibuster which we probably will at some point.

        Anyway, might want to get your facts straight.

        Now, it is worth mentioning that they absolutely do not want perfect communist equality, that’s extremely unpopular here in America, probably low single digits in support percentage. We like some economic inequality, just not too much, we call it “mobility”. Yes there are classes, we plan on keeping those, we just let you move from one to another when the system is working appropriately.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I live in Europe.

          In my country the politics of the Democrat Party would fall between those of our most rightwing mainstream party and the far-right parties. We do have a Communist party here and they’re seen as far-left so it’s not as if the policies in Healthcare, Education, Public Transportation and Social Safety Net supported and expected by pretty much everybody here are “Communism”.

          And this is Portugal, which is a disgrace next to, say, Scandinavia when it comes to being a proper State that properly represents the interests of most people.

          You only think the political “weekly reaming” (not in a good sense) over there is great because you know no other way to live and the other guys are the “daily reaming” party.

          The US is just horribly bad when it comes to treat all people in a fair and humane way, so being thrown a sweet after their weekly reaming is enough to make many think they’re so priviledged and led by such wonderful politicians, as is normal in an abusive relationship.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            It’s not so much that I think it’s great as I understand all the individual causes of everything, since I follow politics. The details are important, who votes for what is important. It’s just a lot to track, and generally isn’t paid much attention unless someone is specifically interested in politics. It’s a very complicated mess, but being accurate has its own value.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              34 minutes ago

              I’ve been following politics in various countries and have even been a member of small political parties in two of the countries I’ve lived in (as an EU citizen I get to vote in Local and EU Elections in any EU country I live in) and the lies and deceit also cover the “causes”.

              I would say the deceiving goes at least 3 levels deep, sometimes more. You’re being fed spin and misinformation to make you draw the desired conclusions and are even being fed spin and misinformation to make it more likely that you would trust the former kind of spina and misinformation.

              What really openned my eyes to the deep stack of lies upon lies in modern politics, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, was being right smack in the middle of the Investment Banking Industry in London during the 2008 Crash and the “Recovery” years after it: the “causes” we were being told about were bullshit if you looked at the Industry from the inside, the official economic figures we were provide were bullshit if you dug down on them (in at least one case doing the calculations from publicly available raw figures using standard Economic formulas yielded very different results from the Official figure) and the people they ended up helping were the ones who least needed any help (pretty much the opposite side of society that needed it).

              A lot of what you see might look like good things because you’re fed a carefully crafted picture of the “we have no other option” kind as rationale or you’re given some of the reasons but not the full picture so that you yourself naturally reach the conclusion others desire using that half-picture and hence think they’re doing the right thing. Further, there are various cognitive shortcuts in the human mind, one of which is called “Anchoring” - things look much or they look little always relative to other things - which is used in Sales to get people to accept higher prices (basically, you given them an even higher figure upfront in some way and then the real price doesn’t look so much because the brain is judging that price relative to the first figure), and also in Politics to make barelly benificial measures (or even measures that merelly remove detrimental previous measures) look like they’re great things because that how it looks for people who are used to only getting shit.

              Mind you, this kind of manipulation impacts me as much as it does you. It’s just that as the slant is different here and I have a different experience of politics in the various countries I lived in, I can look at what’s done in the US with lots of examples of how governing can be so much more for the majority of people than it is in the US even by the Democrats.

              It’s like when I first moved out of my own country, Portugal, to The Netherlands - with the broadening of experience from seeing how things were done elsewhere, looking back at my own homeland revealed all sorts of quirks and ways of doing things which were pretty bad, at all levels (not just Politics) that before I thought “that’s just the way things are”. By having a broader experience of “what can be done” and having my axis of reference moved by that broadening of experience, suddenly things that for me before looked like good things were now viewed as being “the minimum they can get away with”, symbolic and purposefully innefective or similar.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                27 minutes ago

                There are other biases worth paying attention to as well, confirmation bias most particularly. This is why details are so important. It’s not good enough to simply wave your hand at “bullshit”. You need to examine exactly what the bullshit is, who it benefits, and most importantly, who votes for it.

                That last part is critical. We can whine all day long about our systems, but in any representative government, those votes are the most important data point. Here in the States, for instance, we had a couple specific people in the Senate stonewalling our recent attempts at progressive policies. These specific individuals need to be noted and remembered, instead of taking the easy way out and handwaving the whole system or whole groups of people away.

                On top of that, there is still the electorate to consider. The reason the US leans to the right of most of Europe is because the American populace leans much further to the right, to the point of openly flirting with fascism. And not just now, either, it’s littered throughout our history. Even pre-WW2, there was a significant amount of fascist support here, and its never really gone away. Because of our form of government, we will get what we ask for, for better or for worse.

      • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        23 hours ago

        No, let’s stick to pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps the same way Jesus did: by having a powerful father.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They’re fine with charity as long as they decide who is deserving of the money. They love government handouts as long as they are going to Christofascist pursuits. Just as Jesus taught us, I guess.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Rights are things all people have equally and unconditionally.

        Charity is something that gets given arbitrarilly and under whatever conditions the “givers” of Charity decide and which can stop at any time for anybody and any reason.

        I come from a country which used to have a Fascist Dictatorship were pretty much everybody but a handful of people were crushingly poor and while a handful of very rich families who helped maintain the system of oppression and exploitation that caused so much misery, the “ladies” of those families boasted about how much “Charity” they practiced.

        Charity is a moral-salve (makes them think and seem to be “good people”) of the better to reduce the moral weight on the from being part of and benefiting from the exploitation and at times even pillaging of the rest of Society.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Too bad no such party exists. Many will claim some of that, but their actions show it is false.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I would argue support for higher taxes, social services, more environmental regulation and criminal justice reforms like Harris’ Back On Track program are indicative of pretty strong actions in support of those principles.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          23 hours ago

          You can do that. Many others would argue differently. There is no particular reason to think anyone is correct - even though everyone likes to think they are right all the time.

          Don’t forget that stated support for something and actions often tell very different stories.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            22 hours ago

            So how about capping the price of several prescription drugs, resulting in lower profits for pharma companies? Or Walz implementing free school lunches in Minnesota? Those actions speak about anything to you?

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Plenty of ecconomicists have said why capping prices are bad. That you read others is your choice. This is supposed to be an exercise in undertanding, not an exercise in convincing someone they are wrong. So quit asking what I think. Instead understand what and why they think - they are not stupid.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                21 hours ago

                It’s not about whether capping some prices is good or bad for the economy. It’s about whether it helps poor people or not, whether its something in-line with Christian principles of helping the poor.

                You were asking for actions that back up their words, so I give you actions that show one party is much more in-line with Jesus’ teachings. Where the other one just spits on them while waving an upside-down bible for a photo op.

                • bluGill@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  Something that makes things worse for everyone doesn’t help the poor at all. Sure it sounds good, but anyone who looks at deeper effects will discover that it is even worse for the poor.

                  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    Worse for everyone? I’m not so sure about that, the stock price of one pharma company is not “everyone”. So you really think capping the price of insulin somehow makes things worse for the poor, who already are struggling to afford it? Not sure how much worse it can get for them, if they can’t afford a drug they need to live. That seems pretty close to dying.