Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Democratic Suicide

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    Anything to cause these two "parties" heartache is wonderful if you ask me.

    Anything

    Their power is too great and needs serious dilution !
    Agreed. The political elite have failed the nation with their self interest at the expense of the nation.

    Some are calling for Trump's tax returns. I'd rather see the tax returns from the congress who have achieved millionaire status while in congress.

    ?


    • #17
      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
      Agreed. The political elite have failed the nation with their self interest at the expense of the nation.

      Some are calling for Trump's tax returns. I'd rather see the tax returns from the congress who have achieved millionaire status while in congress.
      Exactly !

      Since when did becoming a politician mean becoming rich ?

      That's all it means to these people now .. they vote themselves raises fer cryin' out loud !

      Who wouldn't love THAT !?!?!

      ?


      • #18
        Speaking of political suicide, take a look at this. https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/...bkz42MELq2MPP4

        ?


        • #19
          Originally posted by redrover View Post
          Speaking of political suicide, take a look at this. https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/...bkz42MELq2MPP4
          Interesting article

          Read it and will comment on some of it...

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------

          But as younger members reject the vitriolic partisanship of the Trump era and leave the church, that base is getting smaller and older.

          [ "....the vitriolic partisanship of the Trump era"... the vitriol has both sides pointing fingers at one another over who is at fault ! ]

          The numbers are stark: Twenty years ago, just 46 percent of white evangelical Protestants were older than 50; now, 62 percent are above 50. The median age of white evangelicals is 55. Only 10 percent of Americans under 30 identify as white evangelicals. The exodus of youth is so swift that demographers now predict that evangelicals will likely cease being a major political force in presidential elections by 2024.

          [ maybe, maybe not, predictions predictions ]

          And the cracks are already showing. In the 2018 midterms, exit polls showed, white evangelicals backed Republicans by 75 to 22 percent, while the rest of the voting population favored Democrats 66 to 32 percent. But evangelicals were slightly less likely to support House Republicans in 2018 than they were to support Trump in 2016which may have contributed to the Democrats pickup of House seats. Trumps support actually declined more among white evangelical men than women. The 11-point gender gap between evangelical men and women from 2016 shrank to 6 in the midterms.To be sure, evangelical Christians have been rewarded for their support of Trump after enduring eight years wandering in Barack Obamas political desert. They have two new conservative Supreme Court justices, and there have been nine self-professed evangelical Cabinet members, plus a flurry of laws and executive orders clamping down on gender roles, abortion and LGBTQ rights. But experts say this may represent the last bounty for a waning political power. Unlike their parents, the younger generation is not animated by the culture wars; many are pushing for social justice for migrants and LGBTQ people and campaigning against mass incarcerationpositions more in line with the Democratic Party.

          [ These statistics and data are questionable. The statement; "..more in line with the Democratic Party." seems true. The problem is, the democrat party has gone way overboard, I question if it's going to work out well for it. ]

          The result is a shrinking conservative bloc, something that could weaken white Christian political powerand, consequently, a Republican Party that has staked its future on its alliance with the religious right. Its a conundrum that the father of modern GOP conservatism, Barry Goldwater, predicted in 1994: Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and theyre sure trying to do so, its going to be a terrible damn problem.

          [ "White Christian" political power. We're seeing a great deal of unreasonable hate towards "white Christians" lately, we'll see how that works out. ]

          ...Since 2000, they have regularly made up about a quarter of votersoutperforming their much smaller percentage of the population. And, despite prognostications from political scientists about the imminent death of the evangelical-Republican partnership, theyve kept casting ballots. In 2016, they were a key group for Trump; the thrice-married, foul-mouthed mogul with a history of sexual assault allegations won more than 80 percent of the evangelical votebesting even George W. Bush, a born-again Christian who spoke openly about his faith.

          [ "..they were a key group for Trump; the thrice-married, foul-mouthed mogul with a history of sexual assault allegations.." - Oh yes, we must offer some hate for the current president. Let's ignore that America has had other presidents who were foul mouthed ( do some research ). The president has a "history of sexual assault allegations" which are nonsense, like the garbage that came out of the woodwork against Judge Kavanaugh. ]

          But demographic trends are steadily diluting their outsize clout. Researcher Robert Jones, author of The End of White Christian America, has tracked what he calls a stair-steps downward trajectory of white Christian presence in the electorate. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected, 73 percent of the electorate was white and Christian. By 2012, that number was 53 percent. If current trends hold steady, 2024 will be a watershed yearthe first American election in which white Christian voters do not constitute a majority of voters, Jones, who heads the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), tells Newsweek.

          [ "..If current trends hold steady" ..much of this is based on assumptions and data that may or may not be accurate. ]

          To understand whats happening among evangelicals, researchers study the results of PRRIs annual, wide-ranging, 80,000-interview American Values Atlas poll. In the most recent survey, from 2017, 40 percent of individuals under 30 claim no religious affiliation (sometimes called the nones). White evangelicals are a big part of that decline, Jones says.Respondents cited not believing in the doctrines and, surprisingly, politics. They cite partisanship, Jones says. Thats a big turnoff for young Americans. And so is negative treatment of gay and lesbian people.

          [ "..negative treatment of gay and lesbian people. Today, gay and lesbian people are treated much better than anyone else ! Questionable slant there. ]

          Polls find that upward of 80 percent of young people now support same-sex marriage. That number includes young Republicans and evangelicals under 30. Even people like me, a white male with a lot of societal privilege, can see that evangelical leaders are completely happy to join forces with white nationalist politicians and leaders and to give them the benefit of the doubt while they are attacking marginalized communities, says Chastain. And thats just blatantly hypocritical. He and other evangelicals in his social networks are also turned off by the Trump alliance. The fact is that leaders like [Dallas megachurch leader and Trump supporter] Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. are blatantly power hungry and willing to make these alliances, providing a theology that supports white nationalism.

          Some major evangelical leaders and thinkers, not surprisingly, reject this assessment.


          [ Ah "white nationalism" ... yes, we have to include that. Desperate & ridiculous. The "trump alliance" with mega-churches LOL Desperate & ridiculous. ]

          .....

          To maintain the evangelical alliance, Republicans must keep evangelicals voting at higher rates than the rest of the population. And the party has a two-pronged strategy, says political scientist Paul Djupe, who, along with Ryan Claassen, just published The Evangelical Crackup? The Future of the Evangelical-Republican Coalition. One is to reinforce [evangelicals] identity as Republicans by emphasizing the threat that traditionally Democratic groups present to them. This serves to insulate them from other sources of information, so they dismiss out of hand what the mainstream media says and what Democrats say, because it is a challenge to their identity. And two, they have to really mobilize that sense of fear and threat because that gets them to the polls.

          [ "The Future of the Evangelical-Republican Coalition." - as if republicans are competent enough to even create and keep a "coalition" LOL

          "
          This serves to insulate them from other sources of information, so they dismiss out of hand what the mainstream media says and what Democrats say, because it is a challenge to their identity."

          People of every political view dismiss out of hand what's offered by "
          the mainstream media," because it's consistently proven to be lies, hate and misdirection.

          NOT because it's a "
          challenge to their identity." This is a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible and hide the fact that many have lost faith in todays mainstream "media." Lost faith in it because of its lack of honesty and integrity. ]

          https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/...bkz42MELq2MPP4

          ?


          • #20
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Interesting article

            Read it and will comment on some of it...

            -----------------------------------------------------------------------

            But as younger members reject the vitriolic partisanship of the Trump era and leave the church, that base is getting smaller and older.

            [ "....the vitriolic partisanship of the Trump era"... the vitriol has both sides pointing fingers at one another over who is at fault ! ]

            The numbers are stark: Twenty years ago, just 46 percent of white evangelical Protestants were older than 50; now, 62 percent are above 50. The median age of white evangelicals is 55. Only 10 percent of Americans under 30 identify as white evangelicals. The exodus of youth is so swift that demographers now predict that evangelicals will likely cease being a major political force in presidential elections by 2024.

            [ maybe, maybe not, predictions predictions ]

            And the cracks are already showing. In the 2018 midterms, exit polls showed, white evangelicals backed Republicans by 75 to 22 percent, while the rest of the voting population favored Democrats 66 to 32 percent. But evangelicals were slightly less likely to support House Republicans in 2018 than they were to support Trump in 2016which may have contributed to the Democrats pickup of House seats. Trumps support actually declined more among white evangelical men than women. The 11-point gender gap between evangelical men and women from 2016 shrank to 6 in the midterms.To be sure, evangelical Christians have been rewarded for their support of Trump after enduring eight years wandering in Barack Obamas political desert. They have two new conservative Supreme Court justices, and there have been nine self-professed evangelical Cabinet members, plus a flurry of laws and executive orders clamping down on gender roles, abortion and LGBTQ rights. But experts say this may represent the last bounty for a waning political power. Unlike their parents, the younger generation is not animated by the culture wars; many are pushing for social justice for migrants and LGBTQ people and campaigning against mass incarcerationpositions more in line with the Democratic Party.

            [ These statistics and data are questionable. The statement; "..more in line with the Democratic Party." seems true. The problem is, the democrat party has gone way overboard, I question if it's going to work out well for it. ]

            The result is a shrinking conservative bloc, something that could weaken white Christian political powerand, consequently, a Republican Party that has staked its future on its alliance with the religious right. Its a conundrum that the father of modern GOP conservatism, Barry Goldwater, predicted in 1994: Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and theyre sure trying to do so, its going to be a terrible damn problem.

            [ "White Christian" political power. We're seeing a great deal of unreasonable hate towards "white Christians" lately, we'll see how that works out. ]

            ...Since 2000, they have regularly made up about a quarter of votersoutperforming their much smaller percentage of the population. And, despite prognostications from political scientists about the imminent death of the evangelical-Republican partnership, theyve kept casting ballots. In 2016, they were a key group for Trump; the thrice-married, foul-mouthed mogul with a history of sexual assault allegations won more than 80 percent of the evangelical votebesting even George W. Bush, a born-again Christian who spoke openly about his faith.

            [ "..they were a key group for Trump; the thrice-married, foul-mouthed mogul with a history of sexual assault allegations.." - Oh yes, we must offer some hate for the current president. Let's ignore that America has had other presidents who were foul mouthed ( do some research ). The president has a "history of sexual assault allegations" which are nonsense, like the garbage that came out of the woodwork against Judge Kavanaugh. ]

            But demographic trends are steadily diluting their outsize clout. Researcher Robert Jones, author of The End of White Christian America, has tracked what he calls a stair-steps downward trajectory of white Christian presence in the electorate. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected, 73 percent of the electorate was white and Christian. By 2012, that number was 53 percent. If current trends hold steady, 2024 will be a watershed yearthe first American election in which white Christian voters do not constitute a majority of voters, Jones, who heads the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), tells Newsweek.

            [ "..If current trends hold steady" ..much of this is based on assumptions and data that may or may not be accurate. ]

            To understand whats happening among evangelicals, researchers study the results of PRRIs annual, wide-ranging, 80,000-interview American Values Atlas poll. In the most recent survey, from 2017, 40 percent of individuals under 30 claim no religious affiliation (sometimes called the nones). White evangelicals are a big part of that decline, Jones says.Respondents cited not believing in the doctrines and, surprisingly, politics. They cite partisanship, Jones says. Thats a big turnoff for young Americans. And so is negative treatment of gay and lesbian people.

            [ "..negative treatment of gay and lesbian people. Today, gay and lesbian people are treated much better than anyone else ! Questionable slant there. ]

            Polls find that upward of 80 percent of young people now support same-sex marriage. That number includes young Republicans and evangelicals under 30. Even people like me, a white male with a lot of societal privilege, can see that evangelical leaders are completely happy to join forces with white nationalist politicians and leaders and to give them the benefit of the doubt while they are attacking marginalized communities, says Chastain. And thats just blatantly hypocritical. He and other evangelicals in his social networks are also turned off by the Trump alliance. The fact is that leaders like [Dallas megachurch leader and Trump supporter] Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. are blatantly power hungry and willing to make these alliances, providing a theology that supports white nationalism.

            Some major evangelical leaders and thinkers, not surprisingly, reject this assessment.


            [ Ah "white nationalism" ... yes, we have to include that. Desperate & ridiculous. The "trump alliance" with mega-churches LOL Desperate & ridiculous. ]

            .....

            To maintain the evangelical alliance, Republicans must keep evangelicals voting at higher rates than the rest of the population. And the party has a two-pronged strategy, says political scientist Paul Djupe, who, along with Ryan Claassen, just published The Evangelical Crackup? The Future of the Evangelical-Republican Coalition. One is to reinforce [evangelicals] identity as Republicans by emphasizing the threat that traditionally Democratic groups present to them. This serves to insulate them from other sources of information, so they dismiss out of hand what the mainstream media says and what Democrats say, because it is a challenge to their identity. And two, they have to really mobilize that sense of fear and threat because that gets them to the polls.

            [ "The Future of the Evangelical-Republican Coalition." - as if republicans are competent enough to even create and keep a "coalition" LOL

            "
            This serves to insulate them from other sources of information, so they dismiss out of hand what the mainstream media says and what Democrats say, because it is a challenge to their identity."

            People of every political view dismiss out of hand what's offered by "
            the mainstream media," because it's consistently proven to be lies, hate and misdirection.

            NOT because it's a "
            challenge to their identity." This is a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible and hide the fact that many have lost faith in todays mainstream "media." Lost faith in it because of its lack of honesty and integrity. ]

            https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/...bkz42MELq2MPP4
            That may true if you get your news from Fox. It was bad enough when Evangelicals merged with the Republican party, but they really commited suicide when they became the political action wing of the Trump cult.Look at the picture that rides along with my link and contemplate your religious future.

            ?


            • #21
              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              That may true if you get your news from Fox.
              Is it not true then if I DON'T get my news from Fox, ??.. which I don't ..

              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              It was bad enough when Evangelicals merged with the Republican party, ..
              I'm not sure they did that. Republicans certainly would't allow such a thing !

              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              but they really commited suicide when they became the political action wing of the Trump cult.
              There isn't any Trump cult, so nothing to worry about there.

              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Look at the picture that rides along with my link and contemplate your religious future.
              It is true that many younger people avoid organized religion - for various reasons.

              We have to keep in mind that none of us are young forever, and older people tend to find their way back into a "church" of one kind or another.

              These days a lot of people avoid organized religion for the corruptions that haunt humans in ALL areas of life - especially "church."

              Politics too.

              and still

              There are many new church at home options people have, so while attendance in a church building may dwindle, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christians are abandoning the faith completely.

              ?


              • #22
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Is it not true then if I DON'T get my news from Fox, ??.. which I don't ..



                I'm not sure they did that. Republicans certainly would't allow such a thing !



                There isn't any Trump cult, so nothing to worry about there.



                It is true that many younger people avoid organized religion - for various reasons.

                We have to keep in mind that none of us are young forever, and older people tend to find their way back into a "church" of one kind or another.

                These days a lot of people avoid organized religion for the corruptions that haunt humans in ALL areas of life - especially "church."

                Politics too.

                and still

                There are many new church at home options people have, so while attendance in a church building may dwindle, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christians are abandoning the faith completely.
                They are losing their political clout since they hitched their wagon to Trumpism. Sometime in the future I would like to see them get out of politics and get back into religion.

                ?


                • #23
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  They are losing their political clout since they hitched their wagon to Trumpism.
                  That's what "the media" and you have been telling us.

                  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

                  I gave up predicting when I learned how ineffective I was at it . . . a long time ago LOL

                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Sometime in the future I would like to see them get out of politics and get back into religion.
                  Who ?

                  People who believe in God ?

                  Like the founders of America did ? ... which makes THEM Trumpists too... they were just way ahead of their time LOL

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    They are losing their political clout since they hitched their wagon to Trumpism. . . . .
                    Hmm. Trump still draws standing room only, and overflow to the outside of the venue, typically an arena of some sort that seats 10's of thousands. That's more than what the Democrat politicians are drawing.

                    Maybe this wasn't the political clout you were talking about?

                    McConnell and the Senate Republicans seem to be standing pretty firmly with Trump on a great many issues, but, yes, there are a few issues where they don't, but I figure that to be healthy.

                    ?


                    • #25
                      I think I must have missed something. Not normal for me, but I suppose its posssible it happened and I was napping or something.

                      when the Democrats took over the House and people like AOC and the anti-Semite Somali babe walked in... did I miss the riots and looting by all the republicans around the country?

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                        I think I must have missed something. Not normal for me, but I suppose its posssible it happened and I was napping or something.

                        when the Democrats took over the House and people like AOC and the anti-Semite Somali babe walked in... did I miss the riots and looting by all the republicans around the country?
                        No, you missed nothing like that.

                        That's not what civilized people do.

                        Not to suggest that liberals/democrats are uncivilized, but I don't know ?

                        Maybe they are.

                        It is them after-all that regularly go on destructive rampages like middle ages heathens.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Redrover has all kinds of interesting sources. Maybe he knows of some events like that.

                          ?


                          • #28

                            The idiots are bent on destruction.

                            Which socialism always brings.

                            They hate America and like one Barack Hussein Obama, want to destroy, by - "fundamentally transforming" - America.

                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020 are openly pushing policies rooted in the principles of socialism.

                            Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is advocating free college tuition. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Maine is promising universal child care. California's Senator Kamala Harris and New Jersey's Senator Cory Booker both are calling for a guaranteed basic income. And all of them want single-payer healthcare.

                            ...many voters are wondering how all the "free" stuff would be paid for but they likely also are curious how well the government would be at delivering those services.

                            Columnist and activist Star Parker says look no further than America's inner cities: they're already socialist, she argues.

                            "The government controls all healthcare already in our urban core; the government controls all daycare in our urban core; it controls all housing in our urban core; it controls all education in our urban core and what we see is distress," she shares. (Read her recent column: "Socialism has already hurt America.")

                            .. it's not working out too well for urban America. "Government is controlling absolutely everything in our most distressed zip codes and it's impacting the people," she tells OneNewsNow. "... We're seeing the same results that we see when we have socialism and/or government control in other countries."

                            ..Venezuela as the "poster child" for what happens when a nation's economic machinery falls under political control.

                            "Anytime you want to expand government into things the private sector should be doing, that's socialism," she adds. "[It tells people] what you must do, what you must pay your people, what you must do in terms of fixing your structure."

                            And once it gets a foothold? "When you leave government control or socialism unchecked, it spreads,"

                            ...according to the U.S. Constitution, America was designed to be a capitalist nation and yet there are those in the younger generation, he notes, who are fighting against that.

                            President Donald Trump spoke clearly and forcefully against socialism in his State of the Union address last month. But he remains discouraged that many young Americans lack understanding when it comes to socialism.

                            "If we become a socialist country, it's going to take our nation downhill quicker than anyone can imagine,"


                            "Many of these people who want the United States of America to become a socialist country have never lived in a socialist country [where they would] see how you lose your freedoms, you lose your rights," he says. "And if they would go and live in one of those countries for a year, I think they would change their minds."


                            https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/...thing-american

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Interesting side note, we have local elections this year (City Council, etc) and several of the candidates openly support Sanders.

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                                Interesting side note, we have local elections this year (City Council, etc) and several of the candidates openly support Sanders.
                                Mainstreaming stupidity.

                                Great civilizations always fall.. seems to be built into us.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X