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.

  • bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 month 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
      ·
      1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month 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
                ·
                1 month 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
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month 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.