Trip, those Too Big to Fail things are Now bigger. We would have been Way ahead to have paid off the mortgages instead of giving the banks
Billions on billions.
Is it actually a
Monopoly if it's a half dozen or so businesses?
AT&T was a monopoly.
Regardless of the word that describes the situation, it's bad.
After Glass Steagall was thrown out, things went to crap.

I really don't know, Ray.
It's been such a long slide.
I remember the eighties and the savings and loan Bush ripoff. Wasn't that why Glass Steagall was passed?

If you're saying that the separation of powers that were originally intended have had their lines blurred and power shuffled into places that weren't the goals of the Founders, I can only agree.
How it's all been done, down through the years, IDK. Seems like the judicial branch has taken steps Not allowed them by the constitution.
They find constitutionality where none exists for the administration they agree with, and rule against the one they disagree with, regardless of precedent or constitutionality.
The judicial branch concerns me, the administrative, with that GodAwful executive order power.
Like any other tool, it can be misused.
Trump should have a team reading them and reversing the unconstitutional ones that exert pressure on the People.
It Really torques me up watching the legislative write unconstitutional bills.
Every piece of legislation should have the part of the constitution listed where the right and power to enact the proposed legislation is laid out.

They didn't ban religion.
They had just left a tyranny.
They gave us freedom.
People are free to express their beliefs,
Anywhere
Anytime

I've met preachers kids when I was about six. They were both into sex. Ohhh, and they were about the same age.
I think I follow you,
Take an ideology, pass laws that support it, and Violas, almost a religion..
Just send your tithe to Planned Parenthood.

It's not complicated.
Government has no business in marriage.

Are you suggesting that people who do not believe in God should not be allowed to be married?  This seems to be saying that marriage is the bond between two people (or more) but only if accepted by their church?
If their church says marriage is between one man and three women, would that be acceptable?  If the man was not a virgin, and the church refused to "marry" them, thus would be okay?  Or, as more often in our male dominated churches, if the woman wasn't a virgin?   What if the Bhuddist temple says a pairing is a marriage, but it isn't acceptable to the First Methodist Church..would it be unacceptable then?
I guess you would have to start at the beginning.  Define what you think a marriage is.  Is it a legal contract, a tax standard, a social status???