this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
292 points (92.4% liked)

Progressive Politics

2446 readers
765 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://50501.chat/post/54068

Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like "liberal" and "conservative".

A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as "to the left" or "to the right" of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.


Originally Posted By u/Atlanticbboy At 2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM | Source


top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

oh yay another ineffective 3rd party to dilute the votes

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Now try and get the majority to agree on what anything in this list means

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

i'm still trying to wrap my head around the irony of forming a party against parties.

BE. INDEPENDENT. fuck, do the research. America's government was supposed to be against such things.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Only 69% support gay marriage? That's wild.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Nice

I mean the 69, not the 31% bigots

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

IIRC interracial marriage didn't get more than 50% support until the late 90s. In general public support lags behind progressive lawmaking.

That in addition to more 'nuanced' opinions on it. Does "Sure 'they' can do whatever they want, but none of my children are allowed!" count as support or not? It probably gets counted as support/opposition depending on what the poll asker wants, if they even get that granular.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I agree with all except not owning a gun. I’m not a 2A’er, but legal and responsible gun ownership is one of our constitutional rights. The problems we have with guns right now fall directly into gun control territory, which is listed right below owning a gun on this list.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago

The militias are not well-regulated.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I would be very careful how they word any mention of guns. It's very easy to get people arguing past each other even when they share very similar views, thanks to how groups like the NRA have mucked up 2A discourse.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

If only people felt as fervent about the other amendments.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

A revolver, shotgun, or other firearms without magazines are fine for most hunting and self-defense cases. I don't have a problem with an 18yo buying one of these on their birthday. I do have major problems with a teen, or anyone really, coming in with zero history of firearm ownership and buying 1000 rounds and a semi-auto, high-powered weapon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agreed. First comes education. Then comes ownership. When my kids are old enough, I’m going to get them firearm classes so they at least know how it all works.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I'd be open to "opt in" classes in high school as well. I don't believe ignorance of guns keeps you safe from them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ininewcrow 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Owning guns to defend yourself against tyrannical government made sense a hundred years ago .... it wouldn't make a difference in modern times.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Maybe. But, and hear me out, we do not want to make it easy for them when they inevitably come for us.

[–] troyunrau 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

2A proponents suddenly supporting the right to own ICBMs

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

By "suddenly", you mean, they always have?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, I don't even own a gun, but I think you underestimate armed resistance

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Right, we need anti-air missiles now! Where do I sign up?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Same, it’s not left enough for me if we’re going no arms

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm calling BS on most of these numbers.

The top 3 are already wrong so I can only hazard a guess that the rest are also wrong.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest because the top 3 were already wrong.

The graphic is either poorly researched or intentionally misleading and either way I don't care for it.

[–] sik0fewl 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I checked the first three and they all seemed the same or higher.

69 vs 85% for abortion according to your first link. Although clearly the number is from another source with different phrasing.

72 vs 68% according to your second source

And here's a source for 90% on #3 - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/90-percent-want-background-checks/

Anyway, I hate info graphics, too, but these hardly seem wrong or misleading.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Medicare for all 55% is just the saddest stat have seen in a while.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Probably poor branding, after years of being called a scam. Kind of like Obamacare v. ACA.

[–] Yoga 11 points 1 week ago

Surely the problem with all the other third parties is that they didn't try to appeal to the majority of people.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My question is: what percentage support all of those? The curse of dimensionality applies here because of the large number of features.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Since most are >50% and many are >75%, the crossover is probably large enough that it won’t make a difference

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Intuitively it would seem like that, but that’s why the curse of dimensionality is a mathematical paradox: its results are not intuitive!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yep. Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread, isn't a binary. What gun control? Background checks? Magazine restrictions? Firing mode restrictions? Barrel length restrictions? Round size/energy restrictions? Education, training, and/or storage requirements?

90% of people may agree that we need something, but they likely won't agree on what.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

An appeal to majority isn't going to sway anyone on either side of the issue because it rings false to those opposed and lacks actual reason to those who support, this is the kind of messaging that will sink a campaign

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I mean, "We're starting a new party! The Infograph Party!" was a loser to begin with. But coming straight out of the gate with "You're already a member, you just don't know it yet" naive dogmatism certainly isn't helping.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Sure sure, if only 40% of us could be arsed to vote.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Only 55% approves of medicare for all? What is wrong with you guys?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Most think about how they can’t afford a 2% increase in their taxes and forget about the $500 per month premium they won’t have to pay anymore

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which is exactly how right-wing media has spun it.

Americans have been conditioned to have such a knee-jerk reaction to "taxes" that we can't comprehend the increase in taxes for M4A < the current cost we pay in premiums + copays + deductibles + coinsurance + HSA etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Persistent, heavy propaganda has convinced many Americans that Medicare is somehow worse than their current insurance coverage. It’s quite insane but that’s why this number is so low.

To put a fine point on it: the common lie in the media is that Medicare for all means you lose your current insurance. This is true, and it would be replaced by the much better and more affordable Medicare, but they never say this last part.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Why did Americans bother putting in first past the post if they were gonna be too dumb to understand it?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel like there's a lot off on this one.

If they count neutral or no-votes, this might be true.

If this is the real feel of the country, I believe we would've voted as such.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Na, it's real...

The thing is, most voters are low information voters. There are a hell of a lot of reliable republican voters who oppose the majority of their agenda, even before project2025...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Should call it the 66% party and only support things that 2/3rds of the public support.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nope.

So, the same people who couldn't get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated think they can create a viable 3rd Party in under 24 months?

Stop dreaming of pie in the sky and start worrying about the Dem. Congressional primaries

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the Dem primaries. If we’re lucky enough to be allowed a vote, millions in corporate PAC money will be spent on the establishment incumbent. No thanks, Dems are corrupt beyond redemption.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Personally I think what we really need is a prominent reform party.

load more comments
view more: next ›