this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025

293 points (92.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

2423 readers

119 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

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

293

Start a new political party, the 'American Progressive Majority'. (i.redd.it)

submitted 1 week ago by arotrios@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

oh yay another ineffective 3rd party to dilute the votes

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.world 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.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] tatann@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

Nice

I mean the 69, not the 31% bigots

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (9 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.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago

The militias are not well-regulated.

[–] scops@reddthat.com 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.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

If only people felt as fervent about the other amendments.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 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.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 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.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Everyone doesn't need guns in order to raid an armory. Hell, if it turns to that point, some armories will likely be given over. Also, if it gets to that point, foreign aid will provide weapons and munitions.

I agree with some responsible gun ownership, but the 2A does not say what people usually think it says. (We have a professional standing army, so a militia isn't required for the protection of the state, and a well regulated militia is not home gun ownership and storage.) It also wouldn't be enough alone to fight our military. Most insurgencies don't start incredibly well armed. You get to that point over time with good strategy.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

2A proponents suddenly supporting the right to own ICBMs

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Sirus@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (6 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.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago (7 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.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

yeah, I had found that gun control rate highly suspect.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] yoshman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Yoga@lemmy.ca 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.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

"Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread"

I've long been convinced a lot more Democrats and Progressives could make it much further on other issues if they simply sat down on the 'Gun control' issue. To me it seems like a rallying cry of a wedge-issue that gets used to make sure they don't have to try and address all those other things listed. It also guarantees a spike in gun sales every time they make a public statement about the issue.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] KittyCat@lemmy.world 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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days 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.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

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

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 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

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 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.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

I don’t want to PAY for someone ELSE’S healthcare! I just want INSURANCE where I PAY for SOMEONE ELSE’S HEALTHCARE!

Facts and loggiiiccccccc

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 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)

load more comments