- cross-posted to:
- Mirror@50501.chat
- cross-posted to:
- Mirror@50501.chat
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/AtlanticbboyAt2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM| Source
You must log in or register to comment.
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
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.
Now try and get the majority to agree on what anything in this list means
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.
Only 69% support gay marriage? That’s wild.
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.
Also, does “support” mean they support it being legal or support it happening? You can be in favor of it being allowed without agreeing with people doing it.
Nice
I mean the 69, not the 31% bigots
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.
yeah, I had found that Gun Control rate highly suspect.
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.
It’s a big stretch to say “wants more gun control laws” entirely based on support for background checks. Technically accurate but misleading.
It’s not a stretch at all. That is one form of gun control. The real number must be higher if just that one form is 90%, and there are many more methods and options.
We won’t agree on where to stop, but almost everyone wants some gun control laws.
https://maps.everytownresearch.org/navigator/states.html?dataset=background_checks&states=NY
Especially when almost half of US states already require background checks.
Anyone who has spent any amount of time around firearm owners and those groups of people would laugh in your face if you tried to tell them that 90% of Americans think there should be more gun laws.
The graphic seems to be cherry picking data to make it seem like the majority of Americans already have progressive ideals so obviously they should just be progressives.
America is a center right nation. The majority of Americans are somewhere between center and right of center. While many of them might agree with one or two of those things on the image we all know that it’s not gonna be popular across the board.
It’s not a big stretch, it’s a tiny stretch. There are not going to be more background checks if there are not laws in place.
Obviously, but the phrasing implies general support for gun control laws overall, and that isn’t close to what the survey was about. You can’t just launder the fact of support for the most popular one into support for the whole class of laws if that one is an outlier.
Medicare for all 55% is just the saddest stat have seen in a while.
Probably poor branding, after years of being called a scam. Kind of like Obamacare v. ACA.
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.
The militias are not well-regulated.
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.
If only people felt as fervent about the other amendments.
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.
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.
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.
insane fudd take. There is nothing wrong with buying a modern firearm as your first gun.
With proper education, sure. Maybe 1000 rounds is a bit much though.
My opinion is you should have to put in a certain number of hours of range time with your weapon (per year probably, not just one time) in order to have it. You should also have to demonstrate knowledge of maintanace and proof of proper storage available for it, especially if there are younger people in your house.
We require a license for a car, which has utility and is almost required in the US. We don’t have anything like that for guns for some reason. Why not? The 2A specifically states “well regulated” so it should be fine even with the most generous interpretation.
“well regulated” in this context means properly educated and trained, not regulated by laws.
I can agree with some of your other points but especially the range time and training requirements price out a lot of poor people which often are minorities with a higher need for personal security. If you consider owning firearms a right this would be a clear infringement in my view.
It means properly educated and trained, and also the weapons were stored in armories, not at home, and organized into regiments and ready to be called up for active duty. Essentially, what the national guard is, with less organization between groups.
I did not mean regulated by laws. I meant that home gun ownership without any training or organization is not part of a well regulated militia, so it is not protected by the second amendment. Random people just owning guns at home is not “well regulated” by any definition.
Owning guns to defend yourself against tyrannical government made sense a hundred years ago … it wouldn’t make a difference in modern times.
Maybe. But, and hear me out, we do not want to make it easy for them when they inevitably come for us.
2A proponents suddenly supporting the right to own ICBMs
By “suddenly”, you mean, they always have?
Well, I don’t even own a gun, but I think you underestimate armed resistance
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.
Right, we need anti-air missiles now! Where do I sign up?
Theres no way the government would routinely drone people in their own county. An authoritarian regime wants control, which is achieved with boots on the ground, kicked in doors and a massive police state. All of those can be disturbed and fought with conventional firearms.
Same, it’s not left enough for me if we’re going no arms
Gun control does not mean no guns. It means it’s more controlled. I think the definition could (though never does or should) even include a requirement to own guns.
Yeah I’m aware. There’s plenty there I support like making sure people who shouldn’t have them don’t have a way to get them. But when they get into these banning of certain magazines and threaded barrels, the scrutinizing just turns people off. Those minute things don’t do anything and their actions have shown time and time again that those are things that they want to focus on. I’m fine with reasonable stuff but the scrutiny stuff leads to a “well where does it end?”
deleted by creator
FWIW, I’m not telling anyone to buy a gun. I simply feel that people should continue to have that choice.
My question is: what percentage support all of those? The curse of dimensionality applies here because of the large number of features.
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.
Since most are >50% and many are >75%, the crossover is probably large enough that it won’t make a difference
Intuitively it would seem like that, but that’s why the curse of dimensionality is a mathematical paradox: its results are not intuitive!
deleted by creator
It’s too late for gun control. The ship sailed. Progressives need to stick to the common sense regulations like 3 day wait period and stop doing the weird assault weapon definitions
deleted by creator
Surely the problem with all the other third parties is that they didn’t try to appeal to the majority of people.
Sure sure, if only 40% of us could be arsed to vote.
Only 55% approves of medicare for all? What is wrong with you guys?
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
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.
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
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.
Why did Americans bother putting in first past the post if they were gonna be too dumb to understand it?
Because only a handful of rich and educated landowners could vote at the time.
Once you include the uneducated masses, it becomes a popularity contest about who can create the most rage.
rich and educated landowners
uneducated masses
Living in a historical moment in which the US is on the cusp of tipping into full on autocracy, and I get to hear about how our problem is “Not enough rich people with advanced degrees making the decisions around here”.
The whole premise of democracy is that individuals bring useful perspective at every walk of life. The education system exists because the uneducated masses desire them and construct them and socially replicate them, not because the elites foist it on the public unwillingly. The accumulated social wealth exists because the masses build it, not because elites magically summon it into existence. The institutions that define normal public life persist because the masses endorse them and gladly participate in them, not because landlords own and operate them.
Without the “uneducated masses” you do not have a social contract or a labor force capable of implementing any meaningful public policy. Leaving decision making exclusively to landlords gets you to theocracy and cult demagoguery, not modern post-industrial plenty.
You misunderstand my post. They asked why it was set up that way. I explained why it was set up that way. I didn’t say it was smart.
They asked why it was set up that way. I explained why it was set up that way.
Democracy, as an institution, was insurgent within the colonies long before the American Revolution. Early local settler colonial governments preferred democratic governance over authoritarian rule because there was no clear overwhelming political force to exert this kind of control. Later efforts to consolidate power nationally failed for similar reasons - the territory was too large and too sparsely populated to be dominated from a distant capital, market economies followed organic and cyclical patterns that defied strict authoritarian policies, and the culturally diverse public reflexively rebelled when any single minority faction gained too much power.
Popular demagogues, divorced from the centers of intellectual orthodoxy and economic command, could still sway their peers and influence the Lockean social contract more easily than autocrats issuing dictates from a capital.
Democracy isn’t something a handful of intellectuals created from whole cloth. It is a mass movement that those intellectuals sought to steer through formal institutionalization.
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.
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…
it only took 3 bullet points to find out just how bs this list is
Should call it the 66% party and only support things that 2/3rds of the public support.
