- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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
You must log in or register to comment.
Two things.
One, I would get a gun and find a trustworthy community if I were a leftist or minority American.
As much as I despise guns, if shit gets Gilead bad, you’ll probably be happy to have it.
As for community, if you don’t have one yet, I would recommend joining either a socialist club or a progressive/traditional (i.e. not racist) Christian church. A black church (think MLK), or a pride flag flying liberal Church (think John Brown).
When Nazi’s invaded my country, these were the two communities that actually resisted, by fighting back and helping people hide and escape. In times of slavery, socialism wasn’t yet a thing, so the abolitionists and underground railroad people were progressive Christians. Jesus was the OG socialist and these communities live it.
Thanks for sharing.
I just want to say one thing though. With drones, guns are no longer the big equalizers that they used to be.
If you ever get in a standoff with government fascists, they will just use drones.
I saw the videos of how Azerbeidzjan just totally obliterated heavily armed Armenian positions using Bayraktar drones.
This shit is scary as fuck. I wouldn’t be surprised if, within 25 years from now, 90% of the world is living under authoritarian regimes.
Which is why I think being part of a very large community with solidarity among all members will be key.
Any small group will just be labeled as terrorists and obliterated.
I’m literally out testing my first DIY drone right now
Diy?
I built it (Do-it-yourself). I’m not sure “DIY” is the conventional term amongst the drone community for a drone built by an individual.
For the actual drone itself you just need 4 motors, esc, flight controller and the receiver/transceiver or am I missing something?
And frame
Then Just goggles and remote right?
Yeah pretty much, but you can just buy them pre-made (aka “BNF” or bind-n-fly). So, relative to a pre-made drone mine is DIY I guess. Again, there’s probably a more correct term than DIY. It’s not like I built the frame or flight controller.
For sure, the future of war is drone directed artillery.
More so, they wouldn’t even need to all that. Just surround them, turn of the water supply and wait for them the surrender when they get thirsty enough.
I’d say we already are under authoritarian regimes. It’s just that we, collectively, don’t resist it. So, they dont need to be that way. Fascism is just capitalism when you try to say no to capitalism.
Totally agree, and fucking thank you for the shout out about progressive Christians! Underground railroad, temperance movement, anti-war protests, civil rights, etc, progressive Christians have always been a driving force for good and that has totally gotten overshadowed by the evil of white evangelicals in recent years
These numbers are bullshit.
Who in their right mind actually believes Americans prefer gun control to: abortion care, legal weed, gay marriage, higher minimum wage, and home ownership.
Like regardless of what you or I want for America, that’s an actual load of shit. Too many people love their guns, there’s literally more guns than people here.
There are more guns than people because people that own guns own multiple. And people that own a lot of guns own a loooot of guns. 29% of gun owners own five or more guns. It takes like 2 seconds to confirm this shit…
Nearly half of all American households have a gun. 44% to be exact.
If even a third of everyone in those households didn’t want gun control (33% of 44% is a little over 14.5% total), then that statistic is wrong.
gun control ≠ gun law reform. My MAGA grandpa can see that there needs to be some restriction because so man kids are dead.
Why should I believe any of these statistics when the percentage of gun owners is verifiably wrong.
I’m just not gonna trust any of the numbers in this post.
Honestly that’s the one number that is the most difficult to confirm. The NRA lobbied congress to ban the ability to perform studies to gather any meaningful statistics on guns within the USA. No federal agency can perform the studies, nor can they fund those studies, nor can they acknowledge third party studies when making policy. So there’s no good longitudinal studies on things like suicide rates because that would harm the fucking gun manufacturers.
Verify it then? I don’t know what specific study they’re referencing because the citation is too broad, but that 2017 link is 69% don’t currently own, 72 seems within that margin
Damn y’all are lazy AF. It took me 20 seconds to google this article from 2020:
So it seems like the graphic is slightly off 72% vs 68% for 2020.
But the article also has a chart with historic values betwen 27% and 34% from 2007 - 2020. So 73%-66% seems like a fairly accurate range.
I’m one of those people with 50+ guns. I love guns. I used to sell guns.
I still think we do need some new firearm legislation. Specifically, we need universal background checks because as long as a secondary market without background checks exists, straw purchases are effectively legal.
My personal policy on selling guns to someone privately is they have to have a concealed carry license, because that license means they’ve passed the background check that I can’t perform.
It also will help people who accidentally commit felonies. How many people reading this thread knew that a dad giving his gun to his son is fine most of the time, but a federal felony if they live in different states and the gun is a pistol, even if the gun is legal in both states?
On the flip side, supressors should be legal with no restrictions. It’s pants-on-head stupid that they aren’t. They make guns less harmful.
Nearly half of all American households have a gun. 44% to be exact.
This is a phony and misleading quote. The article says 44% of people live in a house with a gun but the number of people who own guns is lower. Here’s the actual quote:
Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household.
I think, when people overtly lie about this kind of stuff, it’s not worth arguing anymore.
I literally said 44% of american households own a gun, which is exactly in line with the qoute.
At no time did I imply that meant 44% of all American adults own guns. It wouldn’t even make sense to, considering the comment above links to information to the contrary.
If that’s what you got from what I said, then you need to check your reading comprehension.
That being said, the 44% of those people, regardless of whether or not they own the guns, are less likely to want more gun control.
Not sure what more you want.
Too many people love their guns, there’s literally more guns than people here.
Loving their guns and wanting better gun control laws aren’t two opposite things you know. They can easily go hand in hand. See Canada to the north. Lots of guns, and better gun control laws.
I’ve made an argument in favor of pretty much the most basic form of gun control, having a license that proves you know how to operate a firearm (kinda like you need a drivers license to prove you know how to drive a car). Even that gets push back. Whoever that mythical person is who is both loving guns and wanting better gun control laws, they’re a minority of a minority.
deleted by creator
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/index.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling
It’s not some mythical person that wants it.
We all know that won’t be the end of gun control if we had free training for new gun owners to get licensed. I took Hunter safety before I could hunt as a minor, it was immensely helpful to have such good fundamentals.
Also, should we make people get licensed to vote? Or to be able to say what they want? To practice their religion? How about a “EZ pass” license to avoid random searches in your home? We already normalized it in airports… why not your home to? Don’t worry, it’s for the greater good.
I’m sad that trans rights aren’t on the list there, not surprised with how awful things are but still sad
The only thing with majority support is a narrow majority thinking trans people should be allowed to be discriminated against overtly in jobs and public spaces (but those people also generally don’t think forcing a women to use the men’s restroom is discrimination). Few people will say they oppose protections against discrimination, but “neutrality” is just a polite way of supporting discrimination…
Yeah it’s really sad how the world has almost turned fully against my people. Give it a few more months (at most) and the Democrats will have almost fully turned on my people. This country is a shithole and I hate it
Ignore systemglitch, their comment history reveals clearly how pro-fascist they are. Which means they don’t matter.
Edit: lol be mad fascist. Every time you comment on someone being trans, on immigration, sanctuary cities, etc, you show exactly the piece of shit you are. We can all tell.
Removed by mod
I think you are thinking of bailing out the banks and auto industry.
Removed by mod
You realize you’re blaming the minority groups fascists target, for the actions of fascists, right?
Please take a moment and think about how absolutely fucked that is.
You’re replying to someone who supports the fascists, FYI.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Oh yeah you’re right. Lets put trans rights away for now so we don’t make the right winger cry. /s
Why do we always have to deal with right wingers with the utmost care and patience? Drag their crying asses into the future. Let them kick and scream and don’t give them a finger.
That’s not how you cite a source - the point of a citation is to allow the reader to trace, and evaluate, the source of a claim, and the methodology used to arrive there. I get that it’s impractical to do a full bibliography, but the way this poster just ‘cites’ a bunch of organizations without tracing specific claims to specific publications detracts from the argument. We should be better than the enemy who make claims and respond with “do your own research” when challenged. Part of the reason why we’re in this mess is because we stopped supporting, or trusting, the process behind evidence-based science. If we make these claims, can’t we link to a site that lists the actual papers behind the claims? Otherwise this whole stuff is vulnerable to the argument that “this is a radical left delusion and fake news”. Fascist propaganda shouldn’t be resisted in kind, that just drags us down to their level.
Agreed. As much as I want to believe this post, it would be great to site the source below each claim.
Ok but now is not a good time to disarm
The working class must never disarm. Post jan 6th and George floydd and people still have yet to learn that no one will protect us but ourselves. How delusional of me to think anything will ever drive this point home in people’s frightened minds.
It would be nice to have some reforms, but that’s not what anti gun people want. They want everything. We could pass reforms and somebody will shoot up some gun free zone and people will be back to take more. It’s a never ending circle that only stops at fully stripping the right to own a firearm completely. Some aren’t even ashamed to admit it.
My body, my choice in how to protect it. Prisons are gun free, prisoners have very few rights. Yet rape / violence in prisons are a running joke everyone enjoys repeating. I will not be a prisoner.
Good luck to OP with their party but I want no part of it. Plus they aren’t in favor of legalizing all drugs so you support the police state’s right to continue to ruin lives and shoot people for fun with no repercussions. Not to mention the lives lost from tainted unregulated drugs of a unknown potency. Oh and nothing on replacing First-past-the-post voting so we can have more then two parties? Super hard pass. We’d only be 3-4 generations before the capitalist class captures this political party as well. If not less.
If only we could join a commune that best reflects each of our values. OP could be completely unarmed in their commune and mine would have nukes cause humans are psychotic hairless apes that only respect one thing. Overwhelming violence.
So much this. I support nearly everything on this proposed new party’s list except the gun control items. I seriously doubt only 27% of Americans own a gun. I know more than a few Democrats who own not just one, but multiple firearms. Including aSsAuLt rifles. And the 90% support for tougher gun laws? There has to be a very serious conversation about what that looks like.
As for a ceasefire for the war in Gaza… It’s terrible so many innocent civilians are being killed, but Hamas started this most recent war. They are also well known to use civilians as human shields. Finally, they will never stop their attacks until Israel no longer exists. Even during the most recent ceasefire, Hamas was focused on building more weapons so they could continue their attacks: https://english.aawsat.com/features/5123487-what-are-hamas-military-options-gaza-war-resumes
According to the sources, Hamas’ military wing had hoped the ceasefire would last longer, allowing it to resume producing rockets, explosive devices, and other weaponry. However, efforts were severely limited due to a shortage of raw materials.
The only way to truly “free Palestine” is to rid them of Hamas, or at least shift their focus to supporting their own people and governing Gaza instead of waging jihad.
I think I misunderstood your comment. I was thinking it wasn’t time to figuratively disarm the Democratic party…
If not now when? When is a revolution ever at a good time. The Democrats have been “waiting” for 20 plus years …
When we can guarantee that never again will Nazis rule over us. When their ideas are universally reviled by every living soul. When every last Nazis is dead dead dead.
Then get rid of the guns.
A revolution without guns?
it’s wild that only 55% of you guys want a fairer health care system
It’s because the phrase “Medicare for all” has been propagandized. If you instead asked if people wanted “affordable medical treatment and preventative care for themselves and others”, I’m sure that number would be much higher.
deleted by creator
The idea is Medicare for all as baseline, and private market on top of that. Every country with single payer health care also has private market clinics. The idea that private markets would be outlawed is a misunderstanding, and when pushed by those who would make less money under a single baseline payer system, is misinformation.
deleted by creator
When basic healthcare is universally covered, premiums or out of pocket just for anything considered an extra service aren’t directly comparable to premiums for insurance for all Healthcare. They will be much less, because they cover less, because anything the government designates a core service is provided at no cost.
Private insurance or just out of pocket costs (they are lower costs, cut out the middleman of insurance) on top of universal health care systems can be upgrades to included services - like getting a private hospital room rather than having a roommate - or could be going to clinics that only have private patients and offer services outside what the government plan covers. For insurance plans (as opposed to out of pocket), the specifically private network would be smaller because the general care government plan would cover almost every provider, and the private plan is just adding on a few on top.
I believe Medicaid (for certain low income people) unfortunately has much higher barriers to coverage than Medicare (for over 65s), but any insurance is going to have a denial rate. No system has infinite money to cover every service, and setting expectations for coverage like what Medicare provides today is realistic.
Sadly, I don’t believe it is true that Americans broadly want universal healthcare coverage. The idea that people less healthy and poorer than citizen X deserve nothing from the society they live in is really widespread. Even if the efficiencies of having a one payer system are brought up (so much money is currently spent navigating the multi-labyrinth of our multitude of different insurance companies), there is some feeling that less healthy people who can’t afford care deserve to suffer. I encounter this occasionally even in liberal spaces like lemmy, and it is pervasive if I lurk in more conservative platforms.
There are a lot of special-interest items on the list, and for those things people aren’t going to feel any risk to themselves by saying sure let’s fix this or that. But for healthcare, which directly affects them, they could be more like, “I’m surviving the way it is, don’t monkey with it.”
About 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, why should healthy people be penalized more because of them?
You already are.
That’s how insurance works.
That’s not how it always works though, people who smoke have higher premiums for example.
People who choose to skydive are not eligible for life insurance.
People who crash their cars yearly pay more than safe drivers.
People who don’t claim absolutely do subsidise people who do. Where do you think the money goes?
People who smoke pay more in taxes, because cigarettes are heavily taxed. Similar story for people who drink a lot of alcohol and the like.
And why apply this mentality to healthcare and not other things? Assuming you’re a high earner, you’ll pay for roads that other don’t, for education, for the military, police, fire brigade, etc. Should all of this stuff only be accessible to people if they pay for it directly? How would that even work?
You completely disregarded my point where most insurances price premiums depending on risk; which Medicare does not, besides maybe cigarets.
Education, police and firefighters should be accessible for all; and obviously abusers should be punished, as in people who burn their house on purpose.
There’s a strain on healthcare resources that is avoidable if people would just eat a bit healthier and exercise a bit more.
Maybe if you don’t need to spend so much in healthcare you can spend a little more in better food.
Subsidizing healthier food options and encouraging people to exercise can be a start.
You completely disregarded my point where most insurances price premiums depending on risk; which Medicare does not, besides maybe cigarets.
No I didn’t.
Risk is already somewhat baked into tax-funded healthcare by way of harmful things being taxed more. Like I said.
Education, police and firefighters should be accessible for all
Maybe I’m just too NHS-brained, but I think it’s insane that you don’t think the same should be true for healthcare. Like I genuinely cannot get my head around believing healthcare should not be a right, and that some people should suffer. I’m not trying to be a dick when I say that, it’s just truly mind-breaking to me. It does not compute.
and obviously abusers should be punished, as in people who burn their house on purpose.
They are. As stated, the “punishment” for people who do things like smoke or drink themselves into poor health is paying more into the system via taxes, just like with insurance premiums being higher in the US.
There’s a strain on healthcare resources that is avoidable if people would just eat a bit healthier and exercise a bit more.
Obviously. But there’s a strain on that regardless of being private or public healthcare.
Again, if you are young and healthy, your insurance contributions pay for others. That money doesn’t go to you, it goes disproportionately to people with unhealthy lifestyles and the elderly. You are already paying for people that make poor health choices.
I don’t think unhealthy food is taxed more than healthy food in the US.
With a universal publicly funded healthcare system, it’s only fair to reward people who are healthy and entice people who are not to make healthier choices.
Penalized… how? Do you think overweight people getting healthcare harms you somehow?
deleted by creator
How is Medicare funded? Healthcare costs are a lot higher for obese and overweight people.
Health insurance costs mostly come from profiteering. The cost savings of not having middlemen more than makes up for needing to pay for people with special needs.
That’s why it’s always always cheaper in countries with public insurance.
Sure but we are very far from being able to have a nationwide public insurance system.
Okay, but we’re talking about having a nationwide public insurance system.
The fact is, even if you don’t do anything to encourage healthier lifestyles, public insurance is cheaper. You’re being penalized right now by your private insurance carrier who is profiteering off of you. Abolish those middlemen and you save money, regardless of public obesity.
If you follow U.S. politics, you know that’s not happening anytime soon.
Because of something called the social contract.
But I guess you think you are so young and healthy that you will never grow old or becoming unhealthy.
What an egoistic shit take BTW.
Of course I will grow old, age is not the point here. It’s about unhealthy life choices.
If you think drug users chose it, then you are quite unknowing about how things work. Most people with bad habits would love to not having them, but everyone can’t be some sort of superman and just do everything right.
We were talking about obesity and unhealthy food habits. Most drug users chose to start doing drugs, and some drugs are fine in small doses with moderation.
You are right though it can be difficult to break bad habits, the book atomic habits may help with that.
You’ve heard of an ouroboros?
What about it?
I agree with almost all of these but some of these numbers were definitely pulled out of someone’s ass
It certainly doesn’t seem to be reflected by the results of the election.
It doesn’t show what issues people prioritize. MAGA focused on getting people angry about migrants and threw gas on the flames with false information to the point where their fear/hate for migrants mattered to them more than any of these issues listed above.
They voted for not getting raises, getting taxed more, prices going up, and damaging the earth itself while hurting our alliances around the world all to address the “issue of migrants.”
So what really happened is the number of people that the U.S. “repatriated” (deported) looked like it skyrocketed during the final months of Trump’s 1st presidency, but in reality both Biden and Obama’s administrations were deporting people around the same rates, Biden actually doing the most by far. The spike came from returning people do to COVID. Which is why it looks like Biden was deporting a lot in the beginning as well.
ICE says in the first 7 weeks of Trump’s presidency, they have deported 27,000 migrants. Which would be 16,000/month.
So that would be 30% of the 55,000/monthly average we saw previously. So not only are we wrecking out relations with other countries, they were removing people at an extremely inefficient way.
Especially the one about same sex marriage!
AOC and Bernie are tearing up things! Support them everywhere! Especially on social media.
Hopefully they leave the Democrats and start and actual leftist party. Otherwise their impact will be limited.
Given how the American political system works, I think their impact would be even more limited if they did not work within the Democratic Party. I think the only hope for a real national progressive/leftist party is to takeover and co-opt the Democratic Party, much like Trump did with the Republican Party.
You are exactly correct. And how did they do that? By creating a 3rd party, costing Republicans tons of votes, and forcing them to move to the right.
What 3rd party did they create? The last significant (and I use that word very loosely here) new US 3rd party was the Green Party formed in the 90s.
The Tea Party. Sure it wasn’t a party in the traditional sense, yet it fully achieved all its goals.
That’s just my point. It wasn’t a party like OP here is calling for. It was a movement within the Republican Party.
What OP is calling for here is kinda the exact opposite. The Tea Party movement successfully got a bunch of people who typically don’t engage in politics to join and vote for Republicans. The never had a problem of ballot access or competing with an ideologically similar opponent in general elections because they weren’t a different party. OP here is calling for people to vote for a new third party. That’s a completely different thing.
Yeah they suddenly found some principles now that the other team is in power. Seems legit. \s
I don’t believe e any of these numbers.
You’re free to look them up if you care.
You’re free to look them up if you care.
70% couldn’t ve bothered voting knowing it meant democracy’s end
Good intentions are important Americans, but you cannot make the world a better place just by having good intentions and navel gazing
90% of the US don’t want more gun control laws. As a percentage that would be saying that every state in the US except Texas wants more gun laws … it’s not right.
I consider myself liberal, but would never support taking away someone’s rights. Own all the guns and even a fucking tank if you want … but you will go to jail if you harm someone with them.
We were given the right to have firearms for the exact situation that is happening now.
I think most people, including “moderate” Republicans, have polled in favor of regulations that make it easier to catch criminals and prevent people convicted of violent crimes from buying guns.
The firearms lobbyists have prevented this, and politicians conflate normal regulations with the “Obama is coming to take your guns” threat for easy political support.
If we could get people to believe reasonable regulations are possible and not get distracted by the fear mongering we would actually have better laws.
But as it stands, conservatives believe the Republicans and Trump are protecting them from liberals stealing their guns. And this is despite Trump saying ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’
Le-sigh
politicians conflate normal regulations with the “Obama is coming to take your guns” threat for easy political support
Democrats do make this rather easy with bullshit like ‘assault weapon’ bans
Exactly. Check out what Democrats are pushing through in Colorado right now for an example. Even many registered Democrats in the state aren’t in favor of it.
“Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15”
– Beto O’Rourke
Nah. My state has no gun regulations once purchased. There is a background check to look for felonies, but then that is it. No license, no concealed carry permit.
If you don’t want someone to carry a firearm in my area then you put up a metal detector, because a sign can’t stop people from carrying. It is really kind of “Wild West”.
Passing a background check before you can purchase a gun is gun control. It is possibly the least gun control you can have and still have any, but it is gun control.
And nearly everyone is in favor of preventing convicted violent criminals from having guns for at least some sort of period of time.
Libertarians need not reply to this comment. Go enjoy your fantasy somewhere else.
A criminal that has served their time is supposedly rehabilitated and should reenter society as a full citizen with all the rights afforded to them. Not as a 2nd class citizen. That’s bullshit.
I get that the justice system is broken and prison doesn’t rehabilitate people. That’s a problem with the justice system, not former criminals.
Yes, this is my opinion as well. If they served their time then all restrictions should be removed. If they think they may commit more crimes then probation should have been added to the sentence.
I said for at least some period of time. That’s part of most parole conditions. Seems pretty fair to me.
The fact that we have an opposite quote for everything that comes out of the Orange’s mouth is pretty hilarious to me.
The whole gun control should be formulated as „sane regulation of gun ownership and sales“. Focusing on illegal guns instead of law abiding gun owners might be a good choice as well. Assault weapons ban and similar are ineffective window dressing policies.
Yes, exactly! Now is not the time to be pushing gun control laws. Now is the time to remind people what the Second Ammendment was meant for.
If ICE comes to your door and you are a legal citizen then you just tell them they are trespassing and need to leave. If they won’t leave then they have magically been converted to armed criminals on your property.
“Gun control” comes in many forms: the tracking another user mentioned; requiring continuing education or training courses every so often; ensuring that people with histories of violent or suicidal behavior and/or people who have been identified by a certain number of community members as poor candidates for gun ownership (no idea if this is a popular notion, but I would not have wanted 4/5 of the people I knew who later committed violent crimes with guns to have been allowed to own them, and mutual acquaintances have agreed with me that they were not stable/safe people, and it’s always seemed like a good idea, as long as there are safeguards in place to prevent bullying and other abuse) aren’t allowed to own guns; and in some parts of the country, requiring a gun license for using long guns are all forms of gun control. It’s not hard to imagine that 90% of Americans support one of those at least.
but you will go to jail if you harm someone with them.
So after the suicidal maniac goes on a killing spree at the local elementary school and wipes out a chunk of the next generation, then you send them to jail (and take their guns away? You didn’t clarify that part)
Guns are a hobby. They should be a privilege you earn, and one you have to work to keep (don’t get in trouble with the law, keep your registration up to date, etc).
The solution to our current situation isn’t to go out and kill people, it’s to fight legal battles and go out and vote when the time comes. A civil war doesn’t guarantee we’ll end up with the country you want even if the MAGA army is crushed. It’s going to cause immense death and destruction, and it will open us up to attack from our adversaries. It will almost certainly ruin your life, mine, and everyone you know and love.
But even IF a real civil war is inevitable, getting guns and fighting won’t be a challenge. Trump has very few allies in the rest of the world, but democracy does. NATO would not just sit and watch while a nuclear power goes through such a destabilizing event, especially when Trump’s ties to Putin are so well known.
Your statement is false. Guns are NOT a privilege in the US. They are a constitutional right. Full stop. I didn’t even read the rest of your post
Your statement is false. Guns are NOT a privilege in the US. They are a constitutional right. Full stop. I didn’t even read the rest of your post
lmao, I think you should go make an appointment with an ophthalmologist before you try to finish reading my post.
Democracy seems to be broken in the US if this is true
USA is not considered a “full democracy” outside of the USA itself. It does not rank particularly highly on indexes of democracies either.
This is by design, the US election system was built to prevent “tyranny of the majority”. Which makes sense in theory, but it would make more sense if it was also backed by a government structure like a parliamentary republic with proportional representation instead of a presidential republic.
Can you elaborate? Tyrany of the majority is as such democracy, if you have an opposing opinion
The US is a federation. Each state is like a separate country in many regards. And small states don’t want to end up submitting to things a majority of their population doesn’t agree with because bigger states end up skewing the overall majority. So states’ voting power is not directly proportional to their population, which supposedly evens the playing field.
Think of the US as something like the EU, not like a single European country. You could say 60% of Europeans agree on some subject, so it should be the law in Europe, but that 60% overall could be 90% in France, Germany and Italy, but 10% in Lithuania and Cyprus. So why would those latter countries accept such a law?
Tyrany of the majority is as such democracy,
Democracy is not “majority rules”. Democracy is “Government by consent of the governed”. You’re describing “populism”, not “democracy”.
“Populism” is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. “Democracy” is every measure the sheep has to keep themselves of the ballot.
The wolves will take their populist position and complain about “minority rule”, but the principles of Democracy dictate that the sheep must not be subjected to their popular whim.
Just First-past-the-post voting things
Clearly people aren’t voting the same way they’re answering surveys. I don’t see how forming a new party will make that happen.
Yeah, I observe the same thing here in The Netherlands. In theory, democracy should work best for the working class majority. In practice, people somehow tend to vote for something not in their own self interest.
Wonderful example is the area where I live, our town shares a border with a Belgian town. Most people do groceries on one side of the border, go to the bar on the other side. In essence, we operate as one town that happens to be in two countries. Ask anyone in the street if they are open to a “Nexit” from the EU, most will say a hard: “No”.
Then look at the election results, the party in favor of a Nexit became the largest party, also in the town I live. It’s wild that people vote different to what they believe in. If you then ask them: why did you vote for this party, because it contrasts your earlier answer. People will say: “Yeah, but it won’t come to that”. Then I look at Brexit and it’s exactly how that cluster fuck happened.
My brain simply cannot process this idiocracy.
I think the key is the term “informed electorate”. As Trump said, “I love the uneducated!”
Yeah, that’s a very succinct way to put it.
Maybe more of us should own guns right now.
I got some. I’m not good with letting those ghouls be the only armed ones
Only a little more than half support Medicare for all? Is this a terminology issue, or are 45% of Americans that terrible?
Sadly there’s this idea that Americans are being taxed to death, when in reality not so much.
People don’t understand that while we’d pay maybe hundreds more in taxes to fund Single Payer, we’d pay THOUSANDS less in healthcare costs, so we still come out ahead
They also don’t understand the “they” part. People who don’t support, or at least those I’ve met, don’t understand that “they” doesn’t mean the government per se. It means you. The individual. You pay more in health care because of defaults on payments. Because of so many other things. The cost of that gets passed on to you. The individual.
People get stuck in the “I got mine” mentality. They don’t see the bigger picture. “Why should I pay for someone else’s health care!” is what I commonly hear. My dude, you already do. When you point this out. When you give the stats. They usually shut down and it’s"
10 “Why should I pay for someone else’s health care!”
20 goto 10
People just can’t seem to grasp the wider picture. I’m not sure they want to. Any issue that requires a wider picture sees the same response. Default to previous operation. Repeat operation.
“Oh no! She’s stuck in an infinite loop and he’s too stupid to realize it.” - Professor F
“Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare.”
WEll someone hasn’t heard to “Ask not what their country can do for you…” Stupidity breeds selfishness which breeds stupidity
But I’m not sick or injured right now, so it won’t benefit me at this exact second in time, so why would I want this?
Plus my unstable career, where I’m treated as a number rather than a human, is currently paying for my health insurance. So I don’t need any government handouts thankyou very much.
Yeah, checkmate commie.
Not to mention which taxpayers the funding would come from, if someone who would actually implement M4A got into power. We likely wouldn’t be paying any more at all.
TL;DR people are not good with money. There is no point is arguing finances with people that do not know basic math.
So what the conversation devolves to is “stable” vs “experimental” and very few people will choose to be experimental with their health.
The best way to shift favor would be for it to be required to show the cost of insurance on every check (it is currently a hidden fee). This way, when “hooman see big number” removed from gross pay they may reconsider.
I look forward to being taxed less when we kill off private insurance.
