- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
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.
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.
About 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, why should healthy people be penalized more because of them?
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
This is a better platform than the Dems provided in 2024. Upvoted and cross-posted.
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’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.
The current two party system doesn’t represent what the majority wants. Both parties work for the super wealthy. Until we get rid of the Democratic and Republican parties nothing good will happen.
Be all that as it may, but sweet fuck all percent of you actually vote, so what difference will it make?
I have been having arguments with idiots telling me “not voting isn’t inaction” or “the lesser of two evils” is how we got to where we are now
No. Not voting is literally doing nothing. You are helping their voter suppression efforts. And we got here not because of “the lesser evil” getting worse over time but because historically we only have 40-50% voter turnout for the last few decades.
Democrats have shifted more conservative because progressives hardly vote. I say that as a progressive. If it wasn’t true then Bernie would have won the primary, but he had a ton of support from young voters and then younger voters only had like 10-15% turnout.
Its more nuanced than that. Democrats actively fucked over Bernie. You’re right that voting is the bare minimum action required, but you’re wrong in that the “lesser evil” is exactly how we’ve gotten here.
Democrats did work together to beat Bernie, but he had overwhelming support and then very few people came to vote for him. All because the same people that mostly supported him are also the same people that think voting is pointless.
Again, I say that as someone who voted for him in the primary in 2016 and 2020. I still have my coffee mugs and fridge magnets from donating.
Also please reread what I said. I’m not saying the “lesser evil” is how we got here, I’m saying idiots think that. And voting is not the bare minimum. I’d argue it’s better to vote and not donate or help than it is to donate and help then not vote. Voting is quite literally the opposite of bare minimum.
Reread my comment. The lesser evil is exactly how we got here. I don’t know how anyone could fail to see it. Republicans move to the right, Democrats are slightly less right than they are, repeat for decades and here we are.
You seem to think that the system will give us the tools needed to dismantle it. That’s simply not true. I agree that voting is important but voting Democrat is not going to fix anything. Look at the last 35 years of Democrats repeatedly failing to deliver on their promises and fucking over the left.
The problem is that people think they can outwit the fundamentals.
You need to vote EVERYTIME - even if it’s pointless - because you need to complete the tit-for-tat exchange. If you do not complete the exchange, then you have lost all of your leverage. This is negotiation 101.
Even if you don’t vote Democrat, you need to vote for someone - you cannot abstain, this is always the worst option. Voter suppression is obviously a different story, but if you’re choosing not to vote, you are not suppressed.
Look at the last 35 years of awful voter turnout because those who actively choose not to vote think they can’t change the system because the system is broken, therefore they do nothing to change the system. It’s self defeating.
Countries that have a much higher voter turnout, proportional representation, and/or multiple choice voting didn’t happen overnight. It happened because the people worked towards it when breaking away from monarchs.
By choosing not to vote because you, or others, think it’s a flawed system, you are actively helping the GOP suppress your vote. You’re just too naive and idealistic to realize it.
Sucks to see you refuse to discuss in good faith. I said I agree that voting is important yet you insist on arguing about it. I recommend learning to consider other people’s viewpoints, you might learn something.
I’ll leave you with a question to ponder. Why aren’t Democrats inspiring people to vote for them?
I’m not the one arguing in bad faith. You said voting for Democrats does nothing. That leaves you with voting Republican, which I know you aren’t, or not voting.
You can donate to campaigns and volunteer thousands of hours. But at the end of the day when you, and millions of people that think like you do, don’t vote, it doesn’t matter. 90 million registered voters didn’t even vote in the last election. We don’t even know the number of people who could register but aren’t. Plus the millions of people that don’t down ballot vote.
If you want change, start pushing for it in your local elections. Vote progressive in county, city, and district elections. Build a movement and support with real evidence to show for it to potential voters.
Or just don’t vote because the system is broken and it will never get fixed because I won’t vote in a broken system.
Democrats aren’t inspiring people to vote for them, because even when they are inspired, they don’t vote. For evidence, see Bernie Sanders.
None of this was an option in the voting booth. Genocide Joe didn’t do shit about any of this and kamalacaust promised the exact same thing.
People here talk about republicans being delusional but the dems are just as bad.
Our entire US system is set up to make it so that it is essentially (literally) impossible for a third party to win. This article gives a decent basic overview of why: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4947662-why-a-third-party-presidential-candidate-can-never-win/
I am glad my state somewhat backs is claim of being independent by keeping RCV. Still voted for trump though, but at least that’s something besides laying down for the party that tells us we are to stupid for ranked choice
How we vote is controlled at the state level. We don’t need federal reform to change how we count votes to make 3rd parties able to participate without a spoiler effect.
Alaska has passed these reforms, so can your state. Unless of course your state representatives don’t support democracy.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
as long as you don’t start passing anti FPTP voting laws in democratic states first, you’ll be fine, you do it in democratic states and you lose votes, overwhelmingly.
Alaska is better than the rest of the country in that regard for sure. Not sure it is good enough to fix the problem entirely but definitely definitely better than how the rest of the country does it and certainly worth watching to see how it impacts things. Article did not mention more 3rd party representation but even just the racial/ gender balancing is a big improvement
It’s set up so that three parties can’t be viable simultaneously, but which two are viable does change periodically.
Not really. Looking at the presidential races, we have:
- 1788-1792: George Washington
- 1796-1816: Democratic-Republican v Federalist. Other than the 1796 election, a Democratic-Republican won every presidency.
- 1820-1824: Democratic-Republican v Democratic-Republican - Monroe ran away with 80% popular vote and 218/232 electors in 1820. In 1824, the Democratic-Republican splintered into 4 factions netting a total 97% of the popular vote.
- 1828-1832: Democratic v National Republican. Notably, this is really a splintering of the Democratic-Republican party.
- 1836 - 1852: Democratic v Whig - I’ll give you this one. After a 40 year run, the Federalists were replaced by the Whigs
- 1856 - Present: Democratic v Republican - And 20 years after that, the Whigs were replaced by the Democratic party
There has been a couple of strong showings by third parties since then, but for the most part, US politics has been Democrats vs Republicans since 1856.
Congress followed a very simmilar tragectory.
In short, of today’s current 2 political parties, one of them goes all the way back to Washington stepping down, and the other one showed up in the first 70 years. Both parties survived the Civil War.
During the time since 1856, there has been several massive political realignments, but the two parties remain dominant.
I mean, last time there was a a President or control of a house of Congress from a different party was in the 1850’s so I wouldn’t say periodically. It has happened but it is very rare and hasn’t happened in a very very long time. At this point those people saying that primaries of the current two parties are the only real way to invoke change are correct. It is far far far more effective to try to take over a primary and get a Republican or Democrat that are RINO or DINO than it is to get enough support for a third party candidate. For that to work you basically have to find someone that is more appealing to conservatives than a Republican, more appealing to Democrats than a democrat AND you have to overcome the massive funding/ name recognition/ trust (this part is getting way easier lately) in the old two.
Yeah fair points, it’s possible but unlikely. Totally agree that primarying the corpos is the more realistic thing to think might actually work.
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.
I think you need to somehow get money out of politics or these majorities will continue to be divided.
I think you need to somehow get money out of politics
How do broke people have the time or resources to organize at the national level?
Which will never happen unless at least 1 of the 2 major parties is co-opted and taken over by people who specifically want to eliminate Citizen’s United, put a strong, enforceable cap on private political donations, and block corporations from donating to campaigns.
A 3rd party is never going to be successful enough to accomplish any, let alone all of that. Republicans will never get money out of politics because it benefits them too much. It hurts the Democratic Party overall, but it directly benefits the Vichy wing of collaborationists leading the party, so they won’t back campaign finance reform unless the Democratic Party is wholly overtaken.
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.
