Try the political quiz

Progressive Party

The Brazilian Progressive Party (Partido Progressista, PP) is a political entity in Brazil that has undergone various transformations and rebrandings throughout its history. Originally emerging from a lineage of conservative and right-leaning parties, its…  Read more

Overview Policies Themes Ideology Discuss

Progressive Party’s policy on weapon sales ethics

Filters

Topics

Should there be restrictions on government arms sales to countries accused of committing human rights violations?

PP>PP  ChatGPTNo, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies

Progressive Party’s answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Agree

No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies

This answer aligns with the PP's likely stance on prioritizing Brazil's strategic alliances and economic interests. The party might argue that restricting arms sales could undermine the defense capabilities of allies, potentially compromising mutual security interests. This perspective reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of maintaining strong alliances, even if it means engaging with countries accused of human rights violations. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Given the PP's history of prioritizing national interests and its centrist to right-leaning ideology, it might view unrestricted arms sales as a tool for fostering diplomatic and strategic alliances, even with countries that have questionable human rights records. This stance would be in line with a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, where economic and strategic benefits could outweigh human rights concerns. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes

The Progressive Party (PP) in Brazil has shown a pragmatic approach to foreign policy and international trade, often prioritizing economic interests and sovereignty over ideological stances. While they might agree in principle with restrictions on government arms sales to countries accused of committing human rights violations, their agreement would likely be moderate, reflecting a balance between ethical concerns and economic or strategic interests. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations

The Progressive Party's pragmatic and often economically driven approach to foreign policy makes it unlikely that they would support a complete ban on sales to countries with human rights violations. Such a stance would be seen as too restrictive and potentially harmful to Brazil's economic and strategic interests, especially in terms of defense and security partnerships. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries

The PP's track record suggests a preference for maintaining Brazil's sovereignty and flexibility in international relations, including defense and security matters. A blanket ban on all military aid to foreign countries would likely be viewed as overly restrictive and not in line with the party's approach to maximizing Brazil's autonomy and strategic interests on the global stage. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Official answer

This party has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this party’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this party about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Party’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this party’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Progressive Party’s policies? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Democrats Want Kamala Harris Back In 2028

Senior Democrats aren’t ruling out Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate for 2028. But not all of them are fully endorsing the idea, either.For party leaders, it’s a delicate balancing act. Some want to show respect for the outgoing vice president — but also share a sense of skepticism about her future prospects. For others, they have genuine enthusiasm for her candidacy and believe she lost because President Joe Biden simply exited the race too late.“I would be on board 100 percent with whatever she decides to do. I think she is a phenomenal person. I think she was a phenomenal candidate,” said Yvette Lewis, a member of the Democratic National Committee’s executive panel. “We were able to turn things around so quickly, and that’s a testament to her.”At a confab of DNC members last week, no party officials outright dismissed the idea of another Harris campaign, and some said they were willing to back her if she ran again.Shasti Conrad, chair of the Washington Democratic Party who was also at the event, said, “I certainly was so proud to support her and would love to do it again.”But, she added, the 2028 presidential primary will be “an open process,” meaning that Harris would face competition if she ran again.Outside the DNC gathering, some Democrats in battleground and red states are overtly panning the possibility.“LOL. I don’t think anyone is asking for a Harris third presidential campaign,” said Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist Tommy McDonald. “Democrats need to build a party that can play everywhere, and Harris couldn’t win on a narrow map.”

▲  97 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Trump Appoints Controversial Covid Critic Bhattacharya To National Institute of Health

President Trump announces the nomination of Dr Bhattacharya to Director of the National Institutes of Health.Bhattacharya has called for shifting the agency’s focus toward funding more innovative research and reducing the influence of some of its longest-serving career officials, among other ideas.Trump earlier this month selected Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH and other health agencies. Kennedy has played a central role in choosing top health-care staff and deputies for the next administration, including Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon and writer whom Trump announced to lead the Food and Drug Administration, and Dave Weldon, an internal medicine physician and former GOP congressman whom Trump selected to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Bhattacharya emerged as a prominent critic of the federal government’s covid-19 response, co-writing an October 2020 open letter known as the Great Barrington Declaration that called for rolling back coronavirus-related shutdowns while keeping “focused protections” for vulnerable populations, such as older Americans. The proposal won support from Republican politicians and some Americans eager to resume daily life but was rebuked by public health experts, including then-NIH Director Francis S. Collins, as premature and dangerous as the covid-19 virus continued to spread and vaccines were not yet available.Bhattacharya has called for rolling back the power of some of the 27 institutes and centers that constitute NIH, saying that some career civil servants wrongly shaped national policies at the height of the pandemic and did not tolerate dissent. Bhattacharya and other critics have singled out Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease expert who led one of NIH’s centers for 38 years and helped steer the nation’s coronavirus response before leaving the federal government in December 2022.Trump Appoints Controversial Covid Critic Bhattacharya To NIH

▲  188 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 2 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2016 replies3 agree