Uniparty...

[Rotobeast]

I seen Lucie had been posting about taking the uniparty down.
I agree the existence of said party.
To support it's questioned existence and spur discussion, please enjoy this video. If anyone has read his book, fill us in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mIiozu2g12I

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[StLucieBengal]

Good stuff Roto.

These guys need to be taken down. Been in charge for too long.

[Benton]

The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.

Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.

Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.

Edit to add: Trump is like UniParty on steroids. He skipped appointing people on second hand special interest dole, and went to just appointing those working directly for special interests.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 12:32 PM)Benton Wrote: The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.

Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.

Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.

Your confusing 2008 campaign obama with President obama. Once he got into power he got in line. All he really did was jack up 20% of our economy with Obamacare, give Iran a path to nukes, and defend Islamic terrorism.

Raegan was the closest thing to anti uniparty. Before that the last non uniparty was Calvin Coolidge. And we only got him by death.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2017, 12:32 PM)Benton Wrote: The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.

Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.

Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.

Edit to add: Trump is like UniParty on steroids. He skipped appointing people on second hand special interest dole, and went to just appointing those working directly for special interests.

(11-09-2017, 12:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your confusing 2008 campaign obama with President obama. Once he got into power he got in line. All he really did was jack up 20% of our economy with Obamacare, give Iran a path to nukes, and defend Islamic terrorism.

Raegan was the closest thing to anti uniparty. Before that the last non uniparty was Calvin Coolidge. And we only got him by death.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to agree with Lucie here. Obama's appointments showed that same deference to special interests that we saw from Clinton.

[Benton]

(11-09-2017, 12:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your confusing 2008 campaign obama with President obama.  Once he got into power he got in line.    All he really did was jack up 20% of our economy with Obamacare, give Iran a path to nukes, and defend Islamic terrorism.

Raegan was the closest thing to anti uniparty.   Before that the last non uniparty was Calvin Coolidge.   And we only got him by death.

Eh, for the long list of special interests Ronnie gave a handy to, he definitely wasn't anti-UniParty. I think he was a unique case, though, and it wasn't intentional. 

Reagan wasn't as experienced as most of his post-WWII predecessors. He was a smart guy and he knew his international diplomacy and industry-specific knowledge wasn't his strong points, so he listened to the Party and put in a lot of the guys who floated around Washington, much like the Bush family, Clintons, etc. Elizabeth Dole, William Clark (not really a Washington insider, but he took his orders from past presidential handlers), Andrew Lewis, etc. 

As far as Obama, meh. I don't think you're party line is going to budge off of it, but Obama was easily the least special interest related president we've had in four decades. That doesn't mean he was good, or effective, just that his actions were less inclined to benefit a small minority of the population compared to Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton. Much of that was due to that lack of influence from specific groups. Compromise in Washington usually is just about an industry telling both sides they have to get along. Since Obama didn't have the same roots with them, there wasn't a lot they could do to force him to work out with Republicans. So, not much got done.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As much as it pains me to say this, I have to agree with Lucie here. Obama's appointments showed that same deference to special interests that we saw from Clinton.

That’s the cure for all ailes.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 01:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, for the long list of special interests Ronnie gave a handy to, he definitely wasn't anti-UniParty. I think he was a unique case, though, and it wasn't intentional. 

Reagan wasn't as experienced as most of his post-WWII predecessors. He was a smart guy and he knew his international diplomacy and industry-specific knowledge wasn't his strong points, so he listened to the Party and put in a lot of the guys who floated around Washington, much like the Bush family, Clintons, etc. Elizabeth Dole, William Clark (not really a Washington insider, but he took his orders from past presidential handlers), Andrew Lewis, etc. 

As far as Obama, meh. I don't think you're party line is going to budge off of it, but Obama was easily the least special interest related president we've had in four decades. That doesn't mean he was good, or effective, just that his actions were less inclined to benefit a small minority of the population compared to Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton. Much of that was due to that lack of influence from specific groups. Compromise in Washington usually is just about an industry telling both sides they have to get along. Since Obama didn't have the same roots with them, there wasn't a lot they could do to force him to work out with Republicans. So, not much got done.

Reagan’s big mistake was bringing on Bush as VP. He wanted Rumsfeld. Reagan was fighting his own establishment plus the democrats. No one liked him but his base and after that tax cut he won over the masses.

Which is exactly the same thing Trump is trying to do and I doubt congress allows him.

[Rotobeast]

(11-09-2017, 05:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Reagan’s big mistake was bringing on Bush as VP. He wanted Rumsfeld. Reagan was fighting his own establishment plus the democrats. No one liked him but his base and after that tax cut he won over the masses.

Which is exactly the same thing Trump is trying to do and I doubt congress allows him.

Given the amount of various deductions he's proposed eliminating, it's not going to be overly beneficial anyway.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 12:32 PM)Benton Wrote: The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.

Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.

Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.

Edit to add: Trump is like UniParty on steroids. He skipped appointing people on second hand special interest dole, and went to just appointing those working directly for special interests.

Well said, well expressed.

I understand why people in both parties are frustrated when politicians don't do what they want and appear/are bought.

But I cannot get on the Uniparty band wagon when I remember how consequential the defeat of Gore was for US foreign policy and healthcare. And I can't when Trump appoints foxes to run every federal henhouse possible and publicly contradicts and demeans his own intel community regarding Russia, as his party remains silent about his still hidden business practices/connections.

There are ways to combat the influence of special interests, especially by limiting campaign funding and balancing air time. You might even include defense of voting rights in there. One party appears to support that kind of reform while the other appears to oppose it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Government_Reform.htm

The GOP's 2016 party platform is the inverse of the Democrats:

“Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders."

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 12:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your confusing 2008 campaign obama with President obama.  Once he got into power he got in line.    All he really did was jack up 20% of our economy with Obamacare, give Iran a path to nukes, and defend Islamic terrorism.

Raegan was the closest thing to anti uniparty.   Before that the last non uniparty was Calvin Coolidge.   And we only got him by death.

Lucie, according to our own CIA, in January of 2013 Iran's breakout time was 8-12 weeks--the time needed to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

Now over 4 years later, in 2017, according our own CIA and the IAEA, breakout time would be one year+. (Daily Wire might not agree with this, but China, Germany, France, and your beloved Russia would.) How did dismantling 80% of their centrifuges and international monitoring of remaining production bring Iran closer to a nuke now that they are farther from a nuke?

This Iran comment, like the ones about healthcare and Obama's supposed defense of Islamic terrorism, hardly serve to define and identify a uniparty, since Republicans opposed all this, in part by (very effectively) spreading disinformation and in part by voting against it.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-13-2017, 06:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Lucie, according to our own CIA, in January of 2013 Iran's breakout time was 8-12 weeks--the time needed to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

Now over 4 years later, in 2017, according our own CIA and the IAEA, breakout time would be one year+. (Daily Wire might not agree with this, but China, Germany, France, and your beloved Russia would.) How did dismantling 80% of their centrifuges and international monitoring of remaining production bring Iran closer to a nuke now that they are farther from a nuke?

This Iran comment, like the ones about healthcare and Obama's supposed defense of Islamic terrorism, hardly serve to define and identify a uniparty, since Republicans opposed all this, in part by (very effectively) spreading disinformation and in part by voting against it.

Uniparty wants gov healthcare. They also want Iran to have nukes so they have a reason to be military involved in the Middle East.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2017, 08:09 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I seen Lucie had been posting about taking the uniparty down.
I agree the existence of said party.
To support it's questioned existence and spur discussion, please enjoy this video. If anyone has read his book, fill us in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mIiozu2g12I

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

Hey Roto, I've been trying to respond to your PM but your number of messages is maxed out.  Clear some o' dem out!