No, the uniparty gibberish is pretty basic populist nonsense that can cover everything if you keep it surface level.
You know what, you are so right. There is no such thing as a uniparty. It's a fantasy like Santa Clause and Narnia. All things populism = veeerryyy bad. The people who think the establishment career DC political class has prioritized the interests of corporate donors and themselves first and foremost above the interests of the American people for decades now are *NUTS*. Nuts I tell ya! Thanks for setting me straight. If only I understood how all of this works as well as you clearly do. Maybe one day!
It means literally anything and thus nothing. It can be synonymous with "the establishment," "the beltway," "insiders," "the elite," "big government," "the machine," "the powers that be," "the man," "THEY," etc. Uniparty is just a way for someone with a marginal viewpoint to lump in all opposing views and the world itself into an "other." What makes it the uniparty? What is the unity/uniformity? Disagreeing with my world view.
Why can I insert "uniparty" in the place of "deep state" in any conversation where it has been used and the overall meaning and implication remain the same?
OO, question. This is not in any way trying to be combative. What makes the people you support, like say Desantis, different? That's just an example, and I don't need a run down of all the current people you support. But I imagine you voted for Blackburn and Green too. What makes all these people any different? And if they aren't... why bother voting for/supporting them? Edit: I do remember you talking positively about Bredesen at one point so if I am off on the Blackburn stuff that's fine, just ignore that specific example.
Our King of Assessment stretching any post he chooses into meaning whatever the hell the assumptions he makes about the meanings behind things that have not been said has made his royal decree. Hear hear! Long live and hail our Assessment King
I mean I voted for Bredesen in 18. I don't know how many dozens of times I've expressed my contempt for Pharma Marsha on this site now... However, I have no idea what this tangent is even about though. All I said was the uniparty is a thing because...well...it is. If you don't think there's a dynamic where a uniparty functionally exists that ensures no matter which party is in power continues shit like kicking the can down the road on the ever expanding debt ceiling, fostering a business environment where they have made offshoring manufacturing elsewhere much easier/viable, ensuring we have a continuous never ending flow of cheap labor that chiefly benefits big corporations, making sure the tax loopholes the big donors of both parties enjoy stays in place, bipartisan championing of the right of politicians to be legally allowed to game the stock market with the insider information they get, uniting together to feed the war machine like we saw with Iraq, ect, ect, ect, ect, then I don't know what to tell you. The collective career political DC establishment has worked very hard over the past decades to champion the causes of the corporate donor class with issues that are not the priorities of average Americans themselves. You either see it or you don't. People are sick and tired of the same ole same collective DC status quo that has successfully sold out average Americans. Decry and mock those who use that phrase as being guilty of participating in "evil and bad" populism if you must. But at the end of the day the "uniparty" is not some abstract fantasy.
I think there is some common ground here. Where it loses me is that there are a ton of things that I am very passionate about where the parties differ wildly. Some of them would impact more Americans than others, but I imagine damned near everyone has feelings about issues that impact some more than others. I think I have been clear on not considering myself a Democrat, but voting that way because they align more closely to me on these issues, or at least don't actively stand in the way of them in most cases. One small example, someone can say "I don't care about the culture war stuff," but I absolutely do care about that stuff because it greatly impacts several people I know and love dearly. Then we can get into healthcare, etc, that does have a bigger reach. Anyways, just wondering. We can definitely agree on Marsha. But count me in the camp that thinks that concepts like "uniparty" grossly oversimplify the current state of American politics.
It is a fantasy, because it asserts that there is a willful strategy coming from some large conspiracy. But there isn’t. The things you describe come about because of systems which stem from many individuals and for many reasons, often with no relating intentions to the eventual collective outcome. You can not create a solution to problems by imagining a bogeyman cause. Throw virgins into the volcano all day, it won't tell you anything about geology or volcanic hazards.
Idk I agree with orange. I have the feeling at the end of the day we get boned by whoever is in power. I tend to lean left due to climate and healthcare issues, but I don’t have any faith that while I may get some progress in those areas with my vote, it’s usually packaged with policy that screws me in new fun ways down the road. The system is just so incestuous.
Throwing virgins into a volcano never made sense either. Literally the last in the list to be thrown in behind tribe grifters, cats and whores.
It’s a good ole boys club that protects those within the club above all. It’s near impossible for the public to force/pressure the club-aka uniparty-into ever taking meaningful action (or inaction) on plenty of certain issues.
From my antiquated, aged perspective the similarities of both parties which has given rise to the perception of a uniparty is the result of both parties operating under the system of Capitalism. How each Party addresses the criticisms (and foibles) of Capitalism is what differentiates them. In my mind. While I acknowledge, there are limitations and issues with our system, I much prefer it over an Authoritarian version or a pure Socialist version. As I have stated many times, I am neither a registered Democrat or Republican. From my perspective, the current Republican leaders "seem" to be leaning toward an Authoritarian version. That is a basic red flag for me, personally. My preference for progressive (liberal) or conservative solutions will take a back seat to this issue. I am not an Economist or a Social Scientists. I don't have the answers. I don't have the intellectual capital to argue the subtleties. I do think we need both liberal and conservative leaders that are focused on finding compromised solutions not using tribal hatred, provocation, alternate facts (aka, lies) and vitriol to "win".
The politicals reflect the public. What you and I want is very different, so which of us should be disenfranchised for the other? What you see is the result of that collision of force of wills, in part.
I just think there’s more commonality between us surrounding the sentiment I’m attempting to convey here than you are willing to admit/realize. I don’t see a need for there to be a zero sum contest measuring the amount of disenfranchising gripes we can hold against our collective establishment political class. Disenfranchising bipartisan actions we likely both agree on despite the myriad of political philosophical differences we each possess in general: Congressional members in bipartisan fashion blatantly legalizing their ability to enrich themselves and their family with insider stock trading the sacrificing of every American’s fundamental right and expectation to have privacy with the Patriot Act bipartisan efforts and legislation over the years that bolstered the prison industrial complex the bipartisan green light to start regionally destabilizing illegal wars that cost us thousands of American lives/a million+ dead civilians as the war contractors became filthy rich while trillions of our dollars were drained from us the passage of certain international trade agreements/pacts that exponentially aided in the destruction of American manufacturing as we once knew it the allowance of Pharmaceutical companies to fill in the gaps in many of these places most impacted by our bipartisan offshoring efforts our big corporations successfully clamored for over the decades. These once thriving towns-whose population had access to good jobs that provided economic upward mobility before the town’s factory was shipped to Mexico-being replaced and hollowed out by poisonously addictive opioids as the Pharmaceutical cartel raked in billions ended up being the final result The bipartisan refusal to make common sense steps to fix our broken immigration system largely because Big Donor interests on each side are huge fans of an endless supply of cheap labor resulting in a Southern border that is largely run by cartel coyotes now ect ect ect. For all of our fundamental philosophical disagreements we hold on various political/cultural issues, I think you and I both have plenty of ammo to aim at the collective bipartisan agenda on many massively impactful issues where our political class conveniently showcased instances of bipartisanship on stuff that advanced the interests and priorities of those who are not everyday Americans. You can say the “uniparty” isn’t a thing at all. That all of the above I highlighted is merely a “collision of the force of wills”. However it is my belief that it’s perfectly reasonable to ascribe a lot of that as being representative of a slow dripping bipartisan plot to sell out the American people on behalf of what serves our political class and those whom fund the political careers of these people as being the reason a lot of these ridiculously destructive decisions over the last few decades were made.
