Why the UAC is a joke

[Inmate Trump]

Come on.  Anyone who a) writes and publishes a book about why he thinks his party is going in the wrong direction, and b) publicly states that he supports none of his parties candidates for the Presidential nomination, and instead will support the opposition- CLEARLY is not acting as a party member would be expected to.

Politicians do change ideologies, and sometimes change parties.  The Republican Senator from my state, Norm Coleman, was a Democrat when he was mayor of St. Paul, and he campaigned for President Clinton here in 1996.  He had the good sense to change over to the party which is more closely aligned with his true, or his current, ideology (and I say good riddance).  Miller may have been a Democrat at one time, and he may hold the title of Democrat currently.  My point is his ideology has changed to align with the Republicans.  No one in the party really thinks of him as a Democrat anymore.  I know I'm going to regret asking this, but exactly how did the party turn its back on Zell?  The party didn't change- Zell did.

Regardless of all of that, Zell is still a Democrat.  You can't change that fact and you can't overlook it.  And, like I said, he's in the same party as people like Kucinich and Sharpton, and John Effing Kerry.  Zell isn't the only right-leaning Democrat out there either who is in the same party with a bunch of left leaning liberals.  Yet most of them come together in election years for the good of the party.

The UAC, having members with differing political views, is no different than any real life party in that respect.

I'm sorry you believe everyone in the Atlas Democratic, Atlas Republican and UAC Parties should stand for the exact same things.  But it just doesn't work that way.  If we were all mindless drones roaming the earth, it might, but we're not, so it doesn't.  Get over it.

[Brambila]

I joined the UAC for a reason, and with good intentions. I had a feeling scandal was going to come up with my joining, which is why I told several people to keep everything as quiet as possible. Naturally, people found out anyway. Hey, if Olympia Snowe can be a Republican, I can definately be a moderate.

Also, we mussn't forget that I'm very pro-immigration, anti-death penalty, and pro-civil unions. I don't believe in theocracies in america, as most of the republicans here do.

[Fritz]

You oversimplify things tremendously.

I am not saying everyone in a party should have the same positions on absolutely everything, that is obviously not practical or even possible.

In fact, a little diversity within a party is a good thing.  I think its great that the Republicans have people like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger- these are people even I might vote for, if I were in their states.

"Zell isn't the only right-leaning Democrat out there either who is in the same party as a bunch of left-leaning liberals.  Yet most of them come together in election years for the good of the party."  My point exactly!  Zell Miller has NOT come together with other Democrats this election year for the good of the party- he has endorsed BUSH!  Before we even knew that Kerry would be the nominee.

Yes, some diversity within a party is good, but there should also be some commonality, don't you think?  This whole discussion was basically started because Brambila and former Progressives (i.e. ilikeverin) are in the same party now.  These are opposite ends of the spectrum.  Could you imagine Paul Wellstone and Jesse Helms in the same party?  Well, that is essentially what you have.  the United People-who-don't-want-to-be-Democrats-or-Republicans Party.  I'll continue to support those who are Democrats at heart in elections, as I did ilikeverin for Gov.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The fact that ilikeverin and Brambila are now in the same party shows just how bad the Boss Tweed/StevenNick system we have here is

The UAC is a big tent with bigger ideas.  We are a Party of ideas, not a Party of ideologues.  In that context, Ilikeverin and Brambila fit us just fine, thank you very much.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Would I fit in the UAC?

[MAS117]

Would I fit in the UAC?

We weclome anyone josh, even you

[Josh/Devilman88]

Hehe well thank you.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

If you share Brambila's positions on civil unions or death penalty or something like that yeah

Would I fit in the UAC?

[Josh/Devilman88]

civil unions yes, death pentalty yes, immigration yes(but not let anyone and everyone in),taxes flat rate,abortion only in rape or life or death cases, war only if needed. Can't think of any more.

[Inmate Trump]

Fritz,

I've talked with Brambila and he agrees with most of our platform, just like Ilikeverin.  So perhaps there's not as much difference between them as you seem to think.

I know he's further to the right than verin is, but there's nothing at all wrong with that.  Unless he's lying (which I highly doubt) about supporting most of our platform, then he's just as centrist as the rest of us in the party - all of us in the party approve of the platform or we never would've joined up.

People here aren't that shallow to just join a party without supporting its ideals.  Besides that, one issue can make someone join one party or the other.  Take me, for example.  In real life, I'm actually pretty centrist on most issues, and even to the left on some issues.  You wanna know the *one* thing that secures my vote for the Republicans?  Abortion.  That's the reason I'm a Republican.  That's the main reason I'm voting for Bush this November (national security is another biggy).  If it wasn't for that one issue, I could (and likely would) vote Democrat.

[Fritz]

I appreciate this well-reasoned response.

[Brambila]

What I like about the UAC is it makes compramises. It doesn't force everyone into one way or the other, it makes it balanced.

[The Duke]

And they let you disagree on certain points without accusing you of being a fraud or a communist.  That is the biggest difference that I have noticed, is the behavior of the two parties is inescusable, and the UAC is tolerant.  I like that.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The fact that the UAC is attracting people totally regardless of ideology is not the fault of anyone in the UAC, but it is really not good for the board.  

The UAC apparently conducts its internal party debates and primaries in private, off the board.  If the party were presenting a single cohesive ideology, this wouldn't be a problem...because the substantive debate would occur ON the board b/w a UAC candidate and members of the other parties.  

But if a plurality of the board joins the UAC, and then retreats to some private caucus to hash out their vast differences before presenting the party platform and nominee, that pretty much defeats the whole purpose of these boards.  

The result will be that everyone except a handful will join the UAC, all the real debate will be on the UAC board, and the UAC candidates will just return to this board to run for office, winning every election.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

BTW, I think the UAC is a fine party for legitimate centrists like Gustaf.  

But it just doesn't work to have a catch-all party that everyone joins as soon as they become unhappy with people in their former party.

[Nation]

The fact that the UAC is attracting people totally regardless of ideology is not the fault of anyone in the UAC, but it is really not good for the board.  

The UAC apparently conducts its internal party debates and primaries in private, off the board.  If the party were presenting a single cohesive ideology, this wouldn't be a problem...because the substantive debate would occur ON the board b/w a UAC candidate and members of the other parties.  

But if a plurality of the board joins the UAC, and then retreats to some private causus to hash out their vast differences before presenting the party platform and nominee, that pretty much defeats the whole purpose of these boards.  

The result will be that everyone except a handful will join the UAC, all the real debate will be on the UAC board, and the UAC candidates will just return to this board to run for office, winning every election.

Since we're a new party, we are still getting ourselves organized, and figuring out we want to run things. As the election draws near, and even afterwards, chances are we'll become much more public and steadfast than we appear to be now.

Our members haven't abandoned these boards, as you seem to imply.

And it still bothers me that a lot of people keep yapping about ideologies. We HAVE an ideology, and we've made it clear that it's not extreme left and not extreme right. We are "liberal" on numerous social issues while still promoting personal responsibility in regards to welfare and health care, and conservative on numerous economic issues.

Almost everyone who has joined us right now agrees with the vast majority of our platform -- anyone who joins simply to be part of the plurality is completely missing the point.

The original idea for the UAC and how it got started was that the two major parties here clearly had some problems -- the UAC took the challenge of becoming a strong third party, and it looks like we've succeeded.

If you want this to be competitive, you better stop complaining about us and start working on how to improve your own parties. After all, there's no guarantee the UAC will be around forever.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The fact that the UAC is attracting people totally regardless of ideology is not the fault of anyone in the UAC, but it is really not good for the board.  

The UAC apparently conducts its internal party debates and primaries in private, off the board.  If the party were presenting a single cohesive ideology, this wouldn't be a problem...because the substantive debate would occur ON the board b/w a UAC candidate and members of the other parties.  

But if a plurality of the board joins the UAC, and then retreats to some private causus to hash out their vast differences before presenting the party platform and nominee, that pretty much defeats the whole purpose of these boards.  

The result will be that everyone except a handful will join the UAC, all the real debate will be on the UAC board, and the UAC candidates will just return to this board to run for office, winning every election.

Since we're a new party, we are still getting ourselves organized, and figuring out we want to run things. As the election draws near, and even afterwards, chances are we'll become much more public and steadfast than we appear to be now.

Our members haven't abandoned these boards, as you seem to imply.

And it still bothers me that a lot of people keep yapping about ideologies. We HAVE an ideology, and we've made it clear that it's not extreme left and not extreme right. We are "liberal" on numerous social issues while still promoting personal responsibility in regards to welfare and health care, and conservative on numerous economic issues.

Almost everyone who has joined us right now agrees with the vast majority of our platform -- anyone who joins simply to be part of the plurality is completely missing the point.

The original idea for the UAC and how it got started was that the two major parties here clearly had some problems -- the UAC took the challenge of becoming a strong third party, and it looks like we've succeeded.

If you want this to be competitive, you better stop complaining about us and start working on how to improve your own parties. After all, there's no guarantee the UAC will be around forever.

The UAC has succeeded largely because you have refused to take any stance on the really controversial issues.  I have read your platform, and it contains NO mention of the two biggest issues facing the country: the Iraq war and taxation.

And this is your government spending platform:
"Spending - We support the creation of a bi-partisan committee to determine the what we must spend our money on and what is unnecessary. We endorse the cutting of government spending."

Do the party have ANY opinion about what sectors should be cut??  ANY opinion on Iraq?  ANY opinion on taxes?

Maybe you're all having a vibrant debate about these issues on the UAC board, but it would sure be nice to see it here.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

NickG - where is your platform?  Do you have any opinions at all?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

NickG - where is your platform?  Do you have any opinions at all?

I'm sure all of us, UAC members included, have strongly held political beliefs.   I have expressed my own at various points, most recently on the "Questions for NickG" thread....although I admit I have not properly addressed the Iraq war on that thread.  But I'm not talking about personal views.

I don't think the UAC as a party had put forth a platform that articulates a choherent view on many important issues.  I think they are doing this because they have attracted voters across the political spectrum, and thus can't afford to offend anyone.  That's not bad in and of itself, but they have effectively taken the debate off this board and onto their own board.  

Why did the UAC nominate their presidential candidate in secret when every other party has had a public nominating process?  The point of this board is PUBLIC discourse, and instead debating in private, or not debating at all, defeats this purpose entirely.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

BTW, I'm pretty sure the Progressives did publish a  platform, though I'm certain its totally buried in the thread by now.  We were in the process of adding new planks at a party convention when the party fell apart.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Only bad thing about UAC is its name. It reminds me damn Finnish Centre Party.

I think our platform is generally quite much same as Finnish Conservatives one. Excluding drug policy and our support for death penalty.

[TheWildCard]

Only bad thing about UAC is its name. It reminds me damn Finnish Centre Party.

I think our platform is generally quite much same as Finnish Conservatives one. Excluding drug policy and our support for death penalty.

Huck vote in the D1 Senate elections! Please!

[Huckleberry Finn]

Only bad thing about UAC is its name. It reminds me damn Finnish Centre Party.

I think our platform is generally quite much same as Finnish Conservatives one. Excluding drug policy and our support for death penalty.

Huck vote in the D1 Senate elections! Please!

Don't worry. I just did.

[TheWildCard]

Only bad thing about UAC is its name. It reminds me damn Finnish Centre Party.

I think our platform is generally quite much same as Finnish Conservatives one. Excluding drug policy and our support for death penalty.

Huck vote in the D1 Senate elections! Please!

Don't worry. I just did.

Thanks man!

[The Duke]

I don't speak for the party, but most of us are pro-Iraq War and tough on terrorism.  We have a terrorism plank in the platform, and most of what we believe can be inferred from that.  On taxes, in principle, most of us are for lower taxes, but for practical reasons, we would not cut them now, because of the deficit.  On spending, there are a number of things we can cut.

1. Agriculture subsidies: They are a fine idea, but we are spending too much on them.

2. Labor department: Most people don't know that the Labor Dep't budget has more than doubled in the last 4 years.

3. Social Security: By reforiming Social Security in the manner I laid out in the Republican debates, we can reduce spending in the long term without reducing benefits.