THEME BY PISTACHI-O

"A United Nations panel finds the United States has fallen short of meeting its obligations under an international civil rights treaty"  - The United Nations raps United States civil rights over drone usage, secret programs and surveillance. source

chrisgeidner:

The Marriage Equality Map You Need To Know: A lot is happening as courts across the nation rule on same-sex couples’ marriage rights. Here’s where things stand as of March 12.

chrisgeidner:

The Marriage Equality Map You Need To Know: A lot is happening as courts across the nation rule on same-sex couples’ marriage rights. Here’s where things stand as of March 12.

2spook4me:

couriereight:

mikkel-k:

platitudinous-pommy:

you know, guys

not all republicans

are bad???

The only political thing I’ve agreed with on tumblr.

Alright, going to get some history nerd cred down here…

I’m not saying that all Republicans are evil, that would be hyperbole to the extreme— but one thing people need to understand is that the Republican Party of Lincoln was not the Republican Party of Teddy was not the Republican party of Mitt Romney.

It’s a little thing called realignment.

Realignment is a period where a party’s ideology, platform, and target audience shifts. There has been many periods of realignment, from early on in our history. The shift from the Federalist party to the Democratic-Republican party, the split of the Democratic-Republicans to the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, and the dissolution of the Whigs in 1852 and the founding of the Republican party of 1858- leaving us with the Democrat vs. Republican split we have today.

But the parties were not the same as they are now. The Democratic party was very much the party of the South at this point- states rights, anti-abolitionist and pro-slavery. Likewise, this early Republican party rose as the anti-slavery party, with Lincoln being the first Republican president under this platform (Their slogan was free labor, free land, and free men).

Eventually, as America moved away from the Civil War and into its industrial revolution, the Republican party began to shift towards industrial interests and the interests of “Big Business,” increasing tariffs and so on.

With the realigning election of 1896, electing William McKinley, the Republican party shifted to becoming the party of Big Business.

Moving on to the example of Roosevelt. When Roosevelt was made McKinley’s Vice President, NOBODY WANTED HIM TO EVER BECOME PRESIDENT. Especially the Republican Party. Good old Teddy was trying to dismantle the political machine of Tammamy Hall, local political bosses made sure he was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate, to get him into what was widely viewed as a completely ineffectual position and out of their hair.

However, McKinley was shot, and Roosevelt became president for two terms. However, when he demanded to be nominated by the Republican party after the presidency of Taft, they refused— his political stance was not the same as the Republican party’s, and they renominated Taft.

At this point the Democrats were realigning too, to become the party of worker’s rights, as well as the party of the South.

Eventually, more and more African American voters broke from the Republican party and started to vote Democrat, because the Democratic party’s new stated aim of 1948 was civil rights. The so-called “Dixiecrats,” the Southern Democrats, didn’t like this one bit- which led to our next realignment period, signaled by the election of this man:

The Southern Strategy, pioneered first by Nixon, sought to realign these Dixiecrats with the Republican party, some analysts claim trying to appeal to their racist tendencies. Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times:

“The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.” 

Analysts also claim that the South, with its new growing middle class, sought to vote with the party that more closely identified with its values. Whichever is the case, the predominantly WASP middle-class Americans of the South aligned with the Republican party during what was known as the neoconservative movement. 

The neoconservative movement defined the modern Republican party, and  the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s (especially under the work of President Lyndon B. Johnson) began to define the modern Democratic party.

So, now we have the Democrats and Republicans of today. Solid Republicans, tend to have deeply sincere religious beliefs and favor state’s rights and hands-off Government (i.e. Mitt Romney), while the Democrats tend to be the party of civil rights and strong government intervention. 

The point of this post is not to call either side morally just or injust. It’s merely my attempt at a clarification about the nature of US political history that many people forget about, including Ann Coulter in her latest book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. 

If you read this, congratulations! I know not many people are going to want to bother with this wall of text, but it’s a really common misconception that I’ve been seeing thrown around a lot lately.

Also, let’s not forget that neither of those presidents are without their own faults; Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas corpus during his presidency, and Teddy Roosevelt was a HUGE ole imperialist, and supported the forced sterilization of criminals and ‘feeble-minded persons’

shortformblog:

Afghan War: What is the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement?
It’s a document with a pretty intimidating name, that’s for sure. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan early Wednesday local time seemed loaded with mystery — few knew he was there until he was actually there. He was there to sign a document that many watching the news had no idea existed until today. And the document itself is the definition of how a long-standing war will finally end, thirteen years after it started — at least as far as combat troops go. This document, just eight pages, was so important that the White House had to release a fact sheet to explain it to the average joe. What does it mean to you, anyway? Here are three things you should take from the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement:
one The U.S. government will continue to help the Afghan government train its security forces even after combat troops leave the country in 2014, with the goal of giving the entire region stability.
two The U.S. will continue to fund security and development efforts in the country, but not by default — the president has to ask Congress for a new round of funding each year.
three This effort goes both ways — Afghanistan is on the hook to improve the transparency and effectiveness of the government, while respecting the civil rights of its people. source
» So what’s the end date? The end of the document says this clearly: “It shall remain in force until the end of 2024.” (It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time this end date has been bandied about.) Which means, at that rate, the events around the Afghan War will be completely said and done 23 years after it started, though combat troops should be long gone. Hopefully.
Follow ShortFormBlog: Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook

shortformblog:

It’s a document with a pretty intimidating name, that’s for sure. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan early Wednesday local time seemed loaded with mystery — few knew he was there until he was actually there. He was there to sign a document that many watching the news had no idea existed until today. And the document itself is the definition of how a long-standing war will finally end, thirteen years after it started — at least as far as combat troops go. This document, just eight pages, was so important that the White House had to release a fact sheet to explain it to the average joe. What does it mean to you, anyway? Here are three things you should take from the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement:

  • one The U.S. government will continue to help the Afghan government train its security forces even after combat troops leave the country in 2014, with the goal of giving the entire region stability.
  • two The U.S. will continue to fund security and development efforts in the country, but not by default — the president has to ask Congress for a new round of funding each year.
  • three This effort goes both ways — Afghanistan is on the hook to improve the transparency and effectiveness of the government, while respecting the civil rights of its people. source

» So what’s the end date? The end of the document says this clearly: “It shall remain in force until the end of 2024.” (It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time this end date has been bandied about.) Which means, at that rate, the events around the Afghan War will be completely said and done 23 years after it started, though combat troops should be long gone. Hopefully.

Follow ShortFormBlog: Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook

"We all agree that the international community should demonstrate its commitment to a diplomatic solution by acknowledging Iran’s agreement to meet, by testing its desire to talk and by offering it the opportunity to respond to our legitimate concerns about its nuclear intentions."  - British Foreign Secretary William Hague • Discussing the decision that a group of six global powers agreed to resume talks with Iran over the country’s nuclear situation — a set of talks that had broken off about a year ago. The talks came as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who sees Iran as his country’s most dangerous enemy, was in the U.S. to talk to Obama. Israel has seemingly been looking to possibly attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, but Obama has urged the country to continue to let diplomatic mechanisms to do the work. source (viafollow)

quixim replied to your post: link to full mitt romney quote

Obama will have to literally call him a “Whitey” on the podium to even have a CHANCE at losing this election

I wouldn’t go that far, even though that’s how it SHOULD be (IMO obviously).

A lot of people … I don’t know if it’s the majority, but it’s no small subsection of the country who really really blame him for the recession.

And the knee-jerk hatred in this country for anything resembling wealth redistribution (EVIOL SOCIALISM EVIOL) is … IDK, maybe it has to be seen to be believed.

There are so many many people who have suffered so much from this recession and still see Obama/the Democrats as thieves who want to steal people’s money, no matter that at best they want to “steal” it from 1% of the population and give it to those people who are suffering!

IDEK!  It’s like.  In America capitalism is God.  I don’t even hate capitalism if you wanna know the truth, I just can’t wrap my mind around how it triumphs basically every other tenet imaginable.  But it does!!!!

I can’t understand it!!!!!!!!!!

majorleaguesports asked: Do you think Congress is responsible for this countries economic problems, or President Obama? 

newsweek:

Can we say neither?

Sure, Congress & the administration have had a rough year trying to get along, but most of that hasn’t really affected our economic policy to a degree that it would really send us over the edge.

If you’re looking for someone to blame, we would start with the ten years prior at the Fed, then look at the banks and how they so poorly dealt with a rapidly collapsing housing market, and then Europe, which today is largely responsible for many of the fears and woes that things are going straight back to 2008. If you haven’t, we’d also recommend you listen to this This American Life podcast which really does a great job of explaining “The Giant Pool of Money.” It won a Peabody!