#there is not a government in the world that shouldnt be criticized

[suncattle]

I don't trust no fuckin body that doesn't question or criticize their own government

[apostleofthreedimensions]

A character i think about too often for my own good is A Square's wife... like to me she is VERY conservative and supportive of the divided society the government upholds. She was taught not to think critically; shes just a female so she shouldnt try to rock the boat with her opinions. She should just cook, clean and raise children. Just do what shes told and nothing else. The circles are the law, and she is a good citizen, so she would always do as they say. They say to serve your husband, so she does. She is an obedient housewife and always supports a square.

This all suited her fine. For the most part, she was vain and simple. She gossiped about the dirty chromatist immigrants and instilled these beliefs into her children.

But during the events of the movie, she is forced to make a choice. Does she stay true to her society, or to her husband? Beforehand they were in tandem. By supporting one, you supported the other. But when the soldiers invaded their home and said that her husband was a heretic, this connection was severed. If she were to give up her husband, this would be abiding by the rules and laws that she grew up with all her life, but also betraying the cause she vowed to dedicate the rest of her life to.

Its a difficult choice to make, especially when one is as dissuaded from critical thinking as she is, but she chose to save her husband.

(Now‚ I want to make it clear that i dont think theres any actual romantic love between a square and frau line this point. They just married because it is a mans job to marry a woman. She did this out of obligation to her husband rather than out of love.)

To me this says that frau line REALLY leaned into her role as a loyal housewife. She deemed it not just as important as supporting her country, but more important than it. I think she might have built her identity around it. Not being a good citizen, but a good wife. She considered them the same, and at the time they WERE functionally the same, but as events unfolded things turned out far differently.

It makes me speculate on what would happen next, if she were to follow through with a squares plan of meeting up with him and traveling to the north. She would likely be terribly conflicted and scared of the future he made for her. What would she think of a square? Would she blame him for turning their government against her, for making her leave her homeland? For ruining her comfortable suburban life? Would she think hes weak, for not being able to 'keep up' with her and fit in with polite society? Would she instead think he's strong for casting off the protection of the common world? Would she envy him?

[the-gayest-tree-you-ever-did-see]

Spoiler for The Hunger Games : Mockingjay.

What do you think about Coin proposed a final hunger games with Capitol children?

When do you think Coin had this idea, since beginning or later?

Do you think it undermined the whole purpose of the rebellion?

Do you have hope that Paylor would be a good leader?

Thank you.

@curiousnonny

i think coin always kind of had the idea. you know how you have a vague dream about doing something as a kid -- singing, or being an actor, or getting married, or driving a car -- and its always just a notion and a little thought in the back of your mind and doesnt really occur to you that it could be real? i think it was like that, for her. her anger at the capitol, at having to grow up in an isolated and war-torn district everyone thinks is dead. the way they focus entirely on a revolution she barely believes will happen and dont leave any room for a child to be a child. i think having her mockingjay and being able to position her so she gets the power and having the chance to punish the capitol like they punished her -- simply for being born at the wrong time and wrong place -- was exhilarating to her. i see a lot of parallels with how coryo controlled and perceived lucy gray and how coin controlled and perceived katniss. in the end, it was a realization and a hand around the reins that led to their downfall and their worst fear coming alive -- that coin couldnt see a free world, one she barely dreamed of and one where her vengeance was inevitable, that snow underestimated the underdog all along, the one he thought was a manipulating liar like him and one who shouldnt have been capable of love and critical thought like him.

i dont think it undermined the purpose of the rebellion. i think it highlighted why it was necessary. katniss and every clear-thinking citizen would have known that letting coin host a symbolic hunger games would be setting her up to be another snow. because snow isnt special, unique. hes just what happens when a person born into power loves it like a brother and holds it like a whip. coin grew up in district 13 likely the same way coryo grew up in the capitol -- hungry, angry, holy, and knowing there would be better things waiting in the future. she had every opportunity to look at herself and back out of the hunger games. she didnt.

i do have hope in paylor. i think shes someone who has power not because she wants it, but because its necessary. ive waxed poetic about how much her practicality speaks to me so ill be brief, but i think paylor is who is necessary in that time of healing. she isnt overly concerned with revenge and seems to see the value of a human life. for now, without setting up a proper system of government that looked out for the people, she can handle the transition from war to peace -- shes been waiting for it her whole life. and she knows intimately the unique struggles of both the capitol and the districts. for that small period of time, i think she'll steer panem in the right direction.

[torchiiko]

hey guys who wants more unsolicited opinions abt things no one cares abt? ok great So:

theres this movie adaptation of a book called uglies & ive seen some arguments abt how it was done, especially considering the book was a criticism of the whole hollywood scene & beauty standards

for those blissfully unaware, its a teen dystopia where beauty standards have become so extreme that humanity is separated into "pretties" & "uglies." to become a pretty, you get a plastic surgery when you turn 16 & then you can rejoin society with the other pretties, but by default youre an ugly

some ppl say the conventionally attractive actors playing the "uglies" is the point, bc thats how absurd the beauty standards are! but i think that argument loses some of its basis when the pretties are hardly different, they essentially just have makeup & a beauty filter. if that really was the point (& not just hollywood being afraid of average ppl), the pretties shouldve looked more extreme, uncanny, really pushed to the limits!

apparently the protag finds an old picture of a model from our time, & remarks abt them being ugly. which. shouldnt be evidence for the conventionally attractive actors argument, if anything it rlly only supports how unrealistic their worlds standards are. in the book, characters are described in human ways; they have flaws, theyre just regular people. having the movie version use only conventional actors takes away from that & actually just reinforces the very criticism the book was abt!!

when you see these "uglies" on screen you shouldnt be thinking "oh theyre not ugly, bc theyre already attractive!" you should be thinking "oh theyre not ugly, theyre literally normal ppl."

i think theres more to be done with the idea if it was only handled better. what abt waking up post-op & not even recognizing yourself in the mirror? what abt the loss of individuality, struggling to pick out even your closest loved ones in a crowd? the story doesnt actually do much to make becoming Pretty undesirable to the characters until they learn theyre all being lobotomized & brainwashed in the process, but even then, they still get to live kind of awesome lives? they dont have any responsibilities & they just party 24/7 while the government funds them

we, as the audience get to recognized how messed up it is, but theres nothing to influence the characters to doubt the world they live in until they get deep into behind the scenes stuff. ik part of dystopian stories is that societies are having info kept from them for the sake of control but there doesnt seem to be any downsides to being a pretty, From the perspective of the characters, before learning The Truth, so theres nothing to make them rebel or even seek out more info to begin with!!!

[tiodolma]

@ladylilith91 bruh.

1) merlin didnt see the body and had no evidence that arthur was there

2) you can do self defense without outright killing the offender!!! This is the first thing they teach you in any goddamn martial arts class

3) sophia was unarmed and didnt have her staff.

4) why didnt merlin strike a bargain or talk first???

5) “killing people to protect friends” -> murder shouldnt be your first solution if you are the dude who keeps preaching “we can find another way”

I have to be critical of merlin because he’s a hypocrite who’s only solution is to immediately Kill. And he’s supposed to be on the side of good! He has the power to not have to kill but do somethig else! Trap them! Bargain! Talk it out! Negotiate! Give something else! Force into a compromise! Why is ending lives always his solution??? Think about it! It’s so cowardly.

Merlin Preaches one thing and then does the opposite. Yes he doesnt kill for power but he kills to hide the truth and to silence the perpetrators. He doesnt even talk it out with the criminals jfc. He doesnt trap them or threaten to take away magic or just disable their limbs. There was a way to not have to kill the sidhe father and daughter duo and still save arthur but does he take it?? No! Coz his only solution is to always eliminate the threat permanently with the “self-defense” excuse.

I’ve seen that happen in my country irl and it was horrible and traumatic. A lot of law enforcers in my country keep getting away with murders and atrocities because of that excuse. Do you know what my govenrment tells the public?? That the untimely death of the suspected person or criminal (who has pending trial) in the hand of the law enforcer acting out of self-defense was for the Good of All! It was for the Best! Bro That kind sht rhetoric already hurt thousands of families where I live. It inspired so much fear where I live. Good for you if you’ve never had that reality. I hope you wont have to.

Also have you not seen me keep calling Morgana an asshole??? “Morgana kills in the name of power” well yeah?? Coz that’s her role??? She’s the designated big bad ultimate villain??? And I get why she does it to inspire fear and terror??? Where the hell is the part where i say her acts are inherently good??? But at least she’s doing as what conquerors/invaders/destabilizers usually do IRL and in history. Is that "justification" to you? Then have you ever read seen how historical wars go? Are you aware that you can justify anything in war? Or are you oblivious of how the real world works and are stuck in this fantasy world where there is a clear cut line of good and bad?

Her bid for power justifies Morgana's actions but so does Merlin's obsession to protect his secrets and his "friends." Both of them have committed horrible atrocities for the respective wars they were facing. What your meta keeps proving to me is that Merlin's personal "Might Makes Right" policy was also justified in his head. And I agree with that, because that is a the moral backbone of vigilanteism. And Merlin has been doing this sht since 1x06.

Your merlin apologism is honestly sad and disturbing. Pls dont interact with me anymore with your “he kills coz he was just protecting his friends and is therefore good” excuse. It wont work. Moreover his “friends” are the sovereign heads of state of a bigot government. Merlin keeps going behind the law and is above and beyond it, executing people for treason without trial or negotiations and without the knowledge of his own government. That's beyond friendship. That is already kingmaking and have more political and moral connotations. Just sit and think about that for a second. Chew on it for your own good.

Maybe go read a history book first before telling me off for the things that I appreciate about Morgana as a character based on a lot of historical monarchs and warlords. I am telling you, Morgana stays true to the way her character is written and what she’s intended for! and it's fun and more entertaining to watch! The characters in the story already judged her for it! The show already smash in our face that she's bad! bad! bad!

AND YET

Watch Morgana and see that people are more useful to her ALIVE. She traps them, bargains with them, interoggates them, gives something in return lke a share of power or a position, tortures them when she has to, gives them a choice to work or not work with her, takes away magic but doesnt kill right away, That’s better than whatever sht Merlin keeps smoking. If that was Morgana she would have talk those sidhe and find a compromise with them.

Taking magic away is reversible. Prisoners can still escape or be set free. Wounds can heal. Trauma can heal. But YOU CAN NEVER GIVE A LIFE BACK ffs. Guess which option Merlin chooses first??? IT'S KILLING.

Merlin is the very definition of “There Is No Other Way.” you cant sugarcoat this.

so I suggest you better go back to whatever "I <3 Merlin he didnt do anything wrong” corner you wanna lurk in. I will never agree to it. My politics and upbringing will never agree to it. Good riddance. Leave me alone. Stick to your own side of the fandom and just block me.

And for the record i dont hate merlin the character. I like him. He’s well thought of and written. But i will be critical of his story. Coz it is what is fun to me.

the way merlin murdered sophia still haunts me bruh. like. that wasn't even an act of self defense, he didn't even see arthur's body in her possession, she was just screaming for her father... there was absolutely no goddamn reason for him to blast her to death with her own staff like that.

mindblowing and totally cruel.

and violent.

istg in a court case, merlin would've lost that one. that was just plain simple murder. there was no negotiation, no bargaining despite him knowing the reason why they did what they did (they just wanted to go home, to be free).

now you know why he was so conflicted when kilgharrah blatantly told him to just kill morgana to undo the sleeping curse.

he had done it before with no hesitation and no remorse to sophia as as the way to end the romantic enchantment on arthur.

Whether it be killing Sophia or Morgana or Edwin or Nimueh. what difference would it make? it would keep the king, his son and camelot safe after all... that's the most important.

if i was kilgharrah i would've taunted merlin on that fact too.

[statetalks]

Were Democrats Or Republicans For Slavery

Presidency Of Martin Van Buren

Democrats Responsible for Slavery, Republican Party for Abolition.mp4

The Presidency of Martin Van Buren was hobbled by a long economic depression called the Panic of 1837. The presidency promoted hard money based on gold and silver, an independent federal treasury, a reduced role for the government in the economy, and a liberal policy for the sale of public lands to encourage settlement; they opposed high tariffs to encourage industry. The Jackson policies were kept, such as Indian removal and the Trail of Tears. Van Buren personally disliked slavery but he kept the slaveholder’s rights intact. Nevertheless, he was distrusted across the South.

The 1840 Democratic convention was the first at which the party adopted a platform. Delegates reaffirmed their belief that the Constitution was the primary guide for each state’s political affairs. To them, this meant that all roles of the federal government not specifically defined fell to each respective state government, including such responsibilities as debt created by local projects. Decentralized power and states’ rights pervaded each and every resolution adopted at the convention, including those on slavery, taxes, and the possibility of a central bank. Regarding slavery, the Convention adopted the following resolution:

What Happened In 1969

The war in Vietnam came to a head. The democrats under Kennedy had gotten us into the war and then after Kennedy was killed President Johnson continued and grew our presence in Vietnam.

Peoples opposition to the war became the focus of the democrat party and the emotional democrats became the protagonists for eliminating the policies that kept blacks in the back of the bus as well as free love and marijuana.

I was young at the time and this is the Democratic Party i remember which were opposed to real things. There was a war in vietnam. People were dying. There was segregation.

Republicans didnt resist outlawing segregation. The resistance was focused on the remaining segregationists in the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond a democrat from the south fillibustered the passage of the civil rights act.

In 1968 the democrats held a national convention. This convention devolved into riots and was the watershed for racism and the Democratic Party. The racists were ejected from the Democratic Party ostensibly.

Democrats today claim that in 1969 what happened is that the racists in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party.

There is no evidence of this. Storm Thurmond, Robert Byrd never switched parties. Robert Byrd a former KKK leader stayed a democrat until he retired from the senate in 2010. Biden called Byrd a mentor.

Biden was one of the most outspoken opponents of busing.

None of that is true.

If you arent a democrat then they dont want you in the identity group.

After The Civil War Democrats Continued To Fight Against Equality For Blacks

For 100 years the democrats staged a rear guard action seeking to keep blacks subservient and doing their bidding.

They passed laws to limit black peoples ability to vote, to sit on the front of the bus, to own land, to rent apartments, to go to the same schools and many other things.

If anyone owes black people reparations it is these democrats.

Given this history of democrats it is stunning that the Democratic Party continues to exist. Shouldnt it be disbanded? We are tearing down statues, removing names of historically racist people and institutions so why not destroy the Democratic Party? It is slavery and was the principal advocate of slavery. They also were heavily involved in passing racist laws, hanging blacks and many republicans who opposed the democrats.

Why would anyone want to be part of a party that was historically so critical and central to the whole effort to enslave and repress blacks?

People have a tendency not to be partisan and to label this as white Americans that did this but it was the Democrats. Republicans were the ones fighting it. If not for those republicans the black people in America would never have been freed or gotten voting rights or many other things that had to be fought. Many white republicans were killed by democrats even after the end of the civil war who were called sympathizers.

Again, why doesnt this basic fact that is indisputable matter?

Those blacks who could vote between 1860 and 1969 voted for republicans.

Recommended Reading: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There

Political Firsts For Women And Minorities

From its inception in 1854 to 1964, when Senate Republicans pushed hard for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against a filibuster by Senate Democrats, the GOP had a reputation for supporting blacks and minorities. In 1869, the Republican-controlled legislature in Wyoming Territory and its Republican governor John Allen Campbell made it the first jurisdiction to grant voting rights to women. In 1875, California swore in the first Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco. In 1916, Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman in Congressand indeed the first woman in any high level government position. In 1928, New Mexico elected the first Hispanic U.S. Senator, Republican . In 1898, the first Jewish U.S. Senator elected from outside of the former Confederacy was Republican Joseph Simon of Oregon. In 1924, the first Jewish woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives was Republican Florence Kahn of California. In 1928, the Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Charles Curtis of Kansas, who grew up on the Kaw Indian reservation, became the first person of significant non-European ancestry to be elected to national office, as Vice President of the United States for Herbert Hoover.

A New Political Party

After passing all these pro-slavery laws, in May 1854, a number of anti-slavery members in Congress formed a new political party to fight slavery. These anti-slavery members were from the Whigs, Free Soil advocates and Emancipationists. They wanted to gain equal rights for black Americans.

The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party. They chose this name because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality. These are the principles first put forth in the documents of the republic before the pro-slavery Congressional members had misused and manipulated to their own purposes those original principles.

You May Like: Who Won More Democrats Or Republicans

The New Deal Era: 19321939

After Roosevelt took office in 1933, New Deal legislation sailed through Congress at lightning speed. In the 1934 midterm elections, ten Republican senators went down to defeat, leaving them with only 25 against 71 Democrats. The House of Representatives was also split in a similar ratio. The “Second New Deal” was heavily criticized by the Republicans in Congress, who likened it to class warfare and socialism. The volume of legislation, as well as the inability of the Republicans to block it, soon made the opposition to Roosevelt develop into bitterness and sometimes hatred for “that man in the White House. Former President Hoover became a leading orator crusading against the New Deal, hoping unrealistically to be nominated again for president.

Most major newspaper publishers favored Republican moderate Alf Landon for president. In the nation’s 15 largest cities the newspapers that editorially endorsed Landon represented 70% of the circulation. Roosevelt won 69% of the actual voters in those cities by ignoring the press and using the radio to reach voters directly.

Roosevelt carried 46 of the 48 states thanks to traditional Democrats along with newly energized labor unions, city machines and the Works Progress Administration. The realignment creating the Fifth Party System was firmly in place. Since 1928, the GOP had lost 178 House seats, 40 Senate seats and 19 governorships, though it retained a mere 89 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate.

Southernization; Oh That Sounds Fun Wait It Isnt

From the 1960s to the 2000s a southernization of the Republican party occurs. Paired with Goldwater and;Hoover states rights conservatism and along;with old Anti-Communist ideology, it was enough to completely change the political parties.

From the late 1800s to the 2000s Republican progressives moved toward the Democratic Party and Southern Conservatives moved toward the Republican party. See;the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition.

The grand result is that the David Dukes of the world today fly the Confederate Battle flag and vote Republican.

This story;is a major reason why the voter map looks the way it does.

Meanwhile, while we can still see Gores and Clintons, and sometimes even a Byrd, in the modern Democratic party, those Redeemer and Redeemed liberals made a conscious choice to ally with the dominate Progressive and Neoliberal factions in this cycle.

You May Like: When Did The Southern Democrats Become Republicans

What Does Republican Mean

The word republicanmeans of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a republic. A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf.;

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a doge who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic.;

Slavery And The Emergence Of The Bipartisan System

Civil Rights and Slavery – Republican and Democrat Parties – Prager University

From 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all but two presidential elections . During the 1840s and 50s, however, the Democratic Party, as it officially named itself in 1844, suffered serious internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, wanted to allow slavery in all the territories, while Northern Democrats, led by Stephen A. Douglas, proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through referendum. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge and Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the newly established antislavery Republican Party . With the Democrats hopelessly split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote; in contrast, Douglas and Breckinridge won 29 percent and 18 percent of the vote, respectively.

Don’t Miss: Are There More Democrats Or Republicans In Us

On This Day The Republican Party Names Its First Candidates

On July 6, 1854, disgruntled voters in a new political party named its first candidates to contest the Democrats over the issue of slavery. Within six and one-half years, the newly christened Republican Party would control the White House and Congress as the Civil War began.

For a brief time in the decade before the Civil War, the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and his descendants enjoyed a period of one-party rule. The Democrats had battled the Whigs for power since 1836 and lost the presidency in 1848 to the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor. After Taylor died in office in 1850, it took only a few short years for the Whig Party to collapse dramatically.

There are at least three dates recognized in the formation of the Republican Party in 1854, built from the ruins of the Whigs. The first is February 24, 1854, when a small group met in Ripon, Wisconsin, to discuss its opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The group called themselves Republicans in reference to Thomas Jeffersons Republican faction in the American republics early days. Another meeting was held on March 20, 1854, also in Ripon, where 53 people formally recognized the movement within Wisconsin.

On July 6, 1854, a much-bigger meeting in Jackson, Michigan was attended by about 10,000 people and is considered by many as the official start of the organized Republican Party. By the end of the gathering, the Republicans had compiled a full slate of candidates to run in Michigans elections.

Culture Conflict And Al Smith

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, a resolution denouncing the Ku Klux Klan was introduced by Catholic and liberal forces allied with Al Smith and Oscar W. Underwood in order to embarrass the front-runner, William Gibbs McAdoo. After much debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1924 and 1928. However, Al Smith did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

the myth of the Democratic Party masterfully re-created, a fresh awareness of the elemental differences between the parties, and ideology with which they might make sense of the two often senseless conflicts of the present, and a feeling for the importance of dynamic leadership. The book was a mirror for Democrats.

You May Like: Are Any Republicans Running Against President Trump

Presidency Of Andrew Jackson

The spirit of Jacksonian democracy animated the party from the early 1830s to the 1850s, shaping the Second Party System, with the Whig Party as the main opposition. After the disappearance of the Federalists after 1815 and the Era of Good Feelings , there was a hiatus of weakly organized personal factions until about 18281832, when the modern Democratic Party emerged along with its rival, the Whigs. The new Democratic Party became a coalition of farmers, city-dwelling laborers and Irish Catholics. Both parties worked hard to build grassroots organizations and maximize the turnout of voters, which often reached 80 percent or 90 percent of eligible voters. Both parties used patronage extensively to finance their operations, which included emerging big city political machines as well as national networks of newspapers.

Behind the party platforms, acceptance speeches of candidates, editorials, pamphlets and stump speeches, there was a widespread consensus of political values among Democrats. As Mary Beth Norton explains:

The party was weakest in New England, but strong everywhere else and won most national elections thanks to strength in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the American frontier. Democrats opposed elites and aristocrats, the Bank of the United States and the whiggish modernizing programs that would build up industry at the expense of the yeoman or independent small farmer.

Why It Doesnt Make Sense To Equate Modern Democrats With The Old Southern Democrats

The Democrats, formally the;anti-Federalists,;had an;aversion to aristocracy from the late 1700s to the progressive era.

That truism;led to the southern conservatives of the solid south like;John C. Calhoun and small government liberals like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren allying;in the same party;for most of U.S. history.

However,;that changed;after Civil Rights under LBJ and the rise of Goldwater States Rights Republicans .

Today the solid south, and figures like Jeff Sessions, are in an alliance in the big tent of the Republican Party . This was as much a response to the growing progressiveness of the Democratic Party as anything.

One simple way to confirm this is to look at the factions of;Lincolns time. There were four. They;were:

The Northern liberal Whig/Republicans, The;Nativist Know-Nothing; allies of the Whig/Republicans, The Southern Democrats and their Northern allies , and The;Free Soil;;allies of the Democrats who;took a libertarian like position.

Todays Democrats are more like socially liberal Whig/Republicans , libertarians are like Free Soilers , Trumpians are like Nativist Know-Nothings , and Southern Democrats are like the modern Southern conservative Republicans.

The current parties are thus:

Social Liberals and Neoliberals vs. Social Conservatives and Neoliberal Conservatives AKA Neocons .

Clearly, the country has never been fully polarized, even at its most polarized.

Also Check: Do Republicans Want To Impeach Trump

The Second Bush Era: 20002008

George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, won the 2000 Republican presidential nomination over Arizona Senator John McCain, former Senator Elizabeth Dole and others. With his highly controversial and exceedingly narrow victory in the 2000 election against the Vice President Al Gore, the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, it lost control of the Senate when Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent in 2001 and caucused with the Democrats.

In the wake of the on the United States in 2001, Bush gained widespread political support as he pursued the War on Terrorism that included the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, Bush ordered for an invasion of Iraq because of breakdown of United Nations sanctions and intelligence indicating programs to rebuild or develop new weapons of mass destruction. Bush had near-unanimous Republican support in Congress plus support from many Democratic leaders.

Bush failed to win conservative approval for Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, replacing her with Samuel Alito, whom the Senate confirmed in January 2006. Bush and McCain secured additional tax cuts and blocked moves to raise taxes. Through 2006, they strongly defended his policy in Iraq, saying the Coalition was winning. They secured the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/were-democrats-or-republicans-for-slavery/

[foulserpent]

dont rebl0g

the government and capitalism should be the utmost focus of criticism and analysis on the pandemic, but i dont think that you can genuinely argue that  american individualism and individual people dont have impact on this sitution. 

this isnt like people who say “if you dont vote youre LITERALLY responsible for US war crimes” “if you shoplift you are LITERALLY responsible for retail workers being abused”. these systems are wholly constructed and participating Within will not change their abusiveness.  the virus itself is not a social system, its biological. the way its impacted the world is symptomatic of and the responsibility of capitalism, and the way the virus has been managed is NOT apolitical in any capacity and shouldnt be conceptualized as such. but the sickness itself is not beholden to that system. 

like the individual human beings who are choosing not to wear masks and to have frat parties and host holiday gettogethers are Actually causing direct measurable harm that could be prevented by changing their behavior. like an individual unknowingly carrying the virus deciding “fuck you ive got mine” and choosing to prioritize their own comfort over community safety can and does DIRECTLY result in other people getting killed. this wouldnt be as much of a problem in a better world where quarantine was mandated and kept up and states werent reopening and peoples lives were valued over the economy, but we arent living in that world.

there is a problem with the focus of criticism being on individuals bc again look at any other country whose government chose to temporarily sacrifice the economy to save lives, this shouldnt really be mentioned as a main issue at all, but lets not try to pretend we dont have responsibility as individuals here 

[alexanderpusheen]

i have some feelings about how people treat age (i am thirty for complete transparency) and its ~nuanced~ but not really as nuanced as people think it is? these are my perspectives as a 30 year old survivor and educator. this is kind of rambly and doesnt have a conclusion, i just wanted to get it out of my head.

lets talk maturity like adults, especially those over the age of 21, have enough experience to know that their feelings and mindsets are vastly different than that of someone who is 15, 16, or even 17 or 18. i still remember what it felt like to be 12, i still remember what it felt like to be 15, and i still remember what it felt like to be 17, 20, 25...and honestly i wouldnt go back lmao. im MUCH more mature today than i was then.

the older you are the more life experience you have to know what is and isnt right. you learn how to deal with people simply because youve had more time to do so. in that sense, the older an adult is, the more of an ‘edge’ theyre going to have over a minor. so you can never have an equal relationship because you just know too much. 

on the other hand, i think theres this stigma against older people that goes beyond looking out for childrens well beings and goes right into ageism. i have this theory that most people have no idea what a 30 year old is supposed to look like. most people assume im in my early 20s for a bunch of reasons...either its my looks or my interests or whatever but i think there is this narrative that someone over the age of 30 must be married, popping out children, buying a house, working on their career, and definitely not doing silly things on the internet. 30 year olds are ‘serious.’ ‘mature.’ something that simply does not apply to me as a personality trait, but because time has passed i have to BECOME another person....i dont get that.

in my professional life i have a lot of contact with teenagers. i talk to my teenage students like theyre adults because i dont think theyre idiots. i feel like a lot of my colleagues tend to treat teens like zoo animals rather than taking their jobs seriously. educators are part of a childs education process. we help form who you are, whether we like it or not, so giving you age appropriate responsibilities (within reason, i also hate assigning lots of busywork homework) is part of our job. teens say dumb things because theyre teens but also i remember that once i had a fucking meltdown in english class when i was 14 because i got a B+ on a quiz and said i was going to work at burger king forever and my teacher actually reassured me in her own comedic way. so yeah, i remember being overdramatic and annoying too so i cant be critical of my students for that.

while i think the age dynamic between a teenager and an adult is something to take more seriously than some people online would like to, i also see a lot of full grown adults in their early 20s pretending that anyone over 30 is a corpse. it goes back to what i said about that narrative....30 is not the end of your life. in fact, i felt my life was just beginning once i turned 30. i spent most of my 20s in and out of mental hospitals and in treatment, learning how to function, and towards my late 20s i finally became a teacher and found that it was a fundamentally vital part of my recovery. but the ‘best years of my life’ aka my teen years and early 20s were all spent trapped in abusive relationships and processing trauma. now that im older, i feel i can finally start living.

maybe its because of my experiences but i really resent being told that im old just because im 30. im only five years older than some of these people who are like ‘dni if youre 30+!’.... like you are 25 years old there is no significant age gap or power differential between us??? do you think that once you turn 30 you stop liking anime and become some kind of sexually predatory liability towards....people in their mid to late 20s? 

the reason we talk about age is because adults, all adults, need to respect children and teens at their particular stage of development. i know teenagers hate being told theyre not fully mature yet but you arent fully mature yet. you arent adults. even if you were, you simply dont have that much life experience. its fine not to know everything. and there are people who know more than you who will try to use what they know against you. thats why discussion age dynamics is so important. because childhood developmental stages are a thing really even up until youre in your early 20s (but at that point it doesnt matter AS MUCH because once youre legally an adult you have more legal rights than you do as a child, as sad as that is).

i think a lot of this antagonism against people over 30 is that society generally values youth, which is pretty silly because society also gives children and teens little to no legal recourse. so there is this distinct antagonism there. youth is valuable perhaps BECAUSE of its capacity for exploitation. once youre older, you know better, and thus you cannot be so easily fooled. and thus, as a result, we all believe turning 30 means youre a dried up useless husk, because your buying power isnt as useful. your beauty (if you are a woman) is worthless because only barely legal teens are acceptable in a society that highly values youth....and we should maybe unpack that because thats highly uncomfortable isnt it? your reproductive capacity is worthless because biased scientists have told us that if you have a child over 40 you are GUARANTEED to produce DEFECTIVE CHILDREN!!!! its backed up by SCIENCE!!!! science says older women are useless and shouldnt have children!! even though we live in a world where genetic counseling exists and we can easily navigate those risks...but no, science says. 

the cult of youth is a cult of exploitation of the youth and one that devalues to the point of disposability of older people. and during the pandemic we are really starting to see just how little governments care about older people. in fact, its almost as if they are purposely killing them off...because they arent as important as the youth for some of the above mentioned reasons.

[ontarionewdemocrats-blog]

It’s constituency week! Your MPPs are in their ridings right now, go bug them!!

Smaller public-health units fear big impact from Ontario budget cuts

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-smaller-public-health-units-fear-big-impact-from-govt-cuts/

Ford government to cut $1-billion in funding to Toronto public health over 10 years, board chair says

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-ford-government-to-cut-1-billion-in-funding-to-toronto-public-health/

Toronto Catholic school-board chair joins critics of Tories’ public-health cuts

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/04/21/toronto-catholic-school-board-chair-joins-critics-of-tories-public-health-cuts.html

Ontario’s cuts to Toronto Public Health threaten to ‘devastate’ school nutrition program, some warn

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-school-breakfast-nutrition-public-health-1.5106737

NDP bill proposes opt-out organ donation

https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2019/04/22/ndp-bill-proposes-opt-out-organ-donation/?hootPostID=5570bfa8c93bb8e039a2ed0087721b41

‘It just gets worse’: Residents, families, former staff voice care concerns at Ontario nursing home

https://globalnews.ca/news/5190701/care-concerns-ontario-nursing-home/

Ontario may let pharmacists prescribe treatments for minor issues like pink eye

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pharmacists-prescribing-treatments-1.5103435

No one oversees children’s mental health in Ontario, warn McMaster University researchers

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9294350-no-one-oversees-children-s-mental-health-in-ontario-warn-mcmaster-university-researchers/

Study finds one in five Ontario children have mental health problems, same as 30 years ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/study-finds-one-in-five-ontario-children-have-mental-health-problems-same-as-30-years-ago-1.5103478

Ontario to tie post-secondary funding to grads’ earnings

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-to-tie-post-secondary-funding-to-grads-earnings

Transgender girl’s sex-ed curriculum appeal dismissed by human rights tribunal

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-human-rights-tribunal-sex-ed-appeal-1.5104626

Ontario starts tracking firearms seizures after failing to follow own law for years

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-government-flouts-own-law-on-gun-data-collection/

How Ford’s clawback of gas tax revenues could affect TTC service

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/04/22/how-fords-clawback-of-gas-tax-revenues-could-affect-ttc-service.html

GO Transit fare cut on shorter trips takes effect today

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/go-transit-fare-cut-on-shorter-trips-takes-effect-today-1.4387662

Ontario businesses concerned about government review of R&D tax credits

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/small-business/money/article-ontario-businesses-concerned-about-government-review-of-rd-tax/

Toronto developer named new LCBO chair by Ontario government

https://globalnews.ca/news/5192471/toronto-developer-lcbo-chair/

Then-Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown asked donor to give funds to girlfriend

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontarios-brown-asked-donor-to-give-funds-to-girlfriend/

Next Ontario election should be held on school holiday or weekend: chief electoral officer

https://globalnews.ca/news/5190547/next-ontario-election-on-holiday-or-weekend/

Ontario abandons property ownership as source of jurors

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/04/18/ontario-abandons-property-ownership-as-source-of-jurors.html

Ontario cuts conservation authority funding for flood programs

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-flooding-cuts-conservation-1.5105897

Doug Ford government one of the most ‘anti-environment’ in generations, Green Party leader says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-climate-change-environment-plan-1.5104740

Critics slam proposed changes to Endangered Species Act

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/18/critics-slam-proposed-changes-to-endangered-species-act.html

NDP accuses Ford government of violating federal election law with mandatory blue gas-pump stickers

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/18/ndp-accuses-ford-government-of-violating-federal-election-law-with-mandatory-blue-gas-pump-stickers.html

Ontario’s cannabis plan needs a rethink to curb black market, Chamber of Commerce says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/occ-urges-retail-rethink-for-next-phase-of-cannabis-plan-1.5105207

Toronto staff recommends listing Ontario Place on city’s heritage register

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-place-heritage-listing-register-1.5105153

Witnesses say they are still struggling nearly 1 year since the deadly Toronto van attack

https://globalnews.ca/news/5189731/yonge-street-van-attack-witnesses-say-they-are-still-struggling/

Ceremonies, vigils planned to honour victims of deadly Toronto van attack

https://globalnews.ca/news/5192911/ceremonies-vigils-honour-victims-of-deadly-toronto-van-attack/

Neighbours don’t like drug-use sites, Doug Ford said. Kensington Market in Toronto begs to differ

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-neighbours-dont-like-drug-use-sites-the-premier-said-kensington/

Funding cuts to Northern, Southern Ontario library systems hit rural and Indigenous communities

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-funding-cuts-to-northern-southern-ontario-library-systems-hit-rural/

Rural book borrowing in peril as libraries slam PC budget cuts

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/eastern-ontario-libraries-concerned-about-cuts-1.5103998

Ford government cuts Ontario Library Services budgets in half

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/18/ford-government-cuts-ontario-library-service-budgets-in-half.html

Grassy Narrows worries about fate of Trudeau Liberals’ promised treatment home

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/grassy-narrows-worries-about-fate-of-trudeau-liberals-promised-treatment-home-1.4388861

Jagmeet Singh’s Love & Courage: ‘I carried the shame and stigma’ of abuse

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2019/04/20/jagmeet-singhs-love-courage-i-carried-the-shame-and-stigma-of-abuse.html

‘Beyond comprehension’: Torontonians gather to mourn, seek solace after Sri Lanka Easter attacks

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/vigil-sri-lanka-bombing-victims-scarborough-church-gary-anandasangaree-1.5106427

Sri Lanka bomb attacks were revenge for New Zealand mosque killings, minister says

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-sri-lanka-bomb-attacks-were-revenge-for-new-zealand-mosque-killings/

Coyote co-existence policies mean pets are never safe, group of homeowners say

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/collingwood-lawsuit-against-living-with-coyotes-1.5105638

This Durham cop intentionally misled his bosses about his unlicensed marijuana dispensary, the OPP concluded. He has never faced discipline

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/04/21/this-durham-cop-intentionally-misled-bosses-about-his-unlicensed-marijuana-dispensary-the-opp-concluded-he-has-never-faced-discipline.html

Numbers show Hamilton homeowners are struggling to pay the high city taxes

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-homeowners-struggling-to-pay-high-city-taxes-1.5106111

Hamilton teen with autism ‘excluded’ from school over safety concerns

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9296521-hamilton-teen-with-autism-excluded-from-school-over-safety-concerns/

Public health squeeze is the unkindest cut of all from Ford

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/22/public-health-squeeze-is-the-unkindest-cut-of-all-from-ford.html

Doug Ford’s public-health cuts will come back to haunt us

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-doug-fords-public-health-cuts-will-come-back-to-haunt-us/

Psychiatrists shouldn’t have a monopoly over psychotherapy

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-psychiatrists-shouldnt-have-a-monopoly-over-psychotherapy/

Regg Cohn: Mike Schreiner emerges as a fresh voice at Queen’s Park

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/04/22/mike-schreiner-emerges-as-a-fresh-voice-at-queens-park.html

Watt: The fragile façade of Confederation

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/04/21/the-fragile-faade-of-confederation.html

LILLEY: Carbon tax court challenge, advantage Ontario

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-carbon-tax-court-battle-advantage-ontario

EDITORIAL: Thumbs up to expanded health-care role for pharmacists

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-thumbs-up-to-expanded-health-care-role-for-pharmacists

GOLDSTEIN: Provincial elections refute Trudeau’s carbon tax claims

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-provincial-elections-refute-trudeaus-carbon-tax-claims

SNOBELEN: Liberals buried Ontario in debt but PCs slowly turning spending tap off

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/snobelen-liberals-buried-ontario-in-debt-but-pcs-slowly-turn-spending-tap-off

Brad James: Does Ontario’s PC government have more plans for labour laws?

http://ontarionewswatch.com/onw-news.html?id=1273

Randall White: A Tale of Two Ontario Budgets

http://ontarionewswatch.com/onw-news.html?id=1272

[patriotsnet]

Were Democrats Or Republicans For Slavery

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/were-democrats-or-republicans-for-slavery/

Were Democrats Or Republicans For Slavery

Presidency Of Martin Van Buren

Democrats Responsible for Slavery, Republican Party for Abolition.mp4

The Presidency of Martin Van Buren was hobbled by a long economic depression called the Panic of 1837. The presidency promoted hard money based on gold and silver, an independent federal treasury, a reduced role for the government in the economy, and a liberal policy for the sale of public lands to encourage settlement; they opposed high tariffs to encourage industry. The Jackson policies were kept, such as Indian removal and the Trail of Tears. Van Buren personally disliked slavery but he kept the slaveholder’s rights intact. Nevertheless, he was distrusted across the South.

The 1840 Democratic convention was the first at which the party adopted a platform. Delegates reaffirmed their belief that the Constitution was the primary guide for each state’s political affairs. To them, this meant that all roles of the federal government not specifically defined fell to each respective state government, including such responsibilities as debt created by local projects. Decentralized power and states’ rights pervaded each and every resolution adopted at the convention, including those on slavery, taxes, and the possibility of a central bank. Regarding slavery, the Convention adopted the following resolution:

What Happened In 1969

The war in Vietnam came to a head. The democrats under Kennedy had gotten us into the war and then after Kennedy was killed President Johnson continued and grew our presence in Vietnam.

Peoples opposition to the war became the focus of the democrat party and the emotional democrats became the protagonists for eliminating the policies that kept blacks in the back of the bus as well as free love and marijuana.

I was young at the time and this is the Democratic Party i remember which were opposed to real things. There was a war in vietnam. People were dying. There was segregation.

Republicans didnt resist outlawing segregation. The resistance was focused on the remaining segregationists in the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond a democrat from the south fillibustered the passage of the civil rights act.

In 1968 the democrats held a national convention. This convention devolved into riots and was the watershed for racism and the Democratic Party. The racists were ejected from the Democratic Party ostensibly.

Democrats today claim that in 1969 what happened is that the racists in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party.

There is no evidence of this. Storm Thurmond, Robert Byrd never switched parties. Robert Byrd a former KKK leader stayed a democrat until he retired from the senate in 2010. Biden called Byrd a mentor.

Biden was one of the most outspoken opponents of busing.

None of that is true.

If you arent a democrat then they dont want you in the identity group.

After The Civil War Democrats Continued To Fight Against Equality For Blacks

For 100 years the democrats staged a rear guard action seeking to keep blacks subservient and doing their bidding.

They passed laws to limit black peoples ability to vote, to sit on the front of the bus, to own land, to rent apartments, to go to the same schools and many other things.

If anyone owes black people reparations it is these democrats.

Given this history of democrats it is stunning that the Democratic Party continues to exist. Shouldnt it be disbanded? We are tearing down statues, removing names of historically racist people and institutions so why not destroy the Democratic Party? It is slavery and was the principal advocate of slavery. They also were heavily involved in passing racist laws, hanging blacks and many republicans who opposed the democrats.

Why would anyone want to be part of a party that was historically so critical and central to the whole effort to enslave and repress blacks?

People have a tendency not to be partisan and to label this as white Americans that did this but it was the Democrats. Republicans were the ones fighting it. If not for those republicans the black people in America would never have been freed or gotten voting rights or many other things that had to be fought. Many white republicans were killed by democrats even after the end of the civil war who were called sympathizers.

Again, why doesnt this basic fact that is indisputable matter?

Those blacks who could vote between 1860 and 1969 voted for republicans.

Recommended Reading: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There

Political Firsts For Women And Minorities

From its inception in 1854 to 1964, when Senate Republicans pushed hard for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against a filibuster by Senate Democrats, the GOP had a reputation for supporting blacks and minorities. In 1869, the Republican-controlled legislature in Wyoming Territory and its Republican governor John Allen Campbell made it the first jurisdiction to grant voting rights to women. In 1875, California swore in the first Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco. In 1916, Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman in Congressand indeed the first woman in any high level government position. In 1928, New Mexico elected the first Hispanic U.S. Senator, Republican . In 1898, the first Jewish U.S. Senator elected from outside of the former Confederacy was Republican Joseph Simon of Oregon. In 1924, the first Jewish woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives was Republican Florence Kahn of California. In 1928, the Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Charles Curtis of Kansas, who grew up on the Kaw Indian reservation, became the first person of significant non-European ancestry to be elected to national office, as Vice President of the United States for Herbert Hoover.

A New Political Party

After passing all these pro-slavery laws, in May 1854, a number of anti-slavery members in Congress formed a new political party to fight slavery. These anti-slavery members were from the Whigs, Free Soil advocates and Emancipationists. They wanted to gain equal rights for black Americans.

The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party. They chose this name because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality. These are the principles first put forth in the documents of the republic before the pro-slavery Congressional members had misused and manipulated to their own purposes those original principles.

You May Like: Who Won More Democrats Or Republicans

The New Deal Era: 19321939

After Roosevelt took office in 1933, New Deal legislation sailed through Congress at lightning speed. In the 1934 midterm elections, ten Republican senators went down to defeat, leaving them with only 25 against 71 Democrats. The House of Representatives was also split in a similar ratio. The “Second New Deal” was heavily criticized by the Republicans in Congress, who likened it to class warfare and socialism. The volume of legislation, as well as the inability of the Republicans to block it, soon made the opposition to Roosevelt develop into bitterness and sometimes hatred for “that man in the White House. Former President Hoover became a leading orator crusading against the New Deal, hoping unrealistically to be nominated again for president.

Most major newspaper publishers favored Republican moderate Alf Landon for president. In the nation’s 15 largest cities the newspapers that editorially endorsed Landon represented 70% of the circulation. Roosevelt won 69% of the actual voters in those cities by ignoring the press and using the radio to reach voters directly.

Roosevelt carried 46 of the 48 states thanks to traditional Democrats along with newly energized labor unions, city machines and the Works Progress Administration. The realignment creating the Fifth Party System was firmly in place. Since 1928, the GOP had lost 178 House seats, 40 Senate seats and 19 governorships, though it retained a mere 89 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate.

Southernization; Oh That Sounds Fun Wait It Isnt

From the 1960s to the 2000s a southernization of the Republican party occurs. Paired with Goldwater and;Hoover states rights conservatism and along;with old Anti-Communist ideology, it was enough to completely change the political parties.

From the late 1800s to the 2000s Republican progressives moved toward the Democratic Party and Southern Conservatives moved toward the Republican party. See;the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition.

The grand result is that the David Dukes of the world today fly the Confederate Battle flag and vote Republican.

This story;is a major reason why the voter map looks the way it does.

Meanwhile, while we can still see Gores and Clintons, and sometimes even a Byrd, in the modern Democratic party, those Redeemer and Redeemed liberals made a conscious choice to ally with the dominate Progressive and Neoliberal factions in this cycle.

You May Like: When Did The Southern Democrats Become Republicans

What Does Republican Mean

The word republicanmeans of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a republic. A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf.;

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a doge who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic.;

Slavery And The Emergence Of The Bipartisan System

Civil Rights and Slavery – Republican and Democrat Parties – Prager University

From 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all but two presidential elections . During the 1840s and 50s, however, the Democratic Party, as it officially named itself in 1844, suffered serious internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, wanted to allow slavery in all the territories, while Northern Democrats, led by Stephen A. Douglas, proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through referendum. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge and Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the newly established antislavery Republican Party . With the Democrats hopelessly split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote; in contrast, Douglas and Breckinridge won 29 percent and 18 percent of the vote, respectively.

Don’t Miss: Are There More Democrats Or Republicans In Us

On This Day The Republican Party Names Its First Candidates

On July 6, 1854, disgruntled voters in a new political party named its first candidates to contest the Democrats over the issue of slavery. Within six and one-half years, the newly christened Republican Party would control the White House and Congress as the Civil War began.

For a brief time in the decade before the Civil War, the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and his descendants enjoyed a period of one-party rule. The Democrats had battled the Whigs for power since 1836 and lost the presidency in 1848 to the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor. After Taylor died in office in 1850, it took only a few short years for the Whig Party to collapse dramatically.

There are at least three dates recognized in the formation of the Republican Party in 1854, built from the ruins of the Whigs. The first is February 24, 1854, when a small group met in Ripon, Wisconsin, to discuss its opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The group called themselves Republicans in reference to Thomas Jeffersons Republican faction in the American republics early days. Another meeting was held on March 20, 1854, also in Ripon, where 53 people formally recognized the movement within Wisconsin.

On July 6, 1854, a much-bigger meeting in Jackson, Michigan was attended by about 10,000 people and is considered by many as the official start of the organized Republican Party. By the end of the gathering, the Republicans had compiled a full slate of candidates to run in Michigans elections.

Culture Conflict And Al Smith

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, a resolution denouncing the Ku Klux Klan was introduced by Catholic and liberal forces allied with Al Smith and Oscar W. Underwood in order to embarrass the front-runner, William Gibbs McAdoo. After much debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1924 and 1928. However, Al Smith did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

the myth of the Democratic Party masterfully re-created, a fresh awareness of the elemental differences between the parties, and ideology with which they might make sense of the two often senseless conflicts of the present, and a feeling for the importance of dynamic leadership. The book was a mirror for Democrats.

You May Like: Are Any Republicans Running Against President Trump

Presidency Of Andrew Jackson

The spirit of Jacksonian democracy animated the party from the early 1830s to the 1850s, shaping the Second Party System, with the Whig Party as the main opposition. After the disappearance of the Federalists after 1815 and the Era of Good Feelings , there was a hiatus of weakly organized personal factions until about 18281832, when the modern Democratic Party emerged along with its rival, the Whigs. The new Democratic Party became a coalition of farmers, city-dwelling laborers and Irish Catholics. Both parties worked hard to build grassroots organizations and maximize the turnout of voters, which often reached 80 percent or 90 percent of eligible voters. Both parties used patronage extensively to finance their operations, which included emerging big city political machines as well as national networks of newspapers.

Behind the party platforms, acceptance speeches of candidates, editorials, pamphlets and stump speeches, there was a widespread consensus of political values among Democrats. As Mary Beth Norton explains:

The party was weakest in New England, but strong everywhere else and won most national elections thanks to strength in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the American frontier. Democrats opposed elites and aristocrats, the Bank of the United States and the whiggish modernizing programs that would build up industry at the expense of the yeoman or independent small farmer.

Why It Doesnt Make Sense To Equate Modern Democrats With The Old Southern Democrats

The Democrats, formally the;anti-Federalists,;had an;aversion to aristocracy from the late 1700s to the progressive era.

That truism;led to the southern conservatives of the solid south like;John C. Calhoun and small government liberals like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren allying;in the same party;for most of U.S. history.

However,;that changed;after Civil Rights under LBJ and the rise of Goldwater States Rights Republicans .

Today the solid south, and figures like Jeff Sessions, are in an alliance in the big tent of the Republican Party . This was as much a response to the growing progressiveness of the Democratic Party as anything.

One simple way to confirm this is to look at the factions of;Lincolns time. There were four. They;were:

The Northern liberal Whig/Republicans,

The;Nativist Know-Nothing; allies of the Whig/Republicans,

The Southern Democrats and their Northern allies , and

The;Free Soil;;allies of the Democrats who;took a libertarian like position.

Todays Democrats are more like socially liberal Whig/Republicans , libertarians are like Free Soilers , Trumpians are like Nativist Know-Nothings , and Southern Democrats are like the modern Southern conservative Republicans.

The current parties are thus:

Social Liberals and Neoliberals vs. Social Conservatives and Neoliberal Conservatives AKA Neocons .

Clearly, the country has never been fully polarized, even at its most polarized.

Also Check: Do Republicans Want To Impeach Trump

The Second Bush Era: 20002008

George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, won the 2000 Republican presidential nomination over Arizona Senator John McCain, former Senator Elizabeth Dole and others. With his highly controversial and exceedingly narrow victory in the 2000 election against the Vice President Al Gore, the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, it lost control of the Senate when Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent in 2001 and caucused with the Democrats.

In the wake of the on the United States in 2001, Bush gained widespread political support as he pursued the War on Terrorism that included the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, Bush ordered for an invasion of Iraq because of breakdown of United Nations sanctions and intelligence indicating programs to rebuild or develop new weapons of mass destruction. Bush had near-unanimous Republican support in Congress plus support from many Democratic leaders.

Bush failed to win conservative approval for Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, replacing her with Samuel Alito, whom the Senate confirmed in January 2006. Bush and McCain secured additional tax cuts and blocked moves to raise taxes. Through 2006, they strongly defended his policy in Iraq, saying the Coalition was winning. They secured the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

[creion]

gen z/millennial fma headcanons courtesy of me.

greed:

greed is friends with everyone in this au. everyone. he knows everyone.

no one knows greeds real name. he’s just greed. in this au thomas halbert doesnt have the url greed. greed does. hes not even that greedy and he most definitely blocks everyone who calls him out on it.

he’s mysterious in general. his youtube channel goes between him doing backflips off of things he shouldnt be doing back flips off of to a podcast about [some obscure political thing]? who is he?

greeds probably low key homeless like idk in an au where hes human i can imagine him showing up at one of his friends houses every night with like his one backpack of belongings like “hey im sleeping on ur couch and using ur shower” and no one really questions him because hes charming enough to get away with it yknow

except edward questions him. “ling isnt even here. wyd.” “please. if i dont shower i might die.” “fucking fine I GUESS”

greeds favorite place to go is ed and lings apartment because theyre nice and ling always feeds him and also eds funny and greed appreciates humor

this is just a general greed headcanon but god is he poly :3c i can and will fight about this.

ling:

GAY! TANA! MONGEAU! hes wild and a lot of people hate him even though hes really a giant sweetie. he’s best friends with greed and sometimes ling goes on greeds podcast so they can talk about their exercise regimen

hes dating edward of course. theres not more to this other than theyre dating and they love each other and Would kill for each other. also a lot of people probably dont think they have a deep relationship but im telling you. theyre star crossed lovers. its total romcom bullshit.

ling probably gets paid to go to parties. like thats his job and he makes good money doing it even though he has a masters in psychology. he just. goes to parties. pays off his student loans.

he does a lot of prank videos on youtube. think tgfbro but american and less edgy.

ling probably also models on occasion. like hes pretty enough that he just does it.

he shaves his head at some point or like maybe gets an undercut and no one can look at him for a month because its just weird. lings hair is like his identity.

he gets up to a lot of hijinks with greed. theyre probably a little gay together. edward doesnt care because its 2018 time 2 start normalizing polyamory ok.

ling spends actual money on new clothes for greed but the man always wears the same two outfits and although ling rarely gets angry this gets him a little riled

edward:

his youtube channel is just a mess kind of like greeds except with him its unintentional he just... does what he wants. theres videos of him showing off his physical prowess. like hes small but he WILL kick your fuckin ass. hes probably a black belt and is the physical embodiment of the navy seals rant.

sometimes he does vsauce style videos on youtube and everyone hates when he does it because hes memelord 69 but at the same time hes wicked smart

hes a physicist in this world and im serious it throws anyone who meets him for a loop.

ed gets asked a lot how roy is his dad if hes only 12 years older than him. eds answers are either “he found me and my brother as infants and has mothered us since” or “idk man”

ed accidentally starts a meme. he posts a bunch of pictures of ling either sleeping or passed out and idk the specifics of the meme but he starts a meme and it pains him. he consumes he does not create.

ed likes greed but he doesnt express it. “i dont like you” “[eyeroll] and???? im still eating ur leftovers”

ed actually does kick russel tringham in the head for a skit for one of lings vlogs. ed and russel are best friends even if russel genuinely did try to steal eds identity at some point and may or may not have put ed in debt for a few months

roy: 

hes one of ed’s professors much to eds dismay since roy is, technically, his adoptive father.

he probably argues with ed a lot in the middle of lectures (”hey dumbass thats not how it works” “im literally teaching you what you’re majoring in.” “yeah and im telling you that you’re wrong.”)

he’s like 35 in this au and technically a millennial. ed’s 21.

roy has an instagram and its literally just pictures of hughes and elicia and nina and ed and al

roy and hughes are most definitely a foster family and am i pulling this from my own fic yes i am can you stop me no you cant

hughes:

HES FINE. HES ALIVE.

all of the gen z kids in this au think hes awful bc of all the dad jokes and slightly outdated humor. hes not awful. hes perfect. hes doing his best.

he loves all four of his children.

he and gracia are best friends even if their marriage didnt work out for unknown reasons. they along with roy are GOOD PARENTS to elicia. you can pry this from my cold dead hands. canon can suck my chode.

lust:

shes not like greed she doesnt try to be mysterious. shes probably a beauty guru (SolarisCosmetics) and does a lot of tutorials like “Low Commitment Goth Makeup Tutorial”

shes unintentionally mysterious because for her first like 50 videos or so theres no commentary its just subtitles

her first video with commentary is like “i... apologize. i was not intending to be so... mysterious.” and shes actually very sweet and nice and you can fight me on this ok

greed is her adoptive brother and greed makes her bleep out his name and blur her mouth whenever she calls him by his name bc he likes to lurk in the background of her videos because hes an asshole

winry:

shes a mechanic in this au and i mean shes a mechanic in canon but she prob specializes in like. idk. cars. this is a headcanon list im not looking up specifics of mechanics point is she can rebuild an engine in an afternoon and everyone in this au is in love with her

BIG LESBIAN

she probably tries getting ed to go on double dates (him and ling with her and lan fan) but every single time he shoots her down and its to the point shes almost convinced that hes not even dating ling in the first place

greed is probably her biggest client. no one knows how he does it but his car is constantly breaking and winry is the only mechanic in his general vicinity who knows how to do her job worth a shit and also her repair shop has cool music and he probably finds excuses just to chill for the music

“[greed] please. if your fat ass is going to be taking up counter space AT LEAST help clean up” “excuse you my ass is FIRM AND PERKY.”

its probably a joke among ed’s following that winry DOES NOT put up with his shit and when winry gets asked out it shes just like “hes an asshole why the fuck do you think im gonna let him walk around all half cocked like that”

riza:

i like to think shes in the military in this au too. not like military military but maybe air force idk. imagine pilot riza. wow.

shes not on active duty or w/e but you KNOW shes in a foreign country going to college paid for by the government.

everyone in this au is at least bi and riza is no exception. she is dating olivier armstrong. they are in love u can pry this from my cold dead hands you fucking gremlins

edward is probably platonically in love with her. like when he gets to see her (which isnt often) he has to occasionally stop, put a hand on her shoulder, do the ‘boi’ hand (idk how else to describe it) and say, “i love you dont ever change” “thank you, edward.” “[hug]”

envy: 

a troll. like you know those troll blogs that are pretending to be otherkin or some really obscure gender w neopronouns (u do u but we all kno theres trolls). envy has one of those blogs.

envy is actually nonbinary irl but theyre very critical of “special snowflakes” (again u do u these headcanons dont necessarily reflect my opinions and as long as u aint hurting no one i support u) and they probably cyberbully ppl

envy is garbage in this fic

“god i hate you” “actually eat my ass, greed”

see greed is the opposite of ed w riza. he looks at envy and occasionally has to say “i fucking hate you”

theyre secrety buds but like... they annoy the shit out of each other. u kno they do.

ENVY STARTS A LOT OF DISCOURSE. THEY PROBABLY START A LOT OF HOMESTUCK DISCOURSE. GOD. here i am in 2018 writing about envy starting fucking homestuck discourse. its probably like davekat discourse too tbh

i know im forgetting alphonse, may/mei (i spell it mei), and lan fan but its like 4:19 am 

please send me asks if u have any feedback. or reply to this post. its up to u. i trust u to make the right decision. (there is no reight decision and honestly i need to go to bed)

[khalilhumam]

US Trade Policy Shouldn’t Pit Developing Countries Against Each Other

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/us-trade-policy-shouldnt-pit-developing-countries-against-each-other/

US Trade Policy Shouldn’t Pit Developing Countries Against Each Other

This blog post originally appeared on World Politics Review.  The global economy is gradually healing from the economic blows dealt by the coronavirus pandemic, but the recovery remains fragile and halting. Reduced trade is more a symptom than a cause of those trends—and what governments do in terms of additional fiscal stimulus will do far more to determine the shape of the recovery in the United States and other countries. Still, trade policy could be a factor, supporting or undermining the nascent recovery. President Donald Trump’s trade wars have already complicated the direct response to COVID-19 infections—by making imports of some critical products more expensive or harder to find—and made the road to recovery steeper. If the House of Representatives passes a bipartisan resolution currently under consideration that opposes tariff exemptions to developing countries in certain sectors, it would be another sign that the United States is moving in the wrong direction. Generalized System of Preferences programs were adopted in most rich countries in the 1970s—and more recently in major emerging markets such as China and India—to encourage trade and support industrialization and job creation in developing countries. These so-called GSP programs allow designated imports from eligible developing countries to enter without payment of the normal tariff. Almost all of them have weaknesses, however, that undermine their effectiveness, such as exclusions in key sectors or rules of origin for determining product eligibility with which poorer countries struggle to comply. The US GSP has long been one of the least generous and has become relatively less so over time. Now, with much of the world—and developing countries in particular—facing high unemployment and struggling to recover from the economic as well as health effects of the coronavirus, some in Congress want to lock in that miserliness. From the beginning, Congress statutorily excluded certain “sensitive” products from eligibility, including the clothing and footwear sectors, where many developing countries have a comparative advantage. Not coincidentally, those are also products for which trade preferences are particularly valuable because they face relatively high tariffs when entering the American market. When Congress passed legislation extending the GSP program in 2015, it authorized the president to grant eligibility for previously excluded textile and leather products, including handbags and luggage. Now, as the House faces a year-end deadline to once again authorize continuation of the GSP program, Democratic Reps. Albio Sires, Adriano Espaillat, and Karen Bass, along with Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, have introduced a resolution to get the House on the record opposing any extension of these benefits to textiles, clothing, or footwear. In introducing the resolution, the bipartisan sponsors are in effect lining up with the National Council of Textile Organizations in a policy debate that pits some developing countries against others. Mexico, Central America, Haiti, and a handful of countries in South America—along with a number of sub-Saharan African countries—are already accorded at least some duty-free access for their clothing and footwear exports under existing bilateral trade agreements or special, regional preference programs. With encouragement from the textile industry association, these countries are opposing the expansion of tariff exemptions to other countries because it could increase competition and erode the benefits of preferential access they currently enjoy. Their preferential access under these arrangements, however, is conditional. To be eligible for them, Western Hemisphere exporters typically have to meet onerous rules of origin that force them to use American textiles and other inputs in the clothing they produce for export. African countries exporting preferentially under the African Growth and Opportunity Act have an exemption allowing them to import fabric and other inputs from whatever source is most efficient. That was necessary for the program to work because the transportation and other costs involved in having to use US inputs would be prohibitive. The American textile industry accepts this carve-out because African exports are not significant enough to pose a threat, and the visible support to exporters from poorer African countries serves as useful cover for the industry’s underlying protectionist stance. The congressional resolution’s sponsors are genuinely concerned about the potential impact that generalized exemptions could have on trade partners in Latin America and Africa. But instead of opposing them across the board, they should explore alternatives that could shield these countries while improving access to the U.S. market for other low income countries. One such compromise solution would be to provide additional benefits only to United Nations-designated “least developed countries,” as other rich countries—notably Canada and the European Union—have done. To further protect current beneficiaries from “preference erosion,” such an expansion might exclude selected textile or apparel items on which African and Latin American expoters are particularly dependent. Congress might also choose to limit new benefits in sensitive sectors to countries that are deemed particularly vulnerable and meet certain conditions in terms of protecting workers’ rights and the environment, as the EU does with its GSP+ program. Or, as proposed in a recent Center for Global Development paper, improved access in sensitive sectors might be granted to vulnerable countries hosting large numbers of refugees and agreeing to grant them legal rights to employment. Worldwide, the poor within and across countries are disproportionately feeling the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments in developing countries typically have far less fiscal space to mitigate the costs for the most vulnerable. Expanded trade preferences are a way to support developing countries while also lowering costs for American consumers and manufacturers. Congress should not take that possibility off the table.

[trickstarbrave]

Horror games aren't suppose to be perfectly 'logical'. They're mysteries. Of course something aren't going to make sense at face value in Outlast 2, because you're suppose to actually think critically and hard about it instead of complaining ONE of the villains is transgendered.

bitch nothing about outlast 2 makes any sense if you actually think about it instead of going “oooo, aaah, so dark, so scary, so graphic, ahhh im being chased ahhhhh gore that is trying to be symbolic but has no idea what symbolism is” 

1. why the fuck did this company build giant ass mind altering radio wave towers in the middle of fucking no where. no really. that shit is EXPENSIVE. with mutating and abusing mentally ill patients at the very least it makes sense a corrupt company would be doing it. make super soldiers and you can sell them to the military or smth. the criminally insane basically have no rights. RANDOM WHITE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS. YOU CANT JUST WALK UP TO A GOVERNMENT OR COUNTRY AND BE LIKE “here is my new tech i proved it works by testing it on rural farmers and making them start mass hallucinating the end of the world”

2. even IF they somehow had a plan, its stated theyre currently out of business. even if they still are our hiding somewhere trying to bounce back or continue their plans radio towers don’t just run on their own. they need a lot of power. 

3. jessica could have been done way better. the parts where ur in the school are some of the best in the game. but a lot of parts of it are clumsy. the ‘symbolism’ doesnt make sense and is just a way to plug bullshit shock gore. oh look the shower has blood coming out of it. toilet has blood. why? bc its scary to have blood coming out of stuff that shouldnt have blood in it i guess. the random bodies and flies on them are also just not interesting in the town. this town CANNOT have that many ppl dead and still have a strong cult going. if val’s crew is running around killing them maybe give some hint at that (LIKE THEM IDK VANDALIZING THE BUILDING???? LEAVING CREEPY NOTES???) so it doesnt just seem like the villagers are dropping dead like flies or being killed by their neighbors?? 

4. WHY THE FUCK IS THERE AN ENTIRE WHITE FARMING TOWN ON THE FUCKING RESERVATION AND WHY DOES NO ONE ON THE DEV TEAM SEEM TO KNOW HOW TO OPEN A MAP OF ARIZONA AND FIND OUT WHERE ON THE MAP HAVASUPAI IS FUCKING SUPPOSED TO BE. 

[mysydneymemories-blog]

What you need to know about 5G

$80m deal to speed up SA public school internetAussies fed up with slow, unreliable internet What IS 5G? 5G is the network that will deliver ultra-fast internet to your phone or any other device. Right now, your smartphone is probably on 4G or 3G. With 5G, it could be 10 times faster. 5G means the fifth generation; its the fifth generation of network that lets you connect to the internet when you dont have Wi-Fi. It uses radio waves on a different frequency that will work more efficiently, supported by small cells on existing poles instead of mobile phone towers.

media_cameraThe speed and ability to upload and download huge amounts of data, will allow new technologies to flourish with 5G technology. When it launches next week, Australia will become the third nation in the world to get it. That in turn will spark different ways of using the internet. Billions of devices will be connected thats the Internet of Things, which is already transforming industries (more on this below). It will replace the need for the NBN, for Wi-Fi, for some but not all, not yet. A couple of weeks ago, Telstras chief customer officer John Ieraci told an Adelaide conference that the network would underpin a $12 trillion economy and support 22 million jobs. The fast speeds that 5G offers will give people the ability to download huge amounts of data, he said. That means downloading movies in seconds. It means driverless cars being able to map routes, and avoid accidents. Nimble delivery drones. It will make immersive virtual reality a reality. And it shouldnt be more expensive. In fact Telstra says data should be even cheaper. But the new phones youll need may be more expensive. What will be different? 5G is capable of delivering 20 gigabytes per second, although tests so far show its closer to 3gbps. But even at its slowest, its still faster than the best 4G speeds. Everything will be faster. Back when we first had dial-up internet, and watched single web pages load line by line, it was impossible to imagine where wed be now, with smartphones and tablets. 4G brought us into the world of streaming from our phones; of Netflix and Spotify. So it is with 5G, the next giant leap. That speed, that ability to upload and download huge amounts of data, will allow new technologies to flourish. Driverless cars will use 5G, because its so quick and every millisecond counts if theres a pending accident and a decision needs to be made.

media_cameraAustralia will become the third nation in the world to have 5G technology from next week, enabling it to become the Internet of Things even on the road in driverless vehicles. It will have health applications, such as remote surgery where you really dont want to deal with buffering. All that speed and rich data will see virtual reality become lush and more available. It will really kick off the Internet of Things. And then there are things yet-to-be imagined. Whats the Internet of Things? Its a mysterious sounding phrase that is actually very literal. Things connecting to the internet. We usually just think of people connecting, but more and more objects are being connected. Farmers can put sensors on their stock, to track where they are and even their health. Huge logistical exercises say, building a submarine become easier if you can track where all the parts are. In agriculture, it can be used to monitor soil moisture, to know when to water. Its how well have smart, interconnected cities. But its also already happening in homes. You might have a smart fridge, your kids might have smart toys. Gradually more and more things will be connected to the internet. How do I get 5G? You need both 5G coverage, and a 5G device. There is already some 5G coverage in place. Telstra projects that by the end of next month there will be patches of coverage around the city, at Thebarton, and other spots here and there. Optus will follow, and said in February that Old Reynella, Reynella East and Trott Park would be among the first suburbs to get access. There is a lot of space between those patches where 4G is still the network and in some places, 3G. Next week, Samsung will release a 5G smartphone, while Telstra will release a hub, or hotspot. Telstra chief executive Andy Penn said that was the moment 5G would become a reality. This is just the start, he said.

Almost one in three Australians are receiving lower download speeds than promised by providers, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.The ACCC's report found seven per cent of users were receiving less than half the top speed on offer by their internet service provider. Chairman Rod Simms blames poor quality infrastructure for the results, saying ISPs had a lot more work to do to improve broadband speeds.

The rollout of 5G coverage is ongoing and as 5G develops there will be more devices and more technologies to come. If you get a 5G-enabled device, it will seek out the 5G network and if it finds it, youre in. 5G will appear on your phone where 4G does now. But dont worry if you dont have a 5G device youll still get 4G, in the same way you sometimes now drop down to 3G. So youll be able to do everything youre doing now. Telstra says the new base stations will help make 4G faster, too. Will I still need broadband? 5G has been called the NBN killer. Australias beleaguered National Broadband Network has left a swathe of frustrated people in its wake. The dream of a super-fast national internet quickly dissipated. There were compromises over the technology and there have been delays in rollouts and in connections. The speeds have been slower than promised. People have had issues with their landlines after getting connected. Now, more people may delay hooking up to the NBN until they see whether they can get by with 5G using their phone deal to connect all their streaming and smart devices. And many may realise they dont need the NBN at all. Some have referred to 5G as the equivalent of fibre to the phone. But dont ditch your home internet until youve done your research. What happened with Huawei? Technology giant Huawei is thought to be spying for the Chinese Government, so the Federal Government put the kybosh on them building the 5G network. Other countries have also limited the Huawei infiltration. Australia is already riddled with Huawei gear; people have Huawei phones and tablets, and Huawei have built all sorts of communication systems, mobile phone base stations, and antennas.

The Trump administration is considering Huawei-like sanctions on Chinese video surveillance firm Hikvision, media reports show, deepening worries that trade friction between the world's top two economies could be further inflamed. Ed Giles reports.

But the 5G network would pose a massive risk to Australia if it was compromised. An enemy could use it not just for spying, but to take down critical infrastructure. The Australian Signals Directorate chief Mike Burgess has warned that 5G will give people control over everything from power to water supplies. An operative could wreak devastation on the financial markets. Huawei, of course, denies any espionage accusations. It says it wouldnt let anyone break local laws or put in backdoors ways for the Chinese government to access data. Does it matter? Banning Huawei matters in the trying-not-to-annoy our biggest trading partner stakes, but it also might matter for 5G. There are not a lot of people who can do such an enormous job, and do it cost effectively. Other companies are now stepping up, and they might be slower and more expensive. The upshot? 5G is coming, youll probably end up using it, and chances are youll think about the 4G world the way we now think about the days before Netflix. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/prepare-for-nextgeneration-internet-5g-the-advertiser-explains-what-it-is/news-story/ccd83f898b2a173245168b4c3909be3f?from=htc_rss

[eternaleve]

And we’re back for season two! There’s going to be a lot more questionable fashion choices, strange writing conundrums, and more political and theological theories of the sixteenth century! The course of this season represents some of the most monumental changes in the political makeup of England and how royal and spiritual power is implemented and received. Henry’s actions pretty much led the way to not only the English Civil War but the modern iteration of parliament and the role of government and the church in today’s world.

And there might be stuff that I miss. This is a huge, huge, huge topic, and I might not be able to get into everything or have the space to do it. I highly recommend picking up a copy of the Routledge historical biography ‘Henry VIII’ by Lucy Wooding if you want to know more. It’s a very good overview of Henry’s life and the period, and what I like about it is that it’s a very neutral look at Henry. Most of the major works on Henry were done in the sixties (Scarisbrick’s seminal autobiography is one of the most defining works on Henry) , and were influenced by a Cold War interpretations of Henry – i.e as Stalin-esque tyrant. That’s not even getting into ‘factional’ interpretations of the period, which I generally consider to be a little bit pants. Wooding’s is a brief factual overview that gives the right information as a starting point for further research, and it shows a much more nuanced look than some of the older historiography.

Right, let’s look at some nonsense.

“Everything Is Beautiful”

As he seeks the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII seeks to appoint himself the head of the Church of England. Anne Boleyn insists that Henry remove Queen Catherine from the picture – and Court. The new Pope Paul III, not wanting to displease either the king or the Emperor, practically suggests that Anne Boleyn be assassinated instead. Lutheran clergyman Thomas Cranmer, newly arrived at Court, receives a promotion as the king’s chaplain at the behest of Cromwell and the Boleyns. Thomas and George Boleyn bribe a cook to poison the food of Catherine’s strongest supporter, Bishop of Rochester John Fisher; however, the bishop survives and the cook, Richard Roose, is boiled alive. King Henry banishes the Queen from court. At the end of this episode the Spanish ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, is seen discussing the assassination of Anne with an unknown, hooded man. 

It’s true that not a lot of progression occurred from 1530 to 1532 in the annulment case – progressed stalled after the death of Wolsey – and 1532 is when a lot of major stuff starts to take place. And it allows for a budget increase and a few other changes here and there, including new characters and new opening titles.

And I laughed and laughed and laughed.

So I guess Thomas Wyatt is a major character now? He didn’t really add much to the show last season, but I guess he’s important now.

Thomas Cranmer (hey look another Thomas who can go by his given name) is now in the show! He’s introduced in the official synopsis as a ‘Lutheran’ but that’s not quite true. He was an evangelical reformer, but he was opposed to the radical changes of Luther and often rejected calls for the Anglican Church to be more Protestant. But the show likes to use ‘Lutheran’ as a simple catch-all for reformers, probably because evangelical has a different religious meaning in the modern world than it did five hundred years ago.

YES MATE. Peter O’Toole is just what this show needed, and has the correct amount of campy gravitas to really shine in this role. He’s the new Pope, Paul III, although he wasn’t Pope until 1534. Clement’s still alive, guys. Paul III oversaw a lot of actions of the Counter Reformation, but I don’t think he’s going to go past this season. They can’t pay those O’Toole bucks for too long.

Supreme Head of the Church of England

The show is opening with Henry and Anne at prayer. I like this because it’s something that’s often lied about or flat out ignored – Henry, despite what you might thing, was a Catholic. He was a reformed Catholic, but do not call him a Protestant. He is really not.

But he’s still too radical for a guy like Thomas More, who’s still fighting as much as he can against Henry’s political changes and changes in religion. More is against sola fide entirely, and that’s a pretty big thing.

One of the founding lynchpins of the new evangelical faiths is the idea of justification through faith alone. The Catholic idea lies in God judging you upon death, using your faith and good actions in life to decide your fate – hence, the good deeds, the penances, acts of charity, and so on. In Luther’s eyes, faith alone is the decider, and you don’t need to do anything else. God’s judgement is already decided upon your birth, and your faith should be enough. Your faith is not a cooperation with God, it’s inside you all along. It’s a private, scholarly way of worship, much more fitting for the world of the sixteenth century than, say, the thirteenth. A lot of the new faith relies on the ability to read, study, and self-reflect, a set of skills that people before the print revolution didn’t have.

Henry’s new ideas include a lot of reforms that commentators like More were interested in, but the idea of private faith is completely against what More stands for. And that’s going to be a huge problem.

The House of Commons has brought a petition to charge the clergy with supporting a foreign power, but Henry has the perfect solution: make me head of the church, and there’s no conflict!

The idea of royal supremacy isn’t a new one. Here’s something that Henry said in 1515 that he constantly used as his justification for making himself head of the church;

By the ordinance and sufferance of God we are king of England, and the kings of England in time past have never had any superior but God alone. Wherefore know you well that we shall maintain the right of our crown and of our temporal jurisdiction as well in this point as in all others

Henry’s use of biblical arguments is linked into the idea of humanist truth; there is nothing truer than the Word of God itself, and the examples given in British law means that Henry can and should be an independent ruler with no input from outside forces like the Pope.

It’s true that Henry is using royal supremacy to get what he wants, but it’s also through a conscious care for his subjects. As king, he’s responsible for not only their physical care but their spiritual care. England needs reform, and if he’s got to create his own church to do it, he’s going to do it.

There’s more to this royal supremacy business than just wanting to get his leg over.

The idea of English nationalism clashes with the idea of the unity of Christendom, as well as the fact that a lot of the English church is really not cool with evangelical ideas. They are not down with this if it means accepting Henry as a head of their church.

The clergy accepts Henry as the head of the church by default. No one votes for it, but no one votes against it either.

Cranmer is brought to court by Cromwell (even though I think his connection was through Anne, for whom he was chaplain for a while) and is elevated to chaplain instantly. He’s of a mind to work with Henry, as he created the petition that drew on the minds of the universities of Europe to support Henry. He’s key to a lot of the formation of the early Anglican church, and he’s Henry’s most long-lasting servant. Henry will even die holding onto his hand.

But it’s still early days. There’s a lot more law and debate and religion to come!

A Three-Person Marriage

Of course, while all this is going on, Henry and Katherine are still married. There’s no movement on that.

They can live as a couple, but not as a couple while Katherine still lives in the same palace. Henry can act as if progress is being made, but Anne’s position is still tenuous; after all, he could go back to Katherine or opt for a foreign princess who would probably be less contentious. After all, Margaret Tudor got her annulment that bastardised her children in 1527, why shouldn’t Henry? If his proposed marriage wasn’t to Anne, would things go quicker?

Anne is trying to live as a queen-in-waiting, which is kind of hard when the queen you’re replacing is still in residence. Thomas Wyatt, who is tormented with the knowledge that he’s Anne’s former lover, introduces Mark Smeaton to Anne. They’re flirty and do a lesson in fingering (ahahaha) and I guess Thomas is jealous? Who cares tbh.

Also you look pure Elizabethan Mark get rid of that earring

Meanwhile, Wes Bentley from American Horror Story: Freak Show, is interrupted in his delivery of linen to Katherine. It would appear that Katherine is still making Henry’s shirts. This forces things to a head – it is unacceptable for Henry to have his cake and eat it. He needs to make a clear choice between which wife is the one he wants.

Henry presents an ultimatum to Katherine that she should leave the palace and live pretty much in retirement. She refuses, for as long as they’re married she will never leave his side.

So Henry takes affirmative action and leaves Katherine behind. Henry has now officially left Katherine, and there’s no going back.

Also, Anne, why aren’t you sitting side-saddle? There’s no way you can comfortably sit astride in that floor length skirt.

Katherine tries to communicate with Henry but her servant is physically attacked by Henry. There’s really, really no hope for her now.

Poor Unfortunate Souls!

Pope O’Toole is going to be more proactive with Henry’s Great Matter. He wants to restore peace in Christendom, but giving Henry what he wants will just set one power above another. But what to do to solve this problem… how about we just kill Anne Boleyn?

Well, I guess that’s a solution.

Alongside this, Thomas Boleyn is hiring the cook of Bishop Fisher to poison him. Bishop Fisher is the main opponent against the king’s new marriage, so if he were to just die, things would be better and simpler.

Yeah, because the sudden death of Anne’s most powerful critic won’t be suspicious at all. Isn’t the Duke of Norfolk going to talk you out of this? Well, no, because he’s suddenly disappeared from the show completely.

It’s super suspicious seeing as everyone but Fisher and Thomas More dies frothing at the table.

Richard Roose, the chef for Bishop Fisher, was executed for the crime of attempted poisoning of Bishop Fisher and the apparent deaths of Mr Bennet Curwen and a widow. Whether or not it was a deliberate act of poisoning I’m not entirely sure; trying to get rid of a political enemy by poisoning a pot of broth that he may or may not eat is a really inefficient way to kill someone. A lot of people still to this day say that the Boleyns or the King were behind it, but surely if Henry wanted Fisher out the way he could charge him with praemunuire like he had with Wolsey?

Just saying, there’s a lot of shit that can poison you horribly that can end up in food by accident, and that it may seem to be a deliberate act purely by timing.

Anyway, Roose is killed by a Mel Brooks film, and that’s the end of that.

And Eustace Chapuys is secretly plotting to kill Anne. All sorts of plots are going on, presumably to liven up the more dense governmental and legal stuff that’s going on.

I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking. And I plan on finding out what that is.

The first thing I notice about this episode is that the budget has increased. Look! Instead of that same ugly brick corridor endlessly, here’s a scene with a background and like, stuff going on! Nice.

What’s with that nun couture, Anne? We’ll be having nun of that, thanks.

I guess this is what they’re going for, but it doesn’t look quite right. This is also to the latter end of the decade, so these more English inspired styles aren’t quite in vogue at court yet.

JRM appears to have dyed his hair, I think. There’s a bit more of a dark redish tint to it, but he’s still not full on ginge. Beards appear to be in these season, so it’s a sign of a more mature, serious, anti-Katherine Henry. I guess.

Those sleeves. I can’t even. That’s pure Anglo-Saxon inspired Rohan style sleeves, nothing Tudor at all about them.

That is some Evil Disney Queen Realness, Thomas, and I love it.

Working Title/Artist: Jerkin Department: Costume Institute Culture/Period/Location: HB/TOA Date Code: Working Date: ca. 1580 photography by mma 2000, transparency #4 scanned by film and media (jn) 6_18_02

Henry, you’re looking like Edmund Blackadder because your doublet is clearly from the 1570s. This is far too fashion forward, man!

Oh, Anne, honey, can’t you afford to repair your sleeves? Also, what’s with your ladies-in-waiting having matching uniforms? You weren’t handed a dress to wear at court, you wore your own clothing. Those dresses are shoddily constructed, too. They’re so ugly and chunky around the middle, not flattering at all.

Those are bad puffed sleeves, gurl. You are Anne Boleyn, not Anne of Green Gables. You don’t want Leg of Mutton sleeves, although the colour of that dress is beautiful.

GENERIC HISTORICAL COSTUMES! No hoods, no trumpet sleeves, loose and flowy robes – nothing about this says ‘Tudor’.

What is with this dress? Why is made from corseted orange curtains from a grandma’s house in the nineties? What’s with the weird bastard combination of a 1490s headpiece and Italian jewelled hairstyles? And the weird ruff on the sleeve? The sofa people are not going to rest until they take over us all!

Nice bejewelled earmuffs, Katherine. Make you look like a sillier version of Princess Leia.

So that’s the first episode of season two. Come back next week, costume fiends!

Unpicking the Tudors; S2 E1 And we're back for season two! There's going to be a lot more questionable fashion choices, strange writing conundrums, and more political and theological theories of the sixteenth century!

[gksunflowers-blog]

signs as people I know (check moon and sun signs)

aries: passionate about finding new ways to show love and create love with others, willing to put themselves down so others feel better, warm hugs, prefers music without words because they understand the message better without words telling them, will drive you to IHOP at midnight because you forgot to eat dinner, they care about literally fucking everyone, easily accept that change is unavoidable, their exuberant energy can seem very intimidating, outgoing, try to do the right thing, excessive with literally everything (its okay ily), ardent, hate waiting for shit to happen, want the quickest and easiest way out of everything, their passion can be destructive and actually detrimental.

taurus: art is abundant in their safe place, trying their best tbh, will put aside time that they need in order to help someone else, dislikes close minded people, sleeping prolly, has music too loud but they will tell you its not loud enough, thinks a shit ton about wether or not people like them but will never tell you that, actually very confident people, dont really care about what people think of them but also cares a shit ton about what people think of them, so fucking loyal and expect nothing in return, can complain a lot actually, loyaloyaloyal, hate it when others see them cry, tries to ignore their problems because they dont have enough time to deal with them (get it together, hoes), need more time for self-reflection

gemini: can make anyone easily laugh, knows whats in and whats out, veryyyy generous people, pretty smiles, has good music taste because they listen to all types of music, relatable, seems very unattached to reality at times, doesn;t give up something/someone if they really love them, will cook for you willingly, they are too cool for drama but typically start drama, will spend their whole night talking to you about future goals they have and the most random shit, life of the party, if you want to instantly laugh hang around a gemini, don;t consider other people in their decisions sometimes, will remove themselves of negative situations because there is nothing they hate more than negative people;

cancer: hold a very warm and gentle soul, can push people away because they tend to be very possessive but that is how they show love, they need a two year break, tries really hard to be relatable, let people walk over them without realizing, they love to pamper themselves to show love to themselves, you feel safe in their home, trusts people really easily, can get very broken and in a bad place if you betray them so please don;t honestly, when they;re angry it can show physically (red face, angry tears, etc), can be very dramatic, try to help others with confidence and self-esteem, will be there for you even if you arent there for them, oblivious to shitty people sometimes which results in trust issues;

leo: can be independent when they are comfortable in the situation, want the best for everyone, will defend you when you’re not there, will block you if you annoy them, just want someone to chill with, flirty!!!!, easily get excited over the smallesttttt things, knows when to change the subject, beautiful souls, these are the type of people you should go to last minute plans with (concerts, road trips, etc), just wanna have fun and look amazing while doing it, need/deserve love and attention from loved ones, gives you food if you forgot your lunch at home, makes jokes out of their pain, pure beauts with good hearts that will try to believe in the best of everyone, not afraid to be petty, main hoes.

virgo: will try to avoid being honest with you because they don’t want to hurt you, is taken advantage of too often, will bring you a cookie if youre having a bad day, courteous, organized, the person that always smiles at strangers just because, not really sure what they want out of life, can be very whiny, always want to be doing something to pretend like they have it together, if they are your friend please take advantage of how supportive they are to you, will very randomly give you compliments that can literally save your life because they;re always very thoughtful, amazing listeners, capable of fulfilling their dreams if they believe in themselves too, having boundaries is okay and you deserve to respect them if you want to;

libra: passionate about making others lives better, cuddle bugs, energetic, gives their time to anyone who actually listens to them, thinking outside of the box, probably really pretty, kind souls but a tough exterior, wears sweats to the store because who honestly cares, makes jokes with people on line at checkout, they probably have a tradition to cook breakfast on saturdays, knows how to look good and feel good, once they find their self-worth not a fucking bull-dozer can take it down, please try to fight them on facebook because you will lose, gentle people and will try to make you feel at home (problem: they don;t know how), quiet but their minds are spinning, need to learn to say no;, stop worrying about what others think of you (who gives a shit??), hate silence and being alone, queens.

scorpio: very honest but also very petty without shame, fun and funny, blasts old jams in their car while trying their very best to avoid accidents, hates high school and loves college, just want to find a group that they fit in with, will try their best to make your birthday amazing I swear, open minded to literally everything honestly, critical friend, will tease you about something that happened five years ago, a total nerd about things they really like, very smart and efficient if they are motivated by their passion, unique style in all ways, beautiful minds, they can come across as two-faced but they are very indecisive when it comes to opinions, embraces new experiences, secretive;

sagittarius: flirty and prolly is dating someone right now, wants everyone to be happy but forgets about making themselves happy, cooks pancakes for you at midnight on a Wednesday night, will almost cry but then remembers a funny video they saw and starts to laugh, hates themselves but shows themselves a lot of love, makes jokes out of their pain, lovable, look intimidating but are actually very welcoming, hides emotions like a pro, very optimistic about literally everything, if they get bored or annoyed they will move on from you, need to believe in themselves, don;t express gratitude but they really should, seemingly perfect(?), can sometimes compare themselves to others in order to make themselves feel better (stop.)

capricorn: doesnt study (yes I'm onto you bitch) for tests but still gets amazing grades, can be very fake but honest with people they are close to, traditional without trying, will be there for you, they are very observant and will remember if you did something that meant a lot to them, honestly needs a hug and affection a lot more than they say, takes long hot showers to make up for the lack in physical affection, lovely people, good people to sit with in the back of the movie theater so that you can talk the whole time, will accidentally spill tea and start drama, trying their best, work well with people who have a good drive for things they are passionate about,doesnt express emotion unless they cant hold it in any longer

aquarius: so fucking funny, constantly trying to be a better person in order to make up for the shitty world, watches documentaries about the sex industry, sticks to their morals, thinks a lot about life and the meaning of all of this, thinks (knows) the government is hiding something, will kill you if you hurt an animal, super chill and loves music, passionate, indecisive to the extreme, smokes weed to see if food tastes differently, interesting individuals, if they don't open up to you it's because they don't know how, if you mean a lot to them they will try to protect you from the world, is hard on you because they want you to succeed, moves from one passion to the other (you guys are super adaptable if need be), an amazing friend if they choose to put effort into the friendship

pisces: very confused about life and that makes them very sad, easily unstable, cries about failing a lot, not judge mental, hates it when people accuse them of something they didnt do, beautiful people with caring hearts that let in people who shouldnt be let in, offer you a hug if they see you upset in any way, wants people to like them, trying to find who they are, tend to let people laugh at their pain, shuts down their feelings when they feel attacked, doesnt purposely hurt anyone, will change themselves in order to be accepted,these people lose themselves too easily, once they find out who they are they are very stable and more content