airagorncharda:

The thing is, if Donald Trump loses by even one vote we’ll be safe for now, but if he loses by a LANDSLIDE, we could be safe for a very very long time.

If he loses by a small margin, then hooray! Everyone who is queer, a person of color, disabled, neuroatypical, poor, and/or a woman is safe! I’m not being sarcastic, that would be fucking wonderful, holy shit. We would be saving our country and ourselves from 4-8 years with Donald at President as well as another lifetime with a majority conservative republican government. That’s a big win.

But if he ONLY loses by a small margin, the message that sends to all the people who agree with him is that all they have to do to become president of the United States in the future is be SLIGHTLY less of a publicly raging racist, xenophobic, islamophobic, queerphobic, ableist, misogynistic, sex offender than Donald fucking Trump.

Bigots would not be discouraged, or learn. They would just be bitter, and bide their time. 

If he loses by a fucking LANDSLIDE, however, then maybe they’ll actually learn that emulating his views and behavior WILL NOT earn them power. 

---

In conclusion: even if you think he stands no chance of winning, PLEASE STILL VOTE. Maybe your vote will be the one vote that keeps him out of office, but even if he would have technically lost either way, even if they start calling it early because he’s losing by a large margin, PLEASE STILL GO OUT AND VOTE.

Lets not stop at just not electing him. 

Lets fucking humiliate him.

dduane:

camwyn:

niamhermind:

keepyourhandsbusy:

hyena-butts:

everybodyilovedies:

thepioden:

roachpatrol:

joshnewberry:

people who complain about dinosaurs “not being scary anymore” because its been discovered they have feathers and are closely related to/ancestors of birds are so bizarre like

• its not about how scary they are, they are/were real life animals and what matters is learning more about them, not how well they fit into your science fiction horror film lol
  
• can you imagine a 13 foot chicken running at you with full intent to eat you??? thats fucking terrifying holy shit
  

peacocks are synonymous with vain, frivolous beauty and they will attack cars. they will attack you while you try to get to your car. they’re like six feet of useless feathers and they will destroy you. imagine if they were carnivorous and had functional spurs. 

a t-rex could look like a gay disco ball and i guarantee that you would fucking book it if it had a problem with you

listen

listen

have you ever met a swan

if anything the birdier they get the scarier they are

Australia literally fought a war against giant birds AND FUCKING LOST

@kidwithheadphones

Overheard in the student lounge:

“Oh man, I can’t deal with birds ‘cause they’re dinosaurs and sometimes it’s like they get this glint in their eyes and they remember.”

“Have you ever interacted with a goose? ‘Cause those things are dicks.”

If chickens were still the size of a T-Rex we’d all be dead. No question.

Feathered creatures that give some serious lie to the idea that feathered dinosaurs ain’t scary:

This is a bearded vulture, or lammergeier. It’s four feet long and has a nine foot wingspan and it eats bones.

This is a shoebill stork. It dropped the duck without biting down shortly after the picture was taken, but if it had decided not to-

… it could have been the end of the road for that duck.

This is the last thing a fish sees before a macaroni penguin eats it.

This is a secretary bird in the act of demonstrating to Lord Voldemort that he came to the wrong neighborhood, ese.

This is a goose.

This is a vulture.

This is a cassowary on the attack. 

Be glad I couldn’t find the actual gif of a pelican swallowing a fish, because it’s freakin’ Lovecraftian in its HEADS SHOULD NOT BEND THAT WAY factor. You’ll have to settle for the idea of a feathered dinosaur suddenly going GLORP and devouring its victims whole just like this lady here.

Steven Spielberg didn’t create these. These are the feet of an emu.

And this is what happens when a swan (this one is named Asboy; his father was Mr. Asbo, the first swan in the UK to get named after an anti-social behavior order in ‘honor’ of his tendency to attack boaters) decides it doesn’t like you. I should probably note that this one attacked a cow.

Respect the feathered dinosaur, yo.

Terrifying. The last two illustrate why you did not fuck around with the Children of Lir.

naamahdarling:

razairazerci:

religiousragings:

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. 

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

ETA source: Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 by Mar

I started reading this and was worried it would be something attacking atheists, or bashing religion, but this makes me really, really happy.

imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

Holy shit.

Holy shit.

Yes.  YES.

amireal2u:

sonneillonv:

inquisitorhotpants:

brutereason:

I cannot bring myself to be in any way upset or angered by Hillary’s statement about having “both a public and a private position” on things. This is basic pragmatism. This is code-switching. It’s uncomfortable to hear, and it leads many (especially straight white male Americans) to feel that they’re being lied to, but it’s how our social fabric is woven.

As a woman, as a queer person, as a feminist, and as a first-generation immigrant from a multicultural family that spans three continents, I absolutely have both public and private positions on many things, political issues included. Brains are complicated and any intellectually-aware person is able to hold some slightly contradictory viewpoints–not because one is “authentic” or “genuine” and the other isn’t, but because shit is complex. There are things that go on in my brain that would horrify you, and things that go on in my brain that would horrify my family, and things that go on in my brain that would horrify my clients and coworkers. I’m allowed to choose whether or not to horrify any particular person at any particular time, and which one of my many equally-“authentic” sides to express in any given situation.

Furthermore, effective politics is in part about persuading and compromising with a variety of people with diverse viewpoints, and the language that’s most effective for one person may not be the most effective for another. The language I would use to convince a Libertarian to support a basic income is not the language I would use to convince a socialist to support a basic income. The language I use to discuss race with my parents isn’t the language I use to discuss race with my Facebook friends. Sometimes different language = slightly different nuances of opinion.

Hillary gets this better than most people, which makes her a terrifyingly effective politician. People are uncomfortable with that. That’s fine. Be uncomfortable with it. Realize that that’s how laws get passed, treaties get negotiated, and international crises get resolved.

You don’t *want* a President who seems like a cool fun chill person who says what’s on their mind all the time. Maybe that’s who you want in a friend. But I don’t, because I wear enough different hats to really understand the value of being intentional about what you express to whom and in what terms.

You don’t *want* a President who seems like a cool fun chill person who says what’s on their mind all the time. Maybe that’s who you want in a friend. But I don’t, because I wear enough different hats to really understand the value of being intentional about what you express to whom and in what terms.

Yeah, that… that line did not bother me at all.  “You can have a public opinion and a private opinion” Like DUH, that is absolutely what being a politician IS.  You have a conscience and an opinion but you serve the people.

Everyone always talks about how when they vote, it’s often between the lesser of two evils (and then go on to whine about how there’s never a candidate that represents them super exactly to the point of being their brain twin) and I they miss the obvious the inevitable conclusions of that situation.

Which is to say, sometimes YOUR lesser two evils loses and sometimes they win. How the hell do you think government runs? These people have to make compromises every damn day (and our current congress is an example of what happens when you throw a fucking tantrum and decide not to do their jobs because we refuse to cater to their every whim because that’s not how governing works). Our elected officials spend their entire LIVES choosing between the lesser of two evils. Do I support this thing I think is right and probably get tossed out of office or do I force a compromise where I get something ELSE I (and my constituents) want but maybe have to wait on my original ideology?

This isn’t hypocrisy folks, it’s the way the system works and elected officials in a representational democracy have to consider both their constituents and their country when making these decisions. So I almost never take anyone’s voting record at face value and I always look at the YEAR someone chose not to support the idea of my choice.

People keep saying that HRC has changed her mind to stay in office, mostly I’ve seen someone’s public politic stance evolve over 25 years. AND I’m not really sure there’s anything WRONG with either way because whether she believes in her campaign’s stances fully or not, she’s got the HIGHEST RATE of campaign promise fulfillment, which to me is far more important.