A break from trifusing dragonball girls for a quickie of the cutie from the west side of infinity. I want to do stuff to her. I mean, uh, shame we never saw more of her. What the hell is the kaioshins’ job, anyway? To laze around fishing and eating until an ancient god wakes up?
HAPPY SUNMOON RELEASE! this is the way overdue part two of the rowlet crossbreeds/variations to celebrate the sunmoon release! my reasoning behind these was cats x cats… houndoom being the exception, since this whole thing was requested by (x)and its her fav. i have extras i want to cross these starters with too, so you might see some strays here and there occasionally
let me know who your favorite is and if youd like to see popplio too! litten ver. rowlet ver. popplio ver.
Rather than releasing hundreds of new pokemon, they probably should have focused on making new color patterns or crossbreeds. A shame.
The ‘Devil’s Bridge’ is a 19th-century
structure in Kromlau, Germany, that
was designed to make a perfect circle
with its reflection in the water below. Source
One day, Photoshop will have actual blending, rather than forcing us all to rely on dropper sampling with wide opacity-rimmed brushes. Thank god for line illustration.
Anonymous asked: Your defense of the protests is laughable. When Obama was elected you had a handful of people act out violently (which was bad, and condemned). But now you have Liberals doing that, protesting, AND rioting. Besides, a protest is usually to some end. When the Iraq War was protested, the end was not to go to war. What's the end in this case? They're either trying to get the democratically elected president removed, or just screaming in the street like children throwing a tantrum.
I’ve heard of worse when someone’s baseball team wins a game. And the last time I checked, it was a Trump supporter who shot and injured a protester. I haven’t been watching too closely, but I’ll join you in condemning violence done by the protesters.
A lot of this is vocalizing opposition, ineffectual yelling and screaming. But it reminds me of the ineffectual 99% protests. Or to a more cynical extent, the BLM protests. Protesting doesn’t always have a point except for expressing mass disagreement. And it’s part of the fabric that makes up people, needing an outlet to be heard and to say “hey we STILL oppose all those policies that are about to be enacted.”
There is a new president elect. But by protesting, much like protesting the Iraq War, they are saying “You do NOT have a mandate to enact these things you say you will do.” To name a few, the intention to privatize Medicare or to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented, these things would be worth protesting in their own right. They just happen to have a singular name to scream about.
You scream in the street to tell people, No. I don’t want that. They screamed when Bush brought us to Iraq. They’ll scream now as they pick and choose what parts of their progress they’ll repeal.
Neither side won a real majority of the vote. 24% or 26% of all voters doesn’t quite give people the right to tell the losing party to shut up and take it.
Neither side should be protesting an election result unless it was actually fraudulent (this one wasn’t, as far as anyone has seen), although protesting anything Trump eventually does that’s as bad as people fear would make perfect sense to me. You can’t change libel laws that don’t exist, registration acts for religions are blatantly unconstitutional, etc. Most of the things Trump claimed he wanted to do are straight up impossible for the actual power the President has over Congress and the House, so protesting that if it happens? 100% logical. Just angrily tearing up cities in a childish emotional fit because Hillary lost? Not okay.
One thing I’d like to see a protest of are media outlets advertising opponents to their preferred candidate because they think the candidate is so bad that it will help their party (head of CNN apologized for this earlier), or silencing anyone with “accidental satellite loss” who has a viewpoint other than their own (another CNN or Fox News trait). Especially with the rise of the internet, I think misinformation and information bubbles and echo chambers for everyone have become a huge part of why people are so angry at strawmen all the time, why everyone who voted for A or B is given a label and turned into the devil, and why no one feels they can openly discuss anything. That needs some good ol fashioned protesting. Truth is more important than ever now, and with the media becoming so openly corrupt and the internet being… the internet, that’s what needs fixing.
All those foam playgrounds, hugs and free trophies back in the 90s sure paid off, huh? Those kids can now vote, then lie down in the fetal position when their tribe loses because they’ve never dealt with not being enabled in an echo chamber of people just like themselves, their entire lives.
Without the electoral college, the determining factor of the elections would be California, Chicago and New York just because they have more people concentrated in one area. Our system is the best of the best and the people spoke. I’m hurt as well as most of America but the best thing we can do is keep an open mind, accept, and move on.
So what? Why does it matter if the majority of votes come from one area? If most of the people in the country want one person to be president, then that person should be president. Why should it matter where they’re from?
And that’s not even the reason the college was made in the first place. It was made for 2 reasons. 1. The founding fathers didn’t trust the citizens. They thought the citizens were too uneducated to make a good choice. And 2. It’s easier to count the votes of a small group of people all in one place rather than millions across the country when there’s no cars or internet.
In today’s age, neither of those reasons are valid anymore. There is no good reason for the electoral college to exist. If the majority of people want someone as president, that person should be president.
Here is why the electoral college sucks:
Without the electoral college, every single vote would count exactly the same. No vote anywhere in the country would be worth more than any other vote. Now you may ask, but Raymond, isn’t it like this already?
NO. IT FUCKING IS NOT.
Take Wyoming for example. Wyoming has a population of 584,000 people. They also have 3 electoral college votes. This means that each 194,667 votes is worth one electoral college vote in Wyoming. Now let’s look at California. California has a population of 38.8 million people and 55 electoral college votes. This means that it takes 705,455 votes for each electoral college vote.
A VOTE IN WYOMING IS WORTH 3.5X MORE THAN A VOTE IN CALIFORNIA.
It literally takes 3.5 times more votes to get 1 electoral vote in California than it does in Wyoming. How tf is that fair?
Don’t come in here and tell me how it’s the best system and without it the only determining factor would be certain cities. How does that even make sense? Without it, a vote in New York City is worth the exact same amount as a vote in any other city, or town, regardless of population. I personally would like my vote to count for exactly the same as anyone else. My vote shouldn’t count as less because I live in a more densely populated city.
What a good explanation! ^
People always complain about the electoral system when they lose, and ignore it when they win. Every election results in the same generic responses.
As mentioned (and ignored), the problem with having every vote from everywhere count the same is that people are self-interested and tend to believe the same thing as those around them. So, major population centers are aggressively liberal but ultimately very tiny areas; America is a country that is known for its gigantic stretches of open, diverse land with many work centers and reasons for self interest. Voting by popular vote is tantamount to telling 90% of the country’s physical area that their votes don’t matter, and that the hyper liberal population centers on the coast will decide how to run the country based on their (comparatively) tiny living areas and total inexperience with the world outside of their otherwise insignificant urban sprawls.
The flip side is the electoral system originally was seen as necessary, even by those that preferred the popular vote system. The original concept was to have Congress elect the President, but this was seen as dangerous because of the possibility of a corrupt Congress. Another system was needed. Popular vote was seen as impossible because of the US’s reliance on slavery and the difficulty therein of suffrage and avoiding the (then) problematic logic of whether people with no rights required representation, even though this would destroy any chance southerners would have at any representation at all. The south had a large population, was the backbone of the growing US economy for well over a century, but had very little political power, and so was typically stepped on by the population/industrial centers in the north while they simultaneously profited from its international exports. That eventually led to the 3/5ths compromise, abolitionist movement, and as a result, the civil war, etc.
The college system was a way of trying to avoid having to address that having huge population centers is not the same thing as requiring equal representation. Although, in its original case, this was unethical, the same rule is still true, albeit inversely: if regions have inequality of population, you can’t lump all regions into one another as though they were the same place with the same needs. The larger you nationalize a region, the greater the need to segment that nation into voting sectors. When the college was invented, the nation was very small (1787). If they had to make a system with the size the US is today, they probably would have created a slightly different system. But it would still entail a way to ensure major cities can’t unjustly lord over the rest of the country; even the founding fathers employed that logic at the time. New Yorkers won’t care that coal miners with no other means of surviving are losing their jobs, for example; they’ll vote according to their own self interest. Politicians will only visit areas they think are worth the votes they require; some of the swing states of the 2016 election that voted Trump infamously were completely ignored by Clinton during the entire campaign, which people in those states noticed. In a popular vote-run nation, politicians would fight over the interests of major coastal cities (and Chicago, Houston perhaps, etc) and completely and totally ignore the rest of America. That… is a backward, self-interested system that only metros would endorse, who believe they are the center of the nation. (You’re not.)
Neither system is good, but like many American systems, “It is the worst system there is, other than all others that have been tried.” There’ve been numerous other proposed systems, and I would recommend looking into them, rather than complaining about wanting the popular vote to decide the president elect, any time the college does not work in your favor. (Which, by the way, is exactly what Trump was doing a few years ago.)
The past is packed with monsters! Behemoths by the dozen! Let’s meet these fossils! (and their less colossal modern cousins)
Earth’s ancient history is full of giant versions of modern animals. Evolutionary forces (competition for resources, changes in climate) pushed these species to become incredibly large. And I’m not just talking about giant dinosaurs - there were huge mammals and marsupials too.
A lot of these giants lived in the Pleistocene, an epoch stretching from around 2.5 million to 11,000 years ago. Mysteriously, the extinction of many of these animals coincides with humanity’s arrival as a dominant predator.
