Chase

1. Charmander (Fire) 2. Totodile (Water) 3. Treecko (Grass) 4. Piplup (Water) 5. Snivy (Grass) 6. Chespin (Grass) 7. Litten (Fire) 3 Grass, 2 Water, 2 Fire. Fairly balanced.

I would qualify as a Genwunner. 1. BW 2. SuMo 3. RSE 4. GSC 5. RBY 6. XY DNQ. DPPt - BW broke the mold storywise, and the experience was excellent enough to bring me back to the franchise. It's got my nostalgia vote. - Gens 1 and 2 haven't aged well in my eyes. Specifically so with Gen 1. - In terms of playtime, ORAS and Ruby dominates. I completed the National Dex in Gen III and it took a lot of work and a team effort with my friends. I can't slight this gen. - Sun and Moon are the new kids on the block. Great games, but the high may still be in effect. - XY felt rushed and handholdy, while also potentially providing powercreep. Negative views here. - Wait. There was a Gen 4?

Ok. My interest has been tickled. I like the sound of steel Chesnaught in particular. Especially if it still got fighting type moves. It's perfect.

This game. Had me in stitches. 10. Magmar and the mysteriously toasty Quick Ball. .....had to be held.... somewhere. 9. HauxLusamine This happened when Hau meets Lusamine with the player and before Nihilego is encountered. He comments on Lusamines ability to run Aether despite being slightly older than him - only to figure out Lusamine is a middle-aged woman. Which draws a taken aback, frightened reaction from Hau. He was scoping her out. I don't think many of us can blame the poor guy. Lusamine makes it even funnier by making a passive-aggressive comment about Hau's appearance. 8. Hiker David. CORRECT. IT IS ME. LETS BATTLE! 7. LanaxSwimmer(M) this would be the one game the swimmers look more like Calvin underwear models than athletes. 6. Kiawe loses 'Celebrity Apprentice' To unlock the "reverent" battle style you must battle Kiawe. To do so. You find him practicing his fire dancing at his house in Paniola Town, follow him to the new Thrifty MegaMart, and watch him get told "you're fired". Donald Trump got into this game in more ways than one. 5. RotemDex, the Myth, the Legend tfw your pokedex uses slang and hits on multiple female characters in the game...and Ilima too. Best. Wingman. Ever. 4. Lusamine has a point. BUT BUT BUT. YOUR HUSBAND BUILT POKE PELAGO FOR MY BOX POKÉMON YOU JERK-... you're not wrong though. 3. GET IN THE BAG NEBBY. 2. Team Skull encounters. 1. Looker get put on the bench by Anabel.

Spoilers for those of you not near the end of the game. I think Cosmoem helped Lillie out a bit. It's seen levitating in the cutscenes after Lusamine forces it to evolve - then outright flying into the beam from the Sunne/Moone altar to evolve again. If gravity isn't applying to Cosmoem's weight - Lillie probably doesn't have to work -AS- hard. This doesn't mean it's an easy feat to drag one around in a backpack though. It's supposedly doing nothing other than waiting for evolution at that point (Lillie and Gladion are unsure if Nebby is alright because of its sudden inactivity.)

The following spoiler contains direct spoilers for Sun and Moon - and I am requesting all viewers to tag every post if they wish to respond directly. However, for those of you that -DO- have the game in hand, this can be considerably helpful to you in your post-game. Seriously, folks. Use Spoiler Tags. For those of you still reading and aren't afraid of playing with fire - you've been warned.

I don't dislike generation 4 - but only because I have yet to finish a Gen 4 game. For me, Gen 4 happened at the time in one long-time fan's life where Pokemon was fading out of style and after the generation I had played the most (I had completed the PokeDex in Gen 3 through ardous work.) - so it's the generation that symbolizes the bad times. That being said, it's not the games itself that give it a negative stigma. It's probably a really great game, that I missed out on.

Hit me.

As someone who would consider myself an anthropocentric (under the assumption that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of god(s) - a completely different argument) person - I don't think the argument can be made that man is different from animal physically. DNA similarities, as Kuro pointed out, shut down that argument extremely quickly. Psychologically too - there are some species outside of humanity that have astounding intelligence, meaning our minds alone aren't a solid argument against being like the other beings on this world. There are some interesting things that I would point out. Several of you seem to think that humanity falls in line with the rest of the animal kingdom in purpose - to prolong humankind in the same manner other species attempt to prolong their races. Kuro specifically brought up males and females generally mating with spreading the best possible genes in mind. There are some things that I want to call you guys on here. While it is absolutely true that there are other animals other than humans that do this, giving off homosexual tendencies serves no purpose in prolonging humankind. Yet humanity is the only species I know that works tirelessly to legitimize it as a normal occurrence despite serving a negative effect on reproduction rate (currently - maybe it will become possible to make this type of relationship foster offspring at the same pace as heterosexual mating does in the future.) The reasons people engage in homosexual relationships however seem to be an acknowledgement of the abstract - that they love that person's personality, -or- (and I am in no way intending to sleight anyone by saying this - keep your guns in the holster, please) you have a different, counter-intuitive preference in physical attributes (you prefer physical attributes of the same sex as opposed to the opposite/another sex.) If we're looking at this from a goal perspective of furthering the human race - I fail to see how you can justify relationships that don't bare children the most efficiently as normal animal behavior very cleanly. The only real argument there is that humans aren't the only ones who engage in homosexual relationships - but that list is significantly smaller than the animal kingdom at large. Humans also are one of the few species to have personal attachment to things like democracy and fairness - whereas you see other members of the animal kingdom run under structures of "alpha males" or "queen bees." The argument is certainly there that for humanity to prolong its existence the best possible way is to ensure everyone gets the resources they need to survive, but where do laws and morality fit into that picture? Kuro mentioned the major difference between humans and animals being subjection, and even if morality -is- subjective that is largely damning to the argument that humans are not different from animals because animals are largely immoral beings. Humans have a sense of what's right and what's wrong beyond the need to prolong the human race. Animals - if they display moral qualities - are only doing so for survival purposes. Man also benefits from being extremely broad with dietary ability. We are able to decide what we want to consume on the fly, and prepare it beyond survival necessity into a dish that is not only nutrient providing, but pleasurable to consume. Animals - especially those in isolated ecosystems - struggle if a part of their normal food chain is removed. At the end of the day, we are very much like the animals around us. A theist like myself can even affirm that looking at the scientific evidence we have to today. I would argue that humanity has a different purpose and larger ability to survive however.

Alola! The aim of this thread is quite simple. Tell us who you ran/plan to run the Alolan island challenge and "League" with. You can go into specific moments/hopes for each individual member of your team, you can talk about areas you struggled with your team throughout the journey, and you can talk about the things you like about your partners - all right here! Even if you don't, I want to, because goodness it was fun. Also, if any of you have like....sprites of the Alola Pokemon I can use on this forum all on one unique place - can you link them here? I'd like to start using those eventually. Side note over with. --- Litten/Torracat/Incineroar It was really, REALLY hard to not pick Rowlet to start - because design-wise I think the Decidueye line is my favorite - but I don't regret breaking my chain of using the grass starter since Ruby and Sapphire for Litten at all. Incineroar is straight up goofy - but for me, I am one of the few people that doesn't care if it's another Fire starter with Fighting type ties (although it being Fire/Dark is awesome.) - and I learned more about 'ole Tiger Mask's origins each time I saw Incineroar's likeness leading up to the games' release. I now appreciate "pro wrestling" a whole lot more, that's for sure. Highlights of Incineroar are oddly enough - finding difficulty dealing with it. It doesn't really start to be all that threatening until it's fully evolved - and it's bulk is more praiseworthy than it's power with regards to my experience. This does of course change with Darkest Lariat - which has KO'd everything I've used it on. Z-Power that move and you get the best of the starter-specific Z-Moves, Malicious Moonsault. (YES! YES! YES! ...) Pichu/Pikachu/Alola-Raichu My sole deviance of team from pre-release was Alolan Raichu - because of it's ability to be caught immediately after learning how to catch Pokemon from Professor Kukui -AND- being incredibly rare on Route 1. I wanted to go through that struggle sooner rather than later, and it also gave me some immediate support for Litten against Water type Pokemon. Stoked Sparksurfer is a fantastic Z-move to use visually - and A-Rai's Psychic subtyping helped immensely against Fighting Pokemon, something my team struggled mightily against. In the hunt for all of the Z-Crystals, you're going to want to go ahead and follow my lead. Get this Pokemon as soon as possible. As a Pi(ka)chu, Static helped me get out of some tough spots. It also assisted in catching other Pokemon via Thunder Wave paralysis support. Rockruff/Lycanroc (Midday) No coverage really, I just really wanted to use Lycanroc-D ever since it was released. Accelerock is a fantastic STAB priority move that should provide the wolf some viability in competitive play. This was the last Pokemon I caught on Melemele Island - because you simply have to do everything possible story-wise in order to REACH Rockruff. Why did I think having both a feline -and- a canine Pokemon was a good idea? Works well with the theme I guess. Lycanroc shined against Team Skull more than anything else. Despite it's frailty, it was able to almost solo the Skull-dedicated portion of the game - even Guzma himself once. May just be my experience though. Do what you think you need to stay safe out there. Wishiwashi Two Pokemon does not a team make. After getting rid of the Water weakness, I still had immense trouble with Rock and Ground types, and by the time I reached Akala Island, you had Olivia waiting with a Rock monotype team. Something had to be done...so I went big.....and small.... Hah. School Form at level 20 is almost broken. Kiawe's trial was just trivialized - and this Pokemon was one of two Akala natives that would fuel me to victory of Olivia. Everything time I use it in battle, seeing the Small Fry Pokemon call in it's buddies to "school" opponents is just an enjoyable experience. Why bother with Toxapex and Golisopod when you can just use Wishiwashi? Highly recommend this one. Most enjoyable thing though. It learning BEAT UP. Imagine if every single Wishiwashi in the school got a turn at using Beat Up along with the rest of your team. Hilarious thought. Bounsweet/Steenee/Tsareena This Pokemon makes -not- using Rowlet okay. It's probably my favorite Pokemon of the generation simply because of how it operates. Rotom-Dex? Take it away. "Its long, striking legs aren’t just for show but to be used to kick with skill. In victory, it shows off by kicking the defeated, laughing boisterously." - Sun Goodness gracious. It's a savage. While not French, Tsareena brings a whole new meaning to "Let Them Eat Cake"... You will most likely catch Bounsweet past the level it needs to be to evolve into Steenee, and Steenee is like dealing with a Kirlia or some other odd middle evolution. However, Tsareena is a thing whenever Steenee learns Stomp - earliest at lowly level 29. This made Tsareena my first third-stage evolution. It learned Trop Kick right then and there too - and she pulled most of the work - with total EASE - in defeating the kahuna of Akala. HJK is in it's learnset too - which gave what I hope is my league team (doing some housekeeping before completing the game and trying to enjoy and explore places I missed) a LOT of Fighting options despite only having one Fighting type Pokemon. Jangmo-o/Hakamo-o/Kommo-o This Pokemon line is - what I assume - the Pseudo-legendary Dragon type line of Alola. And it's a Fighting type too. Game Freak loves me this time around~ I have no experience with this Pokemon yet, but I wanted it on my Hall of Fame squad. It's a joy to try and locate though - if you like challenging hunts for Pokemon anyway. HONORABLE MENTION Munchlax/Snorlax Holding down Kommo-o's spot for the entirety of the Island Challenge (for me, because I had to look up Jangmo-o's location after catching Solgaleo) was Snorlax, the Mystery Gift Pokemon at the game's release. It was incredibly useful from dealing with perhaps the most frustrating part of the game for me (the first fight against Captain Illima where it had to help Torracat and Pichu out.) to assisting in catching it's successor by using it's fantastic catching move Hold Back to bring that HP down to 1. DO check out Pulverizing Pancake - the Snorlax-exclusive Z-Move.

Well, for one, the majority of Republican electors turning the tables on Trump would be absolutely hilarious. Secondly, I've personally disliked the way his cabinet filling and transition has been a day-by-day soap opera. Thirdly, most of his picks have been for loyalism and not for qualification. - Yeah, I'd say an elector turnaround would be beautiful. The reason WHY though - is because when a person casts a vote in one of the 51 elections held on Election Day (50 states + D.C.) - the name "Donald Trump" is code for "Republican Electors" with regards to the Electoral College - while the name is literally just one vote for Trump with regards to the popular vote. The same nuance goes for Democratic candidates - and -maybe?- other party candidates. Voting for Hillary means a vote for Hillary in the popular vote tally, but it's code for "Democratic Electors" in regards to the Electoral College. This knowledge in mind, a vote for Republican electors that have the ability to change their mind was cast. It's not a failure of democracy - even if they do flip over the desk. So yes, I wouldn't be too disappointed with a Hillary Clinton December turnaround. In a 50/50 race with Trump in which no third party candidate even qualifies for positioning, I literally don't care for either candidate. I run the risk of disagreement one way or the other, and I probably run the risk of neglecting people groups one way or the other. Thankfully, the electoral college vote has nothing to do with my civic duty of voting after the fact. --- I would hope that you find comfort in that it's not just targeted groups that are nervous. There are many reasons I was never for Trump despite aligning with him fairly well ideologically and despite having a preference for the Republican platform over the Democratic platform. I found his "If I say something, I mean it, believe me, trust me, it'll be terrific." to be - in some discomforting areas - more truthful than other campaigners who found better ways - personally - to phrase stances on certain issues. I found that Trump genuinely caused people fear and even worse, played to the fears of his voters - and I'm not okay with a demagogue candidate. I - personally - don't give all that much of a damn about "draining the swamp" and would rather have establishmentarians that know what the hell they are doing than novices who are in lockstep with their boss simply to get rid of politicians. I -do- agree with the Republican concept of bureaucracy being much too large in the United States, and if "drain the swamp" meant "shrink the size of government" alone I would be for it. That doesn't seem to be the way Trump uses that phrase though. It -truly- is discomforting to know that Trump even was electable - not because of his potential to be harmful to people, but because of how harmful the American electorate's being informed may be. I spent many an hour pouring over candidates' platforms, statements, past histories...and I personally didn't find Trump to be a "diamond in the rough" candidate at all. I had predicted he wasn't even going to have a prayer - and I'm having to eat crow and hope for the best - that he emulates someone like Rubio or Dubbya or - if miracles still happen today - Ronald Reagan in policies and in success. It most definitely is a time for uncertainty. I may be seen as following the sheep a bit and that's fine. I think the more appropriate thing is to -hope- for your country to prosper, not predict it will fall apart and wallow in despair. Even if America isn't great right now - everyone should hope - regardless of who's in the White House - that it eventually gets there. I truly am glad you may find -my- personal turmoil amusing. I think that kind of positivity - and relating - is crucial for us on the popular level to keep going.

You're not being overly alarmist at all - as Trump seemingly likes to sound the damn alarm (See: Flynn potential appointment for National Security) --- Ame and I actually had a discussion about this once - and she basically held the same position you did (I.e. to directly paint with a broad brush will result in a dramatic uptick in radicalization and increasing animosity on both sides). I don't think that is out of the question at all - but where I think we are in a grey in is - how do you do something better than identifying a broad-brush "enemy" on the campaign trail? The good news about Trump being president-elect - is that Trump receives a daily briefing that tells the commander-in-chief-to-be who the high profile targets are. It's most certainly not something any of the news outlets would get a hold of. The bad news - is that Congress doesn't get these briefings. The bad news - is that Trump has proven to be incredibly fickle on just about everything. The bad news - is that America will grow increasingly anxious with inaction. (see: Democrats mass-exiting the role of party in power all of a sudden) --- I am reserving judgement on our president-elect until he actually gets into the Oval Office. I have nothing to say he was right and I wasn't. I'm being cautiously optimistic that Congress isn't singular minded and thus doesn't high five Trump for every stupid decision he makes. I'm being cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court won't end up in an ironclad conservative tilt after one term. I'm being cautiously optimistic that Trump's appointments don't prove to validate my doubts. In general. I'm being cautiously optimistic because worrying would be an endangerment to the way I live from inside my own skin. I want to be proud of my nation - and Trump currently is something to accept because he was brought about through the beautiful process of democracy and fair representation. He can quickly - QUICKLY ruin that by making grave mistakes. Right now, this registry thing with Muslims - should it pass later on, will be a huge black eye to the Trump administration. Especially when he finally understands more pertinent targets from his daily briefings and -still- decides to paint with a broad brush.

Why Trump? I'm not the best person to answer that question because I'm not a Trump voter and therefore I don't have a personal "this guy gets it" moment that made me convinced he was presidential material. If I were to speculate - it would most likely be that Donald Trump - yes, the elitist New York business mogul that had a reality television run - was easier to relate to than the political figures of Rubio and Kasich. If I were to guess, people appreciated having their fears genuinely acknowledged by a candidate instead of having the likes of a Rand Paul tell them that the best way to stop ISIS is to not get involved with ISIS in hindsight. It doesn't help that candidates like Trump, Huckabee, Cruz, Carson, and Christie stoke fears by pointing them out as they are - but if these atrocities are actually HAPPENING abroad, do you really think the average American wants a politician that sweeps it under the rug or waives off your concerns with a hand gesture? I absolutely agree with you and Hugh that Muslims get SHAFTED during this kind of stuff, but that's why I'm an advocate of self-policing. If you're tired of blanket statements as a Syrian refugee that is actually trying to flee a negative situation and you -KNOW- of someone what is using the refugee trail to get to the West for malicious purposes - call that stuff out. If you are a Muslim American who is nothing but peaceful and a positive influence on society - continue to do so by pointing out the differences and being vocal. If they aren't the ones raising awareness, the Donald Trumps of the world will gladly do it for them - usually in a hasty generalization. --- I don't think minority awareness is why Clinton lost, but the flippant liberal stance that if you're not fighting for equality you most be fighting to prevent it is so black and white that there are many people out there that will go to their graves with the misconception that in 2016, America didn't care about equality at all. It's that lack of grey area that caused a lot of voters with different situations from our own to feel left out when it comes to the Democrats and representation. The reality of the situation is - nobody is running for President of Minority Groups - but for President of the United States. --- My argument with Clinton dropping the ball on issues like job creation or security comes from the fact that she did just that - not that minorities don't want the same rights. They made strong appeals to the LGBTQ community, to Millennials, to African Americans and Hispanics, to Muslims, and so on and so forth - and as Hugh pointed out - those groups showed up for Clinton nicely. If they went out at all. White people made up a THIRD of the actual electorate - and that group broke for Trump much more across all the demographics of "white" you could have than minority groups did. On top of that, African Americans -and- Hispanics turned out for Trump more than they did for Romney percentage-wise. The parity - due to Democratic turnout - is going to have to come from the court of public opinion alone - maybe with the prayer that Trump decides he wants to be known as a decent President and his appointments and early policy rumors don't stick. You have to do well with all the demographics in -all- 50 states and all around those states. It gives everyone adequate representation. --- With Muslims and undocumented immigrants, there's obviously going to need to be some give and take given the makeup of the government body starting next year. Democrats will fight tooth and nail from the local centers upward to keep sanctuary cities running and to protect immigrants who are active like normalized citizens despite not holding citizenship. Muslims are probably going to need to start bargaining with the Trump administration and actively putting the focus on radicals within their ranks as opposed to doing nothing behind a government that is no longer going to protect them to levels like they have been. Is it a good situation? Absolutely not - but they should have been more proactive during the earlier days of the Obama administration so that the narrative - especially in center of the country - is different. --- It's irrational to assume every silent voter out there had ill intent when the fears they hold are actually genuine. Hugh mentions paranoia. The Pulse nightclub, San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels - and the atrocities that happen at the hands of ISIS every day don't just fuel paranoia. I don't think it's a good reason for new era McCarthyism - but I think when death of a ton of people because of their way of life is involved, it's ample reason to be afraid.

I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the root of prejudice against those groups (although I think fear is a very viable feeling when across the world people just like you are getting decapitated, stoned, and brutally executed in other ways with regards to Islamophobia.) I also believe that it's not the best thing to feed into those groups. Thankfully we live in a country where we don't have to follow the President-elect and his cadre of sympathizers down the highway to hell. What I mean by "ignorance" is bigger than inequality "at the federal level" is that we're allowed to pursue what we feel is best for the country as citizens with little blowback because the entire country doesn't depend on us - but when you represent everyone - as a president does - you should be looking to put the needs of ALL Americans first....if not..well - what happened to the Democrats might happen to you. If you are ignorant to the issues and needs of any sizable bloc of voters, it will come back to bite you.

We're in agreement then. Largely. ... but this is one of those areas the Democratic Party is currently struggling in. Consider recently the move by new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York to add both liberal icon Bernie Sanders of Vermont -and- centrist figure Joe (i think it's Joe) Manchin (....manchin?) to his leadership team. I know for certain he's a Democratic Senator from widely conservative West Virginia and that he's up for re-election in a perilous state in 2018. We've talked throughout the primary season about how fractured the GOP is between moderates and conservatives and how it looked really bad that Trump wasn't popular, but he was more than the 16 other Republicans in the race. The Democrats are facing one of the same things post-election. Sanders has a valid bone to pick with more center-left Democrats about how the world works, because the more center-left candidate who won the primary wasn't appealing to Democratic voters. There's a power struggle going on as to which direction on the spectrum should the Democrats go in order to move on from 2016 among other things - like who deserves to fill the prominent roles Democrats in power have. Manchin might as well BE a Republican, especially compared to Bernie - and he's making many of the same arguments I'm making, but I'm fairly sure he'd be 80 percent happier than I would be if Hillary won the race. In essence, I don't think inequality is unimportant, but I think ignorance in general is the bigger problem at the federal level. I think it's important for individuals to show their disdain for mistreatment of their neighbors on a daily basis, not just through the political process. I also feel like the presidency is more than a referendum on inequality - as do many other Americans. I think liberal musicians and sports organizations boycotting the state of North Carolina over HB2 is a wonderful example of this. It's how the public opinion is supposed to push back against the government that is representing them - just as beautiful an exercise of power from the bottom as going to the ballot box is. --- I'm with you on this so called 'Muslim Registration Act' - but I don't know what the bill entails. It sounds like bad news though - as the first I've heard about it is that some stupid conservative justified it by using Japanese internment during WWII as so-called "precedent".

I'll start by saying that you're spot on in terms of white people not being monolithic. This has been a recurring thing for a long time. A Republican that appeals to things like job creation (which is something Trump pitched often) and protection (which is something Trump pitched often) is actually making appeals to what were known as 'Reagan Democrats' - or the ordinary working white people who normally vote with workers' unions and rights in mind when Republican candidates fail to court to them. However, bring in a Ronald Reagan or a Donald Trump - who spends an enormous amount of time addressing the things like the trade climate, jobs, and the economy - and you have a candidate that is playing well past the 'Blue Wall' and thus flipping blue voters. From that angle, those -specific- white people want two things. Job creation. Job security. That being said, How did people like John McCain or Mitt Romney fail to convince those Democrats? Romney suffered from challenging a popular incumbent president, but McCain suffered from a very similar situation Obama finds himself in right now. The people are aching for something different. Bush also was -not- a popular president to the tune of Obama, making it an even bigger landslide to climb up. All the same, Hillary failed to overcome a want for change, for better or for worse. Your point on oppression actually brings a valid reason white people would join the Trump cause. In the same vein minority groups want to stop being oppressed... Most white people would like to stop being labelled the oppressor simply because of their circumstances - especially if it's a false label.Finally this brings us to issues we see between white people and minorities. The only place anyone can go if they are a white and they are having things like the Ferguson riots and the Dallas Police Shooting portrayed as what they actually are - tragedies - they turn to conservative news angles. Other media outlets - in an effort to represent the minority groups - often indicated that the police officers in those instances (as a COLLECTIVE - everyone knows there are bad cops too) were the bad guys. Most white voters would like their police departments not associated with the bad apples and championed for their service.This goes all the way back to location. In cities and in college towns - white folks are pretty liberal and Hillary did quite well, but in suburban and rural areas (i.e. most of the United States electoral map) there's a different picture of race relations. In small towns, there's hardly any crime and it's not attributed to racial circumstances. Down here in Texas, there's several different racial make-ups in those small towns, and it's here you find not just whites - but MINORITIES who are willing to consider a candidate like Trump. Where whites and blacks are treating each other like crap in big cities, we're watching the news in our local diners shoulder to shoulder wondering what the hell is wrong with the world. On top of that, there are fairly standard answers that Trump played to. White business owners would like less regulations on their businesses. White people would like to defeat ISIS and Obama has had a chance to do so. White people would like to pay less for healthcare. Yes, some white people -would- like to pay less taxes. --- The silent majority didn't speak this time because look at how people rebuke people simply for saying 'Yeah, I'm going to vote for Trump.' The first reaction their peers give is - You're a _____ and thank you for not considering -MY- rights and livelihood. Then the discussion ends there. If the other side were more inclined to listen and hear each other out - maybe the silent voters wouldn't be silent. --- I -too- would believe that a better Democratic candidate might have been the difference - but that -is- highly speculative. You can't just shoot the messenger and say the Democrats got everything right either.

1. Neglect is different from direct oppression. It literally means to pay too little or no attention to something with disregard. 2. It's absolutely okay for minority groups to stand up for themselves, it's not okay for the GOVERNMENT to disregard people when it's supposed to represent all of us. I have no problem with most progressive ideas, but I have a huge problem with them being the only ideas that matter to a presidential candidate. Partly because yeah, I am a white male and I'm not concerned with fighting for social equality to the same level as most people who are in a protected group that Trump specifically threatens - but partly because the office of the President is supposed to be a role that serves all the people, damn white dudes who happen to be straight included. Being neglectful of white working class voters - especially in traditionally Democratic states - is a reason Hillary lost the race. --- I've already made my assurance to fight back against harmful legislation. I've been the first to point out problems with alt-right attitudes in my area and I've tried to call out others on this board of their actions. I've voiced how Stephen Bannon is a TERRIBLE pick for Chief Strategist. I've done all I can so far as a singular citizen to voice concern. It's up to you to believe me or not. However, if the Democratic Party holds the line that Trump ascended based on isms, bigotry, and disregard for minorities (who make the news a whole lot more than the white working class does) you're going to be disappointed in America for a long time. It's not all about the white male, nor is it all about the trans woman, the African American teenager, the muslim child, or anyone in particular. Trump hasn't even moved in yet.

Tsareeena

As a conservative, it's reassuring to me to see a conservative candidate "sober up" - even after his inflammatory rhetoric. For those of us on the right side of the dial, it was about damn time someone called out the left and the establishment and the media and essentially everyone that Trump made the butt end of the "joke". Especially if it was more-so for the sake of calling those things out and less actually going to turn the country on it's head. This doesn't mean I believe EVERYTHING Trump said was needed and important. What he said about people groups like Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims, Women, African Americans, the LGTBQ community, etc. (You know, people groups that are considered "protected" by the Constitution) was very much unacceptable and he should do more to dial the tension back on those fronts as President-elect. It's -those- things that make people absolutely fairly afraid and worried about the direction a Trump America might face. However, we on the right were tired of fluffy politics that -CENTERED- on those groups to the point where, yes, White dudes who "have had their time" were feeling targeted and left out themselves. Especially in states the Democrats thought they had all but wrapped up from the previous Obama electoral map. Finally, it's not like Progressive America actually has perfect attendance on fighting for those same people groups - which is how Trump better marks than Romney with Hispanics and with African Americans. It's how Republicans even -earn- some of the LGBTQ vote in the first place. --- I wanted to lead this into a response to Kuro's main arguments about how Hillary Clinton lost the election. Hillary was not a good candidate. Change matters more than more of the same. ...but there's nothing to really argue there - but I do think there is more to it. As bluntly as this may sound, 'White Lives Matter' too - especially in Today's political arena where it's enough to turn Blue states Red. Enthusiasm is important for a successful presidential run. Straight talk is a valuable weapon. I know - living in Texas - that I don't have the greatest example of a fairly swing-state environment - but I do have two examples of personal contacts from both sides of the political spectrum. During the Primary, everyone I knew was voting for Ted Cruz if they were a conservative - because of his being a Texan like us and because Trump was a firebrand candidate that may not have actually been a conservative at all. The state would go to Cruz in a losing effort on the Republican side. Hillary absolutely won Texas over Bernie Sanders (being the more conservative candidate matters in the states Democratic races) - but everyone I knew voted for Bernie in the primary. Cruz voters were all over the map, but they unified behind the Trumpers (which I also knew of during the primary season) under the cause of keeping Hillary out of the White House. Most of the Trump/Cruz supporter discourse was light and we were all mainly in agreement. Bernie voters were deeply dismayed by the primary results, and they fought amongst themselves over to support Hillary (a candidate they had BASHED VEHEMENTLY) or not participate. Most of them probably did end up casting a ballot for Clinton, but there was no enthusiasm for her campaign, other than keeping Trump out. --- Supposedly, new reports are underway that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is under consideration for Trump's Secretary of State position. As a person, Governor Haley is awesome. She's an Asian-American woman, which would immediately provide some diversity to Trump's cabinet. She's also business savvy, having turned her parent's upscale clothing line into a multi-million dollar company - which may prove to be valuable to Trump as a businessperson himself. The issue she has is that her loyalty has NEVER been with the Donald - unless after the primary ended and she voted for him silently. She was a fervent supporter of Marco Rubio in the primary and switched her endorsement to Ted Cruz specifically to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. In my opinion, she's a hell of a lot better pick than Rudy Guiliani.

Can we talk about the implications of "not taking a salary"? George Washington made that same claim when he was going into the office all the way at the beginning, and it's not hard to see why. If there's money involved, it can lead to the completely human reaction of being corrupt and holding onto to power for too long, which was something that Colonial Americans genuinely feared during their transition into being their own nation. However, Congress set the precedent of providing the salary anyway, against Washington's wishes, and George took his 25k a year. This is largely due to the fact that Congress re-enforced the notion that "the Master is he who pays" - as Alexander Hamilton put it. Essentially, if we were to apply that to today (where the President earns 400,000 dollars a year) - The American people - through Congress - basically not only hand President Obama (and later President-elect Trump) a salary, but a reminder that We the People outweigh the wills and whims of the President. By not taking the salary, what happens is that Trump establishes this idea that he's in a different league from everyone else. There begins the potential precedent that Americans need to be wealthy in order to even pursue the office, and perhaps worse, that the person is bigger than the people who are offering to pay him. ...I know that's a roundabout way of explaining why he should keep the precedent of taking the salary, but previous presidents have donated literally all of it to charity in the past. He should take the full amount.

I would think Trump's SINGULAR enemy abroad is that of his voter base - the Islamic State. Outside of that - there's reason to believe he's quite the isolationist. Telling Japan to arm themselves for protection against North Korea for example. However, if Bolden is his Secretary of Defense, which is possible...well. There goes that.

Yeah, as someone wasn't a Trump voter, Trump reneging on his campaign promises is PROBABLY the best for the country in many of those cases. The Electoral College thing, be it from Trump or Senator Boxer of the left, is a situational thing. If Hillary had won the Electoral College it wouldn't even be an issue at all, and Trump of course - regardless of how he spins it - had a much easier time embracing it after it embraced his campaign last week. Truth be told, it gives value to the flyover states, making it much better than simply winning the popular vote. I don't believe, conceptually, that people are against the idea of healthcare for every American. I do believe that the Affordable Care Act was not the best way to provide it - and that is now proven true from President-elect Donald Trump to President Bill Clinton. Republicans in Congress had previously made alternative plans to the ACA with many of the same benefits for those with pre-existing conditions and whatnot prior to the election. Obamacare doesn't need to be completely scraped in order to be "replaced" as they put it. I do believe a physical component will exist (along the terms of border security and "building a wall") along with other ideas. This was Trump's simple campaign pitch though. Mortar and bricks is a fairly easy concept to understand and far less complicated than political jargon like "comprehensive immigration reform" the Clinton camp was peddling around. I do -not- think the wall will even scratch the architectural masterpiece of the Great Wall of China - no matter how much Trump may fantasize about it. Don't remember when Trump said he -personally- was going to repeal Obergefell v. Hodges - and I'm still waiting for someone to share that proof - but I do know Trump has been for same-sex matrimony in the past - at least in the sense that it's already happened and he doesn't have strong feelings of repealing it. What's alarming though - is not so much Trump's rhetoric anymore, it's his level of preparedness and how his transition team seems to change every day. I believe Kuro when xe says the President-elect is starting to at least understand maintaining the image of a world leader and that he cares about it, but I also believe Trump.... may not have expected to get this far. The biggest thing that would mar a Trump presidency? An unstable White House where there's too many cooks in the kitchen. Until the cabinet and such are pinned down, disorganization is going to be the biggest thing we as Americans have to weather.

I -do- apologize for typing an essay and a half - but I -did- try to bold and italicize the questions. Maybe it would help if I colored them in? That way you don't have to read all of it at one time? I'll edit that for y'all. Additional developments Dr. Carson is no longer in consideration for a Cabinet position due to personally refusing to take one. Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Health and Human Services will go to someone else.