Chase

After having multiple discussions with Eviora, I'll admit two things. At first, it sometimes seems like she's speaking with her heart alone. That's not really the case once you keep talking to her. I'd attribute her opposition to Trump as passionate, but also well-reasoned. The business magnate has absolutely not given her or people in her situation much ease and she is - believe me (Ha) - reasonably opposed to the possible outcomes a Trump presidency could bring. I also understand that for her - November 8th isn't really the end of this song and dance, and that's why she'll be consistent and steadfast after midnight tonight regardless of who wins the election. She's not a hateful person - but her view on other people is that their actions speaker louder than their words. Hopefully, Swordsman my friend, that you understand that while words are easy conveyors of one's intent, they can also be much more deceptive than actions are. For Trump to win votes and for Trump voters to even earn any sympathy from the Eviora's out there - he's already starting behind the eight ball because his WORDS aren't even all that reassuring for people in her position - and the potential actions he has already committed (for instance, if the actions he claimed to commit in the "Access Hollywood" clip are TRUE) are pretty much dealbreakers without even getting all that much into the issue people like Eviora care about. If one were to connect the dots in this fairly obvious scenario - it takes a lot of voters to get a candidate elected. Those voters are single-handedly responsible for awarding that candidate the presidency. If you vote for Trump, you vote the possible implications of a Trump presidency. This is how it's seen then. If Trump turns around and rescinds freedoms to people that they previously had, it's those voters that gave him the power to do that. In a way, it's the voter's fault if a candidate causes harm - even if the voter isn't responsible for the way the candidate conducts himself. --- You, as a Trump voter and probably as a human being, need to understand that you won't impress or please everyone with your actions at any given time - and there will be times it's just outright impossible to win. What matters though, is that if you really -do- care about other people, you need to capitalize on the situations where you can show it with your actions. Not only because "they speak louder" - but because if you do that more often, you are able to actually share your intent with people when they come to trust you. --- Eviora may not consider me a friend, and that's perfectly fine. I've done nothing to earn her trust as of yet, and having been that token opposition myself quite a few times, I understand that reaching across the aisle for the sake of understanding can be incredibly difficult - and at times frustrating - but that's not going to stop me from trying to understand her situation and those others I have yet to understand. You can't even "hope" to unify people if you don't know where they are at. I want to consider everyone here my friend - especially my opponents because they help me learn and make me humble at times. I may be somewhat of the toxic variety of person that enjoys a verbal spar just because - but like most sane people I'm tired of this election ballooning that it's divisive. Reborn doesn't care if you're left or right, black or white, gay or straight, male, female, or otherwise specified. That's why I fight, not to divide, and hopefully not always to convince, but to unify.

I should be completely honest here first and foremost - because I had no intention to even debate anyone in the first place, so my part in the squabble is wrong to begin with. I lost my head. Plain and simple. I specifically asked for people not to say anything that would be considered rude in the very first post and the moment someone came out for a candidate, that person was handed some scrutiny. As for the assertion of converting the opposition - well, it depends on what were talking about. I'm always going to attempt to convert opponents from shooing opposing viewpoints out the door in what is supposed to be a fairly inclusive environment here. Do I want people to vote for Trump? Absolutely not (and no, I don't want people to vote for Clinton either - but I don't have an alternative that is reasonable - therefore my stance is that you should vote for who you think is the best candidate out there.) I don't exactly follow you when it comes "masturbating the ego of the proposition" here - so I can't comment on it unless it's clarified. I really only bring up politics as frequently as a I do because I love the electoral process. I love watching polls, and I love seeing how states are trending. THAT's the kind of stuff I want to talk about. I don't word that the best way intentionally because I don't think anyone else really CARES about the electoral map. And then, there's also the feeling that even if we got there, people would still let their feelings and personal biases derail discourse on the electoral map. Therefore I -try- to talk about things that gives both sides reasoning to make their decision. I don't cite sources as much as I should - largely because nobody else does - but on the last page I -did- cite CNN when talking to Squirtle about the e-mail investigation. I -do- try to make that a practice. It doesn't help at all that the other side thinks berating a person for voting on a particular candidate is okay and that it's okay to hijack a thread in that manner. If -that's- the only thing people want to talk about, I'm going to entertain them.

Technically, both candidates have promised intolerance throughout their campaigns, if you know, the things Trump says he'll do are not to be tolerated. I was not speaking in terms of public opinion, Swims. Legally though, my point still stands. You're not going to be able to change public opinion with a presidential election -or- a Supreme Court decision. One of the WORST ways to fix an acceptance problem is to leave the people's voice out of it and have it done through the Supreme Court - and no, Clinton isn't going to change that culture by herself either. --- It's a good thing the weapon of the presidency is essentially a water balloon due to checks-and-balances being in place. The double standard in play is liberals harping on tolerating others and then being intolerant. Having a justification for it doesn't make it any less of a double standard.

I think it's a little unfair to assume Trump's public waffling indicates that he is 100% behind the things he says, as Hillary Clinton told Wall Streeters during a speech - You need to have a public opinion and a private one behind the scenes. When it comes to Campaign Trump, I'll give you that he's waffled quite a bit on (most) issues, women's issues in particular. I've honestly not seen Trump campaign AGAINST LGBTQ people this election cycle, so I'll have to look it up, but what I -HAVE- seen is the most progressive Republican nominee in that area in both categories - at times. Because Trump's voter base consists of Republicans who are more conservative than he actually is, waffling was needed to bolster his standing in the party's primary to start with, and it was needed to maintain Republican support throughout the campaign. It may be -EXACTLY- because there are other pro-LGBTQ candidates on the ballot that Trump is possibly courting rhetoric more consistent with the Republican platform (Evangelicals are not getting represented in this election at all otherwise.) That doesn't mean Trump is going to be immediately held accountable to do what he said he would do. We're still fighting in the Middle East, and that was one of Obama's chief promises on the trail in '08 - to get the heck out. No president on either side of the aisle has a perfect record in filling campaign promises - and it takes a long time for some of those promises to take fruition. Just look at Obamacare covering every American to understand that much. In part, I understand where you're coming from with regards to Anti-West sentiment, but that's not the only driving factor for the atrocities being committed. You would need to have understanding of how one -should- interpret the Quran according to understand why the radicalized terrorists are doing so in the manner they are as much as you can pin it on directional differences. This was never me saying one shouldn't be a Muslim because it means you're automatically a terrorist, but it is me saying that Muslims should do more to clear their names in general to help clear the misconception people have about adherents of Allah as a whole. Jihad -is- based in Islamic doctrine. Theocracy -is- based in Islamic doctrine. And supposedly, the only way to interpret the Qu'ran correctly is to do so mostly literally. Doing so however, would have to take those questionable bits of scripture into account. There absolutely -is- a hatred for Western ideals, but there's also a hatred for Non-Islamic principles and doctrines present in ISIS' actions. Have there been radicalized Christians before? Yeah - but they literally amount to the Westboro Baptist Church these days. I don't see them harming innocents as literally as ISIS is, and if they are, it's not anywhere close to the scale that ISIS is. It's not ignorance of general radicalization - it's realization of RELEVANT radicalization. That - ALONG with Islamophobia (which does also exist quite fairly due to the actions being taken around the world today) - is why people make overreaching comments about Muslims as a whole. There problem is - again - in the ballpark. You saying it's being channeled through Islam is proof of this. The specific cases the Trump campaign has championed regarding over-the-border illegal immigration are real enough - and having watched Republican debates over and over again, the GOP at the very least is not unaware of visa overstays. Trump using harsh rhetoric against Mexico in particular is an example of rallying more than it is a threat against every Latino in the country. It's much easier to spot illegal immigration in border areas because of the typical biological profile they have - especially when a record shows up that this person has come into the country illegally multiple times before and committed crimes. At the end of the day - and Trump has alluded to this personally - I believe his REAL immigration plan is to find criminal illegal immigrants before deciding the fate of illegal immigrants who are here acting like legal citizens case-by-case. Finally, you mentioned intentions to leave LGBTQ matters "to the states" - and to be honest, because of the way same-sex marriage has been normalized in all 50 states prior to this election, that is code for "I really have no desire to change this Supreme Court outcome" if I've ever seen it. The Obergefell decision has led to various lawsuits that mostly go in favor of the plaintiffs. While technically, there is no "written law" that directly deals with same-sex marriage - the courts are going to supercede the states on the principle of National Sovereignty unless the SCOTUS overturns the decision first. --- The question that needs to be asked is - if a candidate has only said something he might do - does that count as harm to the point where you should actively berate or cast shame on someone for voting for that candidate? If nothing has actually materialized, then what's happening is fear. You're not being intolerant of intolerance if there is no proof of intolerance from the other party. You're being fearful of the prospects of intolerance. I did not vote for Trump for multiple reasons. One of those chief reasons was because his rhetoric, if brought to life, could potentially harm my friends. It most certainly wasn't my chief reasoning for doing so.

I'm going to wait - kindly - for where I'm wrong. That video with Jenner using the ladies' room at Trump Tower is out there. If Donald Trump really hates LGBTQ people and has talked about them negatively, where's the proof, friend? It's not that Thiel is supporting Hitler (Leave it to the left to enact Godwin's Law as quickly as the FIRST page...) - it's that Trump cared enough about Thiel's message of "I'm proud to be gay, and I'm proud to be a Republican" to allow it on his coronation stage at the convention. It even earned boos from the North Carolina delegation because of how progressive it was. I'm sure you didn't watch of course. Maybe highlights of Melania's speech because it was similar to Michelle's. How is illegal immigration not a problem? How are American businesses not leaving for other countries because of regulations? If you're going to tell me I am incorrect, it's just good business to show me why. Not pull out a broom, blindside someone because of their actions, and be holier-than-thou without any reasoning.

No problem, Swordsman. Do what you gotta do and don't let anyone give you a hard time about it. --- I remember when Reborn was a place for such ridiculous ideas such as "free thinking" and "engaging discourse." Now it's just "I'm sorry, you're wrong, and I'm going to be intolerant and preach about tolerance while being intolerant. I don't are if you have a self-righteous reason, but you'd better reserve it for appropriate times. Being tolerant of everything is naive and will only lead to you getting taken advantage of. That doesn't mean however, we can make smart-ass comments about people's decisions.

You know what, Swordsman? Cheers, man. Way to use your duty as a citizen in the way you saw best. --- Squirtle, you're better than that man. My opening post said something along the lines of "if you don't have anything nice to say, then politely keep your friggin' mouth shut. You want to prevent Voter Intimidation from Republicans? Maybe you shouldn't treat them like you just treated them. I understand the mantra of "Actions speak louder than words" - but people's votes are their own business - and they don't need their peers providing color commentary and associating the voter to the candidate's tendencies. You know what's ironic about Trump? The biggest examples of his "bigotry" tend to be on issues he knows a surprising deal about. For example, he has spoken pretty harshly about Latinos - as Mexico is the source of declining American business due to offering cheaper operation costs and less regulations than the United States. America truly is losing plants to Mexico - even if Trump isn't totally honest about it or if he insults people due to having Mexican heritage or Latino features. The issue that got him involved in this race - Immigration - is something he's been very much truthful about. That being that illegal Immigration - undeniably - is a serious problem. Muslims? Yeah, he's overreached here too - but terrorism has an undeniable connection to radical sects of Islam, and is arguably inspired by the scriptures involved with Islam. The reason ISIS does what it does is because it's apart of radical Islamic doctrine. In other words, the root of the problem is - at the very least - in the ballpark with Islam, and it would do Muslims a world of good to identify and actively prevent radicalization to clear their names. Women? Trump has been - on good days - the largest advocate of NON-abortion operations from Planned Parenthood out of any past Republican nominee. Yeah, he's pro-life these days, but he has no intention of robbing women access to the things they may need outside of abortion by razing Planned Parenthood to the ground in all 50 states. Those three groups are the largest areas of concern with documented bigotry. He's been supportive of helping African Americans and reaches out to them daily (although most blacks believe Clinton is much better for them.) He's the most progressive Republican candidate when it comes to the rights of LGBTQ citizens (Peter Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention, and Caitlyn Jenner was invited to use the ladies' room at Trump Tower during the HB2 North Carolina fiasco. (although again, Democrats will assert that Trump hates every human being and thus their horse is better for backing.) I don't care if you vote for Hillary because you feel she's the better option, but Hillary isn't the best option for every person. About half of the United States is going to support Trump for their own reasons, and many of them will be fairly informed about their candidate. I don't want to hear any lectures about the importance of tolerance from people who clearly make exceptions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/ More specifically, the image found in this "Clinton News Network" (I use this term loosely, as I feel CNN is actually quite fair in comparison to things like the Guardian, NSNBC, and even Fox as a conservative.) article is important to understand where Comey was coming from. There seems to be a clear willingness to be completely transparent and not bend anything as it's found and reviewed. There also is enough there to suggest that the Federal Bureau of Investigation -DID- re-open the investigation due to the "new" information that was found on the device confiscated in the Weiner investigation. The recipients of -this- letter were Comey's colleges at the FBI. Pure "witch hunt" or worthy investigation in one's mind - I do believe that this shouldn't have been so much of a political event as it was. As a Republican that personally has trouble buying Clinton's record as one that makes her appropriate to be President, and as much as I do believe this was a fair investigation - it had no business being re-opened in the public square after Clinton was given the all clear last summer. Especially if there was still nothing there. That just resulted in a week and a half wasted on being - FINALLY - on the issues. For both candidates. I do believe that if Weiner's computer had that kind of information that there should have been a "private" looking into it and the Director should only be re-appearing if the verdict is to change, for what it's worth.

Well. The one thing Donald Trump needed to happen - regardless of the outcome - happened. Two weeks ago, I was talking about how Democrats were hoping to potentially flip Texas of all states due to a Trump meltdown focused on disputing election results. Now, Hillary Clinton has managed to fall back into the margin-of-error in several state and national polls courtesy of a waffling James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI Director informed the nation publicly that he was re-opening Hillary's e-mail investigation 9 days ago (and a mere 11 before Election Day), sending the Trump crowd in hysterics, ticking off Team Hillary, and doing some pretty significant damage to the margin of projected victory Hillary might have among independent voters and Republican women. The most damning fact found in the nine day speed investigation isn't the fact that there still wasn't anything to officially "condemn" Hillary, but that this was connected to disgraced Democrat ex-pol Anthony Weiner. Man... Huma Abedin, my friend. Please. Get a better taste in men. Please. Hard-righties will assert that Comey "for sure" struck gold even though the case is again closed in favor of Mrs. Clinton. They may also agree that there is nothing - because the FBI is controlled by the Obama Administration and nobody is going to do anything to Hillary - because #rigged Hard-lefties will assert that Hillary is being completely hunted down by the right and that Comey is somehow in the tank for TRUMP - despite the fact that Republicans got first-rites to that accusation the other way. The folks in the middle are just kinda left to decide from themselves - there's reason to be found for making a decision about the revelation (prior to today, anyway! She's supposedly clean. Still!) If the FBI Director was going to re-open a case this close to Election Day, it's very possible SOMETHING triggered something in Quantico that would be a reason to raise the alarm. On the other hand, maybe not making a decision at all is the best (for sure now) until Election Day because the FBI only said they would do more investigation. The results of this wild goose chase however, don't concern Team Trump. Donald's henchmen just needed something to clear their candidate's name from the negative spotlight after an "Access Hollywood" clip surfaced. This changed the trajectory of the race and all of a sudden, Trump is back within striking distance and nothing is certain like it was. For a concrete statistic?...well, Let's suppose Hillary is still on track to win the election...by 3 percentage points. She was up to as many as 10 or 11 before this unwanted FBI redux. Now that we are again "settled" - the bad news is Hillary won't get those nine days of bad press during Early Voting back. She was reportedly doing fine, making up for lost enthusiasm with the African American base with Hispanics (for obvious reasons) - but it's all about courting the largest group of undecideds in recent elections - and these last nine days certainly didn't help get anyone under the tent. Trump on the other hand, has done well to stay behaved and surprisingly hasn't taken any more "L"s from the media corps - which has contributed to his steady pursuit. That being said, outside news outlets are now reporting that Trump may have been in the business of sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl. With the Clinton fiasco under wraps, does that get brought to light before November 8th? What may prevent that is that the woman has chosen to remain anonymous, making it white noise against the other accusations of assault flying around. --- Senate races are going down to the wire, and Hillary's re-opened investigation all of a sudden gave Republicans time to re-evaluate Trump with a chance to rally in their own races. As of right now, I would say this year's Senate races are important, given how the current Senate has been a major roadblock to Obama filling the Supreme Court this last year. If Democrats flip the Senate, Hillary has two options. She can follow President Obama and continue to pitch Merrick Garland, knowing that his approval in the Senate would be assured -OR- she can pull Garland in favor for a much more liberal justice as punishment for Republicans stalling her predecessor instead of taking the much more acceptable option politically for the GOP. If Republicans hang on though - it's very possible a President Hillary gets stalled as Obama was until the mid-term election, where ....Republicans retain the Senate again, leaving the Supreme Court 4-4 and split down the middle during the entirety of Clinton's first term. This is because Republicans are up for re-election in more seats during major election years (like this one), but Democrats suffer that curse in mid-term elections. If Trump wins the White House, a Democratic Senate could make his Supreme Court nominees hit the proverbial bench over the real one in the same way Republicans have done to justice Garland. Republican Senate however basically ensures the Court returns to 5 conservatives to 4 liberals. The difference though, is that chances are higher for Republicans to flip the Senate back in their favor in 2018 than Democrats are of retaining a Democratic Senate come mid-term elections. --- That's about all I have for this broadcast so far. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on the matter peacefully if you all can manage, but here I'd employ the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything" caveat. Remember those eligible to vote Vote your conscience. Do you what you feel is the right thing to do. I'll respect you no matter what. Also, don't let fear be the deciding factor for your vote. If you like dares.

..... :Kappa: :feelsgd:

Alright, so let me start out by saying this. It's nice getting told happy birthday by a large amount of people for who I actually am for once. If you had told me (in about a couple of weeks time last year) in a year that I was going to have a pretty large support group here -still-, I would have thought you were just being extremely nice. It hasn't been all roses - and I didn't expect it to be. I'm more than pleased however, that you guys are better people than I am/was - whichever you think is appropriate to use. If there was a reason to point to when it comes to "sticking around" after last year's "November Surprise" - it's threads like these and the people that contribute to them. You guys are daring, patient, and understanding enough to want to either be my friend, or put up with my shenanigans at the very least for the sake of intriguing discourse. The former leaves me absolutely speechless, and the latter I can say is a noble cause. Either position warms my heart and I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you all give me. I've often struggled ever since burying "Hilda" with a personal war. There was obviously in one corner the self-righteous prickish Hunter that would give me the negative (although probably somewhat true) messages of "You deserve to be ridiculed.", "Nobody will ever love you again.", and "Suffering is reality.", and in the other you would have what I would call "Hilda's Ghost" - or the Hunter that is probably extremely human. This other boxer would want to clamor for the same attention "she" got, or fix all the friendships "she" had, or feel what I had felt before when "she" was perceived as legitimate. Neither side made me feel great about myself. The message of "Yeah, what you did was unquestionably wrong, but nobody is too far gone from forgiveness" - something I preach to many young people myself - never resonated with me regardless of who I was feeling on backing at the time. I either wanted to join the scoffers at "Hilda's" unceremonious funeral, or be the lone person that wished for a sort of resurrection. One of those sides might have won that horrible bout if not for you guys giving me strength, believing in me, and hanging in -MY-, not the prick's, not the dead alias', but -MY- corner. Thank you guys. Hopefully I don't continue to disappoint. It means the world to me that you're here celebrating with me - about me. I wouldn't call it ease, because it wouldn't be a real friendship without hardship. Thank you, Teach. Best of luck to your band - and let's talk more, alright? Good times... I'll admit Viri...if someone didn't try to help you correct your french, I wouldn't have picked up on the pun. I don't French Fry. Sorry Rhett and Link. Thanks! Yeah, I've been really busy as of late - but I certainly need to. Thank you, Tom! I'm still waiting on that dessert flyover. I know I'm a renown liar, but this isn't nice, Ark. I wouldn't mind a new member's theme or something for this thread though. If you really want to give me a present. Just saying. (Thanks, Ark!) ... Thanks... (really though, Thanks, Renzo!) Haha, Thanks, Telos. If anything was even considerably insulting, it's probably your spelling of the not-so-million-dollar-vocabulary words. It's all good though! Peace! Thanks, CM! Yeah, I have the same birthday as someone in pretty much ALL my circles, so I'm used to not being all that special. In all seriousness though, I hope he had one to remember. Also, did you get that surgery recently? How are you? It means quite a lot that you gave me some well wishes, Evi. I know we've er.....had some spirited discourse in the past. Hopefully we talk about something OTHER than politics before the big 23.....(If I -make- it to 23. I'm a fossil.).... The only other thing I remember about you is that you were into Mario Maker or some other Mario title - do you like Mario games as much as I do? I don't know why, but I was expecting a meme here. Maybe I pegged you wrong. Thanks! CHAIRS... I mean....CHEERS......to the birthday flesh....er....person. Thanks, to the flesh that cheered the birthday person! (Flesh....yum) God-willing, I suppose. The day went to the tune of fun, I assure you. Pretty groovy, I might add. Thank you! :feelsgd: TY I happen to think I'm pretty smart too - Glad we could agree on SOMETHING. Haha. Thanks, Mde! Thanks, Azery. Always remember, my friend... Quack is Whack. My gratitude, for your commemoration of my birth. #FeelTheJohnson I DID THE THING ....seriously though, I'm allowed to blatantly lie to you about my identity WHILE being in a relationship with you, and you're going to threaten to kill me over GETTING HURT. Lady, you are quite possibly the most confusing person I have ever met. ...yeah, this personal computer lags. when playing solitaire....with anti-lag active.... You always know just what to wish for. SHUT THE HELL U-... Just kidding. Thanks, Godot! #gotit IS IT A BIRD? (Thanks, Mael) That I did my friend. Nice new avatar. What's it from? Thanks, Pin Lopple!

Hunter @ Red Card Fighting Ability: Defiant EVs: 252 Attack/252 Defence/4 HP Nature: Rash - Protect - Counter - Mach Punch - Endure

I don't think Augustus-flavored chocolate covered gloop would be very appetizing, either my friend. California isn't as liberal as some areas, but Hollywood definitely has a strong leftist presence.

Are the Cubs fans delving into the unacceptable? I mean, I know they have some super mega World Series curse they REALLY REALLY want to break, but that's desperate even for them. Squanto was kidnapped by an individual explorer, not an entire colony. Nobody would say Thomas Hunt acted with any class or respect, but you can't pin his transgressions on some kid dressing up like someone very similar to Squanto in 2016. Then you have his entire tribe being wiped out by smallpox - which is indeed caused by European settlement, but to say the settlers intentionally sickened the Native Americans is too much of a stretch. Smallpox is a very, very unfortunate side-effect of early colonization, and it is very much talked about by scholars. Pocahontas had more than just being a Native American on her plate. She was a young woman (a young girl even if we're talking John Smith) living in a time period where feminine progressivism wasn't even remotely questioned, let alone proposed and championed. She was taken as hostage because her high ranking father held great value in her though, so this is indeed a point of contention. Was it wrong to use her as propaganda after using her as a bargaining chip? Absolutely. Again however, she was done in ultimately by disease - which is not something any European would actually intend nor could they actually be aware of during the time period. I don't exactly see those two as "modern developments" unless you were referring to finding value in historical Native American figures as a practice. There have been positive interactions between settlers and Natives since before Manifest Destiny and even before the colonists discovered tobacco plants were quite profitable. Yes things would eventually turn for the worse with those developments before getting better, and yes as peoples there is still work to be done, but it's definitely not to the level where a Trick-or-Treater is out to poke fun at a centuries-maligned group. There has always been value in Native America as a people group. It's just at times been - sadly - valued less than expanding boundaries and making a profit. African Americans have had to deal and still deal with much worse.

I really kinda agree with HughJ here, Neo - because I can think of several Native American figures that HAVE been respected even by their conquerors. Sacajawea (probably misspelled) helped Lewis and Clark explore the lands obtained in the Louisiana Purchase. This one is arguable of course, because the woman may only be respected because she treated white people with the same. Thankfully, the United States doesn't just pay dues to "the nice Native Americans". Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are often revered in our history books - as VICTORS over General Custer (a United States general) at the Battle of Little Bighorn and very much to a different tune than leader of Vietnam (who gets no reverence at all) There's also Squanto, Pocahontas, Geronimo, Cochise, and various others, who are revered for anything from helping settlers to providing successful or at least very stout resistance. Then there's how we grew up understanding Native Americans in this era. Ever play 'Cowboys and Indians' as a kid? There is no unwritten rule in which the cowboys were the good guys. I think you have to pre-suppose that someone is intentionally trying to mock or insult Native Americans in order to say being a Native American for Halloween is inherently offensive. There is long historical evidence that it's not in the same ballpark as the kind of mockery that African Americans have put up with involving characterization. I -do- see your points, but I don't think they are strong enough to defend your argument.

Screw your bubble-the-letter instructions, Mike! Question one's answer is "Third Party" because HughJ brings up a bigger point of call than being afraid of either of these two clowns. America - despite being the so-called "bastion of freedom" - has the most undemocratic electoral process if I've ever seen one. Both candidates being absolutely garbage nominees only makes fighting the system a much easier decision than it should be. On top of that, voting for the RIGHT third party candidate is actually somewhat viable so long as enough votes are cast to prevent Drumpf and Shillary from getting 270 electoral votes. House of Representatives gets the election put on it's shoulders. It's held by Republicans currently - but many of the Republicans holding seats aren't on Team Trump and would likely clamor for Gary Johnson as a "reconciliation" vote. Democrats - who automatically lose their horse by being the minority party in the House - either jump on Johnson's bandwagon or risk electing Trump. That being said, Question two's answer is likely voting for the Republican in the race -or- the Third Party candidate, depending on the values and policies held by said Republican. Swims brings up a very valid point about bigotry and Trump should serve as a reminder - should he lose in humiliating fashion - that bigotry is too big a weight to carry on your platform for it to be possibly victorious in elections. Republicans quite honestly need to think deeply about abandoning strong religious lobbies and contesting communities such as LGBTQ and various ethnic groups. Peter Thiel, and Caitlyn Jenner are HUGE examples of "conservative" people that are pidgeonholed into voting Democratic for their causes because the GOP actively campaigns against their way of life. That's writing the textbook on how to not get votes, and it will continue to cause harm to the Republican Party if it holds up. Me voting for Democrats isn't an impossibility, but there are things that said candidate needs to do. That candidate needs to be a candidate that is at-best a moderate liberal that focuses mostly on the American Justice System, Education, and Scientific Advancement (fighting Global Warming, encouraging renewable fuel usage, Space exploration) as opposed to dividing government and country by focusing on identity politics. That candidate needs to be HEAD AND SHOULDERS better than the Republican opponent (I.e. NOT Hillary.) That candidate needs to have a spotless resume. (I.e. NOT Hillary.) That candidate needs to be perceived as an honest person by as many people as possible. (I.e. NOT Hillary.) That candidate needs to enthuse bi-partisanship over overusing executive orders to bypass gridlock.

You -can- be an Indian Chief. You -can't- be an Indian Chief carrying a sign related to the Dakota Access Pipeline battle that is going on with the Sioux tribe. That would qualify as "too soon" and wouldn't necessarily be in the spirit of the holiday. I mean, you could if you want to, but you're not really celebrating anything -or- you're making a mockery by using a culture that is under duress by our country as a Halloween costume idea. --- I would agree that execution for clarity is important, but sometimes the impressive work comes from using what you have at home and making it somewhat fit what you're trying to go for. For example, I heard about someone who wanted to be Debbie Thornberry from the Wild Thornberrys. She had regular clothing -and- the natural appearance to pull it off with minimal work. From what I saw, the comparison was quite good. I think icons like Bane are a bit too obvious - making them hard to mess up even with personal variations (such as a trench coat.) Something like Debbie Thornberry though (a very OLD iconic person not very many people would put a finger on at first) would indeed need to be spot on. I guess I half agree with you. If you're going for an easy-to-see costume, the effort can afford to be lessened for the point to get across. Something not on the tip of everyone's tongue would need to be done better in order to increase everyone's ability to pick up the idea. --- C'mon Viri, that's just trying too hard, pal.

Holidays are nothing without controversy - and to stir the cauldron on Fright Night - I bring you Hunter's hopefully annual "Halloween is one of my least favorite holidays" thread. It doesn't have candy, but it does have some thought provoking opinions. Maybe. Before you keep reading - do know that - as is the case with many a thread I write I genuinely shoot straight when it comes to how I view things. There is no intent to kill however. If you find yourself a tad pricked by my sharpness - do understand that I am about as cuddly as a porcupine. It's not like I'm out trying to stick you on purpose. It's the internet, and I'm allowed to have an opinion. The good news is, so are you. I welcome it here. --- The question this grouchy gremlin posits this year is this - "What costumes are GOOD". It's probably not all that original, but - unlike Valentine's Day where I just wish the day didn't exist at all, Halloween isn't terrible when it's done well. With clever thinking and respectable execution. Here's the brownie point section (or costumes I think are very reasonable.) Pop Culture Copies The Deadpools. The Donald Trumps and Hillary Clintons. Sports Figures. Anime and Video Game characters. Even those questionable masses of women who think they can pull off Suicide Squad's Harley Quinn - and Horror figureheads Scream, Micheal Myers, Jason Vorhees. These are all fine by me. Regardless of the way it's presented. When I get to the "roast" section of toast-or-roast here, you'll see my reasoning for shaking my head at costumes be along the lines of too disturbed, too soon, too brainless, or too risque. Let's use Risque as an example, bringing back Harley Quinn. Harley Quinn may be someone who wears short shorts and actually changes in her latest iteration of film - but the reasoning behind people being Harley Quinn isn't questionable. Harley is a major, relevant pop figure. Even if Harley's presentation is not only suggestive, but also disturbing (i,e Undead Harley Quinn) - it's still riffing off of a popular figure. I may personally shake my head, but I understand the intent. The intent matters behind the costume more than anything else. If you're just wanting to dress up and it's pretty evident that your doing so "because it's Halloween"... We got no beef. the Internet Champions Essentially, an internet champion "wins the internet". Some of you fools refer to them as "Memers" - and while this is a declining medium for me, there was a time when the best of the internet made me laugh or appreciate something a whole lot. There -is- some discretion, but there are some good things out there the Web to bring to the neigborhood along with your candy carrying devices. Like Success Kid. Or your RuneScape avatar. Emoticons. Your League Champion of choice. Your best interpretation of Dan (that's a REAL champion right there.) The things I can't like under this category however - Harambe (qualifies under "too soon" and "too brainless" for being a meme that is so toxic it gives everyone who appreciates it cancer.) ...and that's all I can think of right now. People using costumes to make political points - even in meme form - also qualify here. the Random Rangers Those people who walk around in a cardboard box with a duct tape "X" on the front to say they were "an Xbox" for Halloween. The modern Bedsheet Ghost. The Ketchup Bottles. The Cow costumes. The DIY projects. Cheers, my friends. ...and then there are the four horsemen of Halloween faux pas. too Disturbed. If you can't make a distinct reference as to why you're running around with your head ACTUALLY nearly clean off, or why you're in a body suit that has a re-copied image of an agape mouth, or if you just have blood for no reason whatsoever other than to scare others. Get off my lawn. If you can, it's one thing - but I don't appreciate people trying to make me uncomfortable first and foremost. I didn't have to sign a waiver like you do at haunted houses, so be smart out there folks. too Soon. I wanna be Philando Castile for Halloween - someone who doesn't understand why that's a terrible idea. Especially if they are white and are reaching for blackface. too Brainless. Brainlessness is pretty subjective. Down here, it's probably okay to be a confederate soldier more than it is up north. Down here, things like "Yeah, most of our ancestors fought on the Confederate side" mean more than they do in say, New York. That being said, don't go into a black neighborhood dressed like a KKK member. Don't be a gorilla dragging a child down the street. Don't be stupid. That's all. too Risque. this is probably going to be the most controversial of them all, because it deals with both the observer and the person being observed. To clarify, no matter how a woman dresses, it's not okay for a man to gawk and claim the woman was asking for it. People -are- indeed able to resist. However, there are costumes out there - specifically found in stores like Spirit Halloween - that run on the desire for women to use Halloween to "be sexy" before anything else in terms of viability. Remember when I said Harley Quinn was reasonable? "Naughty Nurse" or "Sexy Soldier" isn't nearly passable. That's not intended to kinkshame those who are into that sort of thing (That would be hypocritical if I thought about it long enough.) - but it's intended to be a point in terms of self-respect. Humans are not just things to look at, therefore, you should probably pick your costume along that true statement as opposed to "appearing" to be hypocritical when you later deflect a man's accusation that you were asking to get looked at like an object. That's just common sense.

I like Beltigre and Yungoos! I've decided that I'm going to go ahead and own BOTH copies of the game this time. I like Litten -and- Rowlet equally, and I really want to see how the 12 hour difference works in Moon come Christmas time. I'm getting Sun first because I want to use Midday Lycanroc on my team. That team looks as follows as of right now - Incineroar - Tsareena - Wishiwashi - Lycanroc - Kommo-o - Vikavolt (I have indeed succumbed.)/ Pikipek I wanted to of course core-up with Litten first, and it's seemingly pretty likely we could find Wishiwashi -and- Bounsweet fairly early (the former because it's first form is potentially pretty weak, and the latter because three-stage grass types tend to be found quite early.) Rockruff > Lycanroc became the next pretty neat Pokemon, but I'm not exactly coring up and synergizing because I also like Kommo-o and want to use both here. This has left me in a pretty big bind when deciding what my six-spot Pokemon should be. Because of PokeRide seemingly doing away with HMs, I figured I wouldn't -need- to go with a Flying type here - giving Vikavolt the inside track on Pikipek. However, if Fly is still necessary, the Alolan bird Pokemon might see that spot instead. For my Moon Team, here's what I'm thinking about. - Decidueye - Crabrawler (PLEASE get a water typing when you evolve...you're a friggin' crab, for Pete's sake) - Mudsdale - Turtonator - Alolan Exeggutor/Wimpod (depending on if Crabrawler DOESN'T get a water typing) - Alolan Raticate Coring up this time, I wanted to get the Fighting/Dark/Psychic core in some fashion, while still having a FWG core intact as well. This team might provide a bit of difficulty in my run too, so that's always nice.

Serene Grace Fairy types or Fairy typical Pokemon are so overdone it's not even funny - but Primarina is a solid candidate for being one, admittedly. There's a semi-high likelihood that the starters may get abilities that don't exist yet as hiddens, as that's what happened last year with Chesnaught (Bulletproof), Delphox (Magician), and Greninja (Protean) last time around. Another thing that may be focused on this year from a starter group perspective is abilities that not only provide an immunity, but an effect of some kind when hit by certain moves. Like this: Decidueye: Sap Sipper - Boosts Attack when hit by a Grass type move. Incineroar: Flash Fire - Boosts the power of Fire type moves when hit by a Fire type move. Primarina: Water Absorb - Regains HP when hit by a Water type move. Thematically, these starters each feel like there's a gimmick that makes those immunity causing abilities to make sense. Decidueye technically is a bird, making it superior to competing plants already even without the Flying typing. Incineroar is a cheap fighter Pokemon that feeds off of "lit" crowds, making it make sense if it's hit with hot moves to get even more pumped up. Primarina's chances seem to be better in wet environments, when there's more water to use at it's disposal.

I'm with Lucky on this one - as the origin of the name often denotes the pronunciation. Decidueye is a really, really, neat Pokemon in that while it's two previous evolutions are flying Pokemon that are even more hampered against Ice type moves, Decidueye drops that for lesser "super" effective weakness to Ice and two immunitys. One of the reasons Grass types are not very prevalent in higher tiers is because their typing almost requires them to be bulky in order for them to be able to be justifiable. Decidueye being a ghost however, at least allows for it to be switched in to an obvious Fighting or Normal type move and prepare some set-up or go for it's signature move to trap an opponent and get off some damage. The move matters because it essentially gives it better trapping capabilities than most Pokemon, and thus allows for it to circumvent it's weak typing. In terms of competitive viability, the Grass starter might actually be the best Pokemon offered by Kukui. Again, it depends on typing. --- Looking at Decidueye from a standpoint of origin - it's Ghost typing is actually unique in comparison to other ghosts in that it's "ghostly" tag comes from it being incredibly stealthy - as opposed to a Pokemon like Pallosand (and several previous others) where the Pokemon is possessed or straight up -is- an ethereal spirit. As far as learn-sets are concerned, Robin Hood should have Grass, Flying, and Ghost moves at it's disposal. The latter two make it a great out against Fighting and more importantly Bug types when fully evolved. Bug has the potential to reach new heights this generation, so that's a big deal. --- I wonder what kind of Hidden Ability is appropriate for Decidueye. Playing it safe, Keen Eye, Insomnia, and Levitate come to mind first. Keen Eye: The incredibly useless option that may make sense due to Pokemon. It's a bird/archer. Insomnia: Another incredibly useless option that comes from Rowlett's evolutionary line. It would make more sense for all three than... Levitate: One that would be neat for Decidueye and may make sense as it's a Ghost type, giving it immunity to Ground as well. Even under the notion that Robin Hood is a ghost due to stealth, it's evolutionary line is known to have wings, so flying is definitely possible with this Pokemon biologically. However, there are a few I think fit well too. Sniper: See: Archer Infiltrator: If the Pokemon is inspired by Robin Hood, then Infiltrator is a fantastic ability that compliment's Decidueye's trapping ability with the ability to maneuver even more against people who are not trying to switch out. Gale Wings: Another stronger ability that would fit with Rowlett's entire line quite well, meaning sensible carry-over.

Yeah, puberty hit Red like a train.... I'll get used to it though. All legends grow old someday. --- It's a good thing I've already seen those, but I was trying to respect those that were only here looking for "released" information on Sun and Moon. Upon further looking, I can see where that's likely. Cosmog is definitely in the interest of the Aether Foundation. From the website: "This extremely rare pokemon is known to very few people in Alola. At one time, it was only to the kings of Alola and to their heirs, and it was known as "the child of the stars." The Aether Foundation is researching this unusual Pokemon, and one of the professors at the foundation recently dubbed it Cosmog." This means that not only Aether is involved with what may eventually be the box legendaries > but that they for sure are involved with naming their possible origin Pokemon. Furthermore, people are speculating that the noise that comes from Lillie's bag is the cry of Cosmog. Does this have something to do with the Ultra-Beasts? --- Eagleby, you are like the king of wishful thinking my friend. I will say though, it's astonishing that Dragonite, of those four, doesn't have a mega-evolution. I just really think Megas are hardly the "in" thing for Sun and Moon. Mega Evolution being in the game at all was in doubt by many until recently. Seeing as everything else has been mined though, and there's no mention or proof anywhere suggesting there's ANY new Megas, I'm going to be a skeptic.

Cosmog looks oddly uncanny to Lunaala > like... Cosmog is essentially kinda "baby Lunaala" If that's the case - I'm kinda glad Game Freak didn't tease baby Solgaleo.

So, having read up some more on this new "League" here's what seems to be going down. Sun/Moon/Whatever the hell your name is appears to get to Alola before a Pokemon League is even constructed yet. The player goes on the Island Challenge and likely deals with Ultra Beasts/Aether/Skull/etc during construction. The previous champions (or at least Red, Blue, and Cynthia) arrive at Alola You battle up a tree of renown trainers with some help from them as you advance. You become Alola's FIRST. I repeat - FIRST Pokemon Champion. That's pretty cool.