Chase

- WHA-WHAT. GHOST. DECIDUEYE. WHAT. THE GAME CHANGER. THE WHAT....WHAT. NO! DAMN IT GAME FREAK. I THOUGHT I KNEW WHAT I WANTED. I THOUGHT. THAT MOVE THOUGH!....WHAT THE....OH MY GOODNESS. WHY. WHAT. ...*sigh* Incinaroar is still cool - but Rowlett's line is definitely still trying to be considered. One of you kind souls would trade me a Rowlett later, right? --- - I don't see the problem with Incinaroar being a Firefighter or even resembling one. It's actually much better done than Emboar in comparison when it comes to it's wrestler appearance. I also like how the website actually indicates that it's a Pokemon that is disliked. It reads that Incinaroar sometimes attacks opposing trainers. It also has the strange contrast in that it enjoys praise from children to big crowds, and when the crowd watching it fight isn't on their feet it begins to fight poorly (or because it's based on a heel, cheaply.) I actually think Darkest Lariat is a pretty great move too - it's a physical move that ignores stat changes - meaning it could bypass speed and defense gains. That might actually give Incinaroar some competitive value higher than NU. It will most likely come down to whatever hidden ability it has. I wouldn't be surprising if it got Moxie since it enjoys pleasing crowds (and fainting the opposing Pokemon does that) or Intimidate due to it's supposedly fearsome appearance and heel nature. --- Primarina is pretty interesting. Sparking Aria - it's special move - is a special type move and NOT a utility move. That means that it still does damage....right? Water type moves (as I'm assuming Sparkling Aria is) are good moves to have a damage causing attack with status healing in because of abilities like Water Absorb - that heal the target. This makes Sparkling Aria useful in double battles............depending on who you use. I'm not going to be spending too mind time defending our Siren infleunced Water starter. It's my least favorite and it doesn't seem to fit my playstyle well. --- ...On the flip side though, the Water Island Guardian is pretty -and- cool looking (as is all the Tapu-mons) and OH MY GOSH is Guardian of Alola powerful looking. I'd get a little sadistic too, if I were the trainer in that video. --- It makes sense for Red and Blue to be dressed in summer garb and look a little relaxed because we know for sure that Alola is based off of real world Hawaii - a place that is a known summer travel spot. What doesn't make sense though - is why Cynthia is still wearing her normal all black coat-pant-suit thing. It's like a THOUSAND degrees outside lady. (It's probably because GF has a sense of humor and knew a few other gentleman out there would notice and be disappointed.) Anyway, back to the league. This seems to be more like Unova's Pokemon World Tournament than the actual Pokemon League - and if that's the cause, this isn't much of a spoiler save for some end-game content.

Physical copies still sucks...It would mean I'd have to rebuy games I own in cartridges. I guess buying games off the internet is the way of the future :c

I hope so. If I were to get it, it may be that I play 3DS games until I can pay for a new game (unless I am able to get a bundle) It would be -REALLY- cool if they could go backwards compatible with both the Wii U -and- the 3DS. That's a good sign for the system moving forward in my opinion.

Cheerios - particularly Frosted or Honey Nut. Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles Apple Jacks Cookie Crisps

YIIIIKES, losing that dual screen (and I'd imagine for some games the touch screen feature) DOES hurt it's capability to be backwards compatible too. ....that certainly tempers my enthusiasm.

Subjective. - I travel to different places for work and usually arrive quite early. - I am not a typical console gamer, playing portable games even in situations consoles are feasible. - Yes. - Not really, but it really doesn't matter all that much because the Switch will work for all occasions and I would just need to move the materials from place to place. That's one of it's better features. Even if gaming on the go isn't as doable, the Switch allows you to go with the games easier than other console systems. - Check-ups? Absolutely. It's not riveting that it's a portable game system. It's riveting that it's a convertible game system that works on the go -and- at home in connection with your television screen without requiring all of that extra hardware. --- I can understand exceptions with apparent specs and conversion of typical console titles, but I feel like those will be addressed at least after the initial launch. Passable, for me, is the bottom line.

I like how Mael and Godot are already trashing this thing - but I will admit, it seems like it's a potentially problematic console. I won't be very pleased by having Nintendo centralize both it's handheld -and- console sales on the Switch because I'm really only a Nintendo fan due to the handhelds. However, -IF- the handheld-centric titles (Pokemon) are done really well, then there's the added bonus of having a home console built in - which is just awesome. Essentially, the Switch is anywhere from a begrudging purchase to continue my Pokemon addiction in the future - to being the greatest Nintendo product I've ever owned. I hope it's reasonably priced. --- On Skyrim (Perception: +) As someone who hasn't sold their soul to Bethesda over this game, it might be an interesting time to really make my relationship with Skyrim my own instead of experiencing it on someone else console in short spans of time. It also indicates - hopefully - that Nintendo is paying attention to the success of other consoles flirting with third party systems. Some of my fondest memories of the first Wii were sports titles, from Electronic Arts' NCAA Football to Mario titles such as Superstar Baseball. If there are better relationships with devs fostered through a much better approach to third party titles, the Switch conceivably becomes the best console to play sports titles on because the potential to field every major sports game is there. This goes on to fighters as well. If relationships with third party developers improve, I could conceivably pick up things like Tekken or Mortal Kombat to play alongside Nintendo's Smash Brothers. Something I haven't really done since the GameCube era. On Backwards Compatibility (Perception: ?) Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but given the Switch's ability to be a portable system -and- a home console, doesn't that mean that it's possible it succeeds the 3DS as well as the Wii U? Now, I know that Wii U games are discs and it doesn't appear the Switch will be able to run them, but 3DS games are indeed cartridges, giving THOSE games the potential to be backwards compatible more so than the Wii U titles. It means a world of difference between having to wait for the next Smash installment or getting to play your 3DS version of the game on the Switch if that's the case (for those who like Smash, I realize it's not the same as the Wii U version and that matters too.) It would be nice to be able to continue your 3DS campaign of Pokemon Sun/Moon on the Switch when it comes out. Fire Emblemiers would be able play both Awakening and Fates on their television screens if those are compatible. I guess what I need to say is that there's some substantial reason to be hopeful in that the Switch might be Nintendo trying to cover a ton of ground in merging what works to help what hasn't been working. The Big N does a great job in the handheld department and using it to prop up sales elsewhere just seems really smart to me. That being said, I don't think you should take my word for it at all. I know nothing, but I can dream. On new titles (Perception: -) Call of the Wild should be one of the biggest games on the system on launch. This will be supplemented by a bunch of smaller titles such as the next Mario platformer (which some may argue are still gems - but I happen to think it's rinse-and-repeat at this point.) I don't have high hopes for the game library at first. What will need to happen to supercede my expectations is to appeal to the whole family by bringing in the third party titles - maybe even some shocking ones like Fallout or something - while having as many kid-friendly and sports titles as possible. I don't think the game library is going to be all that great at first.

I was really hoping there would be a call to get eat some Arby's. Adopting a pet is actually almost... heartfelt. People care about politics because even if corrupt the politicians that represent you influence the direction of the country. If voters have the opportunity to put people that represent them in office then, that is where people should care and engage in the system. I agree though, adopting a pet is probably more rewarding.... in the short term.

I doubt she actually will because she doesn't like intensive spriting. I don't however, doubt her creativity. If she really had an idea as to what Battle Bond pokemon would fit - she wouldn't ask for anyone's permission. If she's anything like me, the whole battle bond concept would seem stupid to her.

I'm not the one saying wage gaps between genders are solely due to discrimination - but that's entirely hard to say for certain one way or the other unless you are focusing on specific data points or research. That's bad academics right there. If we're being completely honest about women in the workplace getting payed as much as men are - the trend shows two things. Women are improving their standing, generally closing the gap with men as the years go on. There is indeed an apparent stalling of progress. It's not so much that women are losing ground, but are slowing their progress down. Yes, you are absolutely right that employees' individual decisions play into the wage gap, but that isn't the only issue there. Employers can always take steps to ensure they are not lapsing with payroll responsibilities - including monitoring the payroll through personal investigations as opposed to allowing the government to do so. That doesn't mean the gap doesn't exist. That also doesn't mean that workplace discrimination doesn't happen. Have you ever asked yourself why equal pay is something the Democrats care a whole bunch about? Democrats love equality issues in general. If there's one they can reasonably highlight for their cause, they will. Democrats have a huge gain over Republicans when it comes to worker's unions - which deals in fairness for employees. Democrats claim to be the party for women -and- progressivism. Essentially, equal-pay is actually the bigger cash-cow for female votes than even women's choice with pregnancy is. So long as there is evidence supporting a wage discrepancy, they will spin it to ensure it mobilizes women to the ballot box. It also isn't met with nearly as many women who are on the fence or opposed over the issue of abortion. Everyone wants to payed fairly. It's also a very relevant issue because it allows Hillary to flaunt the woman card without taking as hard a stance on other women's issues. Most people want women to be treated fairly in the workplace and there's really not much of an objection there. Hillary becomes the champion princess of women by making this a major campaign issue. If you are still thinking "Hunter, I still think this is just completely spin" - you're half right in some senses. Democrats don't say "We're making progress as it is already" all that often. It's a part of the equality drive though. They won't stop harping until the gap is completely crushed. It doesn't matter what the real cause is.

Well, she felt you were baiting her on that one...so... There may be some misunderstanding all around there. I think there are some unavoidable things regarding that Equal Pay act. The last time it was updated was in 1963 - before the Civil Rights act was passed. This may possibly explain some of a stark increase in the earnings gap between men and women of minority groups. Not all employers are actively trying to discriminate against women - but payroll auditing (something that's just a good idea for a company in general) would shore up the gap a little bit to prevent the gap from getting worse. In most causes, payroll isn't audited, and it is proven that the wage gap is existent. It's trending speed however depends on companies' willingness to be put under the microscope, and I think that's a good thing to want. It's literally the difference between equal pay being achieved by 2060, or by 2160. Now, there are some things that contribute outside of things legislators and business types can control. There tend to be more stay-at-home moms than there are stay-at-home dads. There tend to be more men in industrial jobs (i.e. foundry workers) than there are women. There tend to be more male doctors than there are female ones (almost 2 men to 1 woman!) There tend to be more male lawyers than women (60%-40%) Those things will need more women to continue entering the work force and breaking the status quo in order to change. With the lawyers example, current attendance in graduate law programs have women making up 47% of students. Things like this improve the gap because the more women getting the higher paying jobs the more they lower the gap without government assistance. This doesn't mean, however, that the government shouldn't touch the issue further. I just think things like a 15 dollar minimum wage isn't the best thing to go about it.

D.C. has been shut down before over sequestration before, friend. With that one, you have to lay the lumber on Senators like Cruz as well as President Obama. I'm not going to waste my time vilifying the president. If you're going to say Cruz is a jerk for causing gridlock, Obama is just as much of a jerk according to your logic. Knowing that Cruz was campaigning against the Affordable Care Act due to it's implications (which he's actually been RIGHT about in most cases) - I can't fault the Senator for being aggressive. Even the Clintons will willingly admit Obamacare needs to be amended because it does limit choice and hike premiums in several areas while -failing- to achieve "universal" status. It -has- given lots more folks access to healthcare - but it's a bill that needs to be altered to where it's not hurting Americans simultaneously. If it can't be changed to avoid harming Americans simultaneously, it -does- need to be struck down. --- Oh, Trump won fair and square. I don't need justification to "want" a re-do - if Trump being himself doesn't count as justification to begin with. I believe Hillary also had a bigger turnout than Bernie (which is what matters), but there was some preference for Hill within Democratic brass - and it did get out in the open thanks to WikiLeaks. Those e-mails revealed the DNC saying a bunch of pretty mean things about the Bern, and there did seem to be a little collusion between Camp Hillary and Wasserman-Schultz' gang - but I don't think it's enough to say she cheated the primary away. I will say that I think it's unfair to show bias one way or the other.

You know, Evi. I actually think you're pretty cool and -not- an insufferable bitch. It's admirable to be as steadfast as you are to your cause. Hopefully my needling isn't seen as anything more than a nuisance. I only do so because I too care about many of the issues you bring up, without being exactly certain your method is the best way to go about it. There's a difference between bitching because you are passionate and bitching to bitch if you will. The way I see it, is that you want change to hold and to continue. If not for your own sense of security and yourself, for the safety and progress of others like you. That much isn't just a you and I thing. It's essentially similar to both Democrats and Republicans trying to solve bipartisan issues through different means. When that's the goal - the only appropriate thing to offer the other party is respect. It's a real shame some of us on the right forget that as of late. Consider your view on compromise seconded. Both sides can do a better job of trying to govern the country if they would enter the House and Senate chambers and the debate halls with respect for their opposing peers. When that happens, America gets things done for once. As far as weather dispositions go, I'm very much like the state I live in. Some days I feel great and don't mind giving a little in my discourse. Other days I'm overcast and drone on issues without budging, and still others I'm a raging storm and will tenaciously pursue defense for a particular side. Admittedly, that doesn't do much for people's emotions - and as a thinker (not a feeler) I often rub people the wrong way in that regard. I do apologize for whatever I might have caused you in that regard. --- I don't need either candidate arrested, Hiss - but a do-over would be very much appreciated.

I don't know how valid that view on Republicans nominating strict conservatives that are malicious is, but I know for a fact that when it comes to upholding ideology over justice, the "conservative" justices on the Supreme Court aren't as consistent as their liberal counterparts. That's another thing that I happen to like about conservative presidents. Historically, Republican presidents don't always go for the Antonin Scalia (from an ideology standpoint) - whereas Democrats seem to have a penchant for judicial activists who will stretch for liberal causes and dismiss sound dissenting arguments from their conservative counterparts. Part of strict construction-ism (the antithesis of judicial activism) is holding the law as it's written. This has burned people hoping to discriminate against people in the past, and makes it hard for even the most conservative of justices to misconstrue or undermine the law. Taking Obergefell's decision into account, it would almost take a conservative version of today's liberal justices to revert that decision - and when it comes to finding conservative judicial activists, well - Republican presidents haven't done a great job of it -or- Democratic Congresses have thumbs downed those justices beforehand. Thankfully. --- Yeah, you should see me try to point out that relationship of actions and intentions to reluctant Trumpers. It's almost become as routine as eating dinner or brushing my teeth, and it's also a sad thing to witness. It does - admittedly - get to the point where I have to eschew the election and remember that those people generally behave in a trustworthy manner anywhere else. I also know however, that take-and-give is very necessary in today's world - because not everyone can go on Sherman's March to the Sea and come out with the so-called "ideal world." A good example of this is Trump himself. He's going to lose this election because he's trying to run against other Republican leaders, the media, entire ethnic groups, women, and Hillary all at the same time. Avoiding the scorched-earth is pertinent to people who aren't Trump and should learn from his demise. Knowing my background - I believe the ideal world is an impossibility (for humanity to engineer), but that it's still a valiant cause to at least build community with one another. If any politician has their sights on a perfect country - Republican, Democrat, independent - that is a cause that is destined for failure. However, hope can be restored and generated tenfold if the goals are made a little bit lower and tolerance improves. God, I just used the word "tolerance"...Damn this election. --- I believe you would want a real forthcoming answer and not just the one in hindsight. I really, really, dislike Clinton. Considering the fact that I knew Donald Trump was a disaster nomination, I would have been elated if Cruz were to make the comeback because I like underdogs and I know come November all of the liberals (and some of the conservatives out there) are going to be as relieved as I would have been to see Trump fall. There's also a personal empathy that I have for Cruz in that it's hard for him to be liked - and I've always felt I had that stigma myself. That was enough to make Cruz a semi-respectable alternative to the Donald. Against Clinton - I would probably be on Ted's bandwagon at the start, and there's a good chance (if Hillary failed to make anything we've discussed stick) that Ted Cruz might have gotten my vote in November. --- In hindsight though - Johnson is a much more attractive alternative - as he is against Trump and Clinton today. You mentioned Cruz's late endorsement - and it was around that point I stopped caring completely about our dear senator - who rescinded the action that gave him a shred of respect after imploding during the final days of the primary. He -again- would suffer from being a minor party candidate, but at least he doesn't actively try to harm other people with his policy positions. In short, yesterday I would probably have been Cruzin', today I would be voting for Gary. Hindsight has 20/20 vision though - I have to be ready to admit potentially making a mistake in pursuit of being truthful.

I was pretty supportive of Cruz following Marco Rubio's exit - yes. Largely because at that point, it was quite decided that Republicans were either going to go with the super conservative who could care less about some people, versus ...well....you-know-who. It wasn't a pleasant choice, but Cruz at least had a chance of playing at the middle without damaging his standing in a Trumpian manner among Republicans (he would have had to in order to beat Clinton, in my opinion) and there's also the per-emptory voting pattern Congressional races have where a decisive Republican president usually causes good turnouts for voters supporting Democrats for Congress (and much like President Obama would find out, vise-versa.) There was also Kasich...who....well, was in a position a lot like the one Johnson is in now. The best option on the table from my vantage point, but decidedly unable to gain any ground in the race. Unlike the Democrats, we didn't pass on a good candidate in the primary. We passed on 5 or 6 good candidates in a messy 17-way race that came down to two unsavory options. I think it's important to say that my enthusiasm for Cruz peaked around the time of the Wisconsin primary (along with his campaign) - before North Carolina passed HB2 and before Trump got to his beloved Northeastern map. From there, I didn't stick with the ship. Rubio was my guy. He still isn't the sexiest option for transgender individuals, but he knows how to work with Democrats (as seen through his attempt in passing the Gang of Eight bill) and I agreed largely with his viewpoints. He also is someone who gave an Iowa atheist the best answer to the question of God's place in governance - one that seemed to be very open to religious freedom for all beliefs and non-aggressive when it came to policy. --- The trust thing is important here. I can tell you that this election has been a hideous experience, but it's caused me to do a lot of soul-searching. When I watch the news, I see people concerned with the way the GOP nominee behaves and talks about people much like them - and it's not something I would want to enact on everyone in the country. I've waffled on a several things (such as marijuana legalization) when reviewing policy in my spare time - when I otherwise would have been firm. If there's one thing that I know about my heart, it's that people matter and their lives are worth defending. The map isn't drawn well - as conservatives have to answer for weak gun policy when claiming to be pro-life, and liberals have to answer for weak global response when claiming to oppose terrorism - but everyone in public service at least - should - be trying to protect as many lives as possible through the work that they do. What you said about electing Obama for a third term? I'm in the same boat. At least that guy appears to be trying. If you think my motives are against you, there's not any physical way I can prove the contrary to you. We don't live in the same place, and our discourse seems to largely be focused on these icky political matters usually in disagreement. However, after watching this chaos over the past year, I would be willing to bet that moderate Republicans appeal the most to me from here on out - and that every measure of governance I review gets put under the scrutiny of both the "Christian" and the secularist, so that I can determine - for myself - what the right thing to do in those measures is.

#FreeColress

- I think it's important the country really turns the corner on transitional therapy and you wouldn't find a larger advocate for it in a church sanctuary on Sunday than me. You're most certainly not the first story I've heard along those lines, and I we're on the same page on that front. It's unfortunate that things such as "bathroom rights" are the talking point at large instead of the effects of psychological therapy on similar cases. It's wrong to try and re-wire identity in someone simply for society's sake. Period. - I think the real "binary" choice with Trump is would you vote for him - or not. There's two things that have to be addressed when exercising your right to vote. Is this candidate someone that can unify the country (Neither candidate has shown that they can.) Is this candidate fit to serve? (Trump has shown very clearly he isn't.) From there, that would determine a 2 person race. Since the race isn't a two person race, the decision has to be made on voting for someone you 100 percent don't support (but is fit to hold office) or vote for a low percentage candidate that shares some of your values while preventing the major party candidate from having your vote. Going back to the plant description, a vote for Johnson (or staying home) - under your words - is "half" bad for Trump from a usual Republican voter. instead of water, it's like giving the plant too much sun, causing Trump's hatred plant to wilt. A vote for Clinton would be straight poison and would most assuredly be harmful to the plant for sure, but you don't have to poison the plant to kill it. From there, I would hope the candidate's record matters to you. If a conservative that would normally consider voting for a candidate that may cause detriment to your cause votes instead for a candidate that is supportive of your cause, that's more help than you might have gotten if the candidate were worse than Trump. In that way, Trump might be helpful. One by being so much of a disgraceful politician that Democrats may be able to sweep all thee branches of government (a tilt in the trans-person's favor) and Two by causing serious thought reform in the other major party so that nominating another Trump doesn't happen again. I mean, that's what Ralph Nader was all about. The election goes well beyond November 8th. I would hope redemption is possible past that point for you, because your community could really use all the help it can get. LGBTQ members are not quite at the same level as women and ethnic minorities. You'll need the moderates or the estranged conservatives to help out.

It seems like your problem then, is that you're not content with the progress that -has- been made - which is incredibly understandable. However, this political issue seems to be more of a stem for the plant that really eats at you. In order words, people wanting you to be treated less than others is the cause of something along the lines of self-doubt or a need to avoid people in order to stay away from those who would see you fall. You're clinging to the progress you've made because it appears uncertain if it will hold - and that would explain why you have a hard time trusting people who don't completely buy in and draw their swords for what you have as well. I'll admit. For me, it -is- easier to brush off attacks. Here is where checking my privilege is appropriate I'm white. I'm male. I'm straight. I've been blessed with parents who are at least partially supportive, and a job that enables me to take care of my needs. I also have a church family that is patient with me when I challenge them on things like God's role in American governance. While most of my friends are liberal, they understand my arguments as a conservative and don't equate me to the likes of Trump, so I don't face much backlash there either. I don't have many friends though - largely because I'm stubborn, my faith offends or makes others leery of me, and I'm not the most gentle soul out there. That's why this matters to me so much. The most important thing I've found about this election is that it rips up communities. I'm tired of watching a man berate a woman for being pro-Hillary just because - according to that man - Trump "said something mean". I'm tired of my so-called friends looking at the vote and not the person and harassing them for voting with what their heart tells them to. If history says anything, governance is sordid. We have figures like Hitler, Nero, Nebuchadnezzar, King George, and countless others, and while they weren't all popularly elected, Andrew Jackson is widely considered one of the worst American presidents (despite being the only president to pay off the National Debt) because of the pain and suffering he caused Native Americans during his tenure. Even the "good" presidents like Obama leave office looking 50 years older than the way they looked 4 or 8 years ago. It's not worth building barricades and losing friends over. I would happily consider more thoughtfully Hillary Clinton if the campaign she ran reflected her campaign's slogan. One of Trump's few darts to actually land on the board is that her campaign has been very much "Trump must fall first, American prosperity comes second." As much as I welcome dispute and dissent, I'd rather be "stronger together" than strongly opposed to one another. If that results to half-baked efforts to reach out to you. I'm sorry. It kinda reflects how half-baked Hillary Clinton's efforts are to reach voters like me.

Largely due to immigration patterns and the origins of Catholicism in America. For example - Mexican Americans and Native Americans who identify as Catholic typically live in the Southwest, where historically Spain conquered the region and set up missions. Mexican Americans have been historically Democratic, and Native Americans tend to side with Democratic politics as of late (see recent pipeline picketing). The rest of the Catholic population tends to live up north, in generally more liberal areas - meaning location is a major influence to their political identity. Another reasoning Catholics could potentially lean to the left is because of immigration patterns from European countries, that tend to be more liberal than several American states. For these reasons, Catholics tend to much more liberal than their Protestant neighbors. (Obama won nearly 50 percent of Catholics as opposed to 30 percent of Protestants - to put things in perspective.) --- I can accept that much, Eviora. I still think it's too conditional to really call "friendship" - because from my experience, action only is the building block of what truly matters with any relationship ever - trust. I - don't know about anyone else here - have a difficult time talking to friends who are voting for Trump because I feel like they are doing so out of pressure from external sources (which includes the bloomin' Supreme Court seat!) as opposed to making a decision that they are comfortable with. I tend to get fairly annoyed when people make themselves out of ability to control a situation they perfectly can. (I.e. casting a vote.) However, having conversed with them enough - the "show-me" moments build on top of one another and then all I need is to see the look of disdain in their eyes to know they aren't just being moronic. I find prioritizing actions in a relationship to be very stand-offish - but to each their own. The only option that leaves for this election - by process of elimination - is voting for Hillary Clinton. It's at that point where someone would have to pardon the other if it were really a friendship. Is Hill a terrible person? I can't say for sure. I only know she's not perfect and that I disagree with her on virtually every issue. Is casting my vote SOLELY for a friend worth it? Trump makes a compelling case - but I would have to say no. This is where a vote for Johnson matters though. As a Texan who would normally vote Republican, this equates to one less vote....for Trump. Mathematically, that's as close to a vote for Clinton as I can give my friends who are worried about a Trump presidency. In substance, there are some things I can actually get behind on the candidate I'm voting for's platform too - a nice bonus in the out-there event he gets first place in New Mexico and really throws this election into the Republican held House of Representatives - (which, depending on what Trump looks like, makes Johnson the PERFECT compromise vote to save GOPers' political futures and accomplishing the mission of keeping Donald out of office for House Dems.) Knowing this helps your cause - does it change things for you? Or do you still think voting third party wastes your time as someone who wishes to avoid a Trump White House? --- The other thing I find disheartening is - does it take someone voiding their right to vote based on their conscience to preserve your friendship when there's so - SO many other ways to "show" you they care that are much more consistent than an election year with absolutely horrid draws? If there are more things to life than preserving your equality, is that truly the selling point?

I'm sorry, but the grandiose buzzword "equality for everyone" thing is completely invalidated when people can't be your friend if they hold a different political opinion from you. You can't spin one's voting tendencies disqualifying them from your graces any other way. They can treat you better than some of your fellow LGBTQ allies - but if they don't have the same shot of befriending you as the group in question, it's not about equality, it's about preference. You don't like when people are opposed to your values, so they are automatically cast out. Furthermore, I don't need to be a homosexual male to understand the pressures of a Trump presidency or conservative power gains from the shoes of one. It's wrong to assume I'm a wallflower that's flaunting my own opinion from a perch when my peers are the very subjects that are under that fear and paranoia. In order to claim one needs to "check your privilege" one needs to automatically assume there is no care whatsoever for that person's friends and family that fit the bill. This is where you fundamentally stumble on understanding other people, Eviora. Just because one determines the correct decision is to disagree with one's friends DOES NOT mean one doesn't care about those friends. For example, many Trump voters -I- know are very distraught by their vote (for good reason) - but taking the man away from the issues, they felt it was the right thing to do, despite people (such as myself!) chiding them for their endorsement of perhaps the worst candidate in Republican history. In my case, it was my understanding of friends who are Muslim and females that solidified my decision to vote third party. I'm not a winner, but if the miracle occurs, or if Hillary wins through my rebellion, my friends don't have to suffer. That does not mean I think Hillary is the best candidate for the job, or that I agree that her policies have to be supported or else my friends will bear undue burdens. It -does- mean however, that in an election where the issues are subverted by literal garbage and substance is replaced by "us. vs. them" politics, I need to protect those I care about. Gary Johnson at least allows me the opportunity to vote for both - hope for America -and- protecting my friends. --- Murdoc, the war being waged between secularism and Christians is two-sided. What you're seeing is indeed aggression, from a preferred vantage point. 1. Recently, the City of Houston (which elected it's first homosexual female mayor recently) issued a subpoena to all ministers in the city in order to have the first rights at their sermons so that they can be edited or thrown out by city officials to prevent pastors from "hatespeaking" against LGBTQ individuals. The mayor would eventually walk back the ordinance following an outcry from ministers in the surrounding area. She held a conference with concerned pastors and determined that they had "no hate in their hearts" - but had they stood it would have been a flagrant nullification of the ministers' First Amendment rights. 2. A Denver bakery refused a gay couple service when asked to provide the newlyweds a cake for their marriage. The baker cited his religious beliefs as to why service was refused, and the couple sued. The couple won that suit, as Colorado courts ruled that refusal of service based on religious grounds is "discriminatory." 3. The Kim Davis fiasco - caused when Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing her religious beliefs as to why she refused. Unlike the Denver bakery, Davis actually spent time in prison for failure to issue the license. When she was released, conservatives such as Mike Huckabee praised Davis for standing for religious freedom - making her a figure in a real "war". With these accounts, what often goes unheard is that part of the Christian doctrine regarding the term "marriage" states that each marital bond is ordained by God. Due to biblical interpretation of same-sex relationships, there is no theological grounds to assume God is involved with a bond He is quoted to call "an abomination". Therefore, the holdup for MOST Christians on same-sex marriage, is that it doesn't fit their definition of the term. There's no "hate" to be found in that - only a difference in understanding brought about by practicing their faith - which is something that is perfectly protected by the Constitution. There is no "war on religious freedom" - but there most certainly is a war between adherents of theistic faiths and secularists, caused by issues like how insufficiently the Obergefell case remedied the issue of same-sex marriage. LGBTQ people are leery and lash out at those who threaten to roll back the clock, and Christians have tangible happenings in the news to point to when people seek to deny any lashing out taking place. This causes strife caused by both sides. --- Most important thing I've gathered from this election: Vote in Congressional races and apply the checking and balancing to either one of these clowns.

I've already touched on this in the past - but I have faith in the elected officials we currently have to not rescind your unalienable rights either way. That's where you are currently baffling me. There is no evidence out there that Trump's band of misfits will be able to gain any traction in reversing a Supreme Court case. If that were the case, Roe v. Wade would already have been overturned - and paranoia should rest with those who currently are "married" to people of the same sex in previously opposed states. Looking at the polls and knowing where my vote stands as a native of a traditionally Republican state (a candidate who supports the right for same-sex couples to marry and is for leaving the issue of abortion to the states, mind you!) I can earnestly say your fear is a bit irrational considering the circumstances. That goes for any documented Hispanic immigrant, any peaceful Muslim, any woman, and any African American. You all should be applauding Trump's stupor and breathing a large sigh of relief, because it's severely damaging his bid for the presidency. I believe in friendship, even with those that have incredibly differing political views (or views about anything in general) with others because friendships are a two-way street. I expect a true "friend" to stop me from getting tunnel-vision and hold me accountable when it's necessary, and I have no problem doing the same in turn. That's what "being a friend" is - not sinking on the same ship together simply because you have each others' backs even when you are wrong in doing so. I don't need to protect you with my singular vote. I don't need to say "you know, this candidate is better for Eviora than this one, therefore this candidate is the way to go." - when there's things like checks-and-balances, opposing parties grappling for control and often counterbalancing each other, and ultimately a difficult road for a radical to make your life miserable or take away the rights you have earned. If there's all of those things in place, my vote can go for bigger things, like America as a whole. Seeing as we're electing the President that seems about fitting around this time. Knowing your demeanor on these forums, I would say that wouldn't consider yourself bigger than anyone else - because you aren't the type to flaunt an ego around. You wanting people to vote for you then - is where the selfishness truly lies. If that's who you are - then I hate to say it, but it's a little hard to make friends with that kind of attitude. All take and no give makes it incredibly difficult for others to put up with someone. I for one, think it's because you're passionate about social justice, and you believe THAT to be bigger than "the greater good" or at least that it's synonymous with the latter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - save for how you engage with others regarding it.

Eviora... Can you point to me where I said voters were able to be excused of the consequences of who they vote for? I don't recall saying that you are pinning blame on the wrong people. The issue I have is that you truly believe that action is a sleight against you as a person and the person's intents and reasoning behind their actions mean absolutely nothing to you when it comes to understanding someone. In the case of the hijackers on 9/11, I understand what they felt they were doing - and I would agree with you in that it doesn't make their actions justifiable. However, it's more apples-to-oranges. In that scenario, the hijackers were committing an atrocious action against people while fully caring about their own skin. Not everyone voting for Trump is voting for Trump under selfish reasons. People are voting for Trump because they want their kids to be able to practice their religion freely. They want their police departments to be as effective as possible. They want their healthcare plans to be adjustable and their premiums to go down so that more people can afford healthcare while being in charge of who provides it and where. They want to stop a senseless war as quickly as possible so that their families and their friends are safe abroad.... The hijacker wanted the best for themselves period. The Trump voter isn't always so self-centered, albeit probably mistaken. If a church provides aid to a family the government passes over, are you the person that condemns that church because their beliefs differ from yours - or do you cheer that church for stepping up it's humanitarian efforts? If you have a genuine care for other people, I would hope you would understand others who care about people - even if they don't agree with you.

I won't exonerate Trump or Cruz for running campaigns that have been geared against specific groups. There's a reason both of them are going to lose this election. - You can't beat Democrats at identity politics. Period. Groups that traditionally vote blue based on identity issues: African Americans Women LGBTQ Muslims Catholics Hispanics Women, Hispanics, and African Americans in particular are some of the largest voter demographics in the country and have been a strong reason as to why there are more registered Dems as opposed to GOPers in this country. This precedes Trump's antics and Cruz's rhetoric by a longshot too. African Americans have been a safe Democratic bloc since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats have freely been the spinsters of immigration reform being somehow discriminatory for the longest - and it's worked well for them with that group. Women and LGBTQ folks are literally the only groups that have had legislative successes of recent relevance however - and those were moreso judicial successes than legislative ones (Roe, Obergefell SCOTUS cases) - The other groups on this list have been voting based on past experience - and there are still issues such as wage disparity with women, socio-economic downfalls with African Americans, and immigration reform is still very much needed - in order to help Hispanics above harming them. Sure, Trump and Cruz are playing to their party's weaknesses - but a Marco Rubio wouldn't necessarily be groundbreaking outside of Hispanics for the GOP either. The Republican Party wins when they emphasize financial matters, jobs, and national security (in the not-Trumpian manner, of course) - all of which apply to every single American ever. That is how they close the gap. If you want to engage the left on a platform that fringes on identity importance, you will lose that fight every. single. time.

Things I've learned from this thread. I'm -NOT- the worst Conservative on this board - which is shocking in itself. Eviora still is content to make logical leaps about reasons people vote for a particular person. (Cyanna, Jake, trust me on this one - this circular argument isn't worth getting into. Let her believe your vote for paying less in taxes equates to you being a homophobic sexist and move on.) Preference for the woman who doesn't happen to be a sexist trumps importance of national security. --- Jake. You have to be more reasoned. Nobody decides to traipse over from the left to the right overnight, and that will bleed into reasoning behind any issue as well. Use neutral citations, provide many of them, and yield where claims are too grandiose to take seriously. The reason I say this? This is how conservatism will die. People running into the woods and forging theories about people in a damaging manner. Things you got right: Islam (and the Quran) -does- inspire terrorism. It doesn't necessarily mean every Muslim is a terrorist - but having studied scripture of various religions personally, I understand HOW Muslims are supposed to view the Quran from a literary standpoint (much more literally than the Christian is to view their Bible, as it's a beginning-to-end work on Islamic lifestyle advisory as opposed to a collection of writings needing a canon test to put together.) - and WHAT the implications are. What's important to remember though, is that this doesn't justify targeting Muslims for their beliefs. I don't have an idea on how to proceed when it comes to "RADICAL Islamic Terrorism" - but I do believe - with RADICAL being the key word - that using the term for "our enemy" is appropriate. Hillary was either negligent or intentionally putting American intelligence at risk. Most Democrats are either uncaring (Eviora), or thankfully understand that it was a mistake and will likely disagree on scale (Squattle). Things you didn't ...pretty much everything else. --- Man, even people who are voting for the third party candidates can't win. I recently just read an article about how voting for them equates to "White Priviledge" due to implications for minorities being so high. I'm sorry. There's more politics out there than identity politics. That's why I'm a conservative. The right does a MUCH better job of appealing to people who don't compartmentalize Americans into groups and then militarize them against their opponents by inciting emotional attachment to their skin color, or sexual orientation, or gender, or socio-economic status.