Chase

Cyanna, Politifact is genuinely claimed to be "unbiased", but we know there's really no such thing. For what it's worth though, they do catch leftists as well as righties in the act of lying. Conservatives either just really suck at lying, or Liberals have a tendency to be truthful in comparison. --- The thing that I've learned when dealing with real, genuine, assault victims is this. Sometimes they don't come forward until an event happens that strengthens them. That's very common and not just specific to Donald Trump. Does it seem rather "convenient" that it was dropped? Absolutely. As I said, most non-Fox affiliated news sites are NOT independent sources and they would wait until a prime time to drop that hot mic clip for maximum damage. Women absolutely heckle rich men for a piece of their savings. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean these women's claims are unsubstantiated and to be cast out because they come at such a convenient time. It's entirely feasible Trump "meant it" in that video and these women finally had what they needed to come out of the dark.

....You done steppin' into my domain Dedenne... Essentially this "election is rigged" hoopla is Trump trying to save face. He doesn't care about the ramifications (like voter intimidation likely rising in certain precincts) and instead cares about protecting his image as a winner. Someone must of told him he was un-electable, and this is his special way of conceding the race. Hillary wins, but I'm not a loser, I just got cheated out of the job. Please come enjoy my hotels and golf courses! This is the biggest travesty for conservatives - because if they had a real candidate opposite Clinton this race would be split down the middle, the campaign would only go so low as Hillary's e-mail scandal (because even Democrats know she was ignorant of procedure at the very least) and those who believe in rightward principles would have a reason to hope in America just like the left does. --- The media though, at least in America, is not REALLY "independent." - if you're not Fox News, but are a television broadcast company similar to it, there's a high chance that you are a center-left to very left news outlet. Conservatism's strongest outlets are radio stations - a quickly dying media outlet - and the internet (where most of Trump's supporters REALLY get their news from.) While I too love me some good SNL sketches and respect their origins, Republicans in general make for prime targets on the show and it certainly happens more often to righties than lefties when it comes to the media smackdown. It doesn't take a conservative to craft a conspiracy theory on that one. Media in America chooses to be left because it appeals to wider audiences. All that to say though, that I agree with you here on Trump. What conservatives need to do is make conservatism "cool" again. Find a conservative (or hell, even a moderate) to run something like 'The Daily Show'. Jon Stewart roasted conservatives on the reg, but even some righties (me included) think the guy is incredibly funny and someone to emulate their political discourse after. Threatening to close down the show - along with other forms of predictable bellyaching - only pushes more and more people away from the GOP and from the right. --- Ironically enough, the biggest losers aren't Trump - but his supporters. The people that -really- thought Donald Trump was going to be the Messiah president got punked. One of the things Trump has done as a businessman is provide lots of money to whoever he wants. Many of those? Democratic politicians.... Including Hillary.

Team Resurgence Leader: Resurgence Chaplain Hunter Team Resurgence centers on deception past the point of Unova's Team Plasma. Where Plasma failed is that they were helplessly bolstered by hired hands with little to no "inner knowledge", meaning their grunts believed they were actually a part of a mass-Liberation effort for Pokemon. Resurgence realizes Plasma's failures were due to lack of devoted underlings and focuses more on recruitment than any other evil Pokemon team in the history of Pokemon's evil organizations. If you want to equate it to El's Arceiac Cult in Reborn or the unsavory speculation of Alola's "Aether Foundation", that would be a fair assessment of this group. The ultimate goal of Resurgence is to have Pokemon relocated to where it's members are in possession of all of the planet's allotment of Pocket Monsters, under the guise of being a group that actively rescues Pokemon from the clutches of other organizations. Essentially, Resurgence is a militant anti-evil team who actually is indeed nefarious, seeking to recruit as many trainers into it's ranks through cult-building tactics, while making headlines as the good guys and making off with the rescued Pokemon. Minion Pokemon: Zubat > Golbat > Crobat (Final Team member) Sandile > Krokorok > Krookodile (Final Team member) Shroomish > Breloom (Final Team member) Carvanha > Sharpedo (Final Team member) Mankey > Primeape (Final Team member) Espurr Scraggy Yungoos > Gumshoos Magnemite > Magneton > Magnezone (Final Team member) Dossier: Chaplain Hunter is well-put-together young adult male. He wears a pair of Ray-Ban frames above his unbuttoned traditional-lumberjack flannel shirt, clean, pressed, blue jeans, and white T-shirt. He's well versed in Scripture, Political discourse, Current Events, and is a particularly profound speaker. On the outside, when he's not pressed by the masses, he loses his ability to seem agreeable, but he is mostly well reasoned. Because of Team Resurgence's activity, he is seldom without his protection of friendly crowds. Admins: Resurgence Seeker Charlotte: An middle-aged blonde woman who out-dresses her boss, opting for business suit-skirt ensembles and a purple/blue blouse. She's something of a talent search specialist, dealing with new "recruits" Ace: Poliwhirl > Poliwrath (The swirling effect on the Pokemon's body is often used to hypnotize other humans.) Resurgence Leader Vincent: Vincent, known by colleagues and himself as "Vince", is a boisterous adolescent male often seen in normal "street-clothes". His major operation is to lead teams of "grunts" into "stings" against other evil organizations... as well as against legal and appreciated services, such as Pokemon Centers and Day Cares. Ace: Crabrawler Grunts are not required to follow any sort of dress code, making for the groups dealings to be more difficult to sniff out by authorities.

I gotta follow THAT question up?....damn it, Tacos. That's too good. Anyway, Kettle. --- Suppose you are presented with two evils and you are faced with a choice in which you are unable to make a clear-cut decision using your moral compass. This question has nothing to do with trolleys and amounts of people, making quantity of lives (or anything, rather) a non-factor. Choice A is bad in it's own way, and Choice B is bad in it's own way. You get absolutely nothing for winning. Which of these responses to the unknown dilemma are you likely to go with? A - You decide that the decision is a "tragic moral choice" in which you are unable to reconcile yourself either which way, and make a decision between the two based on a factor unrelated to morals at all - knowing you can atone or come to terms with your decision later on. B - You decide that the appropriate procedure to solving the dilemma is "searching for the greater good" - and you go with what you decide is the "least" bad decision after weighing your options. This allows you to make exceptions and justify your answer with a roundabout moral argument. C - You deny the dilemma entirely, and refuse to make a decision either way.

Well, clearly I was not paying attention to details. I'll take the bad news about still being weak to ice for whatever reason in stride knowing there's not fairy type for the other Pokemon. It's a win-lose scenario I guess. No big deal. (Gimmie Mach Punch. Stupid Ice types...)

I don't know man, I'm still not digging Type:Null's line, but it is definitely similar to Arceus - and if it's able to be used in formats Arceus isn't, then it's a good Pokemon with a neat story. --- I love how uncanny Jangmo-o's line is to Garchomp's. You actually see the trailer USE Gabite and Garchomp as the trainer's Pokemon when encountering the evolutions - which leads me to believe that Jangmo-o's line is indeed the psuedolegendary line of Alola. Clanging Scales/Symbols...whatever..... is a small letdown for a personal move. though. The thing the strikes me is that it's "Fighting" type seems to come from it wearing similar light plate armor to an early Samurai. This Pokemon then, seems to be inspired by the roots of eastern early civilazation. How this is relevant to the move? Clanging Scales could be similar to a gong. When someone mentioned above the fact that Pseudos tend to have a nasty double-weakness - and it triggered the immense joy of realizing that Ice type moves will only do normal damage against Kommo-o. Screw you, Ice types. --- I don't say this often for Fairy type 'Mons....but I want Tsarreena (or however it's spelled). That thing is awesome. (Nick, you mentioned getting Kirlia and Gardevoir vibes - and that also coincides with Fairy types I actually like. Gardevoir is pretty neat, despite Fairies being lAAAAAAAAAAAAME-) --- The bug type Pokemon thing is finally revealed. Wasn't that teased in an earlier trailer? --- Does A-Muk (hahaha.....running A-Muk...it's a pun)........... get Crunch or something? What move did it use last? It's design is much improved fro A-Grimer, and the teeth kinda make sense. --- Olivia looks pretty neat.

Yus. Please.

Did someone say Fighting type Jangmo-o evolution? ...because that would be awesome. Dragon-Fighting needs to happen (even if Fairies scoff at the idea). --- Yeah, Nick....split evolutions tend to be what the community is going for as opposed to being against. That's quite the unpopular opinion. Mike beat me to the snarkfest. --- Grimer is an odd candidate for an Alolan evolution....and seeing as in the current meta Muk runs like....Shadow Sneak, Poison-Ghost (ectoplasm) Grimer would have been TIIIIIIGHT and still would have countered Psychic types like the Dark typing does. At least it's just outright immune I guess.

We haven't even gotten to the part where Adrienn is re-encountered. With regards to the desire for gender-fluidity to be better represented, that much depends on the character's impact. Off-screen, it may be someone with an unusual gender that completely rebuilds Reborn City and causes Reborn to turn the corner back to prosperity. On-screen? Yeah, Adrienn needs more of an arc at the very least. It's a good thing seeing xem again is at least confirmed due to necessity for typical Pokemon game progression. --- More character representation in the sense of quantity, however, is where you lose me. Outside of Adrienn being the supporting story character that fills this representation by xemself, you have access to playable-non-binary characters in Ari and Decibel - player characters that are without dialogue so that conveniently placing YOU and YOUR character into the story is completely plausible. Therefore, not only does the game give you a cast member when it doesn't necessarily have to, it gives you personal representation on that front. From there, I don't know how much more is needed, to be quite honest.

Hey, I know this is double-posting, but after having to arm-wrestle the auth team to keep this thread here, I feel like in respect of my colleagues that I should clarify about the intent of this thread in it's own devoted post. Give me points if you need to, friends. the discourse in this thread -might- be potentially disruptive and volatile in nature as we deal with topics people STRONGLY believe in. Because of this, my original hope for the thread was to cover a question and then "move on" to the next question as opposed to hold an argument or a discussion. I do realize that it's possible that you would like to follow up my responses, PLEASE MESSAGE ME PRIVATELY with follow up. I promise I'll get back to you and keep in touch. Think of this thread as a Q&A.

I believe that abortion should be offered in the following cases: A woman can prove without a shadow of a doubt that she has conceived from an instance of rape.In this case, this -is- a choice issue. The woman didn't even put herself at risk and was forced against her will to have sex, therefore there was no decision at all made where conception was a plausible risk. The woman had her right to not have sex violated. Childbirth should not be a consequence of being a victim. I would hope cases where rape is proven are solved in a timely manner so that the legal abortion is done quickly. One life is assured to be lost (mother in the case of birthing the child; child as a result of abortion procedure).This is a little stricter than "at-risk", but the honest truth of the matter is, "at-risk" is a very vague term that depending on the angle could qualify all expecting women. For example, a woman that planned to have a child, but didn't seek medical assistance from professional doctors and nurses. If the doctor indicates that "Ma'am, it's either you get this abortion, or you are forfeiting your life." - then that abortion is -again- part of a choice issue. That should be an available option. And, that's it. Biblically speaking, the issue of incest hasn't always been detrimental to the resulting child. In fact, early Jewish doctrine (We're talking things prior to the Exodus from Egypt) records humanity marrying relatives quite often. Historically, this would go on well into the Middle Ages well beyond Christ's period of time. Incest is discouraged - if I remember correctly - because it increases the chances of biological defects in children. When humanity was a much younger bunch of mammals, not only was that unavoidable, but human genetics were much more free of any defects to pass down. Leviticus, part of the Jewish Law, is actually one of the earliest bits of historical advocacy against incest and is largely believed by Jews and Christians alike to be based on God's will for the Jews to do what was best for the human race. However, this is a direct order that men and women do not lie with their family members, NOT that they abort any offspring from doing so. The question then moves to defects as a whole. From there, my value is simply that life trumps suffering. The other apparent thing that seems to be the defense of aborting the handicapped or defective unborn, is that they suffer from the umbrella belief that fetuses are NOT human. I don't think that there is enough evidence out there, for ANY fetus, to be dehumanized. --- On the contrary, this dehumanization provides women with the ability to view this a personal choice between them and their bodies. If the fetus is not a human, it then becomes a question of pure autonomy as opposed to question of life and death. This is largely misleading on behalf of the Pro-Choice community, because it officially has to remove the fetus from the equation to MAKE it an issue about women's rights. If the fetus is treated like a human being, the implications are changed. Suddenly, the fetus' father is justified to be a part in the decision making because the father is half-responsible for that conception. This would make it a family affair and not an issue of women's rights. In a -fair- treatment of such issue, the fetus deserves equal representation as the mother. The issue then, is that the fetus is incapable of defending itself, and therefore often needs someone to speak on behalf of it. Father or unrelated. My belief is that calling this an issue of women's rights is a foul wrought by even greater fouls of dehumanizing the unborn and exploiting a voter bloc by pitting it against a would-be voter bloc that doesn't have a say for itself. --- First of all, that's a very good example of what I was worried about and struggling with, FairFamily, - the task of defending a regression of a Supreme Court case that has given people what they feel is "an alienable right" to be bonded together in marriage for the sake of upholding morality is, to say the least, uneviable. I believe the upholding of morality falls more on the individual than it does on the government - who is also responsible for representing individuals who could care less about upholding morality/have a different point of view on morality. Therefore, I don't believe the government necessarily lives and dies on total moral obligation, and therefore I don't believe they need to strip free-exercise and influence Christianity or any other religion in any way. It is undeniable however, that laws are born out of moral interpretation of values. --- I also agree with you that - to an extent - people shouldn't be able to act out of their beliefs if it poses a genuine danger to the lives of others. The debate then becomes, of course, what constitutes danger.

I'm a switch-hitter when it comes to e-laughing. I like to mix it up.

Hunter: Paul, I've been... struggling with regards to morality...and government. The way I see somethings that some in the church see "obligatory" differ because of my experiences and my understanding about other people groups. For example, I know that the Christian conservative frames the word "marriage" with a different meaning than the perhaps the homosexual liberal - and that is where the conflict - thankfully - lies in most cases. If it's the government's role ... to say, uphold the morality of the country, does something like marriage fall under the tent for what is okay to be legislated on? Paul: Well, Hunter, I think you understand that all laws come from - a - system of values and beliefs. That's the root of all legislation. Hunter: Yeah, I know that much. That doesn't necessarily address the role of government regarding those laws though. All that does is point to the origin of the law. Paul: Mmhm. From what I know historically, government's "getting-involved" with marriage in the first place [before homosexuality became a relevant issue] was to facilitate the formation of families. That alone is a morally justified from the Christian perspective because God wants us to live and live abundantly. God instituted the "first" family by creating Eve to be partner to Adam. ... I am with you though, in questioning the "moral percentage" of the same-sex marriage thing, and that's why I default to seeing it done "in fairness" instead. Because equality isn't necessarily a major equality point when it comes to reforming legislature Biblically , if one at all, I would then say that it's not government's place - at least from the standpoint of morality - to make that decision.. Hunter: Wait, you think that government -should- be able to legislate marriage, but not in the case of same-sex marriages, because it leaves the realm of being moral legislation? Paul: -I- don't believe government has a place in "marriage" - from the theological perspective - at all. To me, marriage in the governance perspective is more about tax breaks and benefits. If we're looking at JUST financial implications of "marriage" - then I think there needs to be a reformed system of civil unions to where there isn't inequality involved. I also think that two men or two women, should they want to be together, should be able to apply for those benefits. As a Christian who defines "marriage" much different than I do a civil union - I would not want that to qualify as "marriage." Hunter: Great minds think alike there. There's not a reason from the secular perspective out there that justifies being against same-sex couples being together at all. However, the Scripture very clearly lays out God's presence and cherishing in/of God-ordained unions, and the absolute opposite of unions such as same-sex unions where God's will is constantly being subverted. Uncle Sam's marriage and God's marriage seem to be an orange and a grapefruit. To some, they look absolutely the same, but the implications of biting into one and then the other are much different. I've been pushing for civil union equality for as long as I've known about them. --- Cutting this excerpt from a discussion my mentor and I had on Friday night before going to a conference this weekend short, I was talking to him about the role of governance from the Christian perspective. We came to the conclusion that without God, Christian conservative types don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending hetero-only marriage models. Absolutely do when it comes to abortion. And - much to my personal relief - absolutely don't when it comes to transgender issues. There's also things we didn't talk about, like Birth Control, because we're just two dudes who will likely die single and won't have to worry about that kind of stuff. --- I want to give you guys - a mostly liberal, secular bunch - the opportunity to grill me - a Christian guy who would call himself a conservative - on the role of government. I'll be giving my answers with regards to morality and hopefully with Scriptural basis along with policy jargon. I won't promise - as I did with Paul - to agree with you all. Those of you that know me know I like to argue and often stand very, very lonely on these issues. However, I also won't promise to hold a militant conservative line either. There are things conservatives need to be challenged on with regards to their understanding of not only the role of morality in government, but Scripture themselves, and the implications of such challenges could mean they don't have the ability to defend their conservatism not just outside of the Bible - but at all. With all further ado, please ask me whatever comes to your mind.

Probably worth leaving here: Sociopath (Noun): Someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people, and doesn't feel guilty about such behavior. (Webster) A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. (Google) Webster clarifies on it's definition of the person by affirming Google's definition involving "personality disorder". It would seem however, that many people tend to use the term "sociopath" in the manner Webster uses it without additional context. --- The question that should be asked about Tania is this. Is her actions the result of a personality disorder intentionally written in by the developer - or is Titania genuinely just someone who has no regard for human life and lacks a soul? I'm leaning toward her holding some sort of disorder, but I'm not a doctor. Given that she comes from a group of schoolgirls that collectively have names that end the same way and seemingly all have a personality "flaw", it seems like a part of a pattern with Onyx Trainer School graduates.

I actually dislike Titania because of her involvement with Amaria as opposed to her actions in the water treatment center. I also think their your prosecution of her being a sociopath is fair, but I want to address that being a sociopath isn't a character-killer like it is something you typically avoid in the real world. I think her grey moral compass, impulsiveness, and aggression makes for an antiheroine that is significant and well written. She just...hits too close to home in regards to relation with other characters and it rustles my jimmies.

Obligatory post debate splatter. This vice-presidential debate was won by the challenging campaign's second name on the ticket. Governor Mike Pence. It wasn't won in a landslide, and it wasn't a debate that would be monumental with regards to polling or even viewership, so there's a sigh of relief to be had by Clinton supporters. It also should be noted that both candidates made solid points. Kaine: Governor Pence (and by proxy other Republicans) are not defending their candidate thoroughly and therefore there seems to be a gap of interests or acceptance remaining. Pence: There are things called "issues" that need to be focused on as opposed to quotes and actions. Things are not as they could be, and Trump and I are running the change campaign America yearns for that would be different from voting for the same we've had and expecting a different result. You tell me what the winning message out of those two is. --- The next thing that needs to be addressed is truth. This is where the Clinton camp can hang their hat on in some places, because their man was a very apt prosecutor of Trump and flexed his attorney muscles ...throughout the entirety of the debate. However, you can only say the same thing multiple times before it starts to fall on deaf ears. We get it Clinton camp, Senator Kaine. You want Trump to release his tax returns. I do too, frankly, but you're not getting any sympathy from me for saying so 700 times while your opponent looks like the better statesman. You running a mock trial for a bar examination or are you trying to become Vice-President? --- Finally, Pence won the body language and etiquette battle by a landslide. He was cool. Composed. He interrupted Kaine 20 times less than Kaine interrupted him. He delivered policy where Trump didn't. He was respectful and endearing where Trump wasn't - and instead of opening his mouth and trying to undercut his opponent by talking over him, he showed his disagreement with his opponents points with a modest shake of the head. Kaine, in turn, looked very irritable, and increasingly so when Gov. Pence repeated didn't take the bait on defending Trump where he absolutely shouldn't have (something Trump can lean on for knowledge he clearly doesn't have). He was also a broken record and failed to generate an aire of positive feelings. --- Good hits: Kaine: You're not defending Trump much at all. Let's stop painting Mexicans and Muslims with a broad brush. Let's trust women to make their own decisions with their bodies. Tax Returns...the first time. Not supporting troops by dodging taxes. Pence: Hillary Clinton's campaign is driven by insults. Let's stop painting POLICE with a broad brush. E-mails. Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton: Obamacare "crazy". E-mails. --- Grades: Pence: B the big "how"- B - Pence probably divulged more policy than Trump ever will. counter - A - See the good hits section. Pence used attacks on Hillary primarily as counterpunches instead of charges like Kaine did. That's the way to be. hope - B - "change candidate" Kaine: C fire away - A - This was literally Kaine's whole strategy. Clinton should be a little disappointed here. He did his job here though. salesmanship - B - He did Clinton justice here. He's sold her better than she's sold herself. negative opinion post-debate - D - I came away from that debate thinking Mike Pence should be at the top of his ticket. Not supporting it. That should be an F.... Goes to show how bad Trump really is. --- Missed opportunities Pence: Obummercare. Kaine: Pence's record on LGBTQ communities. (He went for abortion rights instead, which wasn't nearly as resounding.)

Just under an hour till - here's the big scoop going into Virginia. Trump certainly didn't make Mike Pence's job any easier tonight with this really boneheaded feud with Alicia Machaco and NYT report on his taxes causing him to play even more defense and not make any ground. On top of that, Trump is floating unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary was/is unfaithful to Bill. We'll see how that goes.

Alright, alright. Y'all win your silly "ha, doubters can shut up now" game. It was a completely valid point due to the fact that no new Megas were coming out and how long it had been without any news or hints at all (until Sina and Dexio showed up to tease it) that there was no "confirmation" of it being in the game. If it holds to just putting the feature in the game and not adding new megas....That's somewhat disappointing for me. There's a few starter evolution lines that would like some attention at the very least. --- #CatPunch. I wouldn't mind if Litten ends up another firefighter, personally. (Fighting is one of my favorite types though.) It's a race between Litten and Rowlet for me. Popplio is much too frilly and....a Water type.... --- Pokepelago and the Friend festival thing look to be potentially useful in various areas, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for finding hidden ability Pokemon. Yet. I was kinda hoping a feature like the DexNav would return for that kind of stuff, anyway. --- I don't really care all that much for Ash-Greninja, but if the Demo is free to play, there's no reason not to play it and get it.

A toast. To fairy killing and puns. Have a good one, Viri.

Let me ask you this then: You think it is absolutely okay for your party's national committee to religion-shame you behind your back, give advice to your opposing campaign, and potentially treat you with the a different respect as your opponent? That seems fair to you? If it is, that's fine, but that doesn't help Hillary's optics - yet again. It's not a fairy tale that Clinton was at least considered favorable by her own party and it's establishment to the point where the power brokers talked in a manner that they wanted to box out Sanders. I've never made the claim that Hillary won her nomination unfairly (although the jury is still out on Superdelegates, but that has nothing to do with her.) - but to say this isn't shady or problematic for her in the least is just something we're going to have to disagree on. Either which way, Sanders supporters have a right to feel they way they do.

Oh, my goodness, let me backtrack for a second. "rigging" is perhaps a strong word - but the fact that's floated to media outlets like Fox (which is unsurprising) and CNN (which absolutely -is-), is much more "sad" than this sticking to sites like Breitbart. Let's start with traditional Liberal news by taking this article by the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05 Just looking at the title, this HuffPo writer is alleging "favoritism" in the Democratic Party was given to Clinton over Sanders. READING the article actually reveals that the ABC News - a network that is usually somewhat center-left - makes a similar charge on the DNC regarding "favoring" Clinton, along with wording such as "attempting to aid" or "putting their thumb on the scale" or even "plotting against" Senator Sanders. Earlier in the article, the Pro-Clinton Washington Post is cited, using language like "using Senator Sanders' faith against him." The Observer, the oldest Sunday newspaper in Britain and traditional center-left paper, actually USED the word "rigging." - and it's also cited in the HuffPo article. ABC, HuffPo, WaPo, the Observer (Guardian)....none of those news outlets are conservative think-tanks. All of them seem to allege AT LEAST that the 20,000 WikiLeaked e-mails between the DNC and the Clinton campaign indicated that the DNC ran an unbalanced primary in which it tried to offer advice behind Sanders' back to Hillary and threatened to use smear tactics against his religion. At worst, Sanders never had a chance - proving his point about corruption in politics - and yet again, Hillary would be caught in the lime-light. You really want to call that false?

I would agree with your assessment on the general importance of the Veep debate, Mde, and would also add that it's as relatively unimportant as the first PRESIDENTIAL debate in most cycles. Democrats were given quite a scare in 2012 when President Obama walked into the first debate against Mitt Romney unprepared (which, for a serving President, is understandable, but there are no passes given in debates UNLESS it's the first one.) and Romney tore him apart in a very similar way Clinton beat up Trump. The President was testy and spent extensive periods of time defending his first term. Of course, that same Obama would win the later two debates decisively and win his re-election bid. Most of the time, polls don't shake much after the initial contest or the battle of First Mates afterward. --- While I think the "fear" vote for a candidate because "the other candidate is bad" is a shame, I can understand why people ascribe to it. It doesn't help that the Republican and Democratic brass incite that fear to their supporters so that their friends are essentially "bullied" to fall in line, but with a candidate like Trump (and Clinton) I can't say it's not groundless fearmongering. That's just it though. It's still fearmongering.

If it were every time he speaks that would be an issue. The problem is, odds are so heavily stacked against a minor party candidate that the only thing that gets covered on the outside of the major party politics IS those "oops" moments. All this does for me is reveal the ugly catch-22 candidates like Johnson are stuck in. This isn't a candidate like Howard Dean who has a realistic shot at winning the presidency and then a gaffe ruins. (see: Dean Scream) I've heard Johnson speak much more than the times on "Morning Joe" and where he was asked about foreign leaders and I can safely conclude that those moments are called "gaffes" for a reason. They are unintentional blunders or mistakes. Johnson came back and was humble about both accidents - referring to the leader thing as "an Aleppo moment." As an Australian - I would almost bet that you haven't been following Johnson's campaign as close as you may be following Trump and Clinton's from across the pond because the amount of news THERE is probably even less available than it is here. With regards to protest voting - the biggest reason people do so is because it has historically reformed major party politics in the past. Already mentioned in this thread was the influential Green Party run by Ralph Nader in 2000, where yes, it cost Democrat Al Gore the election to Bush, but it also led to a leftward move from the Democratic Party in order to bring back those Green voters for John Kerry, President Obama, and a candidate like Bernie Sanders who is the most leftward Democrat to have been competent in a long while. Republicans shifted after independent Ross Perot gave an election to the Democrats even farther back. There's also the reasons Bernie was so influential with his voter base. Many people actually do call him the "liberal" version of Donald Trump throughout various media sites. Not because of the man's demeanor or age - but because of the what his campaign stood for. Bernie wasn't just running on a platform that emphasized liberalism. He ran a platform that focused on fighting corruption in politics and enabling Americans in the political process. Hillary as an opponent is the perfect example of someone who historically is seen as the very blemishes Sanders strives to fight against. Secretary Clinton has taken large amounts of money for giving speeches on Sanders' much hated 'Wall Street', and there is universal (meaning not just conservative conspirators) concern over her Foundation being potentially linked to the State department through "pay-for-play". Then you have the fact where the DNC was actively trying to rig the primary election in Clinton's favor AGAINST Sanders on top of all of that. Because Hillary's mishaps are so blatantly linked to the things Sanders voters mobilized to fight against, it's no wonder many in the Bernie train aren't enthusiastic about settling for Clinton. She's the politician - to many - that embodies those evils, and to vote for her after that primary fight would be to concede that things will never change for the positive. I think their anger and displeasure is very much well documented. Here's what we have. a candidate who for sure has come off as a xenophobe, racist, and a demagogue a candidate who comes off as above the law and corrupt, who also has a problem appearing trustworthy a candidate who seemingly doesn't know anything about issues or even general knowledge abroad. a candidate who has only 2% of the polls locked down, but is similar to Bernie Sanders. If Jill Stein gives disenchanted Sanders supporters hope about fighting political corruption, why should they vote for Clinton? Because she's a liberal so therefore she would agree with them on policy? It's probably more because Jill has no chance of winning. Voting for someone because they are going to win rather than voting for someone you believe in is just as egregious as a protest vote. Except protest votes in the correct multitude actually come with results in the long term.

Yeah, see, I voted for Marco Rubio in the primary. Don't pin Trump on me. In all seriousness though - that's absolutely true for those who A ) voted for the two major party candidates and will - or B ) won't vote. People who voted for Bernie shouldn't be blamed for Hillary winning. They did all they could to prevent Hillary from winning themselves. The same goes for people who voted for anyone but Trump on the GOP side. If you did vote - and not for either of the nomination winners - I fail to see how anyone can fault them for the current situation. Third party candidates are an interesting difference though. There isn't a realistic chance for them at this point - but that doesn't mean voting for them "doesn't count." Mathmatically, it damages whichever major party you would normally vote for because they can't count on your vote to their total. When I vote for Gary Johnson - does my vote count for "helping" Trump or Clinton? No. My vote doesn't go into either bucket. It still counts as a vote as well. I think putting the whole country underneath this umbrella is a hasty generalization. --- I expect Johnson to struggle with things outside of America's borders at this point. As an isolationist party, Libertarians don't tend to focus their energies on things like Syria or knowing who's the Prime Minister of Antarctica as much as they should. I think there are relatively few people that are voting for Johnson and Weld for sound foreign policy.

I didn't need to turn to Pew to understand that acceptance is steadily rising as a whole - but the data has a few things worth mentioning. Conservatives are still very opposed, not even braking 30 percent and beginning to trend downward, despite acceptance everywhere else. This is troubling for Clinton and Kaine because this benefits down-ballot races for Republicans looking to make anti-LGBT community legislative decisions and essentially ensures Pence has something worth standing for - Conservative voters still not sure about Trump. The good news for the Clinton camp is that 61 percent of independent voters are supportive of same-sex marriage. This would mean that at best, Pence has to be quick to make his point and change the subject if he wants to compete for those 61 percenters. Dwelling on his own record - again - will turn a majority of independents off. Most of the demographics are only slightly in favor at this point in time. The trends are certainly upward and don't have any sign - outside of conservatives - of slowing, but in the current time period, there's not sufficient numbers for Pence to worry about offending mass majorities of independents.