Chase

Combat - by Nike.

Ya boy got 'im some Revelation. I'm just going to jump to Hard and not beat this one on normal. Here's what I know about the route: Very generous with item spawns Pre-promoted units have a degree of use Fuga Everyone is available for use recycled maps poor unit balancing and distribution patchy story Here's a synopsis of chapters so far 6 - Essentially flipping off both Xander AND Ryoma only to get ignored while they have an impromptu macho contest. The difficulty in this chapter comes mostly from having to protect Azura as you try to draw both forward commanders to you. 7 - Excellent new map in my opinion. Simple gimmick that rewards exploration and taking your time - making it not so pertinent to milk experience for Azura and Jakob (while the option is still there.) 8 - Recycled BR Fort Jinya map - but from the perspective of Silas' invading forces instead of defending the fort like in BR. The scariest moments are protecting Mozu here if you're using her at the very beginning from the two Sky Knights to the right of the fort entrance. Once getting past them and the leftward Spear Fighters you should be golden to invade. 9 - Discount Conquest Wind Tribe Map. It's still the annoying Fuga's Wild Ride map - but because it's an early chapter, the opposing units are terrible. Doesn't make the chapter easy though if you're trying to use Rinkah from Branch of Fate. She's behind the curb here and stuck at E rank clubs.

Physical. I'm old fashioned and most of my positive experiences with gaming - barring RuneScape - have happened through hardware, going to the store and lining up behind crowds to pick up a game, and keeping the packaging as a physical piece of history after my gaming experience is finished.

Yeah. Again. That one is all on me. I mistitled this one. I suck at naming things.

It really is that simple. I can step up and point out where my party errs, but that doesn't make the other party "better off" simply because something is more complicated to them behind the scenes. The primary goal of political parties is to get elected into offices. They will use any means that are legal in order to do so. Stoke nationalism -or- multiculturalism included. --- Aside from that, Thank you, Squattle. That really was a great post.

Why is talking about racial issues political? Because one of two things are actually happening in governance in most areas politically that are attribute to racial treatment A political party is taking advantage of being completely divisive and makes race an issue in order to win elections. A political party is taking advantage of being completely divisive and mobilizing likely voters AGAINST other ethnic groups. ..I just hit both major American political parties with that one. The Democratic Party profits from the first scenario. It's common for candidates to meet with leaders from the NAACP as well as renowned leaders such as Al Sharpton (I don't mean to use African Americans as my sole example purposely, those names and organizations came to mind first.) These meetings and rhetoric that is pinpointed in helping erase the "privilege" gap or the difficulty with immigrating into the country cause non-white voters to file behind Democrats in political races. Republicans traditionally do the opposite evil. They make the appeal to voters that crime has gone up and that Americanism is being attacked by unchecked immigration and non-assimilation. In disputes between African Americans and police departments, most Republicans tend to act in a manner that is either neutral or assert that "Blue Lives Matter" more. This is where the GOP traditionally has the upper hand with white voters. Aside from Trump's actual genuine efforts to bridge the gap between African Americans and the GOP recently, much of the Republican rhetoric has been very much centered on assimilation. Clinton has been very unyielding in giving each voter their own special title. "You're black, so we like you. Vote for her." You're a lesbian, so we like you, vote for her."...and so on and so forth. Why is everything all of a sudden a racial issue? Partially - this is a minor travesty. On the other hand, racism is something that influences the perception of every day people and every day things. It manifests even when the intent to be racist isn't there. It's something that causes false pretenses everywhere you look. The people you associate with tend to be of the same ethnic group as you, and the people you thus trust and respect in turn end up the same way. This inadvertently makes other races have to overcome a hurdle to meet the same level of trust and respect - even if provided through your subconsciousness and not intentionally. Isn't talking about privilege only going to make things worse? Depends on the angle. This isn't a thread where accusations should be made. It's mostly supposed to be "show-and-tell" from snapshots of your own life where racial inequity has been present. Once we all share something tangible to ourselves, it's supposed to be something we see as a recollection of themselves and not some parroted story (no offense to the likes of Trayvon, Micheal, Philando, and Alton) that draws contraversy across the country I have faith that we can be adults about personal issues above anything else. This community is accepting of things such as political standing - despite a majority of the site being liberal. My still being here is largely attested to you guys having the capacity to see me as I am. Don't make yourselves out to be childish by pointing fingers. It's supposed to be sharing what we've personally seen and coming to terms with personal testimonies. EDIT: I should apologize to you all because it was never my intention to talk about inequity in a sense of I have it better than you all or you all don't have anything. I think Spade best addressed it and I think the largest problem is the way I titled the thread. It's supposed to be about all racial iniquity. Not just privilege. My fault guys.

I wanted to mostly identify the first time I've really felt Whites have it pretty good in general. It's been a long time since my problems in particular have amounted to doing something I don't want to do. To be fair on Derek's part. He's only in high school and doesn't know how much of a burden being an adult can be. --- The other part of this is not Derek's "oppressiveness" - but rather the perception of "oppression" if Trump were to be elected. He's said two things about Immigration that are worth talking about here. the GOP Primary Plan: Literally deport 11million+ undocumented immigrants and build a wall. the Revised General Election Plan: deport criminal undocumented immigrants, build the wall, and view peaceful undocumented immigrants on a case-by-case basis. After his visit to Mexico - Trump landed in Arizona for a rally and reverted to Plan A - deport 'em all. This first plan is inherently oppressive against ethnic groups - particularly Mexican immigrants - because it focuses on border security that highlights Mexico as a people the United States imports unofficially more than any otehr country - while uprooting families of all ethnic groups who are here illegally who may have came here for a noble reason. Not to agree with Hillary Clinton and admit she was right about half of Trump's voters being in "the basket of deplorables" - but Derek's one-note reason he would/is (depending on how old he is or even if he cares enough to go to the polls) voting for Trump is essentially because he dislikes Mexican Americans and Trump's immigration plan involves removing a significant amount of them from the country. Words don't break people - but the title of my thread is my view of the situation. Instead of finding areas where I am oppressed - I find areas where I am actually pretty well off because of the color of my skin. That scenario was to point out that my family seems to be well set and that the problems we have in it are quite trivial in comparison to other ethnic groups.

Preface: This thread is specifically aimed at talking about personal experiences regarding racial inequity. It's titled the way it is because as a "white person" I do understand things in that way from personal experience. If I were not white, it would probably be titled "Discrimination in Your Life" or something else. If you're not white yourself - you may speak about how you've treated personally just the same. In fact - I think if we are to talk openly as a community about personal issues, it will help everyone reach a common understanding because most of the dialogue being shared isn't just parroted from television - but rather a personal witness or account. Rules: Do your best to leave your micro-aggression at the door. This discourse -is- a public forum and all posters HOPEFULLY will be aware that judgement may or may not be passed inadvertently. As long as that is kept away from text format and the spotlight here - we shouldn't have any issues. Disagreement and questioning is allowed, as long as it's clear we are respecting the person's testimony and not making a mockery of the topic. Don't make blanket statements - such as "White Privilege is just liberal bullshit." or "All white people are racist on purpose." - this is a hasty generalization and only adds to the problem at hand as opposed to actively works against it. Don't claim you have experienced oppression if you are not a part of a racial group that is usually oppressed. We don't need that "Alt-Right" bullshit here. Reborn's better than that. Moderators: I'm asking for a little bit of grace with this thread, but mainly I want you to know that this thread may be a hotspot for flags depending on how the community conducts themselves. I don't want people who are genuinely engaging in discourse to be wrongly subjected to consequences, but I also want you to do your job where it's very much proper to do so. Thank you for all that you all do. I know a lot of people don't actively thank you - but I know sometimes it can be stressful. Finally - I know some of you might be a bit confused that "that conservative guy" is the one talking about white privilege as if it's a thing. It is - and if recall something Martin Luther King Jr. once said - the "white moderate" that does nothing only further makes the problem worse. Hopefully Rev. King - by getting people to talk and by putting myself out there, I'm doing something. --- Today, I ate dinner with my Dad and my half-siblings. The oldest one, who I'm going to call Derek for the sake of disclosure, is a junior in High School and is specifically my adoptive half-brother. My father is a self-started defense and family law attorney. The table-talk began with Derek asking Dad about his speeding ticket and if he could get out of his community service by just paying the ticket in full. He mentions that his actual father left him a 10,000$ plot of land that was given to the father through his grandfather's will. Derek had planned to sell the plot, use most of the money to pay for school, use some to start his own YouTube channel, and pay off the speeding ticket so that he could avoid having to complete his community service. He and Dad got into an argument over it, with Derek having to take the "L." Dad changes the subject to the election, asking me about an exit poll in which Donald Trump was beating Hillary Clinton and remarking about how Hillary is literally choking the election away (I started a thread around that line of thinking! /shameless self-plug) - which led Derek to say something quite striking. "Yeah, Trump! Send 'em all back." "'Em all" likely refers to Mexican Americans - because Trump's signature campaign issue is immigration. After dinner, he offers to take me home and I agree. On the way a vehicle in front of us starts to slow down for whatever reason and Derek is forced to change lanes after losing a bit of patience. He looks over at the driver - a Latina who is texting and driving at the same time - and says this: "See, send them all back! They're making me late and shit." Derek's family is mostly pretty racist - to the point where it gives me headaches. He actively gets into arguments with Dad over things because he's an adopted child and because Dad likely deserves a lot of it and because Dad is someone who - as a defense attorney - recognizes the issues other ethnic groups have when it comes to the criminal justice and actively fights for them for a living. Despite that, Derek is actively encouraged by his family tree to belittle other races because to them - all they seem to be are inconveniences. He's also someone who drives a nice truck, has a nice house, and apparently is about to get 10,000 dollars richer - to the point where his largest problem in life is some community service hours so that he can strike his speeding ticket off of his criminal record. It was a little appalling to say the least. It's this kinda shit that caused me to avoid living or even visiting Dad.

I should apologize too - because I got a little "inspired" by being accused of not knowing what I'm talking about and when that happens I tend to swing back. I would love to hear Hillary's reasoning for voting in favor of the war. I -still- tend to think retaliation was necessary to displace the conflict from American soil - but I am not happy that fighting had to take place. --- I'm open to see where I goofed, Lexi. It matters because it's a conglomerate of factors that play into what influences polling. The first one is the round of polling that took place before this one did so right after the convention season and it appeared Clinton was going to win in landslide fashion with a rough average of 10 points. From then - Trump has had only a few goofs - but has been relatively statesman. He actually got on TV and said he regretted some of the things he said and was humble. He even went to Mexico along with Louisiana and started looking somewhat "presidential." Clinton on the other hand has had it pretty rough. She's not one to do press conferences and Trump pointed it out. She genuinely -is- feeling sick, which is normally not a bad thing, but it is if you lie about it and then get found out. She still gets flak from having the optics give her a sense of "above-the-law" status when it comes to what James Comey said about her AFTER not recommending an indictment for her e-mail scandal - and came a report from a Clinton-friendly paper about the Foundation that they couldn't pin on Fox News or conservatives that kept how bad Clinton looks in the news cycle for two weeks. It appeared at the very least - pretty damning all things considered.

Supposedly during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, people seem to think she would hold a lot of meetings with people with the condition that they would donate to the Foundation. Essentially, if you wanted some priority, the rumor has it you had to enable some "pay-for-play" in order to meet with Clinton. I don't have enough confidence that this is actually factual - so I never made such an assertion directly in the first place. I hope it's not true, because I respect the State office. - however, it's been weeks of people hitting her for her dealings with the Foundation that have contributed to Trump's rebound of the last round of polling.

I do care about her intent behind her policies. If she means to get those passed to begin with it - from an optics standpoint - is more assuring as a voter that the candidate actually cares about their positions on certain issues. She did the political equivalent of reading the room and shifting to positions that would allow her to get where she is with regards to campaign promises. "Oh, Barack was doing this and voters responded and I lost." "Oh, Bernie is doing this and voters are responding and this race ended up way closer than it needed to be." Hillary's pragmatism is about the only thing I can say I like about how she operates. Point you. --- How partisan do you have to be to incriminate someone of lying about donating to charity and spin providing relief to families into a simple photo-op - then turn around and do something yourself even if you're seemingly trying to point out the other side as being only driven by conspiracy theorizing? --- Yes. I was being sarcastic about the Clinton Foundation. Minus point for you because any time you slip in polls to the point where CNN - not Fox mind you - has a poll with Trump winning likely voters over Clinton by two points - it's NOT a non-sensible talking point! That's like saying that Benghazi is a nonsensical talking point or that her e-mail server is a non- Oh wait. Liberals do that too. --- It's important to know that I'm NOT defending Trump. He digs his OWN grave and it would be a waste of my time because I'm not voting for him in the first place. Clinton has done a great job throughout her political career and has much to be proud of - but she's also lied and manipulated and has been just as egregious as Trump when it comes to offending others and her campaign is very much beatable because she's made being opaque and evasive a part of her general demeanor. Yes, she's a pragmatist. I guess that means one day I'll qualify for president.

The honest answer would be C. "I'm a moderate president who will get progressive results because the Supreme Court is going to be FULL of judicial activists by the time my first term expires."

whoa whoa whoa.... people are saying there's something wrong with the Clinton Foundation? I just asserted that it helps fund various medical ventures and that it was a charity. Is that a bad thing? Gosh, it would be a shame if some crackpot conservative conspiracy theory actually played a part of Clinton slipping in the polls, let alone was actually factual... That's almost as heinous as someone saying Hillary Clinton is ill! Can you imagine? I'm going to need you to sell me on the "fact" that Clinton is more of a liberal than Obama is. "People have accused me of being moderate or center...I plead guilty." - Hillary Clinton, 2016. --- "Coming around" on issues is exactly the same assertion I made about Hillary piggybacking off of her opponents - only reworded to make it sound flowery and on Hilary's own volition. Maybe there IS some truth in Hillary going leftward - because Obama and Sanders pushed her that way. --- Never said she wasn't a humanitarian on 9/11. You know who else has been a humanitarian? Donald. J. Trump. (See: Visit to Louisiana) She doesn't get style points here either. --- Finally, I don't even have to click on the link you sent me to respond. I never claimed Hillary doesn't have any accomplishments, but her record in most of the country is not all that sexy and defensible. I actually stated earlier that Hillary "being there and doing that" doesn't essentially make her better than any other candidate, but I never claimed she wasn't there. Her liberalism isn't all a hoax - but she doesn't have to lie about it all the same! You can't tell me the woman isn't a pathological liar.

Swims....is that you? Dude - it's been a while! --- Look - Ralph Nader voters in that 2000 election may have cost the Democrats a loss...but it has actually been one important kick-start in moving the Democratic Party leftward. I'd argue that without Ralph, the Democratic Party wouldn't have gone left enough to like a candidate like Bernie Sanders and Bernie wouldn't have the ability to even compete. If you like progressivism so much - then you should be thanking the Green Party for causing reform. It's not a bad thing to vote for the third party candidate and it certainly doesn't amount to nothing. "You gotta spend money to make money sometimes." If your "second choice" is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump - there's not much to lose this year by voting third party other than your ideology being represented in a completely different branch of government than the executive branch (,and THAT can be countered by voting by ideology in your Congressional races like a good American team player - where your options are not nearly as egregious depending on the state in question.) --- You're just wrong about Clinton's history and nuance. As secretary of state - she encouraged engagement in wars. As a senator she voted FOR the engaging in combat in Iraq. She takes exorbitant amounts of money at speaking events and her foundation is supposed to be a charity that helps with various health issues. War, Capitalism, Charity over welfare. If you didn't tell me this was Hillary Clinton. I would actually think you were talking about a conservative. You HAVE to ignore her history and nuance to call her a liberal quite often... I understand she's written a book that advocates the idea that taking care of children is the State's job first and somehow the parents' job second... I understand she's supported throwing money at the automobile industry with President Obama a few times. She's definitely more liberal than Trump - assuming Trump isn't lying to his voter base. --- They are not the same candidate because of their policies. They are however, the same amount of unfavorable to the point where conservatives are saying their guy is just as bad as having Clinton win in many cases, and liberals on the other side are saying the same thing about Clinton in many cases as well. If there's ever a time a protest vote was worth something, there's a whole country that has the right to protest this one.

God, I'd register as a Democrat JUST to vote for Clinton if Warren was running next to her. And the reason why is political centrism plays more to EVERY American both as an individual AND as a unified nation as opposed to a picking a poison and appealing only to the grassroots (especially the generally OPPOSING grassroots...). The same goes for an "ideal"oge conservative candidate. Warren as a person however is very intelligent and well credentialed. Unlike Hillary, the only mean-spirited thing I can say about her is that she's just wrong and/or unagreeable on most things. I personally have no problems with Warren as a senator - where her job is to argue with both people who are relatively on her side and those who - like me - generously disagree with her in order to settle legislature for the good of the country as a whole. She's a POOOOOOR representative of all Americans however - and when you're running for president, regardless of what your identity in politics is, that's important. Voting against one candidate as opposed to actually supporting a candidate is the most frustrating thing I've seen only most Americans do this year. I feel a strong desire to tell you – and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me – which of these two errors is the worse [becoming an individualist or becoming a totalitarian]. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern with that of either of them. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Of two evils - choose neither. - Charles Spurgeon.

That much is fair - and I know you've actually been on Clinton's bandwagon (in the sense that you've felt Clinton was fairly qualified even before the race got this thin) over even Sanders from the start due to her pragmatic nature - so I hope you aren't taking any of my arguments as abrasive or in a sense that I'm trying to shame you for your opinion. For me - it's hard to say very nice things about Hillary. She's someone who has literally piggy-backed off of her stronger opponents ever since Obama beat her out in 2008. She's not a liberal liberals should be excited about voting for. She's not conservative enough for conservatives to embrace her and on top of that she actively is divisive against them while expecting them to come to her as an alternative to Trump. And she's a liar who holds VERY little regard for national security and the people who compose her constituency. She's flopped on issues as much as Trump has. And worst of all - she gets away with it over, and over, and over again. When the director of the FBI essentially says "Yeah, she's guilty, but she should not be charged." - it's not about justice anymore. It's about who's pocket you are in. You can argue all you want about how Clinton's experience makes her the best person on the board. It's that same experience that damns her. The only way to possibly lose to this woman is to put up a candidate that says and does things in a way where he doesn't care and maybe even wants to be hated. ..and the Republicans found just the guy. I will give her this - she's damn resilient - and that makes her as strong as anyone. A strong liar/criminal/con artist - is still a liar, criminal, and a con artist.

Clinton may HAVE a track record, but there's absolutely no measure of "success" behind it. It's just that in comparison to the other candidates, she's been there before. Benghazi - for example - is the most memorable conflict Hillary was responsible for as Secretary of State - and the result of that was four dead Americans (that she often claims didn't even die at all!) and a massive circle-jerk of blame. (It's not terrorists - it's demonstrators in an "internet video".) Clinton also was responsible for being overly aggressive in the Middle East, decentralizing power in the region and playing a small part in ensuring the chaotic nature that exists over there by doing exactly the opposite of the "Dove" mentality Democrats claim to have. She didn't leave damage on purpose, but when you take out a stable government in the Middle East chaos tends to follow in the region for YEARS (see Afghanistan after the Soviet Union, the United States, the Taliban) to follow. That's the playing field over there. Globalized military and collapsing governments for the sake of removing oppressive leaders and pouring money into nation-building provides rebels and peoples with ill-intent with our weaponry and technology inadvertently. --- If you're going to run a campaign - be it Johnson or President Barack Obama - that promises pulling troops OUT of this situation - it means a whole lot if you actually commit to it. Conservatives -and- Liberals alike have family members overseas. While the Libertarian style of isolationism looks more like an ostrich with it's head in the sand and less like a dove, it's more immediately effective. Nations are forced to fend for themselves -or- commit to America in larger (and in most cases much more equal) amounts in order to cause America to serve as Earth's policemen, and honestly, there shouldn't be such an expectation or over-reliance on some nations to be accountable for other ones. --- Mde - picture this. A young, tired, female in a 'Bernie Sanders' t-shirt is sitting at a bar. In walks in an equally tired 'John Kasich' supportor. A college student who is perhaps a little more conservative than Kasich but is aware that the likes of Kasich's opponents - Trump and Ted Cruz - are in many ways not the best decision for America as he feels Clinton and even Sanders is. The conservative buys the liberal a drink - takes a seat next to her and rubs elbows with her - and both walk out of the bar determined to vote for neither candidate but 'Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson' instead. That's the Libertarian Party in a nutshell - younger, college educated voters who hold varying opinions on what the ideal political climate is, lending the party to fall smack in the middle of the spectrum. Often compromising on fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and avoiding talking about "necessary war" at all costs. It's essentially the students at Kent State all over again. College students don't see too much value in fighting others or being policemen for the world. ...all that to say, you're yet again wrong on who Johnson's campaign poses a bigger danger to. Trump isn't seeing any real threat at all from Constitution Party candidate Bill Castle....(his name isn't even bill...I don't really care, his last name is Castle) because the super cons are all in on Trump if only for the sake of holding on to the Supreme Court. He -is- dealing with Johnson as we've both claimed. Clinton however, is going to lose voters to Johnson too. He provides all the social liberalism she could muster in a manner that makes voters much more excited about backing him. He also is charismatic and much less blemished than Hillary. Thank you for being patient with me though. I've been enjoying the spar.

I'm glad someone brought this up. That interview about Syria is literally the first real "gaffe" Johnson had - and it ironically is the first thing that even DREW a moderately explosive amount of recognition. ...however, if Johnson were allowed to be represented as equally as Trump or Clinton - this gaffe would be forgiven and forgotten. Trump is known to point out specific members of his crowds SPECIFICALLY due to their skin color. - "Look at my African American friend!" Clinton makes horrendous jokes about taken money from Wall Street for giving speeches - "I don't know - that's how much they offered!" Trump bumbled on a question about abortion in a town hall - "Women who get abortions should be punished!" Clinton changes her story about her e-mail scandal every day of the week depending on her audience. Trump has incited violence at his rallies. Clinton alienated everyone in the coal industry with a campaign promise - then had to answer for it. - "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of business and a lot of coal companies out of business!" Here's what Johnson did. He was asked a question about foreign policy in a manner that lacked context and assumed Johnson was 100% in the know of the situation in Aleppo, Syria. Audibily - the word "Aleppo" could be interpreted as "A Leppo" - and Johnson took it as an acronym - as Lexi did (perhaps purposely). Johnson then tried to get the interviewer to clarify - three times. The first time was met with the word "Aleppo" being repeated again with no context. The second time was met with a semi-hostile response ("You're kidding.."), and the third time was finally met with the interviewer's clarification ("Aleppo is in Syria...it's the epicenter of the refugee crisis-") From there Johnson was able to answer the question in what is perhaps an unpopular manner to conservatives - we help Syria by not giving arms to people who are our enemies through nation-building and re-claiming efforts and not intervening in affairs that are not ours. Non-intervention is a staple of Libertarian politics. It also explains why Johnson wasn't as in-the-know about what the hell "Aleppo" was. His policies are geared toward a more insular America - to the point where a city in a different country that nobody hears all that much about in scholarly settings (unless you're taking a course TODAY that deals heavily in current events.) went over his head. What's noteworthy? Trump and Clinton are allowed to throw a dart at questions THEY don't understand, and backtrack if it horribly misses the board - with permission. The reason Johnson's arguably smaller gaffe here is catastrophic isn't because he's a moron. It's that he's a minor party candidate that has no room for error. --- Mde. You're making mountains out of molehills with this gaffe for one - and two, you can't see the forest for the trees -or- you are weighing this morsel of Johnson the whole world FINALLY got to witness against everything you know about Trump and Clinton. To say Johnson is politically incompetent is outright wrong. As governor of New Mexico he was able to win re-election as a Republican - in a Democratic state. He was able to dramatically lower the deficit in his state while STILL providing positive gains for public schooling. He was an excellent steward for his state. Finally, in comparison to Trump or Clinton - he served in the most similar position to the Presidency as a governor - even when put up against the State department. Sure, it's possible Clinton beats him on world issues (Trump will get in a few cute sound bites here) because Libertarians are not interested in engaging in heavy foreign policy. That SHOULDN'T torpedo a candidate or a campaign.

This one might sound like a stretch... ...but I think Radomus is a great candidate for Ghost Fight - if that doesn't go to Arclight....or....Shade......or something by default. Napstablook is a champion.

As someone who also really doesn't want Hillary in office - I don't think she's a windtunnel for "popular liberalism" so much as she is a liar. She supports her husband Bill's "Tough-on-Crime" stances - but then appeals to African Americans that suffer under them. She supports (or at least originally did support) the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She supports tuition costs - yet wants college students to believe she is in their pocket. She's a neoliberal capitalist at heart - yet wants to appeal to socialist thinkers. So, young people, African Americans, and blue-collar Democrats are being spoon-fed the liberal lip-service they expect from their nominee while the reality of the situation is - she's more conservative in those areas -or- she doesn't really want anything but that particular demographics' vote. There's an obvious disconnect between Clinton and the supposedly "friendlier" wing of the party - as seen by how meteoric Bernie Sanders' campaign was despite the fact that the whole rest of the country KNEW Clinton was just going to be coronated as the Democratic nominee. Trump on the other hand suffers mainly from employing a strategy of focused excitement. Yes, his voter base is MUCH smaller than Clinton's and that's a problem if you expect to win - but the average Trump voter is more excited about this election than the average Clinton voter - and it shows. Trump isn't changing who he is either in order to execute his game plan. He attacked the living crap out of his Republican challengers, and he is attacking the living crap out of Hillary in the same way. Hillary didn't want to attack Bernie and quite frankly - she may have needed to. Even if they were friendly opponents and had no reason - because now she isn't able to survive off of being a meek policy wonk and her whole general election strategy is causing her to be who she isn't - an aggressive candidate. I read this somewhere today: Hillary's campaign is very good at pushing Trump off the popularity ledge (or at least helping him as he jumps willingly) - but she's not good at selling herself instead. --- CM - we've tried having polite politicians play "nice" and "not be an asshole" for 240 years. Here's some of the most successful presidents out there. Bill Clinton - who put the lumber on African Americans with much needed crime bills - despite being a Democrat. Abraham Lincoln - who engineered the only war in which America's opponent was itself. Andrew Jackson - who basically destroyed a large part of Native American staying power and was the precursor to the Mexican and Texas wars - but also is the only president to pay off the national debt. Theodore Roosevelt - a conservative-turned-liberal president who's most infamous quote ends with "carry a big stick." You're right - opinions don't change on the internet that often - but if society really would rather be lied to than be told the truth (even bluntly) - we're truly lost.

...this is EXACTLY what voting for Johnson (especially if you live in a state like Colorado or Utah where Gary seems to be making serious impact on the states' electorate) entails. If you normally vote Democrat, and you vote Libertarian instead - you're essentially allowing Trump to come one vote closer to Hillary for the sake of voicing dissatisfaction with Hillary. If you're normally a Republican voter, and vote for the Libertarian ticket - the reverse is true and you're allowing Clinton to essentially take a step away from Trump. This shouldn't be a problem if you are indeed VOICING DISSATISFACTION. It's astounding to me how many people are afraid - on BOTH sides - of the opposing major party nominee to the point where they are physically "scared" into voting for their party. That's not democracy. that's coercion. I think rumors about BOTH candidates are greatly exaggerated for one - but I also think that fear is the only thing that we should be afraid of when making political actions. I believe one of the greatest Democratic presidents to ever live (and he did so too brief) said something along those lines.

I'm a solid 70-to-85% Republican - I wouldn't be voting for Johnson if the GOP had someone else as their nominee. I guess that's what makes me okay with issuing a protest vote. I understand Johnson isn't Teddy Roosevelt, but his campaign is significant in modern political races as it's indicative that third party candidates are not just "smoke and mirrors" but that they are really held back by near-impossible two-party standards (such as averaging at around 15% in at least five national polls JUST to get on the debate stage.) It's a catch-22 that needs to be identified regardless of what your political identity is. If this is supposedly the country that stresses "Freedom" - then why does it seem so restrictive for other parties to be represented fairly? Most other similar nations don't operate on two-party systems. That catch-22 is as follows: You need to average at around 15% to make the debate stage - but you're campaign won't get any name recognition or traction unless you are ON the debate stage. --- Donald Trump is the candidate that allowed me to get past "NeverHillary" partisan activism and attempt to help Johnson make a statement. He's so flip-floppish that his conservatism doesn't seem genuine at all to the point where the goal almost is "let" Hillary win. He's also so nationalistic and compartmentalizes groups to the point where it's not what being a Republican (who is usually better than the Democrats at being "America first")is about. --- CM, I disagree with you on Hillary. I doubt she's that much of an attractive pick that people are going to switch sides "quietly". Trump voters throughout the entire process have been pretty "excited" about their candidate throughout the duration of the race. They are the hardest voter to flip. Third-partiers and Indies are fairly easy to flip, but it will be more because they hadn't decided than it is "because my candidate has no shot." Libertarianism in the 2012 election in which R-Money and Obummer were both fairly stomachable candidates proves that. The reality of the situation is - both the major party candidates look awful, and the minor party candidates look like wasted votes. Realistically. Most Americans won't even bother to go to the ballot-box.

Well, I'll (and many of my other fellow Americans) be damned. This is actually a race. --- First things first - as the person bringing up the case of possibility for a Trump presidency, It's important to establish where my vote is going. It's not going to Clinton...-or- Trump. I'll be voting for Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld on the Libertarian ticket this November. This actually is relevant to idea of Trump winning - and I'll get to that later. --- 1. On the current debate stage - BOTH candidates are horrible debaters. And Trump is much better at making the opponent look worse than people give him credit for. - Hillary does better in debates against singular opponents, but she is not someone to really "fear" on the podium. Trump's main opponent will be his own mouth (and perhaps the anti-Trump internet dwellers who would say Hillary won the debate even if she didn't show up) as opposed to the Former First Lady herself. As for the second clause of this assertion, just take a look at how monumental Trump's primary victory was. He went up against SIXTEEN other Republican hopefuls who were somehow -all- more qualified for the POTUS position than he was in my opinion - but he was able to make all of them look worse through a devoted effort to pointing out the dirt on his opponents and outright taking BOTH himself and the opponent of his choice down the gutter if he had to. If Trump is the "anti-political-correctness" candidate, Hillary's not going to be able to play the "damsel" card to escape Trump's bulldog behavior either. He's going to stick to his guns, his base will love it, and Hillary will have to actually answer effectively as opposed to appealing to the better nature of everyone else. --- 2. The Ghost of Bernie Sanders Past - Third party runs are a common thing in presidential elections and they usually amount to a percentage of "protest votes" when the dust settles. Where Trump (who we all know is the most unfavorable candidate in the history of -actually- ever) is dinged by this is the Libertarian ticket I mentioned in my establishment of personal position. Gary Johnson may not be a social conservative, but he's more "conservative" than Trump even on trade and in most other fiscal matters - meaning unhappy Republicans have more than one tangible reason to jump on the largest looming third party bandwagon. Clinton however is not only fighting Trump and Johnson - she has a three front war in front of her. The Green Party (the same Green Party that cost Al Gore and the Democrats the 2000 election against George W. Bush.) is running an effective "Plan B" candidate for Bernie Sanders supporters in physician Jill Stein...whose liberalism would make even Bernie blush. Gary Johnson on the other hand has the most realistic shot of toppling both Hillary -and- Trump, and offers liberals the social liberalism platform they expect from their ideal candidate without being as much of an establishment shill as the Democratic nominee - meaning that Johnson is siphoning votes from Hillary as well as Trump. It also doesn't help that Hillary is the second most unfavorable candidate in the history of ever as well. You'd think the liberal wing of the Democratic Party would be a lock for the party's candidate. Bernie Sanders however raised a new breed of voters - and many of them aren't following his endorsement and instead are following the former months of mobilization against her. --- 3. A Brand New Ballgame - One of Hillary's strengths is that the Electoral College -this- year is not nearly as predictable as last year. The goal for any candidate to clench the race and the leadership of the free world - is 270 electoral votes. The Clinton campaign feels so confident that they are flirting with traditionally red states (or states that are usually voting Republican) this fall. However, this doesn't mean she's the only candidate in the race that can take advantage of the electoral map. Trump -does- seem unprepared (which is why his campaign is lagging behind Hillary in this area - along with ever positive changing demographics for the Dems in general) but what is interesting is that Gary Johnson seems to be employing a little Electoral Map action of his own despite being a candidate that may not even make the debate stage. Johnson obviously would like to debate - because it changes the perception IMMEDIATELY that this is a two person race if there's three visible choices. However, his back-up road to the White House involves undermining democracy a little bit by winning JUST enough Electoral Votes to PREVENT Hillary from reaching 270. This is proven by Johnson's heavily focused campaign in the western part of the country (where Hillary is much less appreciated and where Trump is therefore more viable.) For those of you that don't know - Bernie overwhelmingly won the West in the Democratic primary - meaning it's western Democrats that are more likely to defect to Johnson than it is eastern Democrats. Johnson's trying to win states - or at the very least, win enough votes to throw the election to the Republican controlled House of Representatives (who would then have the option to elect Donald Trump -or- offer Johnson to Democratic Senators as a peaceful middle-ground compromise vote.) --- That's how Donald possibly comes up with the presidency. Johnson's campaign stiffens up, Hillary's own demons continue to haunt her, and the GOP House of Representatives sticks to their own horse as opposed to playing nice with the other party. Hillary's voter base is growing (and Trump's is actually shrinking) - but she's not capitalizing on it as much as she'd like. ...because polls essentially make this race out to be a tie.

So - keeping a running tally - Here are the things I'm excited about in Sun and Moon so far. 1. Hyper Training - Essentially a continuation of making competitive play accessible for more and more people. The best part of this feature will be able to view your Individual Values for the first time in a main series game, something we've been treated rather kindly to here with Reborn. It's also nice to be able to use the Pokemon that helped you in the story in competitions of the highest level as well. It's almost as if you're really building a bond with the Pokemon that started your S/M journey. 2. Time Shifts - This feature is the strongest argument Game Freak has made for the "good" in buying both games. As someone that can't play during the day all that often, Moon actually has a solid lead over Sun as to which game I'm buying "first" because it allows me to get those daytime events during nighttime hours - without punishing me for altering the time on my DS. Sun also has several "spot the difference" aesthetics with Moon too, as well as holding version exclusives in not only 'mons but with events themselves. That's pretty cool. 3. Alolan Forms - My personal favorites are the Raticate that happens to wall Lunala and is hilarious every time you look at it, Cold Steel the hedgehog, Marowakiki, and Too-Tall Exeggutor. The Vulpix line is pretty too....and Surfing Pika-....er....Raichu .....(wow, they gave RAICHU some love for once? I SEE YOU GAME FREAK-)....this is just cool. 4. Will Mega Evolution Exist In Alola? - Not exactly a game feature, but one question I feel like GF will be mum on until the game is released or close-to. I feel like it will (because....I don't know how they're going to explain Zygarde yet. So many questions....there's also Sina and Dexio in this universe, so ..."maybe"?)...but we'll have to see. 5. It's Litten. Donald Trumpshoos. Jangoo-o(?). Who let the Rock out? -..................New Pokemon. 6. The importance of Team Skull - They just look like generic street thugs - which is fine....if they pull it off with something along the lines of what many are thinking about the Aether Foundation where they are just a front for a guarded, larger evil.