Chase

I don't usually advise against Pokemon - but Fates is really enjoyable in my opinion. Your decision is basically based on a few factors. Are you willing to wait for the game to arrive? - If yes, keep deliberating - if not, pick Fates. Do you want - for certain - to feel like your money was worth spending? - if yes, pick Fates, if no - consider picking Sun and Moon. Are you willing to enjoy a Pokemon game for what it is - instead of trying to hope for something that is tailored toward you? - If yes, pick Sun and Moon, if no, pick Fates. I would earnestly say Fates is worth the cash sink - with the caveat that S/M may be worth the wait -if you ABSOLUTELY can't get both.

Yeah, the Democratic Primary is egregiously un-democratic. However, Hillary actually won the Nevada primary (when the states voters vote on the presidential candidates themselves as opposed to delegates.) I don't exactly understand the situation here - but it looks like Bernie Sanders' supporters were partially barred from the delegation process. Sometimes, our politics aren't handled properly. However - it's not as bad as other areas, where Hillary beat Bernie after several districts "flipped a coin" or when she beat Sanders in delegates after Sanders won the state they were tied to by a landslide in the popular vote.

1K posts that must be a very big building, with all of those supports. thank you for being a pillar of the community. keep standing I give up

I would say Reborn was a distraction, but it hasn't really hindered me as much historically as much as it would seem. If my friends on this site knew I had something to do other than be on the forums on with the community, they would tell me to go do it. Here are things that do distract me though: The Munchies. My schedule is so erratic that that I'll have an urge or in some cases a need to eat something at an otherwise not normal time to eat. This also usually occurs when I'm trying to do something important, such as finishing a school assignment or research for work. The Conmpletion Principle. Essentially - other tasks that I've left unfinished. I can't really make headway on something I'm working on if I'm distracted by not having finished something else.

First of all, I like to hold the theory that each version (and each game copy for that matter - irrelevant here) is it's own dimension, and therefore the rules of one don't apply to the other. Kanto - Red was the game that was gifted to me, and I've always liked Charizard either the most or equally with Blastoise, so it gets the nod as being the one that speaks to me. Johto - Gold only because the details make more sense and the build up to the legendary encounter is presented better. Hoenn - Look - I take special stock in the word "You" when reading the question. If answering the question "What version were YOU meant to play" to me that's Ruby over Sapphire. I've always been more associated and related to heat and warmer colors, and magma is about as heat as you can heat....ya heat what I'm heatin? Logic doesn't prevail over appeal. Sinnoh - Pearl calls out to me more, although not enough to make me want to finish a game in the fourth generation that isn't a remake. Unova - I think you missed the mark on this one too - there are people that do use Pokemon for selfish reasons just as truthfully as pokemon have been living with humans. N's right in both accounts, and by personal choice, White fits better with me. Kalos - Y makes a lot more sense to me. You can't -destroy- a world with the energy that -SUSTAINS- life...unless the beam is powerful enough to cause the planet to fall apart. Then it's just living forever in space.....bad news.

I don't really like ANY of the starters appearance-wise. However, #ItsLITten because I guessed that the Fire starter would be close to a Tiger in appearance over Ox and Ram like the rest of the crowd... For now. Rowlet makes a strong tug at the 'ole heartstrings.

To all of you guys that said Litten was going to be an OX or a RAM. You all owe me a soda. I don't really like any of the starters...but I might go Litten just because if it turns into a Tiger and proves me right I owe it the honors.

I was about to worry about necroposting - but then I realized that you European folks don't have the game released yet, so I'm going to proudly say I'm not a "late adapter" or a dirty necroposter. Take that, auth! Don't worry over across the pond though. It's around the corner for you guys. Also - I'm going to refer to the game as 'Fates' and as a singular edition of the story - with 'Birthright', 'Conquest', and 'Revelation' indicating the different routes of the game. Why? - because I'm directly appealing to the complete and utter novices to the franchise like myself who may be considering jumping into the pool on this one. So. I am probably the last person on the planet that would have even considered purchasing a Fire Emblem game. When it comes to games that involve combat, I prefer to control the individual in the fight as opposed to directing the entire battle from a bird's eye view. I don't like having to do math as I play games (or in general), and I don't like looking at 400 something HUDs in order to get a reading as to what course of action I should take next. I also don't normally bite on the whole "waifu sim" business because I don't have a penchant for Japanese animation like a lot of the community does - meaning that both the gameplay -and- the characters should be duds if I were to judge Fates by it's cover. Thankfully - there's one redeeming quality about this Fire Emblem installment that goes to show Intelligent Systems and Nintendo can make an appeal to gamers outside of the target demographic - and that's the illusion of choice. Fates' story is very much written by the player and not so much by the developer - and as a player who likes to feel in control that was enough to be able to reel me in. The 'choice' may seem genuine, but for a novice, the gameplay mechanics vary depending on the route - encouraging players to identify their strengths and buy the 'Fates' game cartridge most accommodating to them. After I was hooked by the "decision-making" of my own character - I quickly reflected as to what I liked about 'Fates' and decided that YES - if you're on the fence about buying this one - do it. Themes:

Alright Tomas, I'll admit some quick reading and misunderstanding earlier. That's my fault, and I am sorry. I've personally advocated "common sense" gun control laws in other areas of this site before - because my assertion is not "everyone should own a gun" regardless of how you read my earlier post in this particular thread. The premise isn't even directly about one issue or the other so much as it is the inconsistent view on the common argument presented between the two and how it applies to general politics. I ignored most comments about gun control or transgender bathroom access directly because contrary to what you're claiming, I didn't ASK about why gun laws in America are stupid in your opinion or why laws regarding transgender bathroom access are stupid in the opening post. I wasn't talking about opinion so much as I was talking about logical consistency. The biggest hangup everyone seemed to have was the pictures I used to illustrate an example. Folks wanted to focus on the individual issues addressed and not the questions posed. That's where Kurotsune was graciously observant - not just in claiming we needed to stop fighting. I'm not one who advocates vigilante justice. I advocate defending oneself and one's family on the premises of one's own home. If there's someone walking down a public sidewalk and he looks at you funny - you probably shouldn't shoot at him unless you're allowed to carry your gun in the streets and the other person is doing a bit more than looking at you funny. My biggest issue with the police isn't that "we could do the job better." It's that they just don't do the job in time every single time - and because the law permits in wording the ability to wield weapons and use them against other people under specific circumstances - firearms make for a failsafe option. Frankly, as a foreigner, I would be somewhat right to assume you don't know the ins and outs of firearm legislation in America - but only that it's looser than that of your own country. Depending on area, there are strict-er parts of the United States on gun control, but the ironic feature over here in America, is that the areas with more legislature that supports gun control often end up seeing more shootings the areas that are more lax in legislature. For instance, there hasn't been many school shootings in Texas (where owning a gun is a sacred ritual that is a signal of adulthood in some families) than there are in Chicago or Los Angeles. The reason I am not for strict gun control is simply that most shootings are done by people that either don't care about the law -or- are unfit to wield weapons due to medical reasoning. Also, where I'm from, there's a genuine respect for one another that comes with knowing all of your neighbors are armed. Crime is much lower in my neck of the woods than stricter areas of the United States. You can point to the wording of the United States' 2nd Amendment as to why "gun culture" is a thing though - It's been the means of obtaining independence and democracy and thus has a specific allowance of firearm bearing to use against "tyrannical government". Meaning - people owned guns not just to hunt or to protect their families, it was encouraged to overthrow governments "We the People" found too excessive in power. The reason people take pride in owning firearms here can be traced back to the reason the Continental Army was satisfied with winning it's independence from England. It's revered. There's also the areas where it's a bit too late for super strong legislation to take place without massive gun collections by the government - an act that would trigger legal killing under the Constitution as it's written because a Constitutional right is being limited or taken away from the entire population of the country. With that kind of backdrop in mind, it's not easy passing strict gun control laws across the entire country - and the fact that it largely hinges on the democratic process doesn't help matters. -- Ody I thanked you because you actually did the right thing and responded in a manner I wanted - by reading the questions and answering to the best of your ability. You seem to have misunderstood me if you're taking those points from the first page as applied to you directly. You're good. -- Marcello Thank you, That's exactly what I wanted to read from everyone else posting -- Nick - the discussion was SUPPOSED to be about left-right political agenda...more so than the two topics the pictures brought up. I used those two pictures in hopes of getting people to see where I was pointing out the common logical inconsistency of both sides of the American political spectrum.

Yes, it's all in your head - but look at what you just wrote and decide for yourself. "it got you clicks." I don't make topics up just to hear myself speak. That's absurd. I want people to click on a thread I create, because they can't discuss it and it is a waste of time if people don't. It's literally as simple as that. Every thread that is ever made has that element to it. Nobody likes wasting time. I just felt like it would be a discussion that would be treated with the approach of an adult or older student, not that of a sheep. "DO ANY?" The examples above are not of direct touching - but are not exactly merely using the facilities either. Most of them are for photography, non-contact sexual gratification, or peeping. Again, this wasn't relative to the topic - but I would be concerned in those areas. It also should be noted that none of the men claimed to be trans, but cross-dressing and using wigs is very indicative of trying to use drag as a method of obtaining access to areas they shouldn't have access to regardless. That would be enough to raise concern. Not speculative. This is damaging -to- the trans cause because if the loophole is left open, then it gives people who hear about these men ammunition. To say their concerns are lesser or greater than the trans person is special pleading because it ignores a group of concerned citizens either way. If I wanted to make an irrelevant topic with regards to the community, I would be posting a bunch in the wasteland - not here.

Kuro, Ame, Ody...and maybe a few others. Thank you for at least reading my questions. The former two of you have further thanks for being engaging instead of jumping to baseless conclusions, attributing me to pushing some sort of agenda, and other nonsense. Ame and I disagree as to what constitutes an "equivalence" here. Her approach - and those of those who praised her for her answer - is indicative of -only- transgender individuals, which absolutely and indefinitely have zero confirmed cases of raping another person in a public restroom. That's not a fabricated statistic - but it doesn't mean that conservatives are horrible people for having the train of thought when this issue arises. What it does mean is that there are people - "Straights" as Eviora put it - that absolutely can be attributed to false identity. Those people ruin the situation for trans people just as much as laws such as HB2 do because they give conservatives a legitimate concern and hinder progress on the issue. I don't need to roll out a number of heterosexual males that rape people in the women's room. Nobody wants to see that here, and it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Finally, that answer, along with many other answers given regarding gun control, disregards how guns provide the most effective way for one to defend themselves in cases where the assailant also has a gun. The exchange Ame and I had ended in an ignorant quip about how transgender people have it harder than people who lose their family members or watch their students get shot up without the ability to defend them - making one category of life seemingly more important than another. This isn't Ame being a horrible person - it's Ame - like many of you - holding one issue closer to the heart, and I expect nerves to be frayed when challenges are made too close to the vest. If you all would have participated in the conversation as I was trying to direct it, instead of bandwagoning and shouting over the premises and examples used, this would have not have devolved as quickly as it did. To end the record - I very much detest HB2. There's no reason to hurt me because I legitimately challenged an argument EVERYONE on the spectrum likes to make in terms of logic. I'm on the same team most of you are with regards to transgender issues. Geez. --- Tomas - Because lives -are- at stake in this scenario, not everyone has a detail of secret service or guards on hand, response time is critical in preserving lives, and failure to act -DOES- result in the criminal shooting instead, the gun serves as an equalizer. Most people don't arm themselves with the hopes of using the weapon. Have you ever watched a movie where a homeowner flashes a gun at a burgler - without firing it - and the criminal runs away? That's the ideal goal of having a firearm as a means of security in that scenario - or at least I would hope. I truly hope nothing terrible happens to someone in your family, because under the forum rule, you wouldn't be able to prevent it yourself and you would have to let it happen - whatever the case may be. Maybe I'm not an auth because I challenged the system where it wasn't logical. Kinda like how I can't get away with being conservative in a forum that is supposed to harbor all walks of life, ya know? --- Eviora - Yeah, changing a few minds would be nice because the world needs people that apply logic to their political identity in my opinion - but if I wanted to do that I would hold a considerably stronger bias than I did in the original post. I wasn't trying to cause a laugher - although the outrage that followed was admittedly laughter inducing because so many of you missed the dartboard when you responded. All my "special pleading" ever is - is to be treated as equally as the next person. In Reborn, that usually means being entitled to a substantial conversation without getting attacked for it due to not holding a popular opinion. It was in no way rude to give support to transgender individuals was it? It -is- a little rude to be ignorant of the effects of denying one right to another group and almost worshiping the rights of yet another, which you've done consistently. Here, I just wanted to talk about logic and political identity, and I used two topics that garner interest in doing so.

Things that have already occured in this thread. A wrong assertion that the two scenarios are of false equivalence. Sorry Ame - while it's not directly trans individuals themselves that are to blame for several bathroom instances, the defense has been used by people who are not trans or identify with transgender people due to holding the dysphoria that is responsible in many cases for such transition. I'm not equating the scale of each issue, but both issues do exist and both arguments have been employed by liberals and conservatives alike. Finally, taking a certain weapon out of a household does largely increase the importance of police response time or viability of other household objects to be used in self-defense. ICSW has a fair point when talking about gun control measures that are not purging weapons away - but that's very clearly been a part of liberal agenda all the same. Not being armed can be an issue and particularly having a right being limited is indeed as much of an issue in both cases. Seems fairly equivalent to me. A gunowner that stands their ground to protect their family is no more a criminal than a transgender person using the restroom identify with. The only credible point made here is that America is forcing more problems then necessary in one case while we don't know the results of the other. A possible assertion or insinuation that I hate transgender individuals. Eric, there's a chance I'm misunderstanding your last bit - but if you're talking about other conservatives - then yeah, your point stands and I agree that it's better to just admit transphobia and own it rather than use a front to hide behind. If you were pointing that at me specifically... I don't think you know me very well or read my thread. An assertion that Columbine scenarios are a direct product of gun ownership. This argument isn't baseless, as America is five times more likely to experience a school shooting than countries with gun control measures - however, another thing that can be pointed at is that school zones are notoriously gun-free areas, where in the event of a school shooting, the only weapon on campus might be in the hands of the shooter. I don't personally see an issue with teachers packing heat in the classroom so long as the gun is kept safely. An assertion that I'm trying to be opportunistic in equating the two issues. Eviora - this is beyond unimpactful in any way. I'm preaching to an audience I expect to be mostly opposed and who has no sway whatsoever over gun control at all. There is no opportunity for me to even try to capitalize on. It may be surface-level critical thinking in your opinion, but you're just completely off base when it comes to making anything but discourse out of it. If you want people to be unsympathetic to your cause, jump down people who genuinely have questions' throats. Neo clearly pointed out the unreliability of law enforcement for me. Yes, it's intended to fight crime - but it's not in everyone's pocket the moment they need protection in service - and often holds an unfortunate bias in some cases. I'm glad nobody answered my questions and this got off-topic.

Here's a couple of memes to illustrate the point of the title: The political cartoon on the left is obviously a conservative perspective on "Gun Control" laws. The argument being made by the cartoonist appears to be that the only people that suffer from gun control laws is good people because the bad people will hold no regard for the law either way. Essentially - Criminals don't care about gun control laws. The meme on the right is a liberal perspective on transgender restroom usage using the tool of sarcasm. In order to provide context - it should be known that the social conservative perspective on transgender bathroom usage is that trans people should use the bathroom that is indicated on their birth certificate as opposed to their preferred restroom because it would invite sex-offenders to self-identify as the gender on the sign and proceed to harm the other inhabitants in the restroom. The argument being made by the meme artist appears to be that the only people that suffer from conservative bathroom policies are - again - law-abiding people, because bad people would not hold any regard for the legislation. Essentially - Criminals don't care about bathroom laws. Who said it? Both the liberal and the conservative - and this is what I really don't like about "purist" liberalism or conservatism. When one tries to be as polar as possible, they end up making logical inconsistencies that are held in place for self-serving purposes as opposed of actually trying to do right by the country they live in. Centrism isn't a very popular or exciting position to hold, but it does better at avoiding the logical inconsistency of the situation above. A "moderate" position would be to apply the rule - criminals don't respect laws and therefore that shouldn't be the angle used to defend trans bathroom preference OR the right to bear arms. - OR - it's inverse. Criminals don't care about the law either way, but for reasons beyond criminal activity, gun control and conservative bathroom policy should be enacted at the same time. As a moderate-conservative, I ascribe to the first moderate position with regards to these two "criminals don't care" scenarios. I am very much not a fan of what North Carolina and several other states are doing in the name of "religious liberty" and "common sense" against transgender individuals - and while the rapist argument holds water, I believe in order to hold that position you have to pre-suppose that every trans person is a sex offender and that you have to be very much uninformed of what transgender people actually go through, what many of them look like, and how this is damaging to a country's social build-up. However, in the gun scenario, no amount of gun purging and registration legislature is going to remove the guns from the criminal scene. The laws only make the people that in many countries have the right to bear arms as a staple a bit more defenseless in a pinch only because they truly adhere to the law of the land. I realize that not everyone lives in America and deals with the same kinds of "conservatism" and "liberalism" ideas. Perhaps the political landscape in those areas is more accommodating to the center than the USA seems to have. I still do want your input. Where do you guys stand on these issues? Are you logically consistent? If so, do you think that is important when it pertains to political identity? If not, what's the overriding reason for being illogical?

I've actually seen this character. After doing some research though - I'm ultimately not sold on 'the Punisher' iconography here. I do think that Wolfwood is a cool character - but I prefer to bear my cross through my actions, not ....literally carrying paraphernalia around.

You are a competitive, dominant individual who enjoys being right and often is. You may tend to be insensitive, telling the blunt truth where many would have conjured a white lie to protect someone's feelings. I would insist that this is mostly true. Dominant isn't exactly all there, but I do tend to value honesty in most situations over noble lying - and I am very, very, competitive with a knack of being right when I wish I wasn't.

Funny thing about those NeverTrump GOP members - they still kicking for being pretty dead in the water. List of no-shows to this years GOP convention: George H.W. Bush (41st President of the United States) George W. Bush (43rd President of the United States) John McCain (2008 Republican Presidential Nominee) Mitt Romney (2012 Republican Presidential Nominee) Jeb Bush (2016 Republican Presidential Candidate) List of people who 'will' attend the GOP convention John Boehner (Former Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan (Current Speaker - also chair of the convention, so it's an obligation. He's on record of saying today that "He's not ready to back Trump" yet.) Mitch McConnell (Current Senate Majority Leader) Newt Gingrich (2012 Republican Presidential Candidate) Mike Huckabee (2016 Republican Presidential Candidate) Perhaps the most alienated groups here are Trump supporters, who are either confident they can operate without the help from much of their party's establishment in their man's run for the presidency or spurned by the group they ran against - or right-wingers, who are beginning to see Trump pivot to rival Clinton by adopting liberal policies and thus pressuring many younger conservative leaders into no-showing or being non-committal. Recently, Trump noted that he would - like Clinton and Sanders - like to raise the minimum wage as president. Something that is contradictory to many of his voter bases expectations - though that wouldn't be the first time. However, it's becoming egregious that there is nothing sacred when it comes to Trump's "common-sense" conservatism. Raising the minimum wage is the first show of "fiscal" liberalism the Donald has employed, but he's vary much liberal on social issues outside of immigration and refugee acceptance. Many of the GOP's younger faces are likely to say nothing to the public one way or the other. This list includes Rand Paul Ted Cruz Marco Rubio Nikki Haley Ben Sasse Paul Ryan (who will likely approach this as detached as he can - he seems to be pressing Trump to act like a conservative before buying in. Something that's not likely to work.) Scott Walker Mike Pence and likely others - essentially, if their political career is at risk due to Trump's presence, or the opposite, they will keep mum either way.

I guess maybe for posterity, Trump -did- get some good news outside of the Republican Primary. The latest Rasmussen poll gave Trump a 41-39 advantage over Hillary Clinton. While this is potentially an outlier poll due to being very different from Clinton's usually favorable returns, Trump is now assuredly the nominee with only one-state-wonder John Kasich standing in between him and the nomination outright. On the other side, many Democrats haven't let go of Bernie Sanders, and Bernie hasn't let go of his own uphill battle for the presidential nomination. Clinton wins the percentage returns of base support, garnering 77 percent of Democratic voters to Trump's 73 percent of GOP voters. However, the poll suggests a bit of disloyalty toward Clinton from many in her own party, giving Trump the edge in crossover appeal 15 percent of Democrats as opposed to Clinton's 8 percent of Republicans. Trump losing the base support makes sense, as many Republicans up to today were keen on denying Trump the nomination and will have to soul-search in order to fall in line behind the Donald, while the Democrats had seen a relatively cordial and tame contest between their two prominent candidates and depending on the reason why the candidates are registered Democrats, it would make sense that many of them would support their party's candidate. However - I've already hinted at Trump's appeal with Sanders supporters. He has many of Sanders same positions on the following issues. 'Anti-Washington' campaign campaign-financing and process reform Protectionism Secondly, Bernie pushing to Philadelphia and contesting the convention will actually flip the narrative of what we were expecting. Sanders appears to be doing so in the name of platform standing, but even doing so will not sway some of his supporters to vote Clinton after months of being spoon-fed reasons not to back her. Republicans appear to be stowing their fists and plugging their noses, while suddenly, as Sanders pulled the win in Indiana, the Democratic race still looks very much alive. What if the Democrats give Trump all the time he needs to rehearse with a pointless platform battle? Trump could start making some unexpected gains. There's a couple of things that Trump has made marked improvement on with regards to social issues. His abortion stance is much more electable than most GOP presidents - and he's even gone so far to acknowledge and support other areas where Planned Parenthood is beneficial to America. His views on transgender bathroom usage are markedly different from social conservatives' meaning that a Trump general election stance won't give Clinton much leverage at all. And finally, Greed Demon does have a point - as that FBI scandal is still going on and could potentially hurt Clinton further if news breaks. This is offset by the fact that a New York judge recently took the Trump University case for consideration... So, both of our possibly criminal nominees could be in a.... shockingly, close race. God bless, America.... :/ PS: Lightning Round on which groups either candidate offends the most. Trump is still a staunch nativist, so his opponents will likely be Latin Americans opposed to his immigration reform proposals as well as Muslims. Clinton offends essentially every type of Republican - calling all members of the party 'Terrorists' on the trail multiple times.

In terms of Republicans, Ted Cruz was the most competitive candidate against the Donald. He just had his best states taken before anyone took Trump seriously. I'm not surprised by the outcome so much as I am surprised Cruz talked big and then saved face and actually stopped running when the jig was up. I wanted Cruz to win because I do believe Trump is going to need to pivot hard in order to beat Clinton, and because I was hoping the Republican Party would reform itself by disproving the notion that "if only a "real" conservative wins the nomination, we would have enough to win the Presidency in November." (and yes, I also believed Cruz was the best Constitutionalist and one that would pick the best SCOTUS replacement.) Cruz exiting the race now means he'll be right back around in 2020, potentially alongside Marco Rubio. Trump winning this primary race isn't good news for social liberals because it means that social conservatism will continue to struggle in future elections. It's not good for Republicans because instead of reform - the social cons are going to stand pat and wait for four years while the rest of the party doesn't get their help in November. Again. Potentially leading to a schism. Better get used to saying "Madam President."

Indiana looks like the most critical primary in the cycle - especially so for Senator Cruz, who would get a major boost with an upset there. Things he would need to earn in the next 5 days in order to make that happen? He needs Donald Trump to take the bait on Carly Fiorina.- Any effort by the Cruz campaign to look like the presumptive nominee is indicative of having some serious brass - and being extremely ego-maniacal in coordination. Such effort is exactly what Cruz got when naming a VP around 400 delegates behind the front-runner. However, his choice - Carly Fiorina - is a pretty strategic one for one thing. If Cruz's continued resistance and Carly's own attacks can draw the evil monster that is Trump's late-night Twitter account into the open, Trump is in significant risk of doing what he did in the lead-up to Wisconsin - alienating women. Fiorina is being used as a worm by Cruz here - and the pay-off of course is having a nice seat on the Senate floor and her name back in a presidential ticket. All that needs to happen, is for Trump to say something insensitive enough to draw another firestorm akin to the Heidi Cruz spat. He needs Kasich voters to get the memo, BADLY. - Fiorina isn't the only good thing Cruz has going running into Indiana. His other opponent - John Kasich - freely took a deal in not wasting resources in Indiana so as to clear the way for Cruz to deny Trump a winner-take-most state. Kasich voters jumping on Cruz's bandwagon would surely cause a victory for the senator because he would outperform his projected finish of 33 percent. While this doesn't slow down Trump's momentum, it would put him closer to Trump in the event that he -does- break his ceiling, and would surely pass him up if Trump doesn't overachieve. The bad news for Cruz here though - is that Kasich himself isn't keen on changing the narrative directly. Monday - he told Indy voters to vote for himself rather than to strategically vote for Cruz. The Indianapolis Star endorsed Kasich later on in the week. Indiana Kasich brass aren't exactly happy the governor is employing such strategy and many will still vote for Kasich despite their man's path-clearing. Thing is - Cruz needs all the help he can get (and so does Kasich) - so this move has to benefit him somewhere in the state in order for a Cruz victory to take place. He needs Trump's support to stay at 40% - or drop. - Another particularly difficult thing for Cruz is that Trump's loyalist base is very unwavering. They basically believe everything out of the Donald's mouth - and that results in making a Trump voter hard to flip. Therefore, if he's polling at 40 percent, Cruz might need to clear 40 percent himself in order to win - and that's not taking into account that if Trump convinces more voters, that percentage hurdle only gets higher and resultingly harder to climb. He needs the endorsement of Governor Mike Pence. - Gov. Pence finds himself in a very precarious situation. If here were to endorse Trump, the Trump campaign likely takes Indiana and very likely gets close to the magic number at the end of the summer. If Gov. Pence endorses Cruz... many of the state's Republicans would be more secure in being the state that throws the GOP into a contested convention. The last major victory Ted got - Wisconsin - was with a relatively early endorsement from Gov. Scott Walker - who also was a candidate in the race. Unlike appealing successfully to Walker, this is a much harder cookie to steal. Pence has his gubernatorial seat up for grabs, and a bad decision in the presidential race - Trump, Cruz, OR being non-committal to an extent - could cost the GOP the executive branch in the state. In many ways, Indiana is a state that is very similar to Wisconsin. It's a state that is very much conflicted about Trump and not necessarily for-or-against. However, Cruz got perhaps the most support from conservative radio in Wisconsin - of which is at worst Pro-Trump in Indiana, or at best tolerable of Trump. It's a state that takes more stock in social-conservatism than the states that closed out this month, but might care about blue-collar work issues more, which favors Trump. Update: Cruz got the endorsement from Gov. Pence. Other good news for the Texas senator - Trump seems to campaigning in California... where protesters are giving him a run for his money. --- Today's the day in Indianoplace. The Hoosier State's primary has a couple of interesting races on both sides of the aisle if we're being honest. Both Ted Cruz -and- Bernie Sanders are pushing for campaign legitimacy as it looks like they are both overstaying their welcome. Both men also have a fighter's chance of winning the state, which could potentially result in not only one - but two contested conventions this cycle. On the Democratic side, Sanders may contest only to influence the Democratic agenda in favor of socialist economic ideas, bank-breaking, and protectionism with regards to global trading. The Republicans are scrapping because their front runner is the most disliked of any in some time - with the two other men pointing to their campaigns are more effective and able to combat Hillary Clinton. Can Bernie Sanders win the state? The biggest break for the Berners today is that Indiana rocks an "open" primary - and the Sanders camp has been a very attractive buy for Independent liberals and younger voters that are not affiliated with a political party. That said, Indiana is a traditionally red conservative state - which favors Clinton. RealClearPolitics has Hill up by a mere 5 points. All-in-all, yeah, Bernie could pull the upset here. Is Cruz finished taking an "L" in Indiana? He won't drop out of the race - but his image will only continue to get worse. Cruz is down 10 points to Trump, which indicates that the Cruz camp needs a minor miracle to take the state. Six out of the last seven polls favor Trump ranging from a mere 2 point lead to a healthy 17 points. The issue however, is that Cruz is having to overcome an obvious stench of desperation and the excuse of running without a path to a first ballot victory. A loss here would severely hurt his standing among Republicans in California and would require Cruz to play "the Great Divider" even more in order than recommended in order to stop Trump later in the calendar. Is he finished? No - but suffocation will be begin. The other big problem is that Anti-Trump fundraisers are thinking about pulling out of Cruz's nest should the Texan come up empty handed, providing unwanted financial strife. How big is a Cruz win? Cruz winning Indiana would be substantial. Trump officially needs about 235 delegates to win the nomination. Assuming he wins New Jersey and West Virginia as expected, that number shrinks to 150 delegates. Indiana awards 57, and if Trump gets a majority of them, that would mean he's assured to be under 100 delegates after those three states have voted - and before proportionals like New Mexico and Oregon. ....and worst of all, before 172 delegate boasting California. It -looks- like Trump's path to ascendancy is very clear if Hoosiers enable him. The flip side though is that Trump would have to sit at 150 delegates after New Jersey and West Virginia. The following states are not Trump friendly. Nebraska - a winner take all expected to go widely for Cruz South Dakota - a winner take all expected to go widely for Cruz New Mexico - a purplish state that won't be keen on Trump if he loses Indiana Oregon - a Western liberal state that won't be keen on Trump and will be amenable to Cruz Washington - a Western state that looks good for Kasich or Cruz due to proportional delegation and California is partial to all of the candidates - in other words. Trump's likely going to need some delegate schmoozing of his own perhaps to get within striking distance of 1237 on the floor of the convention. However, this is only a scenario that takes place if Cruz is able to win.

I used Pansear for the first three gyms if I recall. I chose Snivy - and after Burgh you had the opportunity to pick up Darumaka and thus it was the end of the road for the 'mon. I too don't hold the elemental monkeymons in high regard. The reason isn't that they are bad Pokemon though, and it's not even that you have to actually find a correlating evolution stone to evolve them either. The most egregious sin they committed was that they ultimately babied you through the first gym. It should be noted that Panpour was the only Pokemon to acquire Scald through level up and therefore it had some value for breeders and what not. It's also worth noting that competitively, the elemental monkeys are actually very solid PU Pokemon (if playing the lowest of the low tiers is your forte). For someone like me, who completed the National Pokedex on the previous generation I had played, collecting the two monkeys you didn't find was kinda fun. I really feel like Generation 5 did a lot to try and make the game's story the major mechanic (with perhaps the Entralink missions and other Person-to-Person gadgets be the "new content") and thus made the game easier to help as many players as possible get absorbed with the game. Nurses showing up in weird places, being given a Pokemon that completely checks the corresponding Gym Leader's strength over your starter, fast-travelling with other NPCs, and the like are the most diminishing parts of a Pokemon game these days - and that's what the elemental monkeys did. Diminish as opposed to add. I don't hate their designs though - each one is different enough from the others to make it's design justifiable.

That's a pretty good interpretation there, Huk.

Nope. Type survivalists aren't exactly "old-school" enough to be big deals. Gen 1 - Blue - Various types Gen 2 - Lance - "Dragon" type. Gen 3 - Steven - Preference for Rocks and Steels (Wallace - Water) Gen 4 - Cynthia - Various types Gen 5 - Alder - Various types (Iris - Dragon) Gen 6 - Diantha - Various types. --- Basically, if there's a type survivalist, it would only be a shocker if it wasn't Dragon, as there have been effectively "three" of those champions who have type preferences and one who preferred a couple of types. That being said, they've been all over the map and I've been wrong before.

Now here's a thought... Last generation - we got ourselves a dual triangle where one starter pokemon was double-down better than other. I.e. Chesnaught Grass/Fighting had the upper hand over Greninja Water/Dark but was completely at the mercy of Delphox Fire/Psychic. If we're going to talk about the possibility of a Fairy type, we could see the same thing. Grass/Dragon Fire/Steel Water/Fairy Dragon, Steel, and Fairy is the new-kid-on-the block when it comes to type triangles, and one of the most formidable ones to build teams around. The only issues with it rest on the placement of the dual-typing aspect. If GameFreak wants to go with being doubly sure the advantaged type is superior, -and- have a Fairy type pokemon, they absolutely have to use this triangle... Now, if they wanted to go with giving the underdog typing a bit of a boost, they could do this one. Grass/Fighting Fire/Steel Water/Fairy Fight-Steel-Fairy, or as I like to call it, the "for f*ck's sake" triad, is also a triangle. Here, the disavantage caused by a fire type facing off against the grass starter is counteracted by the grass starter's fighting type besting steel types. The same 'Plan B' type scheme fits the other two starters. However, Scheme A features less exciting pairs of types - as does Scheme B. Grass/Dragon is still unique, but Sceptile (who is a starter) can claim it when Mega. Fire/Steel is Heatran's domain (although I would like a F/S type that isn't literally a turd with armor plating.) - and, while there are plenty of water types to go around, Azumarill's line loses a lot of appeal with a Water/Fairy type regardless of the triangle being for favorable to David or Goliath. Scheme B in totality even brings Grass/Fighting which is a typing I guess I'm the only one in the fan club in - but if you guys want your friggen Fairy starters I wouldn't mind taking one for the team! Edit: logic is flawed - but I think if we're looking at a Fairy starter - THAT's the two type triangles we're looking at, else Fairy might be "OP"

If you ask me though, Clefable is a very difficult 'mon to deal with - and perhaps one of the safest 'mons with regards to staying power in OU. Clefable alone isn't exactly a sell on it being "harder to use". Where is that the case?