Chase

Did you know Anyway, the game sort of connects to me in a personal way. My whole work history is founded on the industries surrounding "recreation". I've worked for Christian summer camps, and I've come full circle to working for the local government in providing outdoor entertainment to those I could loosely call "clients". The word "camp" is ingrained into my very being - despite actually being out-of-shape and more acclimated to a shut-in, homey environment. In a way, despite holding a high respect and gratitude for things like the internet, electricity, cell phones, metropolitan ways of life, the news at my fingertips, and comfy places to sit. There's an outdoorsman somewhere in me. I do see the outside as an escape. My love for games often reflects this as the open-world titles of the Legend of Zelda series along with Role-Playing games made the most impact on my life. I know I'm really sucked into the first-person when I imagine my daily life is a video game and that I'm the protagonist. Even away from the summer camps and workplaces one of my hobbies is exploring. I turn on the first-person "hud" of life - things like hunger and need to use the restroom that you find in 'the Sims' franchise - how much money I have - even a box in the corner with my to-do list. And 'Firewatch' does an amazing job of bringing flashbacks to that kind of living that is so innate to me without a game prompting it. Heck, even Henry looks a lot like I might in twenty years. While his story and mine are much different, the character wasn't too demanding to conform too, while also having his own unique rules. His clumsiness, his aggressive attitude (both in choice and without your prompting), and his ability to play both the "good guy" and the "partner-in-crime" effortlessly mirror how I view myself sometimes. Thematically, it's as much about paranoia and loneliness - general issues for lots of people - but one that for me, who has lots of experiences similar to those in the game under his belt - really strikes a chord. This game almost was like a love letter to me - and Campo Santo deserves kudos for evoking such appreciation for not only simulating things I do often - but making that simulation worthwhile, and equally enjoyable.

Mixed Keldeo?.....Keldeo has average attack at best...why....AND ITS WEARING SPECS HOW IS IT MIXED? I see you've compared it to Breloom, so I'll address why I disagree with you as to it's whereabouts first by noting the areas Conk is superior to Loom: Conkeldurr is a Pokemon that is notably slightly more defensive in both categories than Breloom is - and doesn't have a redundant + 5 in special attack. Assault Vest Conkeldurr is only rivaled by Toxic Heal Breloom in terms of defensive capability, and then it becomes a matter of where - as godly as Breloom's type is - Grass hinders Breloom's ability to be defensive. I feel like you either haven't used Conkeldurr enough to understand how much AV Conk can truly be difficult to deal with - or you're showing your admitted dislike for Generation V 'mons again. Conkeldurr learns Drain Punch, which combined with the AV is a terrifying move that helps Conkeldurr recover any damage it's taken to that point, and it can really be troublesome if your prerogative is to switch out of harms way. Technician Breloom sets don't run DP, and the Pokemon has four move syndrome if you try to use it on any set due to needing Spore, Mach Punch, and a Grass STAB - and likely a coverage move. Conkeldurr also has a much more reliable coverage move against flying type switch-ins with Ice Punch, where Breloom has to settle for inaccurate Rock-type moves. It also get's an equally useful utility move to Spore in Knock-Off, depending on how you like to play the game. Next, I'll address why your arguments are...head-scratching when you come to opposing defensive Pokemon - you specifically mention Tank Garchomp and Heatran - both who like to use the Rocky Helmet: Garchomp will be able to switch into a presumptive fighting type move just fine, but a little prediction game on the Conk player's end and that Garchomp could be taking an Ice Punch instead. Nobody - not even many defensive walls - likes taking a x4 attack they are weak to. Nobody. Heatran is hard to justify switching into Conk for. If it gets hit with Drain Punch - it won't matter if the Rocky Helmet gets some recoil because the HP-drain off-sets the damage, and it will hurt Heatran in return quite a bit due to being a steel type. Hippo is ..... super fat. That one, I'll give you. I think you're wrong about Conkeldurr though. Breloom is literally an oranges and apples comparison. Keldeo oranges to pineapples.

Oh hey - a new game that doesn't have a thread for itself here yet? Well don't mind if I do. Campo Santo's first game released is sometimes adequately called a "walking sim" through some of the most detail oriented wilderness ever to be depicted in a video game. The setting? The Shoshone mountain range in Wyoming during the summer of 1989. The characters? As delightful a possibility given the setting, the roster is significantly sparse, providing you with a feeling of being alone - even though you aren't. Why one should play 'Firewatch': vast, beautiful environment gripping narrative player-driven dialogue and free-roaming exploration opportunities and, in typical fashion, I'll answer the question by giving you a question. Have you ever wanted to go camping, without the hassle of going camping? 'Firewatch' provides that very feeling in almost all of it's gameplay. It's focused on climbing rocks, rappelling down shale-slides, exploring canyons and caverns, and hiking (a healthy amount of hiking.) The game is story-driven and the game-play burden is light. There's enough extras, dialogue options, and even facets of Henry's background out there for replay-value (and you WILL miss several things on your first run!) to encourage more than the five hours it would take to complete the game from start to finish. If it's available on Steam, get it. It's a game you can play on PC -and- the PS4.

California has been very hot and cold. There was a lot of buzz during Cruz's Utah-Wisconsin stretch that California was within single digits, and the Cruz campaign has a very solid California ground-game already in place and has for the whole year. Trump might -need- to win Indiana to avoid the state being highly competitive - but for now, the dominoes are looking pretty good for Trump. He's trending -and- Cruz is tapering off. It's going to come down to how Cruz does in May as to how close the contest is. I don't think Trump sweeps Cali only because there have been points of contention there before....but stranger things have happened. If I were a Democrat, I would want Trump to win the nomination. It gives my candidate the best chance to win in the fall. Don't be sad about that, Evi!

Have you seen the Republican Party lately? Of course the vote could be split in a way that nobody has a 50%+ share, because the Republicans have been squabbling to the point of destruction. First they don't want Trump, then they decide Cruz is just as bad, then they decide they don't want Trump again and people begrudgingly get behind Cruz, then we have the Northeast vote Trump back into a state of momentum - and the whole time there has been no real separation and two very passionate groups. Trump supporters, and anybody but - for some that means even Hillary Clinton. --- Last night's results: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Sanders. In a matter of speaking, the front-runners all but declared the primary races over. Trump outright called himself the presumptive nominee, and outright called for both of his opponents to drop out of the race. Clinton wisely took a different turn, applauding Senator Sanders' efforts and attempting to build the bridge between her and his voter base. However, the night didn't solely end in victory and defeat though. Sanders himself came out with a determined effort to stay in the race until the convention - if for nothing but bolstering his presence on the Democratic Party platform in the name of progressive ideas. Ted Cruz addressed an Indianapolis crowd with much more confidence than when he addressed a crowd in Philadelphia following his defeat in New York. "We will run until the last vote is cast." "Truly I tell you, that the map looks much more favorable for us." - and perhaps the last statement is right for Senator Cruz, but the challenge now is that anyone not named Trump or Clinton better campaign as if they really have a reason to - and not at the other candidates expense. Sanders going with a pursuing bulldog approach on Clinton could continue to keep his supporters leery of a Clinton nomination and help the Republicans - who would probably need as much help as they can get with how much their party is suffering internal damage. Trump has officially "earned" the right to complain about internal fixing and if anything, nothing excites his base more than actually setting the house on fire. As a front-runner with a six state string of victories (and all of which were surprisingly above the usual Trump "ceiling") - it's going to be hard to call Trump wrong. He's got all the eggs in his basket going into May. This begs the question. Is it time for Republicans to swallow the pill and rally behind Trump? In a seriously odd turn of events, doing so may actually be the BEST chance the GOP has of winning the election in November. He still has a sized opposition within party ranks - let alone the entire country - but at this point in the cycle it's hard for anyone to get the Reds much more "excited" about anyone else - and many Trump backers wouldn't vote for anyone else vocally already. Unless the GOP gets it's act together, it could be the biggest landslide victory for the Democrats in a very long time. The bottom line about the last six states though? - All of them seem to be pretty safely "blue" states. Trump won't even get New York - his home - in a general election match-up. --- "Sure Bet States" - May Edition Clinton: Surprisingly, there's not a very easy way to say Clinton "has it in the bag" anywhere else right now. Sanders looks to remain competitive in all the remaining contests. For a placeholder, let's say she hangs on in Indiana next week due to having virtually all of the momentum on her end. I'll also give her New Jersey - due to it being very much an extension of New York. Sanders: Oregon sounds like the best bet for Sanders. It's a pretty liberal western state where his message has been received well and it likely won't have the persons-of-color numbers Clinton has reaped from in other states. Trump: New Jersey and West Virginia. Jersey is still an effective extension of New York and is composed of the Rockefeller Republicans (like his surrogate Chris Christie, the states governor) that helped the Donald run roughshod in the Northeast. West Virginia is the least educated state (college degree per capita) in the nation - a demographic that tends to be favorable to Trump. Cruz: Nothing's a sure bet if he can't win Indiana - but if he does, Nebraska will come out in full force like Kansas did. It may even still go Cruz if he loses. Kasich: HEY! CAN I WIN OHIO AGAIN!? - Kasich's best shot this month is Oregon, but because this campaign is literally doing nothing with it's life - and Oregon is a state that is proportional, he likely might still lose to Cruz (who won't even campaign there!) or even Trump here. --- News: In the same manner Ted Cruz was the first person to decide he wanted to run in 2016 - he's the first person to give out his running mate's name. Welcome back, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. I think this pick is actually pretty smart (if not expected) for three reasons: Cruz will in some circles close the book on April with a fresh headline that is positive. - April....was downright awful for the Cruz campaign, and if he hadn't had done something like this, that would be the thing people would be talking about in Indiana (and they still will) instead of the hopes of Cruz's campaign or the issues. The timing of this reminds me of the endorsement Donald Trump got from Sarah Palin before the Iowa caucuses. Trump was able to eat up headlines even without spending serious barnstorming hours and resources like Cruz did in order to win the state - and it helped his campaign start it's improbable roll to success after Iowa. It also means Trump will have to verbally complain about the Cruz-Kasich deal in order for that to remain in the headlines as well. With a shiny new Cruz-Fiorina ticket to gawk at, and a very close second with a week to work in order to jump Trump and get an extremely crucial win for any Republican not wanting Trump to get the nod - Cruz can start the month off in a manner of confidence we sure as heck didn't see the last two weeks. Carly Fiorina adds diversity to the Cruz ticket - and compliments Cruz's own diversity. - Ted Cruz is a self-avowed anti-Washington politician who happens to be a Cuban-American. Carly Fiorina is a a woman who isn't even a politician. Women are a vote that Clinton would desperately need in totality in order to beat Cruz head-to-head, and the Cruz ticket now presents an option. A woman's presence on the ticket also gives Republican women a reason to not back Trump in Indiana by saying "There's a woman on one ticket, and a guy who has said some pretty awful things about women on the other." Women make up a significant size of any voting bloc on either side of the aisle. Carly Fiorina is just at good as prosecuting Hillary Clinton as anyone else. - Carly was most-lauded for an undercard debate performance in which she drew compliments from opponent Rick Perry on the stage - for putting the coals on a prospects of a Hillary presidency. In both Cruz and Fiorina, you have a strong debate core that will be able to dog Clinton on issues she's not favorable on.

Mael, just surprise me with stuff.

But in the end, if the winner of the first ballot doesn't actually meet 50.0000001% mark of delegates - then the will of the people is either indeterminable in the case of a 50/50 split, or that the front-runner shouldn't be the nominee when taking all voters into consideration. Every vote - for and against - matters. It's not about having the biggest stamp collection. I haven't touched on Cruz being a hypocrite because I agree with you, Eviora - but he's at least not cheating and there are instances where the Trump camp really should have put more backbone into it.

I'm glad you brought up delegate distribution - because in several states it doesn't reflect the will of the people. If it were doing that - the most determinate way of distributing delegates would be by proportion. Pennsylvania, which votes today - will only award 17 delegates to it's state winner and the rest of the 54 will be unbound delegates who can pick anyone on the first ballot. By far the most undemocratic state on the Republican map. Other states, like Missouri, are winner-take-all states. Trump had something of 40.8% of the vote. Cruz 40.3% - and instead of nearly half and half, Trump earned 71% of the state's delegates to Cruz's 15%. In other words, Trump's been a beneficiary of rigged politics in this race just as you claim Cruz is being. --- While in some areas delegation processes are insider-heavy, most states hold elections to determine the state's delegates. The problem with this is that it normally doesn't get as much hot press as the primaries themselves - and therefore most voters are uninformed of their existence. Those that -ARE- tend to be the more politically active citizens. The Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz types of voters that are ideologues. That's how Cruz has been racking up delegates above all else. He's been aware the most of these conventions and has attended the Wyomings and Colorados and North Dakotas of the country in order to put his people in the building in Cleveland. Face-time with voters. Stuff you normally do when trying to get the people to vote you into office. Like a good democratic-republic - the republic part of the marriage is what helps settle disputes the democracy can't by itself. The delegates represent the will of the people in many areas just as much as the primary votes do - and are only skewed because a candidate forgets to cover his behind or because the media doesn't make voters aware of the importance of state conventions. --- Yes, I am over-emphasizing the majority because you can't be the nominee unless you HAVE a delegate majority. Trump falling 50 percent or lower means that an equally important and equally-sized group of delegates (and in the first ballot, voters in general) DON'T want Trump to be the party nominee. A strict majority is absolutely crucial because that candidate is to represent the entire party in the election. Nobody wants a candidate that only has 40 some odd percent or lower support to be the nominee, but in a race when your alternative to Trump was literally SIXTEEN other people and the better options dropped out and you have basically Trump or Cruz....look where we are. Yeah, to the individual Trump supporter, it looks like their man had the most votes - but he didn't get enough - by rule - to win the nomination.

Making the will of the people a part of your appeal is a natural out if you still have a mathematical shot of winning the nomination on the first ballot. Now that Cruz doesn't, he has two options Drop out - which ensures Donald Trump wins the nomination. This essentially hands Hillary the presidency if current polling is to be bought. Stay in and try to keep Donald Trump from winning >50% of the delegates. This gives himself and John Kasich a chance to be the nominee - both of whom poll much better against Clinton. If it's a moral decision - I agree that with Ted that Trump is a danger to the most groups (and therefore is the most unelectable option) and therefore I do think he should contest the convention - especially if he is already doing well with 2nd ballot delegates. The problem with Bernie here is that he is essentially eliminated already - due to that undemocratic nonsense in itself. Bernie's chances of winning the pledged delegate count really do hinge on tonight - and I think he will stay in because he's already said numerous times on record that he would. Unless your man is just as much a liar as any other politician, he's going to stay in the race to the convention on his word knowing full well he would have to contest Hillary's victory and flip those party insiders in order to win the nomination himself. You have a liar - or a snake that is pressing on despite not having a majority behind him. Ted Cruz is running under the hopes that more people vote for him and that more people vote for the delegates on his slate when delegate voting takes place. I've already proven mathematically that unless the will of the people is that Trump has over 50 percent of the delegates, Cruz and Kasich aren't doing ANYTHING to circumvent anything. The details on the deal are simple - Kasich doesn't hold events or spend resources in Indiana in order to give Cruz the anti-Trump vote outright. Cruz returns the favor in NM and Oregon. People can still choose to vote for Kasich even if he doesn't come to the state to say "Hi", and people can still vote for Cruz in the other states (and probably will because those states are proportional and Cruz will get delegates if he's represented.) In other words, the candidates are hoping to induce strategic voting. It's a pressing question. Do you want Donald Trump to be the nominee or no? Vote for the other guy with the best shot in one state, and other states can vote for me without the threat of being wooed - and the result is that Trump doesn't hit his needed percentages because the VOTERS decided to go along with the plan. When it comes to later ballot voting - you have to show up and compete for the state conventions just like you did for yourself before the primaries. Cruz and Kasich did so - and Trump didn't. Trump circumvented the people if anything by failing to match their support with dedication in putting his loyalists on the states he won consistently.

That would make Ted Cruz just as awful as Woodrow Wilson - the president that got us through WWI and is credited by some with turning the Democratic Party into the party of reform that it is today. (The man won on the 46th ballot.) ... or Abraham Lincoln (who won on the third), the guy that successfully abolished slavery and salvaged a nation that split itself in half over the will to do so. When it comes to delegate nominating, the Trump team didn't know how to play the game - and they got beat to the punch in several states. That won't matter if he can win on the first ballot, but if Trump can't reach over 50 percent of the Party's delegates then he's just as much in the same boat as Cruz and Kasich when it comes to who the party supports - no real majority. That's what delegates are for. They go to a convention and settle scores the people don't clearly settle. If the majority of the party doesn't want a candidate, that candidate won't win the nomination, even if they are the front-runner. ....unless it's the Democratic Party and super delegates are the difference - but even without supers Bernie has a very, very small if any shot at the nomination. I don't see you calling for him to drop out - or even complaining about how the Democrats blatantly ignore the will of their constituency. You'd almost be right to do so.

I've gained a lot of respect for Trump with regards to how he's run his campaign and some of his recent positions. Opposing HB2 and going on record of saying he would allow trans individuals to use their preferred restroom in Trump Tower. Opposing abortion EXCEPT in instances of rape, incest, or risk of mother's life - a much more electable position than totally abolishing abortion - even going so far to say he would encourage the GOP to reform it's stance on the issue. Trump has been at the very least faithful to the democratic process. He only talks about the first ballot not only because it's the only ballot he has a chance of winning on, but because to him, every vote matters. I will also say that - yeah - Kasich and Cruz are employing a desperate strategy because both of them know they can't win on the first ballot either, but I will admit that I'm skeptical of their alliance undermining the will of the people. This has to be determined by delegates because in both primaries the delegates already matter more than the votes do - especially in contested conventions. Let's assume by the end of tonight Trump sweeps all of the northeastern states voting and gains 100 delegates. That gives the Donald 945 delegates total. Ted Cruz and Kasich, if they were to get absolutely nothing for arguments sake (picking off votes from congressional district won't matter too much) would remain at 559 and 148 respectively. Marco Rubio still holds on to third place with 171 delegates as well. Adding the delegates of Trump's opponents give us a total of 878 delegates. Trump would have picked off more than 50 percent of the delegates that are already pledged to a candidate. If we're only talking about a majority of the party up to this point and not a majority of the party nationwide, Donald Trump should indeed be the nominee as he is indeed holding a majority of the delegates thus far. Unfortunately for Trump, it's not about gaining the largest plurality - it's about gaining 1,237 delegates, but what percentage of delegates is 1,237 from all possible delegates to gain? The Republican primary has a total of 2,472 delegates to obtain during the primary season - making that number "100%" of the available delegates. Dividing that by 2 would give us HALF of the delegates total. That number, is 1,23.....6. 1,236 is 50% of the Republican delegates nationwide. That means in order for anyone to have a "majority" one must gain 1,237 at the bare minimum. If Trump comes short of that number on the first ballot, he doesn't have the majority of delegates. That means that Ted and John's tentative alliance is only being used to influence the will of the people to deny Trump the majority and force a contested convention. Given how divided the Republican Party is - that might be a better thing than allowing Trump to win outright. While it looks like shady politician business - it's ultimately the people who decides if that deal works or doesn't work in the states of Indiana, New Mexico, and Oregon.

oh.....oh yeah. .....Jumpluff...... okay, Grass flying is pretty well rounded out. Might be something else!

Cool! Mindless speculation! A lot of the buzz I've heard going around is the prospect of a Grass/Flying starter. Looking at the distribution of roles Grass starters have played: Venusaur - Defensive (or Offensive with Chlorophyll or an offensive Mega build) Meganium - Defensive Sceptile - Offensive Torterra - Defensive (Only Offensive with boosting moves) Serperior - Offensive Chesnaught - Defensive (although, with boosting moves it's pretty ambidextrous. Nick, why do you hate Grass/Fighting man. This pokemon is the best.) ...we get a very weak defensive type that favors playing defense... only slightly. The only Grass/Flying Pokemon that exists is Tropius, a 'mon that is all about defense despite not having a solid type - or I guess....Shaymin, a mythical pokemon that is an event distribution 'mon. If the starter is Grass/Flying however, I would expect a little bit of the continued efforts at role-equality with this type, and we'd get an offensive Pokemon - and I'm anticipating it to be a special attacker in the same vein as Shaymin. Water/Fighting seems like a safe bet because we've had a Fighting type starter ever since Gen III (Fire/Fighting, Fire/Fighting, Fire/Fighting, Grass/Fighting) - and when the game's combat system is the most important part of the game's make-up, I would expect Game Freak to try and round out the starting types by offering Water it's first fighting type over avoiding putting it anywhere on the starter board. I would expect this Pokemon to be a Physical attacker in the same vein as Poliwrath becuase....I have a hunch most Fighting type pokemon lean physical - and this thing isn't Keldeo. (it certainly might learn Special moves and suffer Totodile Learn-Set Syndrome though.) Fire is where it gets really interesting. Running with the Chinese zodiac theme I'm going to say that we're looking at a Tiger. Why? Because everyone and their mother is assuming we're getting a Ram or Ox and if the game -is- indeed going back to the Asian roots Japan has, Tiger is a significant pokemon that is significantly underrepresented while beasts of burden (Tauros, Miltank, Bouffalant) are represented already - while Ram sees the Goat-based Skiddo line as a close relative. Tigers are...rather rare sights. Since we've already used the Fighting sub-type, it really could be anything. The closest thing to a Tiger pokemon is Raikou - the Legendary dog. It's an Electric type Pokemon, and Fire/Electric is a type that isn't introduced quite yet. The resulting Pokemon is a status condition user's worse nightmare. The two most devastating statuses in the metagame are burns and paralysis - because there are multiple moves that cause both statuses and they actually lower critical stats - but with this typing, the Pokemon is immune to both of them. This leaves me to think that if it is something crazy like that - it would be a defensive Pokemon that dishes out those same statuses - and would be a special attacker if needed. So there you have it, a Special attacking pokemon that will be mitigates it's rock weakness but incurs a 4x weakness to Ice, a physical attacking fighting type paired with the remaining unrepresented starting type, and some super weird defensive pokemon with a really unique typing.

Happy birthday. I didn't go pick flowers - so maybe you don't have to die this time!

Did you guys miss the front-runners actually winning a primary? Prior to New York - Donald Trump had lost five straight contests to challenger Ted Cruz. Hillary Clinton had lost EIGHT of the last NINE to challenger Bernie Sanders. All of that however seems to have been ripped asunder today though, as the Donald and Hillary seem to be in command of the early numbers coming out of the Empire State. Why it matters: New York is a very large treasure trove of delegates, and if there's a state the front-runners really needed to regain their moment, New York was the kind of state. For Hillary, it essentially indicates that Bernie still has trouble gaining much enthusiasm from persons of color and may indicate that he had been overly aggressive coming out of his hot streak against the secretary of state. The implications are even bigger for Trump, who really needs to box Ted Cruz out of any delegates in the Empire State in order to stop Cruz's largely insider-baseball-driven tear of delegate swiping. New York is one of the final inflection points for the GOP race, because it essentially starts an April shower of extremely moderate Republican states that won't bode too well for Cruz - and will give Trump a much needed boost to the next rung of the primary - within spitting distance of the magic 1237 delegates needed to be the nominee. In this neck of the woods - his major adversary is actually straggler John Kasich, who fits the demographics of the area much better than Cruz, but as a result of being moderate threatens the padding of Trump's leads in the area. Not every northeastern state is New York - which means the home-field-advantage the Empire State offers will diminish and will leave Trump having to point to Kasich's poor footing in the race. Cruz will be playing whack-a-mole with whatever conservatives he can find in Yankeeland largely unopposed - but with a very bare cupboard to reach into. The Democratic race may be written off by a huge Clinton win in NY, but I have a hunch Sanders has a strong enough campaign, northeastern roots, and favorable remaining map to quickly put Hillary back on her heels. However, New York is a very huge Democratic state, so Sanders would really want to do well enough to challenge Clinton there. The battle will be to see how close Bernie made it, and if Ted and John can even swipe -any- delegates away from Trump. Donezo from NY in terms of who wins though. #TrumpClinton2k16 --- Upcoming Primaries: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island #NortheasternTuesday The remainder of April is looking to be a buzz-saw for challengers and a launchpad for presumptive front-runners. This is part of the primary calendar that will not have different sets of voters offsetting each other. All five states in this set can be found in the northeast corner of the country - home to Rockefeller Republicans and liberals as opposed to conservatives and regular rank-and-file elephants. This means that this corner of the country will be much more competitive on the Democratic side, with Bernie Sanders fighting to keep his campaign on life-support and make a statement to the army of super-delegates that are firmly in Hillary Clinton's pocket. Clinton by contrast is looking to mathematically eliminate Bernie from a first-ballot victory next Tuesday and focus her guns on a still undecided Republican Party...that increasingly is favoring it's own front-runner in Donald Trump, despite his high unfavorables nationwide. Trump successfully pulled the plug on conservatives'-last-hope Ted Cruz's first-ballot hopes in his home state of New York last week, giving the Texas senator a big, fat goose-egg in delegates. The caboose, 1-state-wonder John Kasich, was able to steal Manhattan away from the business mogul however, and could prove to be a thorn in Donald Trump's side due to being a cookie-cutter Northeastern Republican. However, the flavor of the campaign cycle has been "Outsider", which means the Donald is anticipating a five-state sweep going into May. Again, Ted Cruz has the worst hand - as he's already looking to next month for his next play. The question for him will be if stalling out for nearly a whole month is going to be allowable down the road. Grand Ole Primary: Rally The Base, Trump the Democrats: The moniker for Hillary Clinton has been set - 'Crooked Hillary'. That's the message Donald Trump has to the rest of a Republican Party that may not have enough gas left to oppose him. The Trump Train has been rolling in Pennsylvania as of late, where the most noise was a Mexican Stand-off between supporters and dissenters in Harrisburg. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign has been schmoozing the GOP big-wigs in Washington by making direct appeals and nods toward November. Trump's goal is clear - and it's calling 'all-aboard'. States he needs: Pennsylvania - but really, he needs to get 100 or more delegates on the day to meet expectations - because next Tuesday looks REALLY 'Terrific' and could be 'Yuuge' for a Trump first-ballot win. PA has a very strange delegate system, and it's one where his opponents could cause some serious damage if Trump's campaign is not careful. The state has 71 GOP delegates for grabs - but a whopping 54 of them are unbound on the first ballot. This means that Pennsylvania could be a Trump state but ultimately could be stolen by a better ground game... on the first ballot where Trump needs those delegates the most. Cruz's campaign strength has been rustling delegates away from Trump for weeks with great success, while John Kasich has solid support in the area due to his liberal Republicanism and the amount of colleges and urban areas across the state. In this state, expect more excitement to possibly come from the DELEGATE elections than from the presidential primary itself! Extreme Candidate Makeover: GOP Edition: The Ted Cruz 'likability' dilemma has been put on ice for a very surprising time - allowing the Texan to run a no-apology conservative campaign even down to the traditional social aspects of the position, while denouncing his colleagues in Washington and running along with Trump on populism power. However, the Cruz camp is in for a very rough three weeks, and in order to have any chance of successes on the trail in that time frame, Ted is going to be working on fixing his image to the severely liberal surroundings he finds himself in. This shouldn't mean waffling on platform positions, but it will probably include a significant absence of the edge usually seen from a Cruz stump. He also will need to play insider-baseball, nicking delegates from two of the five states by both votes -and- shenanigans. Hitting the dartboard here a few times could give his campaign enough oxygen to surge into Indiana in early May. States he needs: Maryland and Pennsylvania hold the key for a modestly successful end of April. It's worth noting that Cruz actually winning a state probably isn't going to happen, and Ted knows it. With Pennsylvania, it's going to be about finding loyalists in the state to stack the delegate list along with finding voters to not only prop him up, but prop up said list as well. Due to wacky unbound delegate rules - success in tandem with opponent John Kasich could suck some wind out of Trump's sails. Maryland differs from New York in that Ted has organized a staff there and he has the ability to make appeals in the state - which could also hurt Trump. Kasich Country: Where the delegates love me and the voters don't matter. John Kasich's campaign has been extremely enigmatic and has drawn criticism from a stronger Ted Cruz in the past about being a spoiler looking to join Trump's cabinet or ticket by sticking around. Kasich denied that vehemently, and now he has an opportunity to capitalize on Cruz's late deflation and favorable map positioning. Now that New York is out of the way, Kasich can stake the claim that he's playing "on the home-field" for sure and be a general thorn to the Donald's side. In other words, he has a lane of opportunity. Kasich has been stumping in Pennsylvania for a while now, and just about everywhere Trump isn't looking - he could shadow and canvass in what sets up for a potential upset. That of course - surmounts a severe lack of momentum that he hasn't had since March. States he needs: Maryland, Connecticut, Pennsylvania Maryland is a unique state - and it will be composed of a lot of 'Washington Republican' types due to it's proximity to D.C. That bodes well for the Ohio Governor because it means he can pressure Trump state-wide, and hurt his delegate totals there, it's also likely the state Kasich has the most chance to win. Connecticut will be a major focus for the Kasich camp because it can hurt Trump's delegate haul here by almost half if the #NeverTrump movement coalesces behind him and holds Trump under 50 percent of the vote. Doing so means that it's no longer a winner-take-all contest and that all candidates with at least 20% of the vote will receive delegates. Pennsylvania will need to be a major tag-team effort between Cruz and Kasich in what will likely be a highway-robbery scenario, but it's entirely possible with the way PA has it set up. Bernie v. Hillary I don't have much faith in Sanders finding a lot of respite next week - He'll likely need to try and upset her in Pennsylvania for the best chance of getting back off the mat. --- The Unholy Alliance This news update features two things - Cruz essentially romping in delegate selection in Maine and Utah, Kentucky essentially being dominated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - and the most interesting piece of campaign news - a state-trading deal between John Kasich and Ted Cruz as they march on to stop Donald Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates. Ted Cruz's path to survival largely falls on May 3rd, when Indiana votes in it's primary. The Hoosier State is the first state out of a stretch in Yankeeland for the Texan where his conservative message may actually strike a few chords. Perhaps to his benefit, the call for strategic voting has been issued - as John Kasich will not seriously contend in Indiana and instead will focus on later states - particularly Oregon and New Mexico, western bastions of liberalism in which the moderate Republican has a bigger lane to operate in - and particularly states Ted Cruz is suddenly uninterested in spending resources on. Too long, didn't read? Ted Cruz and John Kasich are dividing the remaining map and focusing their resources in a manner that makes them tactical allies against Donald Trump. The only thing is - both candidates are trying to play it coy. Kasich told Indiana Republicans that they SHOULD vote for him, while Cruz had to expound on why nominating Trump is bad for the GOP as a whole without telling his ceded states' citizens to vote for Kasich instead. It's a complicated relationship on the surface... but one thing remains clear. It's no longer about Ted Cruz (and it hasn't been about Kasich since March) - it's now a simple question. To Trump? or Not to Trump? The timing seems to be a little bit too late. Trump's commentary about how the GOP nominating process is rigged and how Washington is against him and the people on the issue runs parallel to this kind of strategic voting call. The last time it was employed was actually in this same election cycle, when Marco Rubio called for Ohio Republicans to support their governor over himself - pushing Kasich to his -only- state victory. It worked largely because the call for separation was only leaked very close to voting day and there wasn't much Trump could say about it to shoot the deal down. We're still over a week away from Indiana - and with Donald being the only candidate with a mathematical possibility of winning the nomination on the first ballot the business definitely looks fishy. If Trump wins Indiana, he's very likely to win California and thus will be very close to a first ballot win. If he loses Indiana to Cruz the path gets a little harder for Trump and he would likely need some unbound delegates to look his way on the first ballot. Trump will not be able to win on the second ballot or later because of how poorly his campaign has fared in putting loyal delegates on the slate in seemingly almost-every state that has already voted. From the second ballot forward, it might even be safe to say that Senator Cruz is the front-runner, barring a lot of his delegates running from him as well. Therefore, Trump won't be the nominee if he can't win on the first ballot. Winning on the first ballot gives everyone a sense of unity - as Republican or Democratic voters coalesced around one candidate and those same voters would be ready to back the nominee in the fall. If the convention is contested and goes multiple ballots, it's very possible the delegates flip on anyone - even the top vote-getter - in order to determine a "majority" of delegates. Trump's using his populist message to decry these kinds of back-room deals where the voters are misrepresented - and that will ultimately fall over the Cruz-Kasich marriage as well. Such consequences could leave the party fractured and give the other major party a bigger advantage in the following general election. Who does the deal favor? Senator Cruz. Indiana is a winner-take-all state both in congressional districts and state-wide. New Mexico and Oregon by contrast, are proportional states. This means that if Cruz wins Indiana he will win the lion's share of it's 57 delegates while John Kasich would only pick up "most" of the 52 delegates if he were to win both states. Both of the western states also fall after Indiana, meaning that if Ted gets his win, he can essentially dictate if he -wants- to follow through with the deal based on polling in those states. If his campaign feels it would be safer to compete in those states, Kasich will likely get screwed over on the truce. Something that's worth noting is that aside from California and Arizona, Trumpism isn't really resonating out west. However, New Mexico is very similar to Texas and Arizona in that it's a border state and that immigration will be a very strong talking point, which means Kasich might be out of luck even -IF- Cruz lays off there - despite being a mixing pot of political identities. Oregon may be safe because the ...nearly year old polling data that's out there doesn't turn kindly for Trump in the slightest, but the data had two extreme conservatives making the most noise in the state - with Mike Huckabee being the victor at 21 percent of the vote followed by Cruz at 16 percent. Kasich himself isn't high on the totem poll in the poll at all - meaning last year, Oregon's Republican voters were fairly stark conservatives. This means Cruz might be able to steal that state if he wanted to despite making an accord with Kasich over it.

I really like how you categorized them in an order that sort of feels "least to greatest" or vise versa. It really helps with determining where I am on the spectrum. With regards to strictly Japanese animation, I identify as Not My Thing, because I don't have quite the repertoire of anime to select a waifu from, and I don't read manga at all. There are several very interesting characters out there, but I tend to go for relating with the character over shipping myself with a character in this setting. In general, particularly with television shows such as House M.D., I actually fall somewhere between But She's Real To Me and Character Attachment - specifically with "Thirteen". Her preference for women is sort of my statute of limitations, meaning that it's the issue that brings her "not realness" to the fore and prevents me from obsession. On the other hand, I do believe the character to be charming and Olivia Wilde's appeal to be real, keeping me from joke interest.

I would have to say my favorite Let's Player of all time would have to be the 'Super Beard Bros.' (Jirard Khalil (the Completionist) and Alex Faciani (the Dex)) Favorite game I've watched an LP of - L.A. Noire (Super Beard Bros.) Jirard and Alex GT (Game Theory) Live's Matthew and Stephanie Patrick PeanutButterGamer ShadyPenguinn KingNappy

I'm glad to have the respect of a repeat adversary. The first step to improving working conditions in any situation is to look past the disagreement when passing judgement on those giving the dissenting opinion. That much already warrants respect in turn - and I'm thankful for you, your rare agreements and many disagreements, and your service to the community. -....wait, how many is many? Ha. I guess I would like the challenge of holding up with the best of the others... There's one thing I hope you understand. Don't believe everything you read in the papers. Thanks for the congratulations - and let's fix that hearsay-only knowledge sometime yeah? You seem pretty decent yourself. Thanks, D-dub. #BigWheels I'm older than a lot of you fools - just haven't been around nearly as long. As for Ymora, I-...I had to take a step back and think through some things. Cowardice was fairly considerable during those times, so thanks for having faith in me, Dobby. Every bit counts. I never came here to make friends, so I'm thankful that you gave me that blessing despite our common disputes. I enjoy argument only because it's almost like being put in someone else's shoes for me. I can see their struggles by the passion, vivacity, and sheer amount of information they throw at me. I gain a lot of understanding at one time, but I need to know when to pick my battles instead of being a fiend for reactions. Thanks for your patience. I'll do better - I hope. Hey Troy. You're a cool guy. Thanks for picking me for that one contest thing, and thanks for service. WHO'S FAULT IS THAT, SIR. YOU GOT SOMETHING BETTER? HUH? -.....Yes, Yes you do. Thanks for not being quick to judge, and your service - to both this site and our country - and save a stool for me sometime. #SenpaiNoticedMe ...but seriously lady. At least SHIA didn't blame herself for most of the strife, because you've both dealt with someone who treats dispute like it's crack cocaine. The bad news is that I can't promise you to play nice and agreeable - and the good news is, that it's not always your fault all the time. I'm usually around - some of ya'll just need to yell at me sometimes. You Skype friends don't have much of an excuse. In return.......Yeah, I need to work on that too. Nawlins honestly does sound like fun. Let's make that happen. Sometime. Thank you for chancing it with me - I -can- promise that you won't regret it. Yeah - I'm probably going to need it. Thanks friend - don't be a stranger! Dude, poke your head out of one of those kangaroo pouches or something. Jesus, Tom. : ) Right? People think that you have to have the same view on things in order for the world to turn these days. Maybe so - but that's probably not going to happen while I'm living and breathing. I look forward to seeing you around too - thanks for being there at the very beginning. having a heart in the right place....sounds vital. Cheers, and many thanks. Hey, I'd actually been meaning to talk to you - but thanks for the congratulations. "That's about all I can say about that." - Forrest Gump If only it were that simple, my friend. Hit me up sometime yeah? Thank you.

Two years (and apparently two weeks) ago, I joined this interesting place. That would make me a two year old member, which probably isn't terribly exciting to those of you that are considered royalty here, but the thing is, a lot can happen in two years, and you can meet a ton of people in that span if you let yourself be a part of something as big as this place. Unlike other threads, I'm not going to dwell on individuals. One, dwelling on individuals has become cliche at this point. Two, the community as a collective was ultimately what drew me in and not the individual. Three, Some of you guys genuinely dislike me and you don't want to hear me complain about that further than this. (I don't hate you guys though - you have your reasons.) Four, There's too many of you to give credit for, and Five being that I don't want to forget anyone. All of you are the reason this place has it's unique aura, mystique, and effect on my life. Instead, I want to share with you guys some hopes going forward. A wise poster once said something along the lines of this place not aging too well with you and that older members become distant, especially as their inner circle of friends inevitably leave. Distance - at least for now - is not something I want. I want to mend fences. My presence here hasn't always been orderly, bi-partisan, and frankly, acceptable to some. I was blessed to have an opportunity to serve as an auth and help foster this community for a time, and often I turned around and used my ability to steer this community to be divisive and I resultingly raised questions about my motives. I was for the longest time opaque and deceitful as a community member - and that may have had an effect on my ability to lead in the past. I often feel like I did as much hurt as I did help Reborn, even though that may or may not be the case. In other words, I want to return to a more collectivist state of mind - one that puts the community first and not just his allies. For one, I am dreadfully ambitious and in my pursuit of helping this place press forward into the future, I would love to be in some shape or form back on the auth team - but I'm also one that didn't come for accolades or the individual friendships. I came because I love Pokemon and I love talking to folks - especially helping someone out. I don't care who that person may be - I want that opportunity to be there. Hopefully, I can make more friends, fix relationships I tore to shreds from before, and not be as polarizing, deceitful, and divisive as I was. This place encourages a lot of growing up. I want to broaden my talking points. Those of you that do know me see me in one of either two places - and lately just one of those places. The Trainer's Journal, and the Pokemon Fan Club. There are various other things to get involved in - such as the Reborn game itself (that I really need to make progress on), - as well as general video gaming, saying hello to new folks, and maybe writing stories. There's also this place called 'the server' that I used to be cool in but now avoid partially because of an irrational fear of stirring the pot up. I've enjoyed my forays into meaningful discourse on politics, ethics, religion, and other world issues, but this place is equally an escape from the world in that we could talk about the more relaxing and less factional issues out there as well. I want to be helpful. When I was an auth, I did a fairly good job of being there for others - especially in the beginning. Some of the most meaningful discourses I've been able to have when it comes to helping an individual out have come through this community - because you guys are just like everyone else. People that struggle with issues unique to themselves. I hope to be able to lend a hand to those who may feel like nobody else wants to listen to them. Anyways, thank you guys for stealing two years of my life that I wont get back - and here's to a couple more.

Under normal circumstances, I have few qualms with the two party system. I tend to view minor parties as "enzymes" or "change agents" - who by making waves in the presidential election and down ballot cause internal reform in the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, it's safe to say the Green Party's strong showing with Ralph Nader potentially helped cause modern liberalism changes seen in the Democratic Party today. Libertarian influence is sort of the "flavor of the month" for many Republicans, who hailed Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate and are most likely backing Ted Cruz now at arm's length. Looking at political identity in depth, I would consider myself a fiscal conservative and a right-leaning social-moderate. Peace Through Strength (Conservative) 1st and 2nd Amendment rights should be protected from government overstep (Conservative) Democratically reach the current scenario for LGBT rights (moderate-Liberal) Pro-Defendent Justice (Liberal) Continue 'War on Drugs' until we have a suitable protection for victims of drug abuse (It's not my current belief that substance use is truly "victimless" - moderate-Conservative) Pro-Life - exceptions made in cases of rape or if carrying the baby to term puts mother's life at risk. (Conservative) Improving conditions for transgender persons (Liberal) Tackling institutionalized racism (Liberal) Complimentarian stance on women's issues - while being open to wage equality and military service depending on ability (Moderate-Conservative) This means that under normal circumstances I would have the following support for the four parties 1. Grand Old Party - 51% - Keeping in mind that the GOP tends to favor centrism in establishment politics and that many Republicans quite easily hold liberal positions, the GOP is generally my home (ISideWith projects a rough average of 92 percent agreement). Republican candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney are softer candidates that crumbled under a louder liberal movement, but were easily agreeable from my vantage point. The Republicans tend to act as a stopgap for hyper-progressivism and it was telling back in the last mid-term vote that Obama wasn't completely impervious even after re-election (Republicans managed to take full control of the Legislative branch by maintaining their House majority and snatching the Senate away from Harry Reid.) Republicans are the major party that embraces the mantra of "It it ain't broke, don't fix it." these days - and that's ultimately what gives them the edge in normal politics. 2. Democratic Party - 45% - Democrats come in different shapes and sizes. It just so happens that one Democratic candidate early in the race had an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association! (Jim Webb). There are two reasons voting Democrat isn't usually a crime against common sense for me, and that it's usually a center-left party, and that it's a party with a genuine chance of hosting the President. However, things went south for the Dems this year when Hillary Clinton was announced to be the "centrist" option years ago - and further still when Bernie Sanders pushed her even further away form ideal. 3. Libertarian - 4% - More freedom ain't bad - the Libertarians would be the outlet of any "change" I would need to see made in the Republican Party in the future. Kinda like this year when they decided Donald Trump was a logically-sound front-runner or when they decided to pretend to be Democrats.

Take notes kiddies. This thread looks to put in four American based political parties - and have them graded by likelihood of supporting their nominee for President of the United States. There will be the two very familiar major parties - (Democrats, Republicans), as well as two minor parties - the Libertarians and the Green Party. You don't have to identify as a member of any party, but should you choose to participate, you will rank the four parties in likelihood of presidential voter support. I will give a brief overview of all four parties - and their presumptive nominees - in effect. Two...just, do it. It could be fun. Anyway, let's meet the contestants. The Democratic Party: Have you ever wondered what party President Obama hailed from? - well, this is it. The Democrats are a party that focuses on centrist-liberalism, or "common-sense" liberalism, advocating progressive measures in social policy (such as supporting Abortion rights, being pro-LGBT, being proponents of 'gun control', opposing victim-less crimes such as usage of Marijuana, and being pro-Defendent in Criminal Justice scenarios), supporting protectionism in trade, and being very much in favor of expansive government to regulate the various nuances of American life. Democrats tend to target the Military as the most wasteful spending government program in the country. The Dems are trying to decide their 2016 nomination between front-runner and former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and challenging Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. If you're #FeelintheBern, or if you 'side with her', you're most likely leaning Democrat. Democrats waffle on interventionism, but were generally opposed to George W. Bush's 'War on Terror'. Hillary Clinton's most notably known for framing a potential presidency that is the equivalent of a third Obama term. Sanders on the other hand, is much less a centrist liberal, and even a self-avowed 'Socialist'. The question Democratic voters are asking themselves is - is Obama's liberal exploits enough, or do we need even faster reform? The Republican Party: President Bush was the last sitting President to hail from the opposing major party to Obama's. The Republicans - or the GOP (Grand Old Party) - have a focus on centrist-conservatism, or common-sense conservatism. These folks tend to opt for a traditionalist social viewpoint (Religious Liberty, Second Amendment Rights, Pro-Life, for arrests for victim-less crimes, and being Pro-Prosecution in Criminal Justice scenarios.) Republicans also tend to favor small government and are generally very endeared to the Armed Forces, claiming that most wasteful spending comes from various other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. There are three candidates remaining in the GOP primary race, which is being lead by insurgent businessman Donald Trump. The challengers are Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Ohio Governor John Kasich. All three men offer a unique flavor of 'Republicanism' - but all three men also have different levels of viability as the race goes on. Republicans are mostly hawkish and tend to favor globalization in many forms - usually on trade. What political identity does Donald Trump have? The only thing that's certain is that he's distinctly authoritarian, favoring subjectivity and obedience from the top down, while claiming to be an "evolved" conservative. Ted Cruz is the opposite, libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) and a very far-right winger who is both a social -and- fiscal conservative and is known most for supporting and even playing a part in the government shutdown. John Kasich is a centrist-conservative and most notably is a social liberal. The Libertarian Party: The first minor party under the microscope is the one I consider to be the "hipsters" of the conservative movement. the Libertarian Party is a front for what is the 'Libertarian Movement' - of which Texas Representative Ron Paul is the considerable 'godfather' figure - and son Rand is the Republican they love the most. The Libertarian mantra is essentially to encourage individual freedom in as many instances as possible. They tend to be much more progressive than their GOP counterparts - supporting LGBT rights, while giving the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate back to the individual (Ron Paul was pro-Life, most-likely Presidential Nominee New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is Pro-Choice). Libertarians tend to support legalization of marijuana and are more favorable to defendants than the GOP. However, the Libertarians carry this full on stroke of individual freedom all the way to the top, being rank-and-file Republicans on issues like fiscal responsibility and opposing big government. The only conservative social stance Libertarians embrace is defending the individual right to bear arms. #ANARCHY? Libertarians are uniquely anti-interventionist, meaning they side with Democrats on the 'War on Terror' and would prefer to avoid foreign conflict. Governor Johnson was the former 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nominee as well, and identifies as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal who is most notably a supporter of abortion rights. Johnson's most "drastic" policy point is proposing to cut the military budget by 42 percent - which is a step further than most Republicans would take spending cuts. The Green Party: The Green Party is an alternative party for liberals that focuses on issues such as race relations, gender relations, LGBT rights, various equality and social justice efforts, along with most evidently in the name, environmental issues. The biggest name in GPUS politics is Ralph Nader - A.K.A., one of the biggest reasons the Democrats lost to George W. Bush in 2000 - (when voting for a minor party candidate the major party candidate you most agree with loses your vote, so it's par for the course.) Greens tend to like big government because it enables better regulation, but are starkly proponents of things like community-based economics (or local substitution). The Greens are a mold of their own - but could potentially be the landing place of disenfranchised Bernie Sanders supporters who are anti-Clinton in the same vein many Republicans are Anti-Trump and perhaps destined to land in the Libertarian ranks this fall - largely due to being against big banks and big business in the same vein #Berners are. Greens are much more dove than they are hawk, and nonviolence is principle to them. The likely 2016 Green nominee is activist and physician Jill Stein. Stein differs from Bernie in that instead of a socialist approach, she is going for a Roosevelt-esque attack on banks and businesses. --- 75% - Libertarian Party - Governor Johnson being pro-choice is a nose-wrinkler, but I find him much more fitting than a President Trump or a President Clinton. My vote for a losing candidate isn't based on winning - but on principle. If Trump is the GOP nominee, than Johnson is the closest thing to a conservative that I can vote for in the fall. 21% - Republican Party - The GOP's hopes of getting my vote rest in Trump losing the nomination to Cruz or a white knight candidate at the Cleveland Convention. Cruz identifies with me the most (which is arms length at best.) - and an establishment candidate could potentially have a great chance of beating Clinton - at the risk of pissing off the majority of their own party that voted for Trump or Cruz. 3% - Democratic Party - Hillary -has- to be the nominee period to even have a prayer of getting my vote as the bigger centrist - but Sanders has forced her into copying him enough to make her more distasteful than Trump in many cases. That's .... not a good thing. 1% - Green Party - Voting for Jill Stein is like voting for Bernie Sanders....except she has absolutely no chance of winning and would result in the most worthless vote ever logistically. There is no principle that gives Jill any nudges like Johnson gets either.

I'm not one to deny that campaign finance reform is absolutely needed. Politicians are bought and sold in overwhelming masses, but there has to be an underlying reason as to why that is. Let's take Bernie Sanders for example. Bernie and Jane Sanders' tax return listed them as north of 200,000 dollar earners last year. That's not top 1%, but that's pretty well-off. (By comparison, the "middle-class" American family makes anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 dollars a year.) The Sanders campaign is able to boast of only receiving campaign contributions around 27 dollars from individual donors. Not every campaign can do it like Bernie can - because not everyone in the country has the kind of green to kick a campaign off. In a lot of ways, it may be safe to assume Sanders is in the same ballpark (albeit definitely not sitting in the club seats) with Donald Trump when it comes to campaign financing - They take donations and they are self-starters. --- ...how much would it take Middle-Class Mr. Smith to 'Go to Washington' then? Well, having a kick-starter fundraiser would be the slower but less-beholden way to do things, or you can impress the political insiders and interest groups to immediately turn your empty pockets into a campaign-ready war-chest. The issue with the latter though, is that those same insiders and interest groups determine your policy list. It's at this point where the candidate has to make a few decisions - does he opt to cut ties later on down the road once he gets his campaign on the tracks and more individual donors support the cause? Does he stick with the financiers? Policy matters at this point - because if you want your cash-flow to keep coming to you, you need to be in accordance with your financiers if your taking the PAC route. Looking at a candidate like Jeb Bush, who was absolutely stacked in PAC money, his policy seemed to be completely drafted and as a candidate he suffered from personal authenticity more than he did Trump hitting him over the head for it. --- However, if Mr. Smith is making 50,000 to 70,000 a year - frugality would have to start earlier than next campaign cycle in order to be a Trump or a Sanders. Yes, getting tangled up with the insiders and PACs isn't ideal from the identity perspective, but it causes the poorer politicians to have a way to get to the dance. To put the costs of a campaign into perspective, let's take my state's transportation issue into account in the event of a statewide election (say, the Texas gubernatorial election.) If Mr. Smith wants to drive from the New Mexico border to Louisiana, it would take him roughly 14 hours and 14 minutes. That means, it would take over half a day just to cross the state one-time, one-way. That doesn't take into account going county-by-county to campaign in Texas either. Amarillo (a prairie city located in the Texas panhandle) to Brownsville (the southernmost Mexican border city) is another near half day trek with a total time of 11 hours and 31 minutes. This of course, is assuming the candidate is travelling by automobile. Plane trips make for faster state-crossing, but pricier travel expenses. This means that even lower level elections require a sizable coffers. My argument here is that for now, campaign financing will almost -need- the big business and government insiders in order to level the opportunity field for any American wishing to run for office. Once the politician -gets- to the office they are running for, that's when the shackles may or may not be able to be broken. Is it a problem? Absolutely. But like other things, Sanders underscores the actual importance of money - perhaps due to actually having a bit of it himself.

Like I said, Sanders may have been playing devil's advocate. I'm not saying he for sure -is- pro-Palestine, but that his stance is the most so in a field of five candidates. Logistically speaking, his argument wasn't strong. New York is the largest Jewish area in the United States - and opposing Israel there of all places just didn't come off as very smart. His argument also was focused on Israel's response to a Hamas rocket - claiming that it may have been overtly aggressive. I understand that some people aren't very tolerant or appreciative of retaliatory violence, and I understand giving Palestine a fair shake when it comes to global representation - but the instance Sanders cited appeared to be a continuation of struggle that Israel has seemingly been in since the beginning of time. Israel's favor among the United States comes from post WWII relations in which the US assisted the Jewish people in creating a homeland for them in the Middle East - reestablishing "promised land" territories. The Israeli government and military is extremely dependent on US support in order to seemingly maintain itself - and a US withdrawal certainly endangers the Jewish State's well-being as Syria and Palestine are in perpetual opposition. In return, Israel provides perhaps the most solid foothold for the United States in a destabilized Middle East in which both nations share mutual opponents. Those same opponents still threaten the United States directly - making Israel more and more the sensible ally and more favorable position to take. The only instance of better US-Palestinian relations happens to be in Egypt - where here in the US, approval of the peacemaking is much more tentative. Sanders was taking a very radical position, and one that as an American who values Israel as an ally I can't really get behind, regardless of how much he really -does- regard Israel. Again, not speaking at the AIPAC conference makes it much less forgivable. --- I understand the base-building in backing off of Hillary - but Sanders has run too good of a campaign to be running for second place. The shot's there. Take it. Period. Sanders would only harm Hillary's general election chances if Sanders doesn't throw his hat in for her at the convention - and his supporters decide to stay at home or vote for the Green Party candidate instead. All signs point to Democratic Party loyalty despite he identifying as an Independent - so while he's still got a solid shot of his own campaign taking the nomination, he needs to use whatever angles he can. He is SERIOUSLY far down in Super delegates, but he can take states like New York and California and close that pledged delegate lead. Another thing is - Sanders has already told Hillary she's "not qualified" and that she "doesn't have the proper judgement" for the position. If he were really playing "nice" - he wouldn't have said those things. It's easier to just follow through with the punch and hope Donald Trump shrugs off Ted Cruz. That way, Clinton can probably survive and Sanders goes down fighting. --- Taxes need to be paid sure, but I don't support pointless government programs and unproven policies and I shouldn't have to give up -my- money as a low income earner if the President runs on a message of "taxing the rich". It's the one part of Bernie's stump speech that comes off as dishonest or misleading.