Chase

Thank you, Rose.

The proper channel for LAWMAKING is the LEGISLATIVE branch. What the Supreme Court did was a step forward for one side that was achieved through erroneous methods. I can at least admit it was a step forward. This isn't a personal view of the Constitution. Justices do not make laws. Period. End of the discussion. Please stop trying to falsely incriminate others simply because their view doesn't match yours and you feel threatened by people that disagree with you. Back to your scheduled PRIMARY RACE discussion - Cruz has officially won Kansas and Maine. Trump and Clinton take Louisiana, and Sanders takes Nebraska.

First of all, I'm not going to rehash the morality argument again. Thanks for the laugh though. Secondly, I'm not opposed to amending the Constitution to where your rights are protected - so if anyone out there is reading my responses and is casting me as someone who is remotely interested in doing so, you are misinterpreting my intent. However, I find it humanly indecent of the Supreme Court to deny my voice when it comes to the governance of this country. I find it humanly indecent for government power to be abused in any direction of the political spectrum, including my beloved conservative approach. I find it humanly indecent when someone outstretches their bounds and then doesn't do their part to clean up their own mess. This was never about abolishing the Obergefell ruling. This is about making the Constitution a respectable document that looks out for ALL of it's citizens against abusive government action. I'm sorry that an issue so important to you came through abusive government, but if you care about human rights - the right to free exercise is also a human right. The notion that you absolutely need to defend this broken court decision to reach your goal is incorrect. We can do this the right way - and it's this kind of thinking that will forever inadvertently leave the LBGT community and the Religious Right on the offensive with no real peace. Keep it up, Lib. I'll be at the table waiting to work with you.

Except for the fact that without a Constitutional amendment the only thing stopping the states from having same-sex marriage bans voted on -IS- this court ruling and -not- a law! That's because the 10th amendment would be the closest thing to national marriage laws in the country - and it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and instead gives unspecified powers in the Constitution to the states. That's why until last summer, Marriage bans were very much constitutional. While slave owners have used the Bible to defend slavery the closest CONSTITUTIONAL protection of slave ownership was found in the 10th Amendment - which, like marriage, has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I'm keeping my Bible on the shelf here - the Constitutional analysis clearly shows that there -are- religious liberties at the national level and there is -NOT- a definition of marriage to enforce upon the nation in the Constitution at all. In reality, it's YOUR "right to marry one of the same sex" that doesn't actually exist and only seems like it does because of the limitations the Supreme Court put on the 10th amendment right for the states to BAN some forms of marriage. This is a problem that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell. The supporters don't really GET a bookend on the issue because the Court closed it for them - while in the process of robbing the American people of being a part of the outcome. Again, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is -not- to legislate from the bench. As to rights being limited. Yes they are. For example, domestic Muslim terrorists can't legally wage jihad against the United States because it violates their victims' WRITTEN right to life and is seen as an act of treason - regardless of the viable argument that prohibiting jihad is an infringement on the Muslims' first amendment rights. Yet again, the right to marry one of the same sex is NOT written - so there is no "right of others" present.

Fair argument - but it's very paper-thin. Firstly, there is no direct amendment that addresses any form of marriage in the first place. What this means is, their interpretation of the Constitution in this case caused the effect of legislation from the bench. There's no national law on marriage - but the first inkling of it now after this case is this - you better not say one can't marry those of the same sex. Secondly, this civil rights case differs then those about race or gender in that it holds genuine implications on the dissenters' first amendment right to advocate a marriage deemed appropriate by God as a part of free exercise - and practice their faith in adherence to whatever Scripture they use. Meaning, the result is that officials that were not voted on by the American people changed the legislature of the country. That isn't the job of a Supreme Court justice either way you slice it, and it removed 'We the People' from the democratic process. That's referred to as 'judicial activism' and it's BAD Constitutional interpretation regardless of the positives and negatives the resulting ruling brings. This left the Constitution in a horrible predicament that has been followed by various assaults on religious adherents' first amendment rights in protection of LGBT members' fourteenth amendment rights - and vise versa. Since the 1st Amendment directly includes the phrase "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" with regard to religious liberty - you can't adequately remove the Church from such a state issue when it crosses into violating a theists' 1st amendment rights. That's why passing an amendment to the Constitution is tenfold more of a better approach and why personally - I don't mind if this case is overturned until it happens. I can tell you this vote that -would- directly affect my friends in the LGBT community. If the time ever comes to vote on a marriage amendment, and it included the protection of rights for same-sex couples - I would vote 'YEA' - despite it being deemed a sin to engage in homosexual acts. I understand you're not as confident in the American government as I am, but I'm a little surprised seeing as the Democrats are the more stable of the two parties and they support much of your favored legislature.

@ Nick Part of the flexibility comes with avoiding gridlock in Congress - which was what "real" bi-partisanship is. You draft a law, that law gets denounced and receives a "Nay" by every senator/representative from the opposing party and even some in your own, you go back to the drawing board and make compromises that firstly achieve the goal the legislation was trying to accomplish and secondly are able to pass with a majority comprised of various points of the political spectrum. The result over the years has caused what I referred to earlier - "Pendulum Politics" - but because of the level of co-operation the battles are being fought over the legislature as it's being drafted and it causes effective law-making that has rooted America in the center of the spectrum. Unfortunately, due to people who buy into the rhetoric of SJWs on both sides of the aisle (the Religious Right AND the LGBT community, for example) - bi-partisanship has devolved into the party-in-power strong-arming the party-out-of-power while the media and special interest organizations threaten to tarnish said party's reputation should they refuse. This doesn't -change- the dynamic of power - it's still a pendulum model. However, that model is now dangerously larger - it's brought out of the Senate and House chambers, the White House, and the Supreme Court building and into the election cycles - where the power tips from party to party by majority of seats filled and the turnout of voters from both sides. Suddenly, we're not focusing on passing legislature as much as we are defending ideology in seats of power - hence things like the Government Shut-down, erratic sequestration, an increase of Executive Orders from the President, Senate Republicans willing to deny Obama the right to put another Supreme Court Justice on the bench, and campaigns where the basis is "Anybody-but-So-And-So." Currently, the United States is running a progressive tax system. By contrast, a flat tax is by definition fair in that everyone is paying the same amount in taxes. The thing that needs to be addressed in regards to those below the poverty line is the minimum payment for those individuals perhaps being lower - along with allocating tax credits. I personally am one for seeing credits continue to exist as they help out those who are physically unable to work or who support families - but I have serious inclination to believe the government is just as guilty as big business when it comes to strapping small businesses - such as the Affordable Care Act requiring all businesses provide healthcare for their workers and the refusal causing a heavy fine. I think there are also alternative ways to fight off the national debt and fund government programs, such as consumption taxes paired with a lower graduated income tax. Bernie's 'Robin Hood'-esqe progressive tax plan is the most staunch plan on the table because it relies heavily on the income tax to make up the deficit and it targets a very small percentage of Americans to the point where his numbers don't add up for him. There are ways to start with a flat tax -or- a progressive plan that is less dependent on the top 1 percent like Bernie's an ideal compromise discussion point. Another thing Trump said. You bid high at first, and then you negotiate. @ Eviora It -is- false. My vote doesn't hurt LGBT communities on it's lonesome, and there are a number of precedents that have yet to be set and processes that would have to take place in order for a Cruz Presidency to actually damage those rights. In the event of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, a similar court case must be elevated to the SCOTUS and the Court must rule in a manner that contrasts from the previous case. Currently, that will only happen if Senator Cruz is able to obtain the right to elect the replacement for Justice Scalia over President Obama -and- another Justice dies/leaves - and both nominations most but conservative Justices that rule against the LGBT position every single time. The Republican presidents have been notoriously batting .500 when it comes to nominating conservative jurisdiction as opposed to the Democrats being very partisan when it comes to their own nominations. On top of this, both nominations have to be affirmed by the Senate - who would have to risk it's Republican Majority to block Obama from making the Scalia replacement -and- is comprised of moderate Republicans as well as Democrats. No landmark Civil Rights case has been overturned to defend a traditional view over a progressive one as of yet. So, I am confident that Senator Cruz won't get that lucky when I say I am comfortable with the risks to LGBT individuals here. I have faith in the American system of checks and balances to protect the rights of it's citizens and to prevent anyone from garnering too much power. By 1st Amendment - I mean that we now are to the point where sermons are suspect to subpoena for hate speech litigation - which is an infringement of the pastor's right to free speech, as well as right to free exercise of religion. We are now to the point where practicing one's faith through their private business by rejecting the concept of same-sex marriage (which as I have pointed out has no written definition in any legislature at the national level yet.) in favor of a traditional marriage (which is indeed written in Scriptural Law of various religions) is probable cause and could result in prison sentencing - which is again a violation of free exercise. Obergefell's ruling is that the latter is a violation of the same-sex couple's 14th Amendment rights - which has made it a blessing court decision AS WELL as a cursed one that has turned the Constitution into a contradictory document and has put two groups of people in a bitter dispute over which amendment is more important when in reality both are. I'm all for hashing out ideological disputes, but I would rather our politicians did it on the Senate and House floors and not on my television and computer screens. At least that way I would know our elected officials are doing something worthwhile.

I assure you, Eviora is also inflexible in some of hers. Just because you agree with her doesn't mean she's much more ready to compromise than I am. As for all of your policy points - yes, one person can. As predictable as climate change may be - the more catastrophic occurrences are much less an immediate threat and those can be braced for as such. Plans can be put in place to protect citizens in such events. Capitalist healthcare doesn't equate to expensive healthcare. The idea is that competition between companies - particularly once businesses are allowed to offer healthcare in hospitals across all fifty states - drives down the costs. Yes, there are - for some - instances in which Republicans are happy with ObamaCare - which is hardly the norm. For many others, it meant their healthcare options were limited and it meant that their premiums increased, effectively making care harder to afford - which one would think is the opposite intent with something officially named "the Affordable Care Act" I'm not saying Obama voters "were content" - and Eviora's question wasn't about being "content" - it was about owning the risks that involved loss of life. If anything, collateral damage should be one of the easiest things to accept as inevitable.

I would live in the Onyx Ward of Reborn City. I have always been attracted to urban life and youth culture, and the Onyx ward is one of the better off areas of the city in that it hasn't been hit by calamity and it houses the Onyx Trainer's School and Arcade. It's far enough north that it's out of the mist caused near the Azurine Coast and that it's pocketed well within the urban jungle. Reborn City will also see better days ahead. That's a huge plus.

Finally, I do find it unfortunate that as fellow Americans the best we can do is attack each other. I don't mind the issues talk and disagreement is as unavoidable as some form of taxes and death. However, just because we support different candidates and ascribe to different political ideologies - one shouldn't hold the will to shame one another. If that isn't what you intended and you just wanted to see my paint my hands red - I understand - but that quip about Reborn users is a form of slander. The Texas Primary has already past - so I'll reveal my vote. My primary vote didn't even -go- to Senator Cruz, but Senator Rubio. My vote fit the assertion that Marco was the candidate who was going to unify the GOP against Donald Trump and that he was going to continue to do so in running the race on the issues - many of which I agree with. Due to his efforts with the 'Gang of Eight' immigration bill - though failed - Rubio seemed like a man who would play ball with Democrats and would actively embrace being held accountable to all Americans as opposed to a select few. He isn't as ideal politically from a broad country standpoint as Governor John Kasich, but his polling and electability gave me hope that we would have a conservative candidate that wasn't going to treat the presidency as a trophy and half the country as invisible. I voted early - before Rubio began attacking Trump with petty insults. To assert that by presumably supporting Senator Cruz in the general election I am actively engaged in valuing conservatism over the friendships I've fostered with those who could potentially be negatively effected by conservative policies would be wrong. I'm owning the risks because you asked me repeatedly to do so. I would run on a different platform than Senator Cruz is - although I am of the belief that many of the policies and approaches he implores are better than the ones the liberal candidates are offering - just as you are vice versa. I could be crass and assert that by voting liberal you are throwing my 1st and 2nd constitutional rights into the trash heap and thus are also hurting members of this community yourself. I will not do that. The major problem with what makes a candidate like Cruz or Trump so appealing, is that for far too long the political correctness regime has misconstrued handcuffing GOP leaders to liberal policies at the point where the GOP has to endanger their congressional, gubernatorial, and SCOTUS seats in order to protest - as "Bipartisanship." If there's no real way to compromise and work together as a nation, then you have to actually compete to keep your ideological movement alive on top of having it represented in the branches of government. Doing so has caused the GOP to champion the "brave souls" of gentlemen like Senator Cruz, who filibustered ObamaCare as long as he humanly could - instead of the "unifying" figures. In that scenario, in order to maintain a real sense of political centrism - which is infinitely better than both conservatism AND liberalism - the only option is to make the pendulum swing the opposite direction. Obama got his re-election just like Bush did prior. We're trying to get back to preserving what makes this nation great for the most people - as they ALL are involved in the democratic process regardless of placement on the spectrum. As conservatives, that's really what Mike and I have been about this whole time - not sending as many people to hell as humanly possible.

This certainly isn't canon....so I'll try to make due. Name of Group: Reborn Law Enforcement (Independent branch) Trainer Class: Private Eye Rank: Unranked Goal of Group: To protect and serve the citizens of Reborn. Friend or Foe?: Friend (Ally) Type Specialty: Collectively - the Reborn City Police Department seems to favor the usage of Fire types, prodominately the Growlithe line. As an independent I hold no adherence to Fire type usage however.

I don't think Cruz should either (largely because fame is the only redeemable quality for her in comparison to others) - and I agree that there are better representatives of the trans community. I know a few of them personally. The only reason Caitlyn Jenner is huge for Ted is that she's more of a bridge to those voters that would normally be wary of him than trans people have ever had before. There is one thing that I do wonder about. It seems like when you start going down the line of alphabet soup that is L-G-B-T, the first two groups (Lesbians and Gays) tend to be the most liberal minded individuals, while Bisexuals are happy to follow liberal suit because of the mere choice being open. Transgender individuals have the most ability to fall anywhere on the political spectrum. I've always found that the "T" in LGBT was sorta just tacked on there as a result with regards to political matters. What about the case where you have a transgender person that is explicitly heterosexual? Is a traditional worldview not that applicable? I understand that transitioning from one gender to the other isn't exactly a traditional act to be sure - but I also don't see where a transgender person necessarily has to ascribe to gender-fluidity and non-binary acknowledgement either. This would seemingly leave the door open to conservative views on other issues, particularly because transgender individuals aren't beholden to the rest of the LGBT community. --- Yes, I'm prepared to bear the weight of mass casualties in the wake of a catastrophic event due to global warming. Yes, I am prepared to own the potential loss of life due to lack of universal healthcare. Yes, I am prepared for collateral damage in the event of strikes against ISIS. I would hope the Obama voters feel the same way, as he's ordered similar attacks. Yes, I am so confident in capitalism that I am prepared to bear the burden of those falling below the poverty line - it is the most proven economic system in job growth and in prosperity given the correct amount of effort. Firstly, I would like to say that many of the outlying catastrophes are water woes, something that can be covered by improving infrastructure quickly. Looking at the list of possible disasters we can brace for the problems head-on, rather than try the near impossible task of getting the entire world to combat climate change. Secondly, socialized medicine doesn't prevent people from dying and only causes people the LACK of choice in many countries as medicine is rationed and people are no longer able to keep their family doctors (as Obama said would occur.) To assume that universal healthcare saves more lives is naive at best. Thirdly, Trump made a particularly interesting point in the debate when asked about hunting down terrorists' families. "The wife knew what was going on and she didn't stop him." - While I'm no advocate for that particular extreme order, the communities around ISIS are liable to know about what is going on as well. Fourthly, I think a large percentage of poverty is induced by bad fiscal approaches and higher taxes from the Federal Government in turn - so saying that Big Government saves lives using socialistic policies is not necessarily true. Mind the Soviet Union. I don't understand why you think I should be held accountable to -this- extent for my vote. I never gave you a litany of questions as to why your candidates are just as endangering. The guilt trip certainly isn't working.

Unfortunately, Nick - the presidential candidates in this country - to this point - have not -had- to compare views to many of these issues. The GOP candidates for example are regularly never asked about education, global warming, and income inequality. The Democratic candidates for the most part are not asked about foreign policy, immigration, and national security. Simply put, the respective parties have certain issues they care about more during the primary than others - and that's what we've seen to date. Jericho is at least right in that going off into tangential argument land would be better served during the general election, when all of the issues matter and the race is for the presidency as opposed to a mere nomination. Right now, it's essentially a beauty contest for each party - combining the traits of honesty, election-readiness, and having agreeable policies with the mostly conservative/liberal electorate that composes each party's backbone. The candidates that do so the best will win their respective parties nominations. What we're doing here is best suited for the general race - as it was all prompted by a question about such scenario.

As someone who also is hoping for a candidate NOT named Donald Trump in the Republican Party - Mitt needed to sit this one out. The very reason Trump is doing so well outside of unorthodox campaign tactics and demagogue championing angry GOPers is because people like Mitt are the very reason those voters are frustrated in the first place. The only thing Mitt did by contributing is give Trump firepower and his supporters more things to salivate over. Rubio was the biggest loser of tonight's debate for continuing the locker-room potshots at Trump for multiple reasons. This gave John Kasich the moral high road even more than Kasich would have already had it - making him a viable option for potential Democrats and the typically more moderate voters than Rubio in the North. This gave Ted Cruz the moral high road - which is a damning to Marco because Ted already leads him in delegates and Cruz doesn't need to appear more presidential than he. Trump is someone you shouldn't wasting too much time playing "not to lose" with if you are actively running to be president. The Donald knows how to take a few hits. As for owning the positions Ted Cruz has in my vote - allow me to do so. I admit that voting for someone that is heavily invested in allying with Israel in the I+P conflict doesn't do much to strengthen our ties with neighboring Muslim theocratic governments. I admit that voting for someone that is opposed to same-sex marriage and the like could potentially cause harm to LGBT individuals - even though if I were running for President I would do better to connect with those voters. I admit that voting for someone that is against the notion of Global Warming in totality could look bad in the face of a disaster that could occur during Senator Cruz's presidency or later on. I admit that voting for someone that is a warhawk puts lives on the battlefield and causes their loved ones loss. I admit that voting for someone that is staunchly pro-life will threaten female autonomy. I simply think the trade offs are better than any of the other candidates. Lower taxes, that enable citizens and businesses to thrive, which creates jobs and lowers the amount of those in need. ISIS hopefully falling off the face of the earth - blood I DON'T mind having on my hands. A strong capitalist economy driven by free-enterprise. Privatized healthcare that is truly competitive and allows for patient preference. State-level education boards retaining their former successes as opposed to Common Core. Stronger immigration policies that prevent large drug traffic and encourage immigrants to come here legally. More jobs home as opposed to abroad. Eviora - this recently surfaced - but Caitlyn Jenner gave an appreciation for Senator Cruz when asked about the candidates and offered to be the man's "Trans Ambassador". Seeing as 2015's Woman of the Year is literally the face of transgender America - it seems like a huge opportunity for Cruz to get some crossover votes. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/election-center-2016/caitlyn-jenner-ted-cruz-trans-ambassador/index.html It's worth noting she hasn't endorsed Cruz, but that she is a Republican and appreciates his conservatism - while acknowledging his faults in comparison to her situation. If Hunter White was running for president, and Caitlyn was this high on him - he'd probably take her up on the offer. (as I am actually one who would love to usher transgender individuals to the GOP and I see their value in who they are thanks to being a part of this funny place.) Do you think Cruz should in the event that he wins the election?

Labeling as not a baby when the thing will always prove to be a human at birth - which is my first and foremost conclusion that it's a human, thank you very much - is seemingly a cop-out. What's YOUR answer as to what makes them human? That they use tools or logical reasoning or pick up a language? Kinda hard to just discern while in the womb if a fetus has the ability to do that - and if your immediate answer is "Well obviously they can't speak, use tools, or reason - therefore they are not human" - You could tell a 3 month old baby girl the same thing. That makes the definition of "non-human" kinda "convenient" for Pro-Choicers more so than it answers a philosophical and biological question about pre-birth stages of life in a human being. And - if you take into account potential along with the absolutely certain data point that all human offspring end up humans - then you can glean that that fetus will one day be a human, biologically (which can be determined via ultrasound pre-birth might I add) -and- cognitively. Brushing off Global Warming and not caring about it are two different things. My provision for the lack of enthusiasm I have for the topic is simple. Reward those who use alternative fuel. Hurting our economy and government regulation on businesses and energy in this manner leads to citizens having their lives negatively affected elsewhere (higher taxes, less available energy.) That's is not only a plausible phenomenon, but one that has proven to hindered Americans' lives. Remember when I said living is hard? Regulated government doesn't exactly help in the area of Global Warming. Bad news for Hillary - the 3 other remaining candidates officially renewed their pledge to back the Republican nominee - Marco, John, and Ted if it is indeed Donald Trump, and Trump in kind if it's one of the other three candidates. There may be a movement against Trump that spurs a primary upset, but if the solidarity given in Detroit tonight is for real - the other candidates in the race at the very least will rally around whoever wins.

Assumption? If you tell two humans to procreate, and give the fetus the justice of having them wait for the end of the nine months, the DATA shows that the baby infant is a human being 100% of the time. Look at every human being born throughout history. That's all the data you should ever need. I'm a proud conservative that would do my best to find those new lives a place where they can grow - but the reality of life is that in any capacity, the only impossible amount of struggle we as humans will face is 0%. Death is easy and is a weak cop-out option that you have defended and yet opposed by claiming those who are forced into suicide should have their lives protected. Life - no matter what shape, form, color, duration, etc it has - is HARD - and it's also a gift that shouldn't be so quickly thrown away if there's even a remote chance something can come from it. If a mother has the right to kill their baby, my mother should have been given the right to kill my sister when she turned 13 and started back-talking her. She wouldn't have - but I doubt any legislator or litigator in their right mind would be sympathetic to a mother who kills someone 13 years strong as much as they are to the lives they terminate after heartbeats are detected all the up to post-birth. I'm glad you can own it - because I feel much safer voting for Ted Cruz and saving MORE lives than your vote for a liberal nominee would. As for global warming, I'm tired of liberal politicians selling it as a do-or-die issue and perhaps shockingly, I'm even MORE tired of politicians claiming it doesn't exist. I am an anthropocentric person - meaning I uphold humanity above the ecosystem - and I do feel that the regulation the EPA imposes on businesses causes economic and energy limitations that are inhibiting. Do I think we should encourage alternative energy use, conservation, and the like? Absolutely However, I would rather tackle this issue by rewarding the alternative as opposed to enforcing it and shooting the immediate populace in the foot. Does GW exist? Sure - but I don't care about it all that much as a voter. --- For president, where there are so many groups of people that I am to be held accountable by? I think it's unfair to blame someone's suicide attempt on me - but I can tell them squarely "You will be persecuted, but it's okay. As a Christian, I've been there. As a young Conservative in the middle of various Liberal circles. I've been there. As someone who has made the terrible mistake of harming someone many people loved - including myself - I've been on the other side of the proverbial pitchfork." The greater good is the key phrase there. I'm not bending over the anyone in specific, from LGBT individuals to the National Rifle Association. If only there was an ideology where blood didn't have to paint the hands of the president - or apparently, the voter.

Eviora - human fetuses ARE human - and there are more abortions had in this country than there are LGBT people that kill themselves or are killed at the hands of others - but you know, let's just defend the lives that have a voice and can vote. #LibLogic. I don't want this to get any uglier than that - this is about the primary races - so most topics, such as LGBT protection, Abortion, and yes, even the prospective General Election are still off-topic. To bookend this spat - I'll answer Eviora's question. I think if the Liberals are allowed to undermine the humanity of children before they even see the light of day, livelihood arguments are off-the-table. It's an impasse. Secondly, if the cases involved are suicides, I'm not nearly as sympathetic as one may like. I understand that orientation-shaming and transitioning people are forced into brinksmanship by others - and I personally as a Conservative differ by wanting to assist the plight transgendered individuals face - but not at the cost of poor economic and healthcare handling, poor foreign policy in which we neglect our allies and arm those who terrorize the world, someone who would care about votes over things like our local police officers who don't know if they are going to see their families by safely going off shift, and so on and so forth. Donald Trump puts at risk the most lives - especially if he's bullshitting the people voting for him and is actually Pro-Choice. Hillary being Pro-choice and having a horrid foreign policy record endangers lives. Ted Cruz may have said and may hold personal intentions against the LGBT community, but the way I see it, he's saving more lives than he's endangering. The only difference is - you will value the lives most identifiable to your own. I'm prepared to take that loss because looking at the Global Stage, every candidate - even Bernie - is a lot worse.

First of all, Nick - there are no "long overdue social policies" in America that Hillary also doesn't support - so I don't know what you are even talking about here. Secondly, at the end of the day, while Hillary is much less stable than Bernie, her swaying to the right - while I myself am a Conservative - is much more profitable to ME and MOST Americans than Sanders sticking to the left and trying to pass some legislature that equates to a pipe-dream in this country. People act as if trying to be held accountable to as many Americans as possible and not just the ones that support you or agree with you is a BAD thing when you are President...and -that- is how you get stuck with those who only care about pushing their sides agenda. Sanders is the farthest person from me on the ideological spectrum. He may be the nicest guy in the field - but his policies are the absolute least agreeable to me - to the point where hedging my bet on Trump is more attractive than if Trump were running against Clinton. Ideally, and yes, you are free to disagree, I believe Cruz is the best option left for this country. The "friends and family" whose lives would be ruined first and foremost by a Cruz presidency are lessened to a select few if Cruz even is able to do something that has yet to happen - overturn one of the critical progressive Supreme Court cases in civil rights history. He -has- said some incindiary things against the LGBT community that I don't agree with - but Trump says incendiary things against Muslims, Mexicans, Women, and people he just outright doesn't like. In the situation that it IS indeed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in November, Nick - there is no other option unless the Republicans do split up to the point where an Anti-Trump conservative runs Third-Party. It's picking the lesser evil and it's unavoidable.

Cruz is anywhere from fighter's chance to 'last hope' as the Republican that can beat Trump in my opinion. As for a Trump-Hillary November.....God, that's a nightmare. Donald has to prove he's more conservative than Hillary in spades at this point in time. Unlike Mike, I am a very big values voter as opposed to his "tell it like it is" preference. There are a lot of things Trump says that I "agree" with - but very little of those things have policies that are authentic to him -and- are agreeable. There are things I don't like - such as his preference for neutrality over siding with Israel in the I-P conflict, his inability to talk coherently when someone asks him the "hows" of his policies, his immaculate lack of apology for quotes involving getting physical with his own daughter if she wasn't his daughter, personal attacks against war heroes, the fricken' Pope, former presidents in states where they are liked. For a values voter - there's a reason Cruz challenges him squarely in that department - the Donald don't walk the walk. --- On the other hand, Hillary needs to assume the mantel of "General Election" mode right now while finishing off Sanders. If Bernie causes her to drift left, it makes Trump look much much better down the road. Bernie's a big roadblock here - because a strong finish that falls short for Sanders means that Hillary is going to have little to no time in selling herself to conservatives disenchanted with Donald and even if someone like little ole me were to sacrifice a very important election for the Conservative Movement just to keep a clown out of office - it wouldn't matter. Hillary also has to account for over 2,000 "Secret" e-mails that were found in her own personal server due to an FBI probe and the green light for further investigation. If Cruz is the GOP Nominee - it's no question, my vote's going to Ted in November. If Trump is the GOP Nominee, and the nomination goes to Hillary Clinton - as of right now I am leaning toward Hillary. The Republican Party holds no value to me if it doesn't match my values - and throwing up someone WORSE than Hillary is not a way to unify anything. Donald Trump has a lot of ground to cover, bridges to fix, and most of all - he needs to be very authentic to swing me back to the right in this scenario. That's his strong suit - supposedly. If Trump is the Nominee, and SANDERS is the opponent - I'm moving to Canada. --- My prediction, as an optimist, is that the GOP gets it's act together and Cruz beats the odds. I don't know if he would beat Hillary yet to make that call - but I think Trump's in for a rude awakening.

I'm just going to go with hardest - and with the games I've played. Kanto - Lt. Surges stupid wastebasket lock charade. Johto - I'd have to say Morty - I love the sliding ice puzzle things in Pryce's gym and the rest are not memorable. Hoenn - FRIGGEN Winona and her stupid turnstiles in the original games. Unova - I would have to say it's a tie between Clay's elevator things, and Skyla's wind turbines. Kalos - The disrespect you guys have for this generation though.... Korinna and Ramos deserve some honorable mentions (The former because tracking down the the roller skaters was kinda tedious - and the latter because Ramos had some dead ends you could run into without trying.) - ultimately, the only real "puzzle" however - was Wulfric's gym.

"HEY RED. I WAS WAITING OUTSIDE THE POKEMON LEAGUE. A NERD LIKE YOU WOULD FORGET TO SHOW UP" - I would always skip the route west of Viridian City and forget the chance to battle Blue, as well as the nidoran.

Alabama - Trump and Clinton Alabama was expected to go big for Trump due to his huge rallies in places like Tuscaloosa. In many southern states - Clinton was supposed to hold well due to minority voters and she did here. Alaska - Cruz Alaska is going to go down as one of the closest contests nobody talked about because it was on the West Coast. The war was set though between the two popular populist Republican candidates. In the Trump Corner, a lady by the name of Sarah Palin had previously given Trump her endorsement. For Ted Cruz, a very extensive ground game that has previously proven to be immensely effective when it comes to caucusing from under the Donald's nose. The Texan went in and started a coup in the house that Sarah built - giving himself 2 primary victories (Texas, Oklahoma) and two caucus victories (Iowa, Alaska) American Samoa - Clinton Bernie doesn't seem to get a lot of love from this territory at all. The Samoa when huge for Hillary. The GOP doesn't hold primaries outside of the 50 states. Arkansas - Trump / Clinton A very competitive state for the Republican Party Big Three, being a state that Trump may have one solely due to the lack of a clear Anti-Trump alternative candidate - and another southern "easy cash-in" for Clinton. Colorado - Sanders Arguably the biggest win of the night for the Bernie camp in nearly a 60-40 split. Republicans will caucus later on in Colorado. Democrats Abroad - Sanders Bernie Sanders will forever be enshrined in history as being the first candidate to win a primary held for US citizens throughout the world. The Republicans need to get on this, because this is a really neat concept. Georgia - Trump / Clinton Georgia...what's the deal. How does the electorate vote Marco Rubio second place, but Cruz gets the higher delegate count? Do Republicans have superdelegates too? Oh yeah. Deep South. Clinton Country. Massachusetts - Trump / Clinton How. Did Bernie. NOT. Win this state. HOW. Huge upset for Clinton in my opinion. In Bernie's defense - it was close. It was most definitely a can of whoop-ass for Trumps opponents on the other hand. Minnesota - Rubio / Sanders HOORAY. MARCO'S A WINNER AFTER ALL. - ....actually, Minnesota gets to be crowned the "Anti-Trump" king of the 50 states - as Donald found himself in THIRD behind Ted Cruz here. Speaking of Cruz, he tied the winner in Rubio for delegates. I guess it's a hollow victory, but a WINS A WIN BABY. Oklahoma - Cruz / Sanders The Sooner State was "Upset City" in my opinion. Bernie got his most surprising victory here, while Ted Cruz extended his welcoming arms to snatch what was an originally strong Trump state. Tennessee - Trump / Clinton This is one of those states Marco Rubio got shafted in. He only trailed Ted Cruz by 3 percentage points, and ended up behind Cruz again in delegates only earning 3 to Ted's 12. Ouch. Clinton won big again here. Texas - Cruz / Clinton The biggest delegate awarding states of the day, and Ted Cruz got just what he ordered from his native state and THEN some, denying Marco ANY delegates at all and preserving his second place national chase of the Donald, getting an opportunity paint himself as the better candidate to vote for down the stretch. Clinton also used Texas to widen the gap from Sanders. Vermont - Trump / Sanders No surprises out of Vermont. Sanders lives here and beat the living crap out of Hillary at home. Trump is going to be more favorable in the Northeast than anywhere else in the country. Virginia - Trump / Clinton This is one of the states Marco Rubio made up a lot of ground in, and another state in which the lack of a head-to-head contest gave Trump the nod. Virginia had very similar numbers as most of the other southern states for Clinton. Fun Fact, ALL FIVE GOP candidates picked up delegates from Viriginia. GOOD JOB DR. CARSON - DIDN'T GET SHUT OUT.

Hmm. Naturally, I think both Bird Keeper Toby -AND- Gaijin Goombah are onto something here. The Strange Souvenir has to fit into this generation -OR- an even later one. If Game Freak wanted the easter egg to remain relevant, it would most likely be the next generation of Pokemon (or Gen 7) that it would refer too. Point Toby. Sun and Moon are perhaps the two most "drastically different" title names for the series. Colors and Minerals have dominated the franchise up until this point. Not necessarily a point for GG, but it's one that relates vastly better to Shinto more than it does Hawaii'an mythos. Bird Keeper Toby's informant brought a lot of information to the table. 'Project Rainbow' is a very essential piece here - as is the emphasis on open vehicles and tropical climates. Not only is Hawaii the 'Rainbow State' - the University of Hawaii's mascot is referred to as the 'Rainbow Warrior' - so point Toby. Yokai Watch is destroying Pokemon at home in Japan, so it makes a lot of marketing sense for Japan to dig back into it's roots. Point Goombah. I -do- think that it's possible to correlate Japanese folklore onto a Hawaii'an backdrop - in fact - I think that's probably a very strong play. Pokemon doesn't necessarily -have- to appeal as the best monster collection game in Japan due to it's world-wide acclaim, but it's been a little while since things have seemed a little native to their home audience. Incorporating both global outreach -and- a return to the homeland at once seems like appeals 'at home -and- abroad.' That's just smart marketing.

Yes.

Praise the Sun! I lost faith in my original prediction it would seem - but it turns out I was right before - even with all of the Zygarde forms and Magiana/Volcanion left in the dust. Remember - there is seemingly a pointless train station in Couriway Town, Kalos that could expand the traverse-able territory to another region (possibly the one in Sun/Moon). The only issue going on however is that the game so far seems to have a location that matches up with Singapore more than it does anything else - and the most obvious conjecture is the Shinto Sun Goddess and Moon God with the games legendar/story theme. If however, it is a neighboring European location, travelling from Kalos by train is a very feasible thing. Don't give up on Zygarde, Volcanion, and Magiana just yet. --- Wild guesses This -IS- indeed a European location with a resort building that is circumstantial to the Singapore hotel - and that Kalos will be re-visited via train to Couriway from this new region. Roughly 16 years ago - Gold, Silver, and Crystal was the first game in which you could obtain 16 gym badges and traverse two regions. The concept is old enough for most casual players to forget or not have experienced those games today, while being young enough for older fans to hope for. Obviously, Kalos feels very incomplete - especially with the data that we received from Coro-Coro about Zygarde, Volcanion, and Magiana. You -must- trade over your Zygarde from X and Y to Sun and Moon in order to increase or decrease it's percentage. Zygarde will only be found in it's 50 percent form in those games. In Sun and Moon, assuming the previous point above is indeed the case, you would then be able to draw the rest of the cells to Zygarde as you travel around - or as the story heats up in the post-game. I do think that these games are a fresh new take that will revisit the franchises loose ends from Gen 6 some more in the post-game, as ORAS did. There will only be one evil organization. The latest games released were Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire - meaning that the concept of having two teams compete over the sun being up longer or the moon being up longer (as in increased day or night) would be a mere re-skin of the predecessors' plot. Pokemon transfered from Kanto in the 20th Anniversary 3DS editions of Red, Blue, and Yellow will be stored in Pokemon Bank - and be transferred to Sun and Moon - without an ability like they are found in RBY. 'Style', Boutiques, or some form of trainer customization will return to the franchise. The building in the teaser picture is a piece of end game content similar to the Battle Resort in Hoenn. The screenshot shows a boy that is dressed eerily like Red, an iconic trainer who was last seen in Unova battling the player in the Pokemon World Tournament. The secondary legendary (a la Kyurem, or Zygarde, or Cresselia..?..) is a celestial Pokemon representing the stars.

Tonight - in the TENTH Republican Presidential Debate - Donald Trump walked into a blockade. From one corner of the ring was a Cuban-American senator that had previously spent the first nine debates looking for notecards and a teleprompter as the establishment piled support - and he came out fiercer than anyone else on the stage. From another, the home-court-advantage owner and yet another Cuban-American senator proved why he was one of the best cross-examiners in the nation in my humble opinion FROM YET ANOTHER, the often forgotten governor of Ohio who had some moments to bow up to the businessman. ..and even Dr. Carson got a few memorable quotes in - even when the moderators only wanted his opinion on Mr. Trump's policies as opposed to his own. --- Houston, Texas, on the campus of UH, was the site and the attending Texans witnessed a few different chords in what was par for the course - an at times nasty debate. However - the final five didn't just let one another steamroll each other this time. Taking heat for his infamous New Hampshire meltdown by Trump (being called a "choke artist") - Rubio swiftly counterattacked Trump on doing the exact same thing - drawing the largest applause of the night and marking a much better performance in Texas. Marco had a night to remember simply because it was a night in which it didn't matter what the issue was - if he could stunt Donald - he did just that. Relentlessly. Senator Ted Cruz stood by his fellow Senator - opting to be more sparse and methodical - challenging the Donald's notion that a neutral position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was "liberal" and relative to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Cruz has been the champion of measuring Trump's stances throughout the years against those of their liberal opponents, and made a significant argument that stuck on comparing Trump's "not let anyone die in the streets" declaration to the type of healthcare Bernie Sanders would support - a damn near effective move in a Republican race. BOTH senators jumped on the casino mogul on the fraud case involving Trump University, indicating that a nominated Trump standing before a judge would be at best as equally damning as his opponent in Hillary Clinton doing the same thing (for her e-mail scandal.) It was a night that involved so much fire for Cruz - who was able to effectively hoard speaking time in his home state by holding the moderators to the allowing of extra time to attacked candidates - so much so that it neglected Kasich and Carson in the wings. Carson's best line of the night was an interjection on a Cruz-Trump spat in which Ted again made a play for extra speaking time, seemingly yelling "Can someone attack ME?" and drawing a lot of laughs. This may have been Trump's worst showing - along with Rubio's best. The questions that should be asked though... Is it too late - and does it even matter?