Chase

That one song that you hated your parents singing all the time, made respectable. Thank you, Seether.

"Chase" is an English male surname that was often given as a nickname to huntsmen. This name is appropriate to me, because my actual first name, is Hunter - the outright English occupational surname given to those who were responsible for bringing live game back to the village.

Dog. Loyalty - This one - I'll agree with. A few of you can attest to some of my deeds first hand - but being a faithful companion I can confidently say does resonate with who I am. Sound Instinct - I tend to be a very effective judge of character, and it sometimes leads to urging others to take my word for it sans-proof. Again, several of you can attest. Inherent Responsibility - Dogs apparently gravitate toward leadership at times without even trying or meaning to. I feel like several areas - Reborn included for a good while - reflected this in my life. Honesty - This one depends on if we're talking about what I value versus what how I act on the matter. As a value - Honesty and Truthfulness are some of the most important things I feel anyone should strive to locate in their lives. As far as production is concerned, some of my lies are easier to remember than the times I've been honest. I'm proud of my self enough to acknowledge that this trait of a Dog matters incredibly and that I'm not by any means a pathological liar - but I'm not as slam-dunk honest as I would like to call myself historically either. Avoiding those faint at heart - This trait is one the Zodiac feels is positive, but I disagree with. Yes, it applies to me, but I feel like avoiding anyone consciously is most of the time putting undeserved prejudice against the person. Thankfully, I am a good judge of character - but even with that ability to not approach someone that may need help is detestable in my opinion. Fierce fighter - Again - this one does absolutely apply to me, and I feel like I overdo it often. I'm exceptional at resistance and enjoy a fight - but I'm also good at pushing people away and not so at knowing when to stand down. Overtly critical - A genuine negative trait for any Dog is that they are often self-rightous and stubborn. OH YEAH, that is DEFINITELY me. But perhaps the worst of it happens when criticizing others on their works, ideas, appearances, beliefs etc. Those other negatives just starkly sick out in the assessments and it often yields harm to the other person's feelings or psyche.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the first two states to vote in the primary races for both sides of the aisle. There's nothing terribly significant about these two states except for the fact that this is when voting begins and usually when the playing field begins to filter itself out if there's more than two candidates. Essentially, both states are the litmus tests for a presidential hopeful's campaign. To Carson's credit - the ABC crew seemed to have lots of other technical issues at the beginning - like Gov. John Kasich not even being introduced in the first place. I got the feeling that Trump gave a few acceptable answers in this debate when I was watching - but he didn't start out particularly strongly in the very early going. Kasich is probably going to be the guy that I think you think wins this one, Mael. If he doesn't "sound like a Conservative" to you - it's because he was strategically going after moderate voters. This debate had two things that I -did- appreciate though, the "other guys" stepped up big in this debate, and it was a very issues oriented debate. Several talking points were addressed.

Tonight's Republican debate in Manchester, New Hampshire was hosted by ABC - and it featured a couple of interesting things. Trump being mostly controlled throughout the debate - but getting into scraps with Florida governor Jeb Bush - going so far as to gesture a shush and telling him to be quiet - as well as the audience sitting in the debate hall, whom he charged was filled with donors from special interest groups after they booed him for telling Bush to shut up. Florida Senator Marco Rubio taking an absolute beating from Bush and fellow governor Chris Christie (NJ), and seemingly imploding during the first half of the debate, resorting to repeating the phrase "Obama knows what he's doing" four or maybe even five times. Ted Cruz having a "good" debate despite pestering from an apparently salty Trump over Iowa and having to apologize to retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson over circumstances between the two's campaigns. -my personal- ranking of how the candidates fared. Donald Trump - The business tycoon had a night in which he got to stand in the center of the stage and go largely unchallenged, as the target was not on his back. Even when Gov. Bush pegged him on using personal reasoning behind his backing of imminent domain, Trump was able to command the room and again re-assert himself as the front runner - without seemingly acting like a jerk. Somewhat. His best moment was pointing out the amount of special interest support in the audience, shaming the debate hall in response to being booed. John Kasich - Due to Rubio's first half implosion the Ohio governor found himself in a great place to connect to the large moderate undecided voter base remaining in the state. Kasich went mostly unchallenged as well, and his best moment of the night went from empathizing with the right's fondness for local police forces, while also highlighting that over-aggression and discrimination is -indeed- a problem, showing he had a proven plan in place to address both sides of the issue. Jeb Bush - One of the two thorns in Marco Rubio's side tonight, Jeb had his strongest debate of the night due to being able to capitolize on the seemingly total offensive NJ Gov. Christie was employing to sell his campaign as well as further damage the Florida Senator's. His best moment though, came from also taking on Trump on property issues, which is an extremely important issue that he sides with many New Hampshire residents on. He may have been told to be quiet by his seemingly personal bully in Trump, but he won a lot of respect here. Ted Cruz - Ted Cruz was able to get a majority of his debate some traction after overcoming early adversity. From the beginning, Ben Carson was able to point out the unfortunate tactics used by his camp in stating to Iowans that Carson was going to drop out, and he was not safe taking barbs from a retaliatory Donald after upsetting him in Iowa. Any time he was able to get an issues speech off the ground, it was a solid showing that propelled him to the middle tier of performance. Chris Christie - The New Jersey Governor is coming out of the debate in the bottom half of the candidates - but don't mistake this as having a bad night! Christie brought the branding iron to Marco Rubio and utterly made him look like a fool - his low showing though, was not distinguishing himself as a better alternative and perhaps coming off as a bit edgy, which won't help him in a state that suddenly has a lot to look at in the next three days. Best moment was actually a moment of humility though - admitting he had tried taxing the top percent of earners in his state only for it to not be an effective decision. Ben Carson - Carson was a media victim in this debate. He repeatedly told the moderators that he input on several issues and wasn't asked or offered many chances to speak. His best moment though was hammering home the point of "real ethics" vs. "Washington ethics" - and getting Ted Cruz to apologize to him on stage. Carson provided enough substance - and more importantly has enough money, to keep his camp alive - and could be justified in doing so with a surprise top 5 finish on Tuesday. Marco Rubio - He was able to recover for a clean second half of this debate, but he was public enemy number one on the stage. He seemed robotic and incapable of responding to challenges by the governors in the room and appeared to be the least ready to be elected, despite being viewed by many as the most presidential. --- In short - there were no clear winners in this debate, so expect anything on Tuesday - but Marco Rubio was a very, VERY big loser.

I think I would have to applaud our country's military branches for consistency, but I am not one for forcing unwilling women into combat. Luckily for men and women who do -not- wish to enlist, the draft is very much a last resort that would come with severe consequences to the country should the nation lose. However, aside from physical reasoning, this isn't just about Chauvinists vs. Feminists. There are two other categories that are more moderate positions with regards to the role of women in society. Complimentarianism is a theological based view that men and women are not in-equal, but designed for differing roles. With regards to the question at hand, it means that women may have advantageous positions in the military but are not suited for everything - which fits well with already mentioned physical limitations. Egalitarianism is the notion that all people are capable of any role, specifically in that women are not necessarily -better- than men in doing so. I fit very much with the first role. Women are simply biologically built and are capable of things men aren't for a reason. If you are leaning toward the right of the spectrum, you probably are not terribly -keen- on forcing women into the draft. If you fit on the left - then in order to hold on to a basis of ability or equality, then you should probably be accepting of the fact. For the record - I'm a tad undecided on the issue. I think if we're going to be consistent in making the world truly equal for all - that includes female draftees. If we're going to be respecting of physical capability and want to maintain a sense of pecking order in a potential crisis - drafting women isn't the most ideal due to previously mentioned results and physical limitations.

This playthrough thread is a continuation of the Scheme Team's romp through the Reborn region. That thread is somewhere in the ether here in the Team Showcase sub forum. if you would like to catch up - but if you don't that's okay too, because the what's happenin', is happenin' right here. For those of you that don't know me. Hi. I'm Hunter. I'm playing this incredibly frustrating Pokémon game called 'Pokémon Reborn' because I'm a really big Pokémon fan and the last time I seriously tried, I couldn't get past Noel. There's a substantial gap between the progress of the last thread and here - as I've managed to claw my way to Serra​ - the Ice leader from Spinel Town, found in the Chrysolia region of Reborn. Serra is the leader before the wunderkind that brought my first run's ill-fate - so I've been getting pretty excited. I also wanted to try something a bit different - which was ask a question about the game itself each time I update with a post. That will follow up my explanation of my playthrough in each update. LEGGO! --- The Scheme Team has found a way to bust the kids out of Dr. Sigmund and Team Meteor's clutches and we have finally escaped the city into the Chrysolia Region. Anna - or Nostra - is apparently ill and I have been tasked to retrieve medication in order to rectify the problem. This medication is to be found on the other side of the Chrysolia Forest - in Spinel Town. While there, an official Reborn League match is a highly likely prospect - and anyone that has played this game before will know exactly who's coming next. Serra, the ex-model who could have authored the book of Lamentations (yes, the one in the Bible) and mother of Agatha, the Bug Princess​, Bennett, the Bug Prodigy, who is specifically into butterflies. My one "challenge" in this run - and it's hardly even one at that - is to avoid using the item known as "Common Candy" - and instead opt to use a rotation of Pokémon to surmount each milestone battle. In looking for Pokémon that aren't bothered by the cold, hard, truth that is reality, I've decided to re-write the entire roster. Meet the -potential- 3rd String of the Scheme Team: Aggron is the odd woman out of the potential C team - focusing on being the highly uncommon representative from the Rock/Steel typing advantage over Ice. She is the alternative to Magneton, which is one of the flagship steel type Pokémon available in the game up to this point. Iron Head -and- Rock Slide are good moves to use, and it's physical defense should provide it leverage over physically offensive threats on Serra's team. Arcanine is a Pokémon I didn't want to pass up on potentially using - but I haven't been keen on using it up to this point as it's a prominent Pokémon obtained during any regular Reborn run. It's ability to be run Mixed gives it lots of leverage - and drawing Close Combat as an egg move from the event gods wasn't too shabby either when battling Ice types. Also, Extremespeed has got to be one of the best moves in the game period. This Pokemon is one I would like to think is a "think for the future" option. Toxicroak checks/counters plenty of Pokemon on Noel's team, being a Poison/Fighting type - in that even the surprise Fairy types you could see on his squad don't get any reprieve from Croak. For Serra, this Pokemon gets the luxury of learning Sucker Punch by level up, which allows you to take out her Froslass if it goes for an attack, as well as boasts Drain Punch for an egg move - which is absolutely phenomenal in that it not only can deal super effective damage to the upcoming leaders, but also obtain some sustain with great HP recovery, all in one turn. What's the Scheme Team without dark intentions? Pangoro is a veteran and his viability is definitely beginning to wane in this run, seeing himself replaced by the likes of 'Croak and Gallade in the future as Fighting types. However, boasting powerful STAB moves like Crunch and Hammer Arm gives the team some oomph, and it's bulk is probably more reliable than Gallade's at this point in time. Lash hurrahs are nice too - considering this spot may have gone to another Fire type such as Pyroar or Houndoom. More on why that's a problem later. Ampharos is probably one of the most dependable Pokemon of the run all thanks to egg move 'Electric Terrain' - which pays off MASSIVE dividends in Reborn thanks to cancelling out the Gym Leader's advantageous field momentarily. This allows you to dictate the match for a short while, and could be just enough help even a poorly built team needs to overcome the opponent. Discharge is not something a Cloyster would want to have to deal with. Thunder Wave renders the blistering speed of Froslass moot, and Power Gem is a pretty ideal coverage move to have when battling an Ice Leader. Like Pangoro, Ampharos is a long time member looking to retire with another notch in the belt - as I'm looking to replace it with Heliolisk due to it's access to 'ET' and higher speed, which makes it able to take on faster threats and even be a suicide field-changer at worst. The last spot is something that is highly contested between Gallade, Houndoom, and Pyroar. The first of those could potentially be too slow to be much help, while the latter two cause a serious weakness to Ground type moves (five out of six Pokemon). --- Serra's major flaw as a character (in this sense, flaw in that she has an issue, not that her characterization is terrible.) is that she's somewhat pessimistic and living in the past. Does that relate to you or someone that you know? My mentor seems to have a bit of this going on lately - especially concerning things like Politics and enjoying youth and what not.

I apparently missed last nights Democratic debate in New Hampshire - and BOY was it a doozie. This is the first debate Bernie and Hillary squared off against each other one and one. Hillary brought the boxing gloves, and because of it, it's probably one of the most effective debates she's ever participated in. From the first question - Clinton established herself as the "Progressive" that "would" get things done, challenging Sanders on previously voting against the Brady Bill among other issues. Most of this debate is centered on putting the label of "Progressive" on the right candidate. Sanders is a pretty humorous guy - and it was very clear the New Hampshire crowd was behind him - although people couldn't help but give Hillary props. Clinton however didn't do as well here in distinguishing herself from the "establishment" - even when raising the point that she is trying to run the highest office in the land as a woman. Bernie focused quite heavily on slapping Super-PACs on his opponent and being "the people's" candidate - and struggled very much on talking about the issues because of it. It was a beautiful fight.

No Alexus, you didn't misread - but I definitely could have phrased it better. My point there is that I don't want to live in any area where my speech is forcibly conformed to social norms and causes conflict with personal beliefs and civil liberties. At the same time, those personal beliefs should never be displayed in acts of hatred or jest. If the Christian viewpoint on the issue is that homosexuality is a sin (which, that's exactly what the view is) - and eve​ryone is a sinner (which again, is indeed the case) - then Jesus' precedent alone dictates that just because we don't struggle with the -same- action doesn't mean we're allowed to employ prejudice. Any believer that does is not being doctrinally sound - and is completely open for being called a bigot. Since becoming a mod for this great community in the past and meeting with various folks from around the world on the issue, I've come to realize exactly the kind of pain these slurs and jokes can cause. Even before joining this community I remember disciplining myself on using the term "Gay" in appropriate context and in a manner that was respectful to those of that orientation, after it for so long was an adjective to describe unfavorable places, people, and things. It's not going to stop me from discouraging the act of homosexuality to others due to a belief basis, but it's not going to cause me to care about those people any less - and thanks to the discipline and experiences I've been able to have, I can proudly say I understand homosexual people better because of it - and that they come across as just that. Other people. People just as equally deserving of care and acceptance as I am.

I really -hope- your school isn't one that affirms itself as a Christian school - and if it is - it wouldn't be surprising, but it would be unfortunate. The major point of emphasis with this passage is that Jesus Himself d​​id not discriminate against the adulteress - and due to the same brokenness the rest of humanity has - the Pharisees couldn't bring judgement or contempt upon her either. Regardless on if -you- hold a view that being homosexual as a sin or not - your school might have some sort of outlook that it is - and if it's a C​hristian institution then this precedent - of letting they who have not sinned cast the first stone - should be how they approached it. ​ If that precedent were taking place, I assure you that you wouldn't have to work so hard at demanding justice. As for political correctness - there are many reasons why making everything PC actually harms the liberties of the people here in America, from religious liberty to the power an American citizen holds. I would recommend instead fighting religious based "hate" speech with their own medicine. Contrasting scripture.

I suppose we could do that. On the Democrats end - Hillary has seen better days. Earlier this week she was asked a question about being in anyone's pocket and she denied it - an answer that was so ridiculous someone on the news set broke out into laughter. On top of being made to look like a fool by the media, the DNC has decided to schedule four more primary debates - a move that is clearly proof that Sanders is a legitimate contender and that just maybe, this race isn't going to be gifted to Clinton by default after all. --- The Republicans get a chance to beat up on each other tomorrow in New Hampshire in another debate - and somehow, Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina didn't make the cut. This debate stage - according to hosting network ABC - required that the candidates place in the top three in Iowa, or in the top six in several national and NH polling. The Fiorina camp, along with several other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, badgered the RNC over the decision. Worth noting, Carly beat out two "establishment" candidates in Ohio governor John Kasich and New Jersey governor Chris Christie in Iowa. Both Kasich and Christie will be able to enter the stage on Saturday night. --- This up-coming debate should be make-or-break for Ben Carson. If you were to ask me who the real evangelical representative in the field of candidates remaining is, it would be him over the pro-war Cruz. He should have some fire in the belly too - as he's already accused Cruz's camp of wrongfully spreading lies that Carson planned to suspend his campaign during the Iowa caucuses - which influenced voters in the state. Carson isn't polling as badly as some of his opponents - and while it's not likely he'll win - it -is- likely he could run again in the future and would value as much experience as he can get. I would rather see him pick up some more funding and make due on his way to Cleveland than fall off the ballots throughout the race. In order to do that though, he can't be passive and twiddle his thumbs at the podium during the debate. Pressing Cruz -and- Rubio would be huge for him with regards of getting some NH support, as well as hurting someone in Cruz who is generally after the same types of voters. Of the three who absolutely have a shot at the presidency, it's Ted Cruz himself that will need to show his mettle. He's at a significant disadvantage to Trump - who is a northeastern resident and isn't nearly as evangelical or assuredly right reaching - and Rubio - who appeals to the moderate anti-Trumpers better than Cruz does. New Hampshire is a state that will care more about fiscal matters than anything else - with regards to the states Republican party members.

Alright, I guess I'll chime in on this dust-up - what's done is done, but I want to address both parties because I know all about helping run a similar project and I know about all the feelings involved with both parties. To Ame_Rose, I hope you do excuse Dash's reaction as happenstance and spur of the moment. He is truly a wonderful person and with regards to Redemption, has, along with the rest of his team, worked very hard to ensure it's as entertaining and successful as possible. It's a natural reaction to snap when having multiple hours of effort apparently stolen point for point - and as Redemption's headman, he acted in a manner to protect his project from plagiarism and from the resulting competition both leagues would incite if running concurrently. I find it very endearing that you were inspired from his efforts - as I feel he should too. Having someone mimic your work is a sign that your work has been fruitful. I feel like you took all of the necessary precautions you needed in the original post to give Dash, his team, and his project due credit and admiration as well. That needs to be pointed out because there is no reason the two of you should have bad blood over this incident if one party was following the other out of appreciation due to their abundance - and I personally hope that should you come to a snag, that Dash -can- be a resource to you should you need help - granted you ASK first. Ponyboy, I imagine the argument's already been had so I won't dig up skeletons. I want to affirm partial justification in your reaction (not including the way you chose to do so!) as this is a project you do care about. I also urge you to let the instance go under the bridge. Part of your -other- position here is to help Reborn's members - and you have the wonderful opportunity to continue to be a positive part of this user's experience. If you aren't fit to serve, you aren't fit to lead. The good thing about service however, is it helps build a better report for yourself and provides better problem solving opportunities in the future. My friend - I appreciate your fervor for the things you work hard at, as well as said hard work. Keep being a fantastic member of this community - and look around to see the fruits of your efforts.

This -is- following a post in which I was actually advocating Rubio, so please keep in mind that I'm not standing up for Cruz because I feel his opposing voter blocs are being mean. My point though - is that hatred being used incorrectly causes misinformed voters. I'm not trying to say that you should or shouldn't vote for a guy because his opponents and their voters are painting an ugly falsehood, but in the spirit of fairness - for every candidate - I take pride in setting the record straight. In this community where almost everyone and their dog will lean liberal - that means I take the stump to defend conservatism and try to enlighten people of the intricacies of how this election and it's candidates really work. I want more voters to be informed - not driven to hysteria over campaign promises and good 'Berns' their man or woman dishes out to other candidates. As for autonomy Americans are given a right to elect representatives that provide their concerns representation - as well as when the times come - vote in referendums and participate in the legislative process. I don't care either way on the issue - but I do think that Obergefell v. Hodges' ruling by the SCOTUS only provides that the current Judicial opinion on the matter is that any state banning same-sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment - (which doesn't define marriage, but does define - according to the ruling in this case - that prohibiting and not recognizing marriages -is- a discriminatory practice, thus making the act of doing such unconstitutional.) There's two qualms with this. This means that firstly, all a conservative President has to do to overturn this cases' decision is wait for a state to ban the practice -AND- for one liberal leaning Judge's term to expire so that they can throw a more conservative Judge on the bench - or a Judge to flip decisions without having to wait to replace a Judge. Reversal has happened before in the case of Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas - where segregation in schools was no longer a constitutional practice, overturning the upheld "separate but equal" ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. Secondly, it means that the constitution only weakly at best impacted the decision back in June - which means that the amendment is the next step pro-LGBT groups need to push for, before conservatives are able to turn the tables. "If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." - Justice John Roberts Another person's right to vote for a candidate or a referendum isn't an infringement on another person's rights. Ardor to defend the right of the people - not the Court - to decide the fate of ANY issue is never misplaced. Sure, you can disagree with a person and that is part of the right of autonomy that you do have - but to call it hatred when it isn't is just outright misleading.

Now, this is where I can agree with you on the distinguishing between platform and campaign strategy, but "hate" is a very huge buzzword. With regards to the conservative candidates - you have to be very careful of how you use the word - especially if you're going to apply it to their policies. Let's take the same-sex marriage issue. There's essentially three possible agenda directions any given candidate can take with it. A. Push heavily for a constitutional amendment that makes marriage defined in the United States as a ritual that can be performed with hetero or homosexual couples. B. Push heavily for a constitutional amendment that makes marriage defined in the United States as a ritual that is reserved for heterosexual couples. C. Leave the definition of marriage in the United States determined by the state legislatures. This is essentially the three major points of the Conservative-Liberal spectrum regarding the issue. Right-wingers would be more inclined to side with B to appease their constituents and make a personal leadership decision that is adherent to a religious belief - OR because they do indeed "hate" homosexual people. The definition of the word "hate" is as follows - an intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury. None of those three derivations include religious beliefs - so if one were to even make option B a part of their platform - it wouldn't necessarily be due to hatred. There's even more to it though, because even though Senator Cruz is a somewhat radical conservative in this race - he actually isn't so far right on the issue to pick option B. He's been quoted to have said that he wouldn't love his daughters any less if they were gay. - His stance on the issue is actually more attributed to his love for the Constitution as is. As it stands, that issue is a state's right to determine and he's for leaving it as such. That's good news for states that already define marriage ambiguously for proponents of same-sex marriage, -and- for those who oppose it. Essentially, he's leaving the power in other hands with that issue, and - my personal opinion - that is something that should make everyone happy, as the state legislatures are closer to home, giving you the voter a little bit more say in the matter yourself. Want to support your LGBT groups? GREAT! Call your district rep and let it be known it's an issue you the people care about, and change the trajectory of your state. Yes - he does deal with the devil - but Obama is of the same, having dealt with off-the-wall religious guys himself as backers. We've already discussed how it's a shame that there actually is such thing as "homophobia" and how you don't give a rip if people are doing something because they feel they are __personally__ voting on their religious beliefs. It's almost like the arguments we have would flip here though. In order to promote equality, you would encourage voters to stay out of the discussion if the topic doesn't interest them - where as I think having that much personal say is one of the most basic American liberties in this regard. To end this response, I -will- point to Trump as someone who IS acting on genuine "hatred" for people. As a business mogul, undocumented workers can be a very big pain - and it would be natural that he would hold an aversion to them strong enough to hold his overtly nationalistic views. That would be indeed acting out of hate.

And now, the clown car is emptying for the GOPers. Following Iowa, we know that Mike Huckabee (AR) dropped out of the race. He was joined by Rand Paul (KY) this morning, and Rick Santorum (PA) tonight. That leaves Donald Trump, Ted Cruz (TX), Marco Rubio (FL), Ben Carson, Jeb Bush (FL), Chris Christie (NJ), Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore (VA), and John Kasich (OH) left going into New Hampshire. We can actually count the number of candidates the Republicans have on our fingers now. As Santorum hung the hat, he also gave his endorsement for who he feels deserves the nomination - Marco Rubio. Rubio earlier today actually rejected being an "establishment" backed candidate - which is a nice little play. Trump's entrance polls in NH notwithstanding, Marco is actually tied with Trump for second in delegate count, with seven a piece. Cruz, the Iowa winner, has eight. I actually am -now- starting to like Rubio. He's conservative enough to keep the country from falling off the counter with bad financial policies while not being for only half of America's interests. In contrast to Trump, he's actually quite fair on immigration - which goes a long way in differentiating him from Trump's hatred - and is deemed "the most electable" Republican in the field. --- "Most voters will prefer naivety to hatred" It's a good thing you lead off that sentence with the phrase "but I think" - because the support the likes of Bernie, Cruz, AND Trump getting don't indicate a voter base that advocates such. All three candidates are supposed to be "fringe" guys in their own right - barring Trump lying to the Republican Party and it's voters - and all three of them are paying off of major disappointment in the officials in D.C. The candidates are feeding off of hatred - because the VOTERS are feeding off of hatred. Take some of the things you've pointed out about Ted Cruz in this thread, Eviora - and some of the things EVERYONE has said about Trump. You probably have some bit of distaste in a guy who speak at an event held by someone who would threaten to kill same-sex lovers. You've also even gone so far as to attack Hillary as a "usual liar" - be it to differentiate Bernie himself (which is fair) - or to point out that you don't like any other candidate. There's a reason folks "mudsling" - because at the end - in order to win an election, you have to - A - have a clear policy that is both effective -and- electable and - B - have the least dirt left on your suit/blouse in November. --- If I were to go so far as to say who the most electable guy in the field is - it's going to be Marco Rubio due to Clinton's scandal. He's fairly moderate, he's backed in Washington and willing to play ball with the grassroots in order to beat his more conservative counterparts, he's known for working with liberals respectfully, and he still has a relatively clean suit - save for the stuff Trump pulls out of his fake hair to throw at all of his opponents.

Nailed it, Alexus. I don't know if you've been following the Republican race Mael, but Trump has not only been the most vocal and ostentatious of the GOP candidates, but he's also been the considerable front runner in polling. As I've said before, many, MANY Americans on the right are taking Trump seriously because they are fed up with who is in Washington currently - on both sides of the aisle. Trump is something different and gives those people someone to root for - as he says what that collective seemingly thinks. It's at the very least, good showmanship, and at the most earnest - if Trump even has that in him - better than throwing up someone like Mitt Romney and losing yet another general election due to not throwing their values in the ring along with the kitchen sink.

Sparky apparently has a death warrant...

The thing that should probably scare everyone about Trump is that he's such a wildcard that he would probably run (and at times does) for President as a "moderate born-again conservative" and if elected, run America into outright Fascism. Fascism is actually much farther down the line from centrism than even Socialism, which democratic opponent Bernie Sanders holds to be the appropriate political ideology. - and difference there is quite simply seen between the two men themselves. Looking at Sanders, he seems like a nice man who wants equality to mean everyone has equal value. Trump is a guy who wants to equalize opportunity, but is an extremely strong nationalist - as seen by the nonsense about building a wall and driving millions of unregistered immigrants out of the country. However - Trump's flirtations with liberalism in the past are well documented, meaning Tomas is on point here. He will probably be highly manipulative and do what works for him - meaning Conservatives should be wary in case Trump decides to betray them and flirt with the left after using their votes to reach the presidency, and Liberals will absolutely pen the guy as America's own Mussolini. In short, You should just be afraid of Trump because he's liable to do whatever he wants. That applies to every American - not just the conservatives or the liberals.

The thing is - Trump is an airhead - he certainly -has- come off like an extremist conservative. The major thing with Trump however, is that he has no proven track record outside of this presidential campaign of BEING a conservative, when he in fact was actually very pro liberal earlier in his life with the video footage for his opponents to use against him to boot. This is why he's attacked as a "born again" conservative. There's no proof the Donald even wants to adhere to his constituents, whereas Cruz is someone who will scratch the backs of his right-wing companions because everyone knows he's a staunch right-wing kind of guy. To the point where the Washington folks hate his guts on top of his unlikable demeanor. So it's the risk Republican voters - prior to Marco Rubio's very good showing last night - appeared to have to take. If you were voting with honesty, you voted for Trump if you were MORE of a moderate because of how much we know Trump used to share the opposite point of view than Cruz. If Rubio gets even more competitive, that's BAD news for Trump because just like Cruz is a proven conservative, Rubio is a proven moderate - and his hot air balloon now has to fight a two front war in a manner that helps him WIN states - not just grab headlines. Clinton survives the Iowa scare needing a few actual "coin flips" in several precincts to fend off Sanders. The Secretary of State's luck ended up handing her a higher delegate count than Sanders in the end, with the vote very much indecisive. So Hillary is your technical winner. The "win" was a needed one for Clinton, as Sanders is projected heavily to win New Hampshire, the next state up. You should also expect this state to likely give Donald Trump his first state victory and for it to NOT be so kind to Ted Cruz as Iowa was. Trump however, should be most worried about Rubio, who also will be received warmly.

It depends on what you fear more - lack of experience and grandstanding resulting in a poor world leader, or someone that embodies a political idealogy you don't particularly agree with. Most people who are afraid of Ted Cruz are afraid of him because he's equally as hard-line as Trump, albeit more experienced in politics and has "always been" a conservative. Donald Trump is an enigmatic candidate. He doesn't have much political experience and is instead relying on his ventures as a CEO along with his ability to distract/enamor/cajole/amuse/outright fight the media up to this point. As far as ideology is concerned, he's actually more of a moderate than Cruz is - and his "born-again" conservatism is a constant point of attack from his fellow Republican candidates. He's major beef isn't even with the left so much as it is with Washington in general.

Donald Trump - 743 delegates Ted Cruz - 517 delegates Marco Rubio - 171 delegates John Kasich - 143 delegates --- Hillary Clinton - 1,749 delegates (469 supers) Bernie Sanders - 1,061 delegates (31 supers) Updates: Ted Cruz ® and Bernie Sanders (D) win Wisconsin. The win for Cruz matters because Wisconsin was a winner-take-most state and it allows his campaign to justify it's case for 2nd ballot and beyond in the event of a now slightly-more-likely contested G.O.P convention in Cleveland. For Sanders, it continues a massive surge as Bernie looks to close the gap and swipe superdelegates from Clinton in hopes of an Obama-esque come-from-behind nomination over Hillary. The next challenge however gives both front-runners home-field-advantage. New York is the next huge contest on the map, with Sanders expected to nab Wyoming for the Democratic side en-route. Ted Cruz was also able to win all of the so-far-allocated delegates of Colorado and 18 of the 25 delegates in North Dakota last weekend (with only one delegate openly supporting Donald Trump.) The Cruz campaign seems to be owning the shadow campaign while picking up speed on Trump in the actual primary race. New York Strategies: Clinton: Preach pragmatism, and rally the non-white vote. New York is a very diverse area, of which similar locations have been tough for Sanders to win over. Clinton also has the ability to spin against Donald Trump with liberals and non-whites who won't be privy to the Donald's nativist message. Sanders: Win the Brooklyn debate, and Pin-the-tail-on-Hillary. Sanders will have the youth vote and women and needs to do better with older liberals in particular to make a serious challenge as the visiting campaign - despite growing up in Brooklyn himself. --- Trump: Thank God for 'New York Values' - Trump's spin of Ted Cruz's remarks should serve him well with Republicans in Manhatten - Metro GOPers shouldn't face a serious threat from the Cruz campaign and Kasich doesn't have enough wind in his sails to mobilize the city's center right against the Donald. Cruz: 'Believe in Your Strengths' - Not every New Yorker is the same - and despite Manhatten's Republican base looking a lot like Texas' Democratic Party, Upstate New York (particularly the Buffalo and Albany areas) and Long Island have a building block base for Ted to start his angle with - Evangelicals. The state of New York has about 600,000 of them, a number that in a perfect world would net Ted Cruz a win all by themselves. There's a CNN report about why that clearly won't be enough to help Cruz make a strong showing by itself much later in the thread (page 8 or 9) - but it's a solid start. From there, Cruz needs to find the New York Anti-Trump base before Kasich does. Should that happen, the two candidates not named Trump will be able to prevent the Donald from winning 50% of his home state with a solid preference for Ted Cruz in yet another unlikely state, keeping his campaign's success alive. Kasich: 'Poll Dance' - The Kasich campaign has only one viable reason to be running with a need for 121% of the remaining delegates to win outright - and that's his general election polling against Hillary Clinton, which has been steadily in favor of the Ohio governor. Kasich should try to tap NYC -as well- as college towns such as Syracuse as quickly as possible in order to consolidate the centrist-right. From there - he also needs to feed into Anti-Trumpism and avoid taking shots at Ted Cruz, as Cruz has likely too much of an uphill battle when it comes to earning enough delegates on the first ballot and he needs a floor fight to have a chance. Kasich has an opportunity to hold his lead over Cruz in the state however, which would give the establishment rulemakers a little bit of nudge when it comes to re-writing the rules. Kasich needs some changes on that front as well, so any help he can get from a liberal state like New York would be excellent for him.

Here's a Pokemon that's well behind the 8-ball - Fearow. It has the stamina to fly all day on its broad wings. It fights by using its sharp beak. Fearow is recognized by its long neck and elongated beak. They are conveniently shaped for catching prey in soil or water. It deftly moves its long and skinny beak to pluck prey. --- Fearow is probably the worst avian Pokemon to come out of the first generation, but it still holds somewhat of a competition with Dodrio when it comes to offensive wallbreaking capability. With it's ability 'Sniper' it even has a niche in that - on a good day - it's offensives deal out more pain when getting a critical hit. However, with Drill Peck being it's best STAB and no access to the metagame defining Knock Off, along with being below average when it comes to BST, the Beak Pokemon struggles against Dodrio when looking for a team spot. Here's how I attempt to rescue this Pokemon from the depths of the PU doghouse. --- 1. Give Fearow Brave Bird. Fearow already is forced to run Double-Edge as a secondary STAB in it's Choice Band set - but for being a physical attacking wallbreaker, it's Flying STAB needs to be less...pleasant to match. The extra Power works really well if you want to keep Sniper as an ability as well, hitting even neutral foes really hard in the case of a crit. Fearow is a hunting avian, so it would make sense for it to have such a dive-bomb move as it would use the maneuver to assist in hunting for food. It's not a heron or a flamingo for pete's sake. 2. Give Fearow Scrappy. Fearow lives in wasteland and desolate habitats, and is, again, an expert hunter. This means that it most definitely lives a "scrappy" lifestyle, as the terrain it lives on isn't the most abundant with prey. Fearow so hungry, he could eat ethereal objects with this ability - something Dodrio has it beat in due to having access to Knock Off. Scrappy allows STAB Return/Double Edge to connect on previously untouchable Pokemon. That's always a nice boon. 3. Give Fearow a 10+ boost in Defense. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this Pokemon to me is that it's a one-trick bird. It's frailty hinders it's ability to take very many hits and it's recoil moves make it hard to sustain. Giving Fearow a little bit of help here at least allows it to run Roost or Assault Vest. It's supposed to be a HARDY Pokemon...GAH.

I'm going to disagree here and say that - aside from the nitpickiness that is forcing Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford to conceive their own "Ben Solo" (which could have happened, as 'Return of the Jedi' was released all the way back in 1983, which would make Ben Solo 33 if he were conceived during that year.) - Adam Driver was a very good actor with regards to Kylo Ren's part. Even though it's not Han and Leia's biological son in appearance, he does have a similar look to his grandfather, Anakin. The long hair, the clean chin, and the reckless demeanor - to me - seemed perfectly in line with his fixation on Darth Vader as Anakin is something a deity to the youngest confirmed Skywalker. Looking past that, the temperament that a lot of people complain about -also- falls in this line. Remember when Anakin slaughters a bunch of Sand People because they killed his mother? Or when he Force choked his beloved Padme because he assumed she had brought Obi-Wan to Mustafar in order to kill him? Down the line, Luke even shows flashes of anger. Like Father, Son has a bout of recklessness when Vader taunts him about turning Leia to the Dark Side instead. Seeing Kylo Ren's anger displayed in the manner that it was is exactly what the rest of the saga is. Mirrored, now THRICE with the birth of the sequel trilogy. In comparison, this makes Adam's performance on the contrary, rather well done. I can understand if you're salty because Ren kills Han and you needed something to be mad at him for - or if you don't like the fact that Star Wars mirrors itself nearly ALL the time - but do keep in mind, for it being the first movie in the trilogy and us not knowing the direction they want to take Kylo - we can't definitely say this was a poor performance at all. Yet. --- A lot of people are also pointing out that former-Stormtrooper Finn being able to shortly bow up to the next equivalent of the "apprentice of the Dark Side" was rather bogus as well - but remember what Maz Kenada(?) says back in her cantina to Rey - The Force surrounds EVERYONE. On top of that, remember the first opponent Finn fights using Melee combat? That stormtrooper is canonically a part of Finn's former division - and in the newly released EU stuff that compliments 'The Force Awakens' - Finn is known to indeed have experienced melee combat training with this division under Captain Phasma. The stormtrooper even goes far enough to call Finn "Traitor" - before Kylo Ren does the same prior to HIS dust-up with Finn. - which supports that Finn wasn't just a hermit on Starkiller Base. --- Driver is an actor who played a very risky role in this movie. Many, many people are going to criticize him heavily because he killed a character that is nearly 40 years popular in movie history. I hope the rest of the trilogy finds a way to redeem Kylo Ren in some way, either as a fallen villian, or through "actual" redemption and finding his way back to the Light Side of the Force. Or something. Driver's acting career hinges on it.

There's only two faces that represent the International Police... The first one was a character that wasn't really looked into much. An NPC can be found upon the S.S. Anne in Generation 1 who will tell you he is a part of the "Global Police" - He uses a generic Gentleman sprite. ...and the second is Looker. Fan service is fine and dandy in all, but do you -really- want to think people were asking for Looker to be brought back this much? More so than the likes of even Champions or Red or what-have-you? Looker is a funny character - but in his origin game he's actually a part of the player's opposing the local criminal organization throughout the story. Looker merely cameos throughout the later games he's in - and has a perfectly valid reason for doing so due to being a part of of a global organization that fights crime. I think Looker being brought back each and every generation since is a bit weird for some reason or another. This theory at least provides the answer as to "Why is Looker so much of a recurring character?" - as it's Game Freak's subtle way of showing Looker is important. Without it, that in itself is something to theorize over.

Best of luck, my friend. You'll want to become very familiar with attacking moves that alter the opposing gym leaders' Field Effects - but it sounds like a pretty neat challenge. First things first, you want to choose an offensive starter Pokemon - so if it's something like Bulbasaur, Squirtle, Chikorita, Piplup....don't use it. On the contrary, Cydaquil, Chimchar, or most Fire starters are good picks, as they are usually the heavy hitters. All I got for you right now is field altering attacking moves, and picking a good starter to begin your run.