NickCrash

Eviora appears quite rigid as well, and I am answering to her as well. I chose your post to quote since you seem to understand that the "edges" are not profitable to everyone, hence both liberals and conservatives need to be more flexible and go towards the centre. It has nothing to do with what my personal beliefs are. A phenomenon and its repercussions being predictable makes it easier to plan ahead and take measures in order to slow it down or even stop it. Naturally you will deal with imminent problems (or disasters) first, but you also keep your mind concentrated to what comes next. I am well aware of what the idea behind capitalist healthcare is, and at the beginning, it works just fine. The reason a full capitalistic plan is wary lies on its long-term establishment without legislation that allows new enterprizes to work (and make profit) alongside the big ones. This in turn will limit competition among the big ones who will raise the prices, when they see that they can, especially where patents are involved. In this way, poor people have a harder time dealing with health issues, with medical costs being extremely high, especially since the country's insurance policy does not cover part of the expenses (in comparison to what happens in Europe). Taking this thought a step further (and here I'd like your informing me of existing laws on the matter), reduced healthcare costs can be achieved by certain changes in the taxation system. As a flat tax is the most unfair form of taxation, adjusting the current into a progressive taxing system that obligates enterprizes and entepreneurs alike to provide their fair share to the government can be more profitable for the country than a high tax for all. By "fair share" I mean gradual tax increases that also bear in mind the benefits one may receive from disabilities, multiple children, company benefits etc. This way, the system stops tax evasions, makes the higher incomes pay more while still having their benefits (my aim is not to make everything flat), and at the same time allows the companies or entepreneurs to flourish in the free market. The only issue with such a system is that capital will no longer stack indefinitely. Of course I cannot provide you here the exact ways this will be applied since it will take too long and I am not an expert at this, so you may find several loopholes. However, such systems are already in place in the Scandinavian countries, and it appears to be profitable. I am not answering in Eviora's position, and I'm not to be held accountable for anything that someone I may or may not agree with says in this topic. I am stressing a matter I think it's of high importance and believe in avoiding collateral damage, at least as humanly possible. I set a goal and then try to explain and work together with you (with whom I may disagree on a lot) in order to achieve this, since it's common. Isn't that the greater purpose of an election? #voteforNickCrash2016

Everyone is turning into nice pokemon, and I'm just sitting here, being smogon's mascot.

That Watchmen reference... What do you mean you don't get it? The Arm Thrust man is actually the Comedian. He is the embodiment of how this game is a joke. "Makuhita forgive me" ... still no?

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Mike does propaganda, but someone could interpret the lack of memes for a certain candidate, as opposed to others, as one. We should avoid getting the discussion too heated, since it's not personal differences we are discussing here. As I said above, a candidate's voters have responsibility on his actions, but they do not vote agreeing with 100% of his suggestion. It just happened that he was the one with whom they agreed most. Now, Chase. While you say that both sides should try to reach a consensus, which is the right action to get towards the centre, you appear inflexible in some of your positions like the following: The problem is, one cannot bear the burden of such destructions. Once they are there, you can neither fix them, nor actively bring the people affected by it to their previous living standards. I refuse to believe all Obama voters were content with multiple bombings in the Middle East, and it's the worst form of irony that this man received a Nobel Peace Prize a few months before that, for wanting to reduce universal (nuclear) weaponry. Therefore I think it's wrong to defend courses of action similar to the ones mentioned above by using the reasoning that "the other guy did the same and you tolerated him". While indeed true that they chose wrong to tolerate, and they would again, no matter which president issued the order, does not immediately turn the choice to be right. The voter's lives are not directly affected by a bombing in another continent when they cannot retaliate, but they are when a universal problem like climate change or a country-wide problem like expensive healthcare knock on their door.

North Peridot. Close enough to the center, far away from the noise.

Shouldn't you post a meme about the 4th one as well? And I mean one that offends him, like the others, instead of trying to make him look good. We get that you support Cruz, but when making a sarcasm post, you should try to remain impartial if you don't want people to see it as propaganda.

I believe this compilation of questions is better targeted at a presidential candidate than most people here, whose votes are given based on what % of the candidates' suggestions they most agree with. This might be a low percentage but one is deemed to have a higher than others. Hunter thinks of Cruz as the better candidate, so his opinion is somewhat biased, allowing him to forgive some of Cruz's faults, similarly to Evi and her fav candidate, Sanders. I know it's more or less a beauty pageant, but the nomination outcome judges the final result, so somebody has to take it seriously.

I'll have to agree with Dobby on this one. Toxicroak deserves one, but I'm not sure they'll provide one that makes justice.

@Jericho, Since abortion, global warming, same-sex marriage and immigration policies are serious topics the presidential candidates have to compare their views on, it's productive to have mini-debates about them here, instead of simply presenting the vote results from various states or express our preferences. That said, I'd ask you to collectively focus more on how global warming affects people's lives as well as the economy. Legislation that encourages alternative energy sources may hinder the economy at first, but it is a proven mid-term and long-term economy boost that's profitable for the environment. Brushing it off as something insignificant shows that one does not realize how severe the repercussions will be (and already are). For a presidential candidate not to acknowledge this is outside the borders of what's considered acceptable. Let's just say that this is blood nobody wants to have in their hands, unless they only care about short-term investments. Moving on to same-sex legislation, forcing legislation that prohibits it is a step backwards to global progress, and as such the whole world will protest, given the slightest hint of such an action. Without mentioning how profitable it will be for European governments to support same-sex marriage, American citizens are against someone who is making actions based solely on personal religious beliefs, without listening to "what the crowd wants". It's not a form of protection, since you are not acknowledging their right to marry. At the same time, since we established that he cannot pose such legislature but he can abstain from even touching this field, there is no actual measure one can take against the LGBT community. At least none that will not be instantly withdrawn, given how people will react. An ideology that gives people freedom of choice is one that gives the president the choice not to have any blood on their hands. I am not responsible for someone's self-hurting actions when I've not deprived them of any basic rights, and at the same time, I am not responsible for someone who decides to make an abortion, as it's their body they are working on and deciding upon. I did not force an abortion, as well as I did not force them to keep the baby (and might even have them injure themselves by trying to abort illegally through dangerous methods). No, this is not a cop-out or a way to say "I wash my hands and let them take the blame", simply because I am offering people with more choices. As every notion that allows people further freedom of choice, the arguments against reside in whether they arbitrarily ignore the rules. Such technicalities can be overcome with proper legislation that's working around the possible outcomes and not stopping the notion all-together from fear of inability to deal with the problems that arise with it, because it itself is not a problem but a choice. You allow the choice itself, but pose restrictions in it so people can exercise their rights without causing problems to themselves or the community. Since a choice makes no harm to someone else, there's no reason for it not to be legal.

Thank you Rose. As far as mega evolutions go, I believe Donphan could use one.

Alright, I'll have to clarify. Supporting an opinion proposed by another candidate, in the last minute, only in a desperate attempt to "steal" voters from them, but providing no further explanation (oral or written) on its establishment is mere pretending, especially when the other side has already done it and presented examples of it here and there. So far, Clinton's speeches include a mandatory "I'm pro socialistic legislation" with no examples of actually enforcing it. We may disagree ideologically, and what I see as profitable investment (long-term) seems pipe-dream to you, but we can both agree on the following. A person who has no real ideological basis cannot be considered a serious candidate. Of course, they will turn to their voter base, but their position requires they create an environment profitable for all. A president can fall when the people are dissatisfied, even if the media back them up, long before they even receive the party's nomination. Also, if someone is constantly verbally assaulting ethnic groups that belong to minorities, the support votes are ones that will follow the candidate until he says something offensive for their group/ethnicity/social status/etc. It's not a steady voter-base, just one that agrees with certain "hate policies", as I like to call them. At this point I believe Sanders is the most suitable candidate because he is steady and his ideas are the ones I can agree with, at least more than the other two, who sway from right to left (or right to far right) and back. I regard them as idiots and dangerous respectively, and even if I live across the Atlantic (which means I can see this whole thing from a different point of view than the average American), this election will affect me, given your country's external policy. That's an inherent flaw of the elective system. The absense of multiple parties allows sponsorship and inclined media coverage, thus indirect effect on the masses without clarity. A good part is the debate system, in which people from a seemingly common background are supposed to compare their suggestions and future plans both short-term and long-term. However, it's not enough, because (if we disregard the (already high) probability of it getting rigged) the way this voting system works, the smaller states have "stronger votes" than the bigger ones, thus a candidate may gain fast majority by supporting certain areas (eg by being a citizen of that area) and not even care about others. This in the end leads to a minority parliament. You can see that this relates to our topic by checking whom each candidate appeals to. Yes, Trump (for example) hates everyone, and focuses on certain classes of people, while Cruz, even if less appreciated, is still there because he chose the 'correct' groups to support. edit for Jericho: The constitution needs to clear at what it defines and prohibits. Whatever is not restricted by the constitution and laws (in your case defined by each state) is allowed, and should be respected. Since abortion is a hot topic, I'll answer this even if it wasn't a question aimed at me. When a life is unwanted before birth, it will be afterwards as well. Abortion stems from the inability to raise an infant, and dropping it to the nearest institution is a similar way of getting rid of it. While it may be a pity to kill a person, since humans are species of high thinking potential (taking a look at it from an evolutionary point of view), the changes in the mother's physical and mental state, as well as her future obligation in the upbringing of the child (hormones make it extremely difficult to take it away once it's born - thus leading to depression when there's no feedback) can cause harm, avoidable by the choice of abortion. Even if we simplify this, one has the right to choose what they do with their bodies. From an embryological point of view, the early period in which abortion is even probable, the embryo is not a "human" life form, since it more resembles a parasite than a baby (heart not pounding, appearance of a fish/lizard, undefined gender, skin and brain are still interconnected etc), so there go the religious arguments on it. I believe that a forcing "pro-life" legislation is forcing multiple choices on all people involved, thus indirectly denying them the right of freedom of choice.

That's a funny idea we will never see implemented. Perhaps a PULSE.... Also I'll have to repeat myself.

This is not a discussion about megas. It's stated in the original post that we discuss here about NORMAL evolutions.

Ideologically speaking, Sanders is your best bet. You said it yourself. Hillary is a pendulum that sways wherever it's more profitable. Voting against whom you think is a worse choice is much different (and dangerous) than voting for the one whose policies you can actually see implemented. At least he has a social policy that's long due to be implemented in the states, compared to other candidates, who also have a scandal or two. I'll just have to point out that the current Canadian president is more of a leftist than Sanders. Here Trump states the obvious: If you don't have financial benefit, stay out of it. I'm referring to the american intervention to Israel, which we know will continue as the army is not going to withdraw. Therefore, there's no actual difference. As I mentioned earlier the democrats need to attack Trump if they want an easy win. Mass psychology is easy to observe where appearances are given more attention than the policies the delegates propose. Right now, Trump is acting both as the "Republican Superstar" and as a "Joke candidate". Only, what remains once he gets the nomination and focuses his campaign into throwing away the jokester attitude and start to appear more reasonable by withdrawing certain absurd comments and suggestions, starting to ask apologies for past events to convince the world he's more mature, and so on? Managing to bring him down mid-game makes Rubio or Cruz (whomever makes a comeback) able to get started. You'll notice that while Trump has already set the basis for the election run, the others seem to be just beginning a campaign that's vague in what it really wants to do. Sure we can position their tendencies on paper, but they are not the focus, thus have not presented their detailed agenda. On the contrary, both Clinton and Sanders have shown what they intend to do, and everybody has full knowledge on where to position them. Running against them, gives the Democrats a huge head start. The campains did not start yesterday of course, but if you complile media coverage, debate positions, political agenda, and tendencies towards other candidates of their own party and the one opposing it (since US only has 2 parties, another fallacy...), you'll see how far behind they are. The point stands. Trump is electable, just because Hillary is a bad choice. People are going to switch until they decide whom to vote against.

Perhaps Volcanion will make up for its design... The only thing I liked was Pikachu rolling on Magiarna

Here's a reminder why you should never rage quit. http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-338686479 Your lucky opponent had better not feel complacent before even getting to mid-game. One unlucky roll and he quits. I had consecutive ones and kept on playing (bulldose did only the highest rolls)

You can't grind for money before the E4. Granted, there are more than enough trainers, but should you fail, you can't buy enough. Good thing is that some pokemon evolved without the need for stones, but others... well the Linkstone is still not a thing. Poor mistakes were to challenge Sabrina with a Haunter, use Pikachu against Brock, do that Spearow trade, use a Hypno, throw rocks at Chansey and teaching Toxic to Venusaur without having Leech Seed (so it can stack on each other). During my first playthrough of R/B/Y (15 years ago) I taught Mewtwo Cut, simply because it was tedious to go all the way back, switch PC boxes, take that one useless pokemon that CAN learn it, and come back. Laugh all you want.

Sigh... so many fire types.

He's trying so hard to prove his point, he himself realizes that his arguments are quite shaky.

Having my Charizard killed by Ice Beam from Jynx...