What's on Your Mind?

[Ryo 73]

On 12/4/2016 at 5:47 AM, Aadikudo said:

Semester Exams... Last 12 hours to save the semester ;-;

Good luck 

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

On My Mind : Christmas is near and it's pretty dead silent in here...

[machine 52]

On 11/9/2016 at 4:33 PM, Akazora said:

 

I say this with all due respect and don't mean this as any offense to you, but what makes you think Trump might overturn marriage equality?  The Supreme Court already made a ruling on that in 2015, and no newly appointed justices, not matter how socially conservative, would dare try and overturn the decision on zero basis and risk causing a nationwide revolt as,

for the past few years, the majority of Americans support gay marriage with the gap ever widening, a steady trend when compared to the volatile public opinion on other issues, such as abortion.  Trump may personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he also believes gays should receive equal protection under the law as married people, even going so far as to show interest in an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, to also include sexual orientation.  If anything, Hillary is the one who has merely pandered to the LGBTQ+ community this entire election by claiming to support them, even though one of the Podesta e-mails reveals an exchange from October of 2015 of members of her campaign staff trying to figure out ways to "position her as a champion of LGBT issues," with all of them pitching ideas for statements that "Hillary" could publicly make, with none of the words or ideas actually originating from the woman herself.  One of them even admits that "she's [Hillary's] not going to want to say she was wrong about that [the Defense of Marriage Act, which originally defined marriage, by law, to be between a man and a woman before being ruled unconstitutional], given she and her husband believe it [DOMA] and have repeated it many times (emphasis added)."  Note the staffer member said "believe" and not "believed."  As such, any worries you may have of this "manchild" overturning marriage equality is something I assume you would also have had if Clinton was the one who had won, since they both think marriage should be between a man and a woman, only difference being one of them openly admits it while the other covers it up with a fabricated public stance.

 

Isn't it great that the candidate who falsely accused Russia for trying to influence the election by releasing e-mails proving the DNC and Clinton campaign were the ones influencing the election, who also supported enacting a no-fly zone over Aleppo which would have had a high chance of escalating into armed conflicted with Syria and Russia, was the one who lost the election?  Clinton tried to drum up a third Red Scare against a now democratic Russia with intentions of actually starting a war with them once she took office.  Trump on the other hand seeks to strengthen America domestically by rebuilding infrastructure and combating government corruption, and not attempt any fruitless nation-building invasions or bait other countries into launching cyber or military attacks against the United States.  So as with the issue of marriage equality, if you are going to freak out over the possibility of a war under the Trump administration some time in the next four years, I'd assume you would have been equally as, if not more so, concerned about the future if Clinton had won, correct?

 

 

Considering the nature of this, just to get it out at the start: I didn't vote. (It wasn't out of protest, I just couldn't get registered.) But with that being said, and to avoid any assumptions, if I had voted, it probably would've been for a 3rd party candidate anyway. I'm aware it could be argued that I've lost my right to complain about the election results since I didn't participate, but regardless of what happened, I would ultimately still be unhappy with the long-term outcome.

 

 

"Might" was strong word to use there, I apologize about that, but the possibility is there. Trump earlier this year said he would "strongly consider" appointing SC justices that could overturn marriage equality. ["WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage? TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes."]

As for "...no newly appointed judges, no matter how socially conservative, would dare try and overturn the decision on zero basis and risk causing a nationwide revolt..." I'm not so sure about that. It's not as though Obergefell v Hodges was a landslide victory, it was only 5-4. While LGBT+ acceptance is on the rise as a whole, some of the people who have power/will be gaining power in our government aren't necessarily representative of that increasing number of Americans who are in support of marriage equality. If SCOTUS does end up conservative leaning in the next 4 (or 8) years, I'll be more surprised if there aren't any attempts, or even serious considerations of looking into getting it overturned. (Though on second thought, if it does end up conservative leaning, there is a chance Roe v Wade could completely overtake the conversation of controversial Supreme Court rulings that could be reviewed. That happening wouldn't put me at ease though since that would cause mass unrest as well, and if unrest isn't a deterrent to them, what would stop them from going after other controversial rulings?) 

Perhaps this is an unpopular viewpoint, and while I agree that pandering to a certain demographic of voters isn't a good thing, I care less about their personal stances, and more about their potential actions. I won't argue that it's two-faced to have different stances on an issue depending on who you're talking to, and that trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes isn't ever not shameful, but, if there is anything resembling a silver lining in this case, at least pretending to care about LGBT+ issues would make it less likely for progress to be reversed/halted. 

Saying Trump didn't feign/exaggerate support for the LGBT+ community isn't accurate. While it's true it's not an issue his campaign has been built around, he has said that he would be an ally to LGBTs, as evidenced by this part of his speech at the RNC this past summer [“As your president I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens.”], and by this tweet ["Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."]. Despite these promises though, a lot (if not all) of his cabinet picks thus far have histories of being anti-LGBT+/holding anti-LGBT+ sentiments. (I, personally, find this to be coincidental, but it's still worth noting) I don't mean to imply that people's opinions and political beliefs can't change over time, but, in all honesty, how likely is it that any of them will have a change of a heart on it? While it's certainly becoming more acceptable for Republican politicians to speak out in support of same-sex marriage, it's still a fairly uncommon occurrence since the GOP likes to tout itself as the party of "family values", and to many, but not all, conservatives, "family values" and queerness are mutually exclusive. Republicans running for elected official positions probably don't want to lose those "restore family values" votes come election season, even if they personally disagree with them. I'd like to give his cabinet picks the benefit of the doubt, but the instances of them appearing anti-LGBT aren't from 15+ years, most of them are recent and likely reflective of their current (public) viewpoints.

So to answer your question: no, not really. There's not an equal amount of worry to be had when the one's flat out said he would consider appointing judges to possibly overturn Obergefell v Hodges, and the other has, albeit only in recent years, had a positive public opinion on marriage equality. Don't get me wrong, neither of them exactly have flattering records on LGBT matters and that bothers me, this is still picking between two less than desirable choices, but the risk does not appear to be the same.

 

To answer the last sentence of your paragraph first: not entirely, but more or less, yeah. Not sure how discernable it is through text, but in case it hasn't been noticeable: I'm a fairly anxious person in general. The inevitability of conflict, and the possibility that the country I reside in could become involved/more involved in it, has always, and will always stress me out more than it probably should. It's unlikely any future president will put me more at ease with this since the US prides itself on being a military power, but a president with little-to-no history in politics and foreign policy certainly doesn't help. If Clinton did have anything going for her from my perspective, it's that she, to me at least, seems a lot less potentially reckless. It's not exactly difficult to seem like the less reckless option though when Trump is seemingly uninformed on some terms regarding nuclear weaponry, and has been unwilling to say that he will not make use of the US's nuclear arsenal during his presidency. 

I'd really prefer to avoid going off in this direction entirely, but I'd appreciate it if you could link me some sources on where you got "...with intentions of actually starting a war with them once she took office." and "....and not attempt any fruitless nation-building invasions or bait other countries into launching cyber or military attacks against the United States." from. I've never come across anything suggesting anything like that, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it; thanks.

 

And to clarify, the "manchild" part is in reference to his petty tendencies (the recent Hamilton thing is a great example considering how well Pence responded to it), name-calling ("Lying Ted", "Little Marco", "Crooked Hillary", "Pocahontas"), and how he interrupted during the 1st and 3rd presidential debates (It's how he interrupted that bothered me, not the fact that he did so.) (And I left the 2nd debate out because I accidentally slept through it, and can't find the motivation to sit down and watch it in full). Not to mention his "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." remark from last year which reeks of immaturity.

That behavior, at best, is unprofessional, and I expect more of our politicians and presidential hopefuls :/ (And in case you wondering, yes, I found Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment inappropriate and in bad taste as well.)

 

-----

 

Look dude, I'll be blunt, I'd rather not continue this much further. In addition to just having a distaste for politics in general, I'm too apathetic half the time to care about politics more than a minimal amount. By all means, continue to call me out on my shit if it sounds off to you, but here's just a heads up that most of the time, I don't have the energy to be an active participant of political discussions. 

Thank you for starting this though, it got me to look into some stuff I normally wouldn't have. I apologize if I misunderstood any your points or come off overly defensive as well. I'm maybe halfway done with my response to your post in the Memes and Troll Faces thread. I'll finish and post it when I can. 

 

 

--------------

 

OMM 1:  Persona 5's NA release date got pushed back to April 4th, but it's been out in Japan since September 

 

OMM 2: tfw gunpla kits have recently started including bilingual instructions, but you're too broke rn to get into a new hobby  

 

Also, did anyone here get Pokemon Sun/Moon? If so, how are you liking it? 

And is anyone else salty about magearna not being a catchable pokemon? :c

[Ayuna Yume 6]

OMM : Slowly starting to lose identity after watching too much Naruto Shippuden... But don't worry I'm having a war with myself so I should be okay in no time...  

 

3 hours ago, machine said:

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Also, did anyone here get Pokemon Sun/Moon? If so, how are you liking it? 

And is anyone else salty about magearna not being a catchable pokemon? :c

Haven't watched it yet, sorry

[Maltavite 61]

The new DoTA2 update is much like LoL.

 

Seriously?

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

14 hours ago, Traxex said:

The new DoTA2 update is much like LoL.

 

Seriously?

Still have to see it LOL.

 

On My Mind #1: I find it quite interesting that those members who joined in 2010-2012 are the ones who still visits this site from time to time and never actually left. I guess this is what they mean by Generation Gap

 

On My Mind #2: About to finish the stories of the First Doctor T__T

 

 

I shall miss him ;__; Hmmm. Yes I will.

 

 

[Raki 15]

OMM: Winter break = time to binge watch tv shows

[HAIBARA...... 2]

i think my best friend is cheating on me

 

[Ryo 73]

On 12/18/2016 at 10:39 AM, Raki said:

OMM: Winter break = time to binge watch tv shows

Same! so much free time now

[machine 52]

OMM: ohhh man... 

I have a tendency to not put my xmas/birthday stuff away and just let it pile up on my dresser, but I finally decided to go through it the other day, and I ended up finding $135 that I'd forgotten I had and never put away 

It was a nice surprise at first, but now I'm worried that I've misplaced more money that can't exactly be considered 'pocket change'

I have enough to buy Sims 4 now though which is gr8

[Akazora 293]

On 12/6/2016 at 1:43 PM, machine said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Considering the nature of this, just to get it out at the start: I didn't vote. (It wasn't out of protest, I just couldn't get registered.) But with that being said, and to avoid any assumptions, if I had voted, it probably would've been for a 3rd party candidate anyway. I'm aware it could be argued that I've lost my right to complain about the election results since I didn't participate, but regardless of what happened, I would ultimately still be unhappy with the long-term outcome.

 

 

"Might" was strong word to use there, I apologize about that, but the possibility is there. Trump earlier this year said he would "strongly consider" appointing SC justices that could overturn marriage equality. ["WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage? TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes."]

As for "...no newly appointed judges, no matter how socially conservative, would dare try and overturn the decision on zero basis and risk causing a nationwide revolt..." I'm not so sure about that. It's not as though Obergefell v Hodges was a landslide victory, it was only 5-4. While LGBT+ acceptance is on the rise as a whole, some of the people who have power/will be gaining power in our government aren't necessarily representative of that increasing number of Americans who are in support of marriage equality. If SCOTUS does end up conservative leaning in the next 4 (or 8) years, I'll be more surprised if there aren't any attempts, or even serious considerations of looking into getting it overturned. (Though on second thought, if it does end up conservative leaning, there is a chance Roe v Wade could completely overtake the conversation of controversial Supreme Court rulings that could be reviewed. That happening wouldn't put me at ease though since that would cause mass unrest as well, and if unrest isn't a deterrent to them, what would stop them from going after other controversial rulings?) 

Perhaps this is an unpopular viewpoint, and while I agree that pandering to a certain demographic of voters isn't a good thing, I care less about their personal stances, and more about their potential actions. I won't argue that it's two-faced to have different stances on an issue depending on who you're talking to, and that trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes isn't ever not shameful, but, if there is anything resembling a silver lining in this case, at least pretending to care about LGBT+ issues would make it less likely for progress to be reversed/halted. 

Saying Trump didn't feign/exaggerate support for the LGBT+ community isn't accurate. While it's true it's not an issue his campaign has been built around, he has said that he would be an ally to LGBTs, as evidenced by this part of his speech at the RNC this past summer [“As your president I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens.”], and by this tweet ["Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."]. Despite these promises though, a lot (if not all) of his cabinet picks thus far have histories of being anti-LGBT+/holding anti-LGBT+ sentiments. (I, personally, find this to be coincidental, but it's still worth noting) I don't mean to imply that people's opinions and political beliefs can't change over time, but, in all honesty, how likely is it that any of them will have a change of a heart on it? While it's certainly becoming more acceptable for Republican politicians to speak out in support of same-sex marriage, it's still a fairly uncommon occurrence since the GOP likes to tout itself as the party of "family values", and to many, but not all, conservatives, "family values" and queerness are mutually exclusive. Republicans running for elected official positions probably don't want to lose those "restore family values" votes come election season, even if they personally disagree with them. I'd like to give his cabinet picks the benefit of the doubt, but the instances of them appearing anti-LGBT aren't from 15+ years, most of them are recent and likely reflective of their current (public) viewpoints.

So to answer your question: no, not really. There's not an equal amount of worry to be had when the one's flat out said he would consider appointing judges to possibly overturn Obergefell v Hodges, and the other has, albeit only in recent years, had a positive public opinion on marriage equality. Don't get me wrong, neither of them exactly have flattering records on LGBT matters and that bothers me, this is still picking between two less than desirable choices, but the risk does not appear to be the same.

 

To answer the last sentence of your paragraph first: not entirely, but more or less, yeah. Not sure how discernable it is through text, but in case it hasn't been noticeable: I'm a fairly anxious person in general. The inevitability of conflict, and the possibility that the country I reside in could become involved/more involved in it, has always, and will always stress me out more than it probably should. It's unlikely any future president will put me more at ease with this since the US prides itself on being a military power, but a president with little-to-no history in politics and foreign policy certainly doesn't help. If Clinton did have anything going for her from my perspective, it's that she, to me at least, seems a lot less potentially reckless. It's not exactly difficult to seem like the less reckless option though when Trump is seemingly uninformed on some terms regarding nuclear weaponry, and has been unwilling to say that he will not make use of the US's nuclear arsenal during his presidency. 

I'd really prefer to avoid going off in this direction entirely, but I'd appreciate it if you could link me some sources on where you got "...with intentions of actually starting a war with them once she took office." and "....and not attempt any fruitless nation-building invasions or bait other countries into launching cyber or military attacks against the United States." from. I've never come across anything suggesting anything like that, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it; thanks.

 

And to clarify, the "manchild" part is in reference to his petty tendencies (the recent Hamilton thing is a great example considering how well Pence responded to it), name-calling ("Lying Ted", "Little Marco", "Crooked Hillary", "Pocahontas"), and how he interrupted during the 1st and 3rd presidential debates (It's how he interrupted that bothered me, not the fact that he did so.) (And I left the 2nd debate out because I accidentally slept through it, and can't find the motivation to sit down and watch it in full). Not to mention his "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." remark from last year which reeks of immaturity.

That behavior, at best, is unprofessional, and I expect more of our politicians and presidential hopefuls :/ (And in case you wondering, yes, I found Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment inappropriate and in bad taste as well.)

 

-----

 

Look dude, I'll be blunt, I'd rather not continue this much further. In addition to just having a distaste for politics in general, I'm too apathetic half the time to care about politics more than a minimal amount. By all means, continue to call me out on my shit if it sounds off to you, but here's just a heads up that most of the time, I don't have the energy to be an active participant of political discussions. 

Thank you for starting this though, it got me to look into some stuff I normally wouldn't have. I apologize if I misunderstood any your points or come off overly defensive as well. I'm maybe halfway done with my response to your post in the Memes and Troll Faces thread. I'll finish and post it when I can. 

 

 

 

 

To address what you said at the end first, I’ll just begin by saying I totally understand where you’re coming from.  While I’m perfectly fine with, and in fact enjoy engaging in, political discussions, I know that a lot of others aren’t.  As such I’ll do my best not to have this discussion spiral out of control.  I’ll just address the specific points you mentioned, as well as try and give a sort of “closing statement” to wrap things up.  If I do happen to say something that you’ve like to address at a future time, you’re free to do so.  But I won’t be expecting you to, so don’t feel pressured if you’re fine with having the conversation ending.

 

I feel that the whole issue of Supreme Court Justices has more to do with political conservatism as opposed to social conservatism.  More recently in the 60 Minutes interview, Trump said that he was fine with the same-sex marriage decision, but that he would appoint Justices that would overturn Roe v Wade (this was after he was elected, just to note).  Okay, to preface what I’m about to say, I want to make it clear that I’m going to be playing a bit of devil’s advocate here.  While I’m all for same-sex marriage, I’m not exactly attuned to the issue of abortion, though on the surface I want to say that I support it.  However, I don’t feel that I’m educated enough on the topic to really feel strongly either way.

 

That being said, here’s my point of view on the issue of the Justices as a whole.  I know that often times it’s hard to remove the social issue from the political issue, but I feel that in order to understand the reasoning behind this, that’s exactly what needs to be done.  Trump is a conservative in that he supports states’ rights.  The Supreme Court, in both the Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges cases, essentially took away the rights of the states to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage and abortion.  It’s no secret that these two issues are pretty controversial, abortion more so than same-sex marriage.  Some states tend to lean pro-life, others pro-choice.  Roe v Wade makes abortion legal regardless of how each state individually feels about the topic.  Even if the majority of Americans are pro-choice, it wouldn’t be entirely accurate to say it’s representative of the opinion of the country as a whole, right?

 

For example, say you have a spreadsheet of all the Americans in the country as well as their opinion on certain issues: immigration, taxes, same-sex marriage, abortion, climate change, education, etc.  Let’s say you also have the option of filtering out the opinions on certain levels: by person, by township, by county, by state, and of course by country.  If you have the highest filter on, the one for country, the opinions are boiled down to a simple majority based on the entire population of the United States.  It’s simple and easy to look at, but it doesn’t represent the complexity of the situation nor does it do a very good job of showing how Americans really think.  Now, if you filter it out by state, you can see how the majority of people by state think about each topic.  That’s certainly more accurate, though it requires looking through more numbers.  Filtering it out by county gives an even more accurate picture, as does filtering it out by township. Of course, the most representative statistics are those on a per capita basis, but that results in a clunky mess of over 325 million individually cases to look at.  

 

I think you’re seeing what I’m trying to get at here.  Republicans, or just politically conservative people in general, are proponents of states’ rights, because they are going by the logic that having different laws for different states results in a higher percentage of people in support of, or at least content with, the law.  They are against the federal government passing sweeping, nationwide legislation, because they feel it’s less representative of how the populace feels as a whole.

 

To illustrate, imagine a country with a population of 40.  There are 4 states, with 10 people in each state.  Surveys show that 21 support a new federal law, while 19 oppose it.  This means that 19 people are unhappy, assuming the law passes based on majority opinion.  Now, say that this was instead a state-based law, with a different decision implemented depending on the state.  In State A, 3 people are for the law, and 7 are against.  In State B, 8 people are for the law, and 2 are against.  In State C, 9 people are for the law, and 1 is against.  In State D, 1 person is for the law, and 9 people are against it.  In states where the majority of citizens support the law (B,C), the law is passed, while the law is not passed in states where the majority of citizens are against the law (A,D).  This results in 7 unhappy people, in the other words, the ones who were against the law in a state where it passed and those who were for the law in a state where it was not passed.  While the total number of people who support the law remains the same, 21 to 19, instead of there being 19 discontent citizens in the country there are only 7.

 

This simple example shows how letting states choose their course will ultimately lead to a higher number of satisfied people.  I won’t go into the details, because I’m sure you’ll be able to imagine how the numbers would work themselves, but there would be a bigger satisfaction difference in issues where individual states lean heavily certain ways (a large mix of 9-1 states, for both sides of the issue), as well as very close national numbers (letting states choose on a 21-19 issue will result in more people satisfied than would have been satisfied otherwise, but letting states choose on a 48-2 issue probably won’t make much of a difference at all).

 

Okay, now to finally bring it back to the issue at hand.  When conservatives say they want to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges, they don’t mean that they want to make it illegal for same-sex marriage or for abortions to occur anywhere in country.  All they want to do is remove the nationwide stipulation, and instead let the states decide.  This also explains Trump’s increased resignation to the fact that the Supreme Court “settled” the issue of same-sex marriage, a relatively recent court decision, but still fights for Roe v Wade to be re-examined.  As I demonstrated in the above model, the more one-sided the issue is at a nationwide level, the less of a difference letting the states decide will make.  Because same-sex marriage is something that more and more Americans are in favor of (see the link from my previous response), even just the act of bringing it back to the states would actually do more to disrupt the balance of society than it would to help it.  Roe v Wade on the other hand, because it’s still such a highly contested issue (again, see my previous response), is something that Trump is still keeping on the table because letting the states decide will result in a large enough net increase in satisfied people.

 

Again, all that was just to provide the conservative perspective to the issue.  I don’t necessarily agree with it or disagree with it.  I also don’t want to get into the specifics of actually debating abortion, because that would just be opening a whole new can of worms.  But I do hope that this lengthy explanation gives you a glimpse of how conservatives think, and how their political stances relate to social issues.

 

However, to continue on the topic of the LGBT+ issue, I want to take a moment to look at the bigger picture.  I understand that to have Republicans in power can be frightening to members of the LGBT+ community, especially since conservatives aren’t usually known for their support of these issues.

 

But let me pose you this: what is the LGBT+ community fighting for?  Now, I’m fairly certain that they’re fighting for, in the broadest sense, the equal treatment of LGBT+ members by the world.  They want to eliminate discrimination and foster an environment of acceptance.  A lofty, but certainly admirable goal.  Now, in order to create this ideal world where everyone accepts the LGBT+ as equals, what needs to happen?  Well, the answer in this case is actually in the question itself: everyone needs to be on board with this.  And everyone includes Republicans.

 

And therein lies the hypocrisy of the LGBT+ community that I cannot ignore.  I support them in the sense that I’m in favor of their end goal.  But the way they’ve been treating this election, and more specifically the election of Donald Trump, baffles me.  Trump’s election should have been monumental for the LGBT+ community.  He a Republican who has openly accepted gays, lesbians, and everyone else as equals.  His entire campaign has been about protecting the interest of America and her citizens, regardless of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.  The bells should have been ringing across the land to celebrate this victory, and yet all I see are depression and despair.

 

One might point to the fact that Republicans, including the ones that Trump is appointing to his cabinet, are still largely anti-LGBT.  First of all, that doesn’t take into consideration those that are simply being politically conservative.  As I explained above, wanting to overrule Obergefell v Hodges does not automatically mean anti-LGBT+.  It could very well be someone who fights for states’ rights regardless of the issue.  Secondly, and this is my main belief, Republicans need to be given a chance.  Liberals, or more specifically, progressives have become so entrenched in their beliefs that they refuse to give conservatives even an inch.  And I feel that’s a terribly short-sighted way of attempting to resolve a conflict.  If they’re waiting for a time when both the Republican candidate and his or her cabinet are chock-full of pro-LGBT+ people, they’re not going to get it, at least not if they continue to play identity politics like this.

 

For example, the treatment of blacks in America has come a long way from when the country was first started.  In the modern day, the vast majority of people do not consciously discriminate against people of color (I’d much rather not get into the issue of subconscious discrimination, as that’s a cognitive issue for another time).  I imagine that the LGBT+ community would love to be seen in a similar light.  I understand that the current situation of blacks is not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the less than 60% approval that same-sex marriage receives (even less, I imagine, for the LGBT+ community in general).  And America reached this point, not by only electing Democrats, but also by electing Republicans.  The effort to eliminate racial discrimination was a bipartisan effort, and it would not have succeeded otherwise.  If only the party that “supported” black rights was elected each and every time, that would not have been a success.  That would have been silencing half the population into submission.  That’s not how you bring about change, nor is it how you bring about change through democratic means.  You change things by talking about issues across the aisle, regardless of which party happens to be in power.

 

Also, I’m not sure how unpopular or popular of an opinion this is, but I’m going to come out and say it: LGBT+ rights aren’t the biggest issue the country is facing right now, and it is wholly irresponsible to vote a certain way, simply because of that single issue.  If issues regarding the environment, education, infrastructure, jobs, and the economy are not addressed and fixed, then it matters not how the LGBT+ community is treated because the company will have already devolved into a corrupt skeleton of what it used to be.

That being said, people should vote for the candidate that the country needs.  If that person happens to be a Republican, then so be it.  If they happen to be a Democrat, then so it is.  You can still advocate for LGBT+ rights, regardless of which side is in power.  But to see Trump being denounced as anti-LGBT+ based on his cabinet picks makes me feel that progressives are still having trouble separating, or perhaps outright refusing to differentiate, political conservatism and social conservatism.  And in doing so, they’re selfishly blotting out the bigger picture for the sake of maintain their status as victims, refusing to recognize what is arguably one of the biggest landmarks in LGBT+ history, which might have ultimately done more to hurt the movement than to help it.  Just imagine the positivity that would have resulted if progressives recognized that Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate (and to-be President) to openly support the LGBT+ community.  Think of the publicity and buzz that would have been generated if the mainstream media made a bigger deal out of the LGBTQ portion of Trump’s speech at the RNC, his subsequent Tweet, and his holding up an LGBT flag at a rally, instead of trying to pretend these events didn’t happen or, whenever they did report on it, try to spin it in a negative light.  But it seems that playing the victim and actively limiting progress is justified in the name of maintaining the false narrative that Trump is literally Hitler, all Republicans are homophobes and should not be supported, and that the candidate with a (D) next to their name is the one and only choice.

 

Now, I say all that, but I want to clarify that I do not direct this toward you specifically, so I don’t want you to take any offense by this.  I have merely presented my point of view on the whole issue regarding Trump and the LGBT+ community, as well as expressed my grievances on progressives as a whole, in regard to the LGBT+ issue specifically.  Anyway, that just about concludes my thoughts on the LGBT+ issue.  I know I didn’t directly address every single point you brought up, but I carefully went over what you wrote and I believe that everything I’ve typed up at the very least indirectly provides rebuttals to concerns you might have.

 

Moving on, I want to tackle the bigger picture of Trump’s apparent lack of experience, more specifically his lack of political experience.  I find a lot wrong with people using this as an argument against Trump’s ability to hold the office of president.  If I apply to a local restaurant to work as a waiter, should I be denied the job because I don’t have any experience waiting on people?  Of course not.  If I have demonstrated interpersonal skills, leadership capabilities, the ability to deal with change, a good work ethic, a fantastic smile, and everything else that makes a good waiter, then my lack of direct waiting experience should not immediately disqualify me from being a waiter.  Trump’s successful presidential campaign, against all the odds, and his organization’s global reach are proof of his capabilities as a charismatic person able to get things done himself when needed, as well as delegate work to people most qualified for the job.  While not perfect, he’s made the correct decision more times than not, and to be honest there aren’t many people I’d trust more to be my president.  He may not know all the lingo and terminology used in the political world, but he’s been learning and he will continue to learn, and he’ll surround himself with an advising team that will help him make the best decisions.

 

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers didn’t create this country to be run by monarchy.  The entire idea of a democracy, or a representative democracy or republic if you want to be technical, is so that the people have a say in who leads the country.  There is no divine leader who has a God-given claim to the throne.  And yet if we as a nation continue to be of the opinion that “only politicians should be allowed to hold political office” we start to enter dangerous waters.  There’s a reason that the only requirements to be president are that you’re a natural born citizen, you’re at least 35 years old, and you’ve lived in the United States for 14 years.  Nothing in the Constitution mentions a required amount of political experience.  And that’s because once you start requiring political experience, you create an oligarchy disguised as a government of the people.  Elections occur, but soon they become ceremonial and in-name only.  After all, your only choice is politician A or politician B, so what’s the difference?  It’s clear that the Democratic and Republican parties have gained so much influence and traction that even “independents” are under their thumb.  Bernie Sander’s disgraceful selling-out after he lost the nomination, and his failure to revoke or even refuse an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, even in light of evidence showing the Democratic Party rigged the election against him, is proof of this.  Clinton only received the wrath of Republicans, not Democrats.  Trump was snubbed by a sizable portion of both parties.  I think that’s quite telling of the situation at hand.  This uniparty that currently rules America, one run by Bushes and Clintons alike, knows that they only hold power because people don’t care enough to look for alternatives, and whenever an alternative with enough power does come along with momentum to potentially injure the wizard behind the curtain, they do their very best to take them down.  Sanders was one of those alternatives, and the uniparty successfully silenced him.  Trump was another one of those alternatives, and thankfully he wasn’t having any of that.  The uniparty did all kinds of things to poison the well, but to stay on topic and not ramble off on too big of a tangent, one of those things was to claim that Trump didn’t have the experience to be President.  After all, they have power to control politicians of any party (again, Sanders) but they don’t have nearly as much control over a rogue silver bullet like Trump.  It may seem logical to reject the person “without experience”, but once you see the ulterior motive behind this talking point and realize not only the threat that Trump poses to the establishment but also that he has plenty of applicable experience, the veil falls away.

 

Also, to briefly touch upon a more specific concern of yours, I don’t see anything wrong with Trump not saying he won’t use nuclear weapons during his presidency.  It would be foolish to say otherwise.  Of course he doesn’t plan on using them, nor does he want to.  No one wants to use a weapon to hurt others (okay, at least the vast majority of people don’t, crazies do exist after all).  Gun owners have guns not because they want to blow the brains out of the Jones’ next door, but because they don’t want their dying thoughts to be “If only I had a weapon…”  I know you’re anxious about conflict, but the truth of the matter is, every single option needs to be on the table, especially when it comes to self-defense.  Our military exists as a defense mechanism, not an offense mechanism, least you forget.  Thankfully, the days of conquest and manifest destiny are over, if that’s of any comfort.

 

Alright, I don’t have any quoted evidence to prove Hillary intended to start a war with Russia, but I think at this point in the news cycle it’s pretty obvious that all signs point to yes.  I’ll also try to keep this as brief as possible, because it’s a bit of a tangential topic that deserves its own separate post.  Currently, the Democratic Party with the help of mainstream media is pushing the false narrative that Russia influenced/hacked/rigged the election in favor of Trump, resulting in a Clinton loss.  I don’t think I need to link you to these allegations, you’ve likely see them all over the place.

 

To clear away some of the uncertainly, so that you know exactly what I’m arguing against, I’m going to substantiate some of these claims.  For starters, what exactly is the left accusing the Russians of doing?  After all, there is a big difference between influencing, hacking, and rigging the election.  At first, immediately following the loss of Hillary, those on the left claimed the Russians were doing all three of these things, somehow.  But that can be attributed to the heated state of the nation at the time.  Those still pushing this narrative, even after the electors have cast their final votes, have all come to an agreement on this: the Russians hacked members of the DNC and released that information via Wikileaks, which unfairly swayed public opinion in Trump’s favor, resulting in Hillary losing the election.  So to make things clear, there are no more serious claims of Russians rigging the election.  This would be accusing them of somehow accessing the machines and ballots on the night of the election, and through some means taking votes away from Clinton and giving votes to Trump.  The notion is as crazy as it seems of paper, and there is absolutely no evidence of direct tampering from Russia.

 

Now that we know exactly where the left stands on this issue, we can begin to analyze just how much water this accusation holds.  First of all, the Russians.  What exactly is meant by the Russians?  A random lone wolf hacker living in St. Petersburg accessing information is quite different from a hacker living in Moscow being instructed by Putin and funded by the Kremlin, after all.  The former is something the Russian government has no responsibility for, while the latter is something that indicates malicious intent from a foreign power.  The CIA has come out and conjectured that Moscow may or may not be behind the DNC hacks.  They have zero evidence to back this up.  Read any mainstream media outlet trying to peddle Russian government interference as an established fact, and you’ll find that they all cite the CIA and other “intelligence agencies”.  Only problem being, no individuals in these agencies are willing to come out and say, point blank, the Russian government was behind this without a doubt.  It’s easy to hind behind the skirt of a big, fancy name like the CIA after all.  Mere conjecture, as opposed to evidence, is being treated as fact.  No documents, with parts redacted or otherwise, have been publicly released providing the American people with any evidence.  Whatever investigation is occurring is about as transparent as Obama’s administration, which is to say, not very transparent at all.

 

Now, to play along with the Democrats on this, let’s say that Russia was behind this deluge of information.  What does that change?  The information exposing the DNC and the Clinton campaign originated from two main sources: Wikileaks and Project Veritas.  Project Veritas, while known for having a bit of a questionable past, provided video evidence proving intent of higher ups to rig the election against Sanders and stage violence at Trump rallies, among other things.  It’s hard to deny video evidence, especially since those caught in the videos were removed from their positions immediately.  And no matter how you look at it, unless there is evidence to prove Project Veritas was funded by the Kremlin (there isn’t), this was a wholly domestic operation.  So whatever influence those videos may have had on the election cannot be attributed to Russia.  The bigger fish out there is Wikileaks.  But what they released was merely tens of thousands of John Podesta’s e-mails (Podesta being Hillary’s campaign chairman).  The e-mails substantiated the Project Veritas videos, exposed the campaign of collusion with the media, called into question the integrity of the Clinton Foundation, revealed Podesta’s participation in spirit cooking, and spring-boarded the grassroots investigation into Pizzagate.  The thing is, nothing Wikileaks published was false.  Every e-mail was real, and Wikileaks continues to maintain their perfect record of providing 100% genuine information.  The fact that the Democrats have yet to come out and denounce any of the e-mails as falsified, is proof of this.  The fact of the matter is, regardless of who was behind providing Wikileaks with Podesta’s e-mails (Wikileaks claims it was a DNC whistleblower with legal access to the e-mails while the Democrats, of course, claim it was the Russian government), these e-mails are proof of the DNC’s immoral and underhanded tactics in trying to subvert democracy and sneak their preferred candidate into the White House.  The messenger in this case is irrelevant; the American people deserved to vote, armed with as much information as possible, and if Russians were the ones who gave us that information then thank you Russia.  And as a quick rebuttal to anyone who might try and claim that a foreign power influencing a democratic election in another country is immoral in itself, a recording of Hillary Clinton revealed her proposal to rig the 2006 Palestinian election and Obama himself recently urged Britain to remain a part of the EU.  If these aren’t clear examples of a foreign governmental power attempting to influence democratic elections in another country, I don’t know what is.

 

Okay, so I spent all that time providing a, hopefully, sound argument against these inane claims of Russian interference, but I still haven’t addressed the main issue.  What does this have anything to do with starting a war with Russia?  Well, since even before she lost, Hillary was pushing this narrative in a shoddy attempt to explain away all the new information Wikileaks was putting out.  These claims have only seemed to magnify in the wake of Trump’s victory because it’s a convenient excuse the Democrats can use to explain how they lost an election they gave themselves a 98.1% chance of winning.  Now, imagine what would have happened under a Clinton administration.  If she had won, there would be nothing stopping her from fanning the flames of war.  The Podesta e-mails revealed she’s an “ends justify the means” type of person, and so even without the CIA releasing undeniable proof that the Russians attempted to influence the election, she would have found a way to tip the scales in her favor.  After all, she had already spent so much effort vilifying the Russians, all she would need at that point was some fabricated proof of hacking (which she would treat “like any other attack”), a violation of that no-fly zone she proposed over Aleppo, and before you knew it I’d be off fighting a war in Russia, and know just how badly wars in Russia end up going.

 

But you might be wondering, what are the benefits of war?  For the average American person, there really isn’t much.  For the government and bigwigs running society, there’s quite a lot.  First of all, it stimulates the economy, and in more ways than one.  Demand for military supplies boosts the manufacturing industries.  This allows those struggling to find jobs, who are the ones complaining about the economy the most, to finally be employed.  Furthermore, if there is a shortage of necessary resources, like food and water and energy, the government can attribute it to the war efforts.  If those resources are going to the boys abroad, resulting in higher prices at home, then it would be "unpatriotic" to complain.  Also, war requires people, and more specifically, war tends to require able bodied men.  Those men leaving will open up job opportunities for the people staying at home (less people living in America means more jobs and resources per capita domestically).  Also, less men means less babies, or at least, temporarily less babies as there is always a baby boom when the war ends and men return to their women.  Less babies not only means more available resources but also means a lesser current need for education.  The money that would have otherwise been invested in the education system can be used for something else.  All in all, the sitting President at the time can take credit for these nominal reductions in unemployment, increases in prosperity after being “controlled” for wartime, and so on.  Also, central banks around the world make insane profits from wartime, regardless of who they fund (they often times fund both sides of the war).  I don’t want to get too off topic, but the way the Federal Reserve and central banks in other countries operate is fascinating (and not in a good way).  If you want to gain a new perspective on history and war, then I highly recommend you watch this documentary called The Money Masters.  It’s three and a half hours long, but it’s worth every eye-opening minute.  Even if you ignore everything else I type here, please at least give the documentary a watch through.  By the end of it, you’ll realize why it’s not too far-fetched that Hillary had every intention of starting a war with Russia had she taken office.  Oh yes, and it’s not like wars haven’t been fought for fabricated reasons in the past as well.  Most recently the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda (he didn’t) and that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (they weren’t).  Based on the government’s word and word alone, we went to war with Iraq, and you can see just how swimmingly that went.  Other suspicious “tragedies” have been used in the past to shift public opinion in favor of war, such as with the USS Maine’s sinking contributing to the Spanish-American War and the Lusitania’s sinking contributing to America’s involvement in WWI.

 

Anyway, I believe that’s probably enough of that.  To address that other part of my claim, the one about Trump not wanting to engage in any nation-building or bait other countries into armed conflicts, I don’t exactly have any proof for, admittedly.  But to back up my reasoning for this, I believe a lot of what Trump has been running on supports this, in one way or another.  His message has always been about putting America first.  He wants to bring back jobs, reform the education system, drain the political swamp, rid America of illegal immigrants, rebuild infrastructure, renegotiate trade deals, bring power back to the states, and take out ISIS.  Aside from the issue of ISIS, which is something any incoming President would have to deal with, since you can’t exactly ignore a direct threat of terror that has attacked virtually every major western country in some way or another, every other point of interest is something that can’t be accomplished without staying out of war.  In order to rebuild America, we need all hands on deck.  While you can fudge around with the numbers and somehow make things look good, even with a sizable portion of the population fighting a costly war, no permanent change is going to occur.

 

And that’s what Trump stands for as an anti-establishment candidate.  Not only is he not beholden to special interest groups, he’s actually more likely to actually take strides toward making permanent, real change.  The trick behind being a politician is that you have to promise big, and not deliver on most of what you promise.  After all, if you do, especially as President, then there won’t be anything left for you to accomplish later.  There won’t be any need for your reelection, and there won’t be any need for the people to vote for your successor.  Trump doesn’t require the fame or glory.  He had those things long before running for President.  Most other Presidents ran with the intent of maintaining the smokescreen of false promises.  The Democrats have promised to improve the lives of inner-city blacks for decades, and yet nothing has changed (if Black Lives Matter is to be believed, they’re apparently even more oppressed by white cops than ever before).  Trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insanity, and I think that’s the sentiment Trump tapped into.

 

To bring it back to the issue of war, Trump has no need to go to war unless America is directly attacked.  While politicians may sing the song of peace or beat the drums of war whenever it’s convenient and “strategic” for them to, in order to maintain their never-ending charade of doing what’s best for the people when in reality all they’re thinking about is their own power and how they can pay back the people and organizations that made them so powerful in the first place.  I know that may not be the cut-and-dry definitive guarantee of Trump not wanting to go to war that you were hoping for, but in life there are very few guarantees.  Hopefully after that brief explanation on how I interpret this whole situation, you can rest at least a bit easier.

 

Okay, I know I keep on saying that I’m going to keep this short, and I’m so sorry I continue to break that promise.  I have a terrible tendency to ramble, both in my writing and when I talk, and it’s a habit I’m trying to break.  To address your final point about Trump being petty and unprofessional, in short, I don’t entirely agree with you.  It may seem distasteful at times, but often there’s more than just childish rage behind his words.  His nicknames for people were great for branding his opponents.  It may not have been very nice, nor may it have been particularly professional, but you can’t deny how universal those nicknames have become.  From a business perspective, it was brilliant marketing.

 

As for his interrupting during the debates, I don’t exactly see what’s so bad about how he did it.  It may have seemed dismissive and rude, but there wasn’t much he could have gotten done if he hadn’t interrupted the way he did.  If you think back to McCain and Romney, both of them had spines of wet noodles.  There was this stereotype (and a stereotype that still persists amongst the most liberal of Americans) that all Republicans were old white men that were loud, sexist, racist, backwards, uneducated, Christian, science-deniers.  After the wildly unpopular Dubya, Republicans were trying their best to fight this stereotype and so both McCain and Romney had to do their best to appear kind, gentle, and well-mannered.  Raise their voice, get upset or angry even one time, and *bam* suddenly the stereotype is true all Republicans really must be loud and obnoxious and crazy and totally unfit for the White House!  They were tiptoeing around issues so as to not step on a landmine.  The liberal media and the Democrats took this opportunity to further their agenda and attempt to shut out any Republican from ever holding the office of President again, and to be honest it would have worked if Trump didn’t run (think of the disastrous group of Republicans that ran for President alongside Trump; no matter how unpopular Hillary was she would have demolished all of them on election night).  Every Democrat’s wet dream is Republican opponents who refuse to stand up for themselves.  It makes it easier to take the highroad and run on a pedestal of superior morality, all the while controlling the narrative.  If Trump hadn’t interrupted the way he did, especially during the second debate, a ton of issues would not have been brought to the national stage (namely the Podesta e-mails and Project Veritas).  Sometimes his rambling and going off topic can seem a bit silly, but when you take into consideration how the media is often trying their best to undermine his entire campaign, often resorting to implicit name-calling, very similar to the kind you’re so disapproving of, you start to notice rhyme and reason to his madness.

 

(Also, completely off-topic, but Chris Wallace's handling of the third debate was amazing.  That was a well moderated and nearly perfectly balanced debate, and a far cry from the shame that was the second debate.  Props to Chris Wallace, even as a mainstream media reporter he has integrity.)

 

Anyway, speaking of his “madness,” a lot of it is downright brilliant.  To take that Hamilton example, it may have seemed like he was childishly lashing out against criticism, especially considering how well Pence took it.  But all that did was make liberals seem like fools when they jumped the gun and criticized Trump for getting his feelings hurts and demanding the theater be a “safe place,” not realizing that criticizing Trump’s calling for a such a “place” directly contradicts their own support for “safe spaces” on college campuses.  Likewise, his pushing of the “election is rigged” narrative prior to the election got people to look into the situation and discover Project Veritas, even if they hadn’t heard of it previously, and resulted in knee-jerk reactions from Democrats like Obama and Hillary and the mainstream media that the election couldn’t be rigged.  Funnily enough, their own positions on the matter completely backfired when they were the ones on the losing side.  And when he recently criticized the prices of F-35s and Air Force One on Twitter, he knew he was going to receive criticism.  Not because of the issue at hand, but because he knows he has haters that while call him out for absolutely anything and everything.  And when his concerns and complaints are justified, those haters end up once again looking like fools.  To be honest, that people aren’t seeing how much Trump has been trolling on social media is what gets me.  He knows what triggers his critics, and he plays them like a fiddle every time.  He’s just playing the fool, and it’s amazing that people aren’t seeing this.  You can still maintain that what he’s doing is unprofessional.  But honestly, I’d much rather have a President who, despite his age, is just a regular American who gets a kick out of social media and trolling on the Internet than a phony woman who tries too hard to be relevant and cool and thinks pandering to “oppressed” groups is how elections are won.

 

Oh my gosh, finally, I’m done writing that all up!  To conclude, I just want to say that saying I’m “calling you out on your shit” is a bit harsh.  That’s assuming what you’re saying is wrong and that what I’m saying is right, and I’d much rather not run with that assumption.  This is a conversation, and one that’s not limited to just this discussion thread on this quiet little forum.  There might be a boat load of things I say that are just ludicrous, and I’m sure I’m wrong on more than one account.  Every day I’m exposed to new information and I change my beliefs and my position on issues accordingly.  What I think today could be drastically different a year from now.  I love engaging in these types of discussions because it gives me an opportunity to alter my point of view and it exposes me to new ideas, so I’m very grateful you took the time to respond to me and to read this post in its entirety.  It was exhausting, but also a lot of fun writing this up.  I hope that you’ve also found this conversation beneficial in some way.  I know you said that you don’t have the energy or interest to continue this dialogue for much longer, and considering the size of this response I suppose I just killed off any last bits of motivation you may have had.  So while I won’t be expecting a direct response from you, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to reply, feel free to if you want.  I’m fine either way.

 

 

On 12/6/2016 at 1:43 PM, machine said:

Also, did anyone here get Pokemon Sun/Moon? If so, how are you liking it? 

And is anyone else salty about magearna not being a catchable pokemon? :c

Oh boy, I got Pokemon Moon on release date, and I loved it!!  I blasted through the game in a week, and I still play it relatively religiously to this day.  If you’re on the fence and have enough money to get it, please do!  It’s absolutely fantastic, and this is coming from a lifelong fan of the series who’s played virtually every Pokemon game, or at least one from each generation.  For the first time in my life, I can proudly say I have a favorite Pokemon game, and that would, hands down, be Moon.  The game looks gorgeous, the music is brilliant, the characters are actually endearing and lovable, the game is genuinely funny, and it’s a treat for both new fans, veterans, young children, and adults alike.  The new Pokemon are great, and it strikes a perfect balance between easy and difficult.  I haven’t had this much fun playing a Pokemon game in years, I seriously felt like I was a kid again, it was magical.  To be honest, the only complaint I have is that the game was too good for the 3DS to handle.  No matter which system you use, even the New 3DS XL, there will be framerate issues during Totem Battles and any battle with more than three Pokemon on the field at once.  But don’t let that deter you!  Everything else about the game I loved.  This was the best game of 2016 for me, and one of the best games I’ve played in my life.  I liked it so much, I've even started watching the Sun and Moon anime, and in all my years of being a Pokemon fan I have never watched the anime.  That's how much I've fallen in love with the music and the characters and the region and the Pokemon.  The game is a solid 9.5/10 (I only took off 0.5 for the framerate issues, and because I don’t believe in 10/10s anyway, but given the option I would have given this a 10/10).  Please consider getting this game as a last-second Christmas gift for yourself if you haven’t already, you won’t regret it!

I see you found $135 lying around, please consider spending some of that to get yourself a copy of Sun or Moon, whichever you’d prefer.

EDIT: And if you're the type of person to be swayed by hype trailers, here's a good one for ya!
 

--

OMM: The memes being made out of the Russian ambassador's assassination are so good but I feel terrible laughing at them.

.

.

.

.

.

But they're so good though.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Akazora

[Maltavite 61]

Om Teolet Om is a viral thing right now....

 

 

...but why there's no meme based on unique horn from my city's tuned public vehicle?

[Kjeldahl 47]

What is everyone's plan for Christmas? 

I have exams on 24th, 26th and 28th so my Christmas will be full of lovely desires to end my life.

[phantomlady1101 59]

2 hours ago, Kjeldahl said:

What is everyone's plan for Christmas? 

I have exams on 24th, 26th and 28th so my Christmas will be full of lovely desires to end my life.

I plan to finish Mystic Messenger's Christmas Special :">

Poor you :((( That's terrible -.-""" Good luck with the exams!!! U can do it ^.^ Think about the peace after the stressful period

OMM: I'm so lonely this Christmas that I decide to play otome games. Never regret!!!!! :>

[Balthazar Manfredie 226]

my plan is to not gain weight 

[Akazora 293]

OMM: MERRY CHRISTMAS INDEED

 

[Kid the Phantom Thief 252]

Whaaatt up guys xD Merry Christmas and soon a happy New Year! sorry about disappearing for so long (if anyone even cares haha), school's been rough.

 

How is everyone? (:

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

On My Mind: Late Merry Christmas to everyone and an advance happy new year too! Yes, CHRISTMAS not Holidays. It's purely disrespectful to the occasion and to those who celebrate it to call it the latter. Even me who's kinda like ex-catholic still calls it Christmas. :V

[A L 217]

5 hours ago, M.K. said:

On My Mind: Late Merry Christmas to everyone and an advance happy new year too! Yes, CHRISTMAS not Holidays. It's purely disrespectful to the occasion and to those who celebrate it to call it the latter. Even me who's kinda like ex-catholic still calls it Christmas. :V

 

Even a muslim like me calls it Christmas, even though I don't have anyone to wish. How you been, MK? Become a CEO yet?

[Kjeldahl 47]

On 12/23/2016 at 7:18 PM, phantomlady1101 said:

I plan to finish Mystic Messenger's Christmas Special :">

Poor you :((( That's terrible -.-""" Good luck with the exams!!! U can do it ^.^ Think about the peace after the stressful period

OMM: I'm so lonely this Christmas that I decide to play otome games. Never regret!!!!! :>

 

 

 

Sorry for the late reply.

Thank you for the luck. I screwed up my last exam because I was too excited to go back home ;-;

 

On 12/24/2016 at 3:01 AM, Neo Balthazar said:

my plan is to not gain weight 

 

Become a Vegan like me :3

 

On my mind: People are eagerly waiting for 2016 to end but little do they know that 2017 is going to be even worse :3

[Kenzi 146]

On 12/22/2016 at 2:24 AM, Akazora said:

 

Oh boy, I got Pokemon Moon on release date, and I loved it!!  I blasted through the game in a week, and I still play it relatively religiously to this day.  If you’re on the fence and have enough money to get it, please do!  It’s absolutely fantastic, and this is coming from a lifelong fan of the series who’s played virtually every Pokemon game, or at least one from each generation.  For the first time in my life, I can proudly say I have a favorite Pokemon game, and that would, hands down, be Moon.  The game looks gorgeous, the music is brilliant, the characters are actually endearing and lovable, the game is genuinely funny, and it’s a treat for both new fans, veterans, young children, and adults alike.  The new Pokemon are great, and it strikes a perfect balance between easy and difficult.  I haven’t had this much fun playing a Pokemon game in years, I seriously felt like I was a kid again, it was magical.  To be honest, the only complaint I have is that the game was too good for the 3DS to handle.  No matter which system you use, even the New 3DS XL, there will be framerate issues during Totem Battles and any battle with more than three Pokemon on the field at once.  But don’t let that deter you!  Everything else about the game I loved.  This was the best game of 2016 for me, and one of the best games I’ve played in my life.  I liked it so much, I've even started watching the Sun and Moon anime, and in all my years of being a Pokemon fan I have never watched the anime.  That's how much I've fallen in love with the music and the characters and the region and the Pokemon.  The game is a solid 9.5/10 (I only took off 0.5 for the framerate issues, and because I don’t believe in 10/10s anyway, but given the option I would have given this a 10/10).  Please consider getting this game as a last-second Christmas gift for yourself if you haven’t already, you won’t regret it!

I see you found $135 lying around, please consider spending some of that to get yourself a copy of Sun or Moon, whichever you’d prefer.

EDIT: And if you're the type of person to be swayed by hype trailers, here's a good one for ya!

 

ALL OF MY YES

 

oh man, I thought I was head over heels for Platinum, but Moon completely blew my expectations out of the water

the main thing I'm peeved about are the AIs in Battle Royal

I genuinely want to see what their algorithm consists of because I swear there's no predictable pattern I could discern from their battle tactics (aside from, you know, targeting the weakest guy)

or I dunno, there could be an aspect of probability/chance that plays a bigger role than it should

because I was getting seriously frustrated playing this battle format after being ganged up on for the umpteenth time despite there being enemies with disadvantaged typings on the field

 

also the framerate issue can be a bit annoying at times, but it's nowhere near enough to impede on the most organic ecstasy I've felt in ages playing this godsend of a game

 

 

On 12/26/2016 at 11:39 PM, Kid the Phantom Thief said:

Whaaatt up guys xD Merry Christmas and soon a happy New Year! sorry about disappearing for so long (if anyone even cares haha), school's been rough.

 

How is everyone? (:

everything has been pretty good on my end, but I hope things look up for you for New Year's!

 

 

14 hours ago, M.K. said:

On My Mind: Late Merry Christmas to everyone and an advance happy new year too! Yes, CHRISTMAS not Holidays. It's purely disrespectful to the occasion and to those who celebrate it to call it the latter. Even me who's kinda like ex-catholic still calls it Christmas. :V

tbh I always thought that saying "Happy Holidays" was a way of encompassing holidays such as Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, etc. into a generic greeting 

people do mean well when they say it so I don't see how it's taboo to refer to these occasions as such, especially since you can't assume what each person celebrates

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just curious about how you came to this conclusion

 

 

--

OMM: my parents got a cat while I was gone .-.

 

OMM2: recently prioritized Cowboy Bebop on my watch list after having several friends rave about it to me

I haven't finished it yet

but it's damn good

[Kid the Phantom Thief 252]

3 hours ago, Kenzi said:

everything has been pretty good on my end, but I hope things look up for you for New Year's!

;D Same to you!

 

Also, now that you're on the topic of the new Pokémon gen VII, how's the difficulty of the game compared to earlier generations? I haven't really played any other Pokémon games aside from LeafGreen and Diamond/Pearl, and I can't remember how difficult/easy those games were, but I find the new Pokémon Moon/Sun way too easy. Granted it's a children's game, but it would've be a bit more exciting if they'd upped the difficulty a tad, or just given the various trainers you meet a couple more Pokémon, haha.

 

Anyway, aside from that the new Pokémon game is a marvel to look at, and I especially like the new donkey/horse Pokémon. (I haven't completed the game yet, and I have yet to try out all the new/old? features, so I can't really comment on those.)

[Raki 15]

OMM: Is that what God does? He helps? Tell me, why didn't God help my innocent friend who died for no reason while the guilty ran free? Okay. Fine. Forget the one offs. How about the countless wars declared in his name? Okay. Fine. Let's skip the random, meaningless murder for a second, shall we? How about the racist, sexist, phobia soup we've all been drowning in because of him? And I'm not just talking about Jesus. I'm talking about all organized religion. Exclusive groups created to manage control. A dealer getting people hooked on the drug of hope. His followers, nothing but addicts who want their hit of bulls*** to keep their dopamine of ignorance. Addicts. Afraid to believe the truth. That there's no order. There's no power. That all religions are just metastasizing mind worms, meant to divide us so it's easier to rule us by the charlatans that wanna run us. All we are to them are paying fanboys of their poorly-written sci-fi franchise. If I don't listen to my imaginary friend, why the f** should I listen to yours? People think their worship's some key to happiness. That's just how he owns you. Even I'm not crazy enough to believe that distortion of reality. So f*** God. He's not a good enough scapegoat for me.

 

Wow that's probably one of my favorite scene of the whole series so far

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

On 12/29/2016 at 10:46 PM, The Banana Paladin said:

 

Even a muslim like me calls it Christmas, even though I don't have anyone to wish. How you been, MK? Become a CEO yet?

M-Maybe? Nah. You're gonna be my first investor haha

 

On 12/30/2016 at 7:04 AM, Kenzi said:

 

tbh I always thought that saying "Happy Holidays" was a way of encompassing holidays such as Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, etc. into a generic greeting 

 

people do mean well when they say it so I don't see how it's taboo to refer to these occasions as such, especially since you can't assume what each person celebrates

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just curious about how you came to this conclusion

People love to argue that they call Christmas/New Year as "Holidays" because they don't want to offend anyone but I think it's geared more towards the gretee disliking the occasion than the other party not celebrating it. I mean I always call the holidays by their name, may it be a Muslim one or American one or Asian one or whatsoever e.g. Ramadan/Thanks Giving/Lunar New Year eventho I don't celebrate them . I do it because I respect, welcome and tolerate the occasion. And I don't see any reason why not unless you are someone who cannot tolerate these things. And geez,  if you are offended when someone greets you "Merry Christmas/Happy New Year" because you don't celebrate those things then something is wrong with you. You are probably just a Liberal-Fanatic who despises everything about Christianity.

 

If you're gonna counter argue and ask why I am against Christmas being called "Holiday" if I'm a tolerable person, it's simply because. as I said, it's disrespectful to those people who have established the occasion and to those who celebrate it. It's name swapping no matter what you call it. You are basically not acknowledging it (It's basically like calling someone "girl/boy/kid" instead of calling them by their name) And anyways, Christmas is just the name of the Holiday, it doesn't mean that if you greet someone by it, you automatically shove Christian beliefs to them. Actually, Christmas is not even really a Christian Celebration to some. (There are Christians Denominations that despises Christmas)

 

Plus to me, Christmas Celebration has a different meaning to me. Being a Christian Deist, I don't celebrate it like the theological Christians do where they celebrate it because it's the birth of their God Jesus whatsoever. I celebrate it as an occasion where people can rest and be happy and celebrate and reunite and give gifts to each other. And I'll still call it Christmas.

3 hours ago, Raki said:

OMM: Is that what God does? He helps? Tell me, why didn't God help my innocent friend who died for no reason while the guilty ran free? Okay. Fine. Forget the one offs. How about the countless wars declared in his name? Okay. Fine. Let's skip the random, meaningless murder for a second, shall we? How about the racist, sexist, phobia soup we've all been drowning in because of him? And I'm not just talking about Jesus. I'm talking about all organized religion. Exclusive groups created to manage control. A dealer getting people hooked on the drug of hope. His followers, nothing but addicts who want their hit of bulls*** to keep their dopamine of ignorance. Addicts. Afraid to believe the truth. That there's no order. There's no power. That all religions are just metastasizing mind worms, meant to divide us so it's easier to rule us by the charlatans that wanna run us. All we are to them are paying fanboys of their poorly-written sci-fi franchise. If I don't listen to my imaginary friend, why the f** should I listen to yours? People think their worship's some key to happiness. That's just how he owns you. Even I'm not crazy enough to believe that distortion of reality. So f*** God. He's not a good enough scapegoat for me.

 

Wow that's probably one of my favorite scene of the whole series so far

Mr. Robot reference? I actually hated that speech of his. He sounded like a conspiracy theorist there for a second. #Im14andthisisdeep

 

Oh the Irony. I'm over that period of my life.

 

===

 

On My Mind: Gahd. It pisses me off that my parents decided to just cement the Garden. There's no more nature in our house. Why are old people like this? D:

 

 

[Balthazar Manfredie 226]

blame people for what happened to you 

not god

if you want fee will this is what you get with it

 

now, i wish to wish everyone a happ....a good year in 2017

may you all find fortune

MK, love ya man

keep on playin