Raki 15 Report post Posted January 1, 2017 21 hours ago, M.K. said: He sounded like a conspiracy theorist there for a second. I guess it did....? I don't know. I just really liked it because of how sudden it was and how he just kinda stared into the camera as he said it. The lines that really got me were "If I don't listen to my imaginary friend, why the f** should I listen to yours?" and "He's not a good enough scapegoat for me." 21 hours ago, M.K. said: 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. I didn't know people got offended when they're told "Happy new year!" but I completely agree with the Christmas thing. There's no reason to get worked up about things like that. - OMM: I thought it was a normal thing for people to put twelve grapes in their drink on New Year's Eve. Guess not lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
detConShin 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2017 Happy New Year to every member of this awesome community. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
machine 52 Report post Posted January 1, 2017 ^ don't really want to get involved in the happy holidays vs merry xmas debacle, but "...I think it's geared more towards the gretee disliking the occasion than the other party not celebrating it." bothered me a bit and if it means anything: Similarly, I'm also a former Catholic, but I started saying happy holidays after realizing that I didn't like that saying merry xmas to someone assumes/implies that the other party is a Christian/celebrates xmas for mainly religious reasons, and after being a closeted "nonbeliever" in a Catholic school for several years, I'd just prefer to abstain from perpetuating that assumption. Unless it's the day of, I, as someone more on the atheistic side of things (I apologize if anyone finds this alarming or uncomfortable.), feel weird being that specific too. It's not intended to be a metaphorical middle finger to those who do happily partake in the non-consumerism part of the season, it's just easier and acknowledges that there's other holidays going on around the same time. Plus, it could be argued an empty, insincere "merry xmas" is more disrespectful than a genuine "happy holidays" tl;dr - not offended in any way nor do I have a pronounced dislike for xmas, I'm, personally, just glad there's an alternative, catch-all term available for those who want one ----------- OMM: it's 2017 and you know what that means! --Crank That by Soulja Boy is officially almost 10yrs old! yooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuu And I hope everyone's been enjoying their winter break! 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? (: I was wondering if you'd disappeared for a reason; welcome back! Hopefully the latter half of the school year will treat you better! On 12/29/2016 at 6:04 PM, Kenzi said: OMM: my parents got a cat while I was gone .-. If you don't mind me asking, what's its name? Do they know how old it is? On 12/22/2016 at 2:24 AM, Akazora said: Spoiler 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! Ehh.. I'm still not entirely sold, but with that being said, I revisited ORAS recently (I lost interest a few weeks after it came out when I lost my first ever shiny because I forgot to save before quitting), and have been enjoying it more than I thought I would. Your paragraph, and playing ORAS again, does make me want to play the next main installment in the franchise, but I'm still hung up on a few small things. I don't particularly like either legendary or any of the starters' full evolutionary lines, I was hoping to catch a bunch of magearna's and have a whole team of 'em and I'm still somewhat disappointed that you can't do that, and, for whatever reason, I don't like the walk/run cycle used for the player's character. and as cool as Kukui may be, he's no Prof Sycamore I'm probably going to get it soon though since, for a while, I planned on buying it at launch, and when launch day came and went, it felt kinda weird not having it. They also brought back character customization with Sun/Moon, and being that that was one of my favorite parts of XY, I really want to play another Pokemon game with that feature. I also can't get Origin to work for some reason, so Sims 4 isn't an option at the moment and it'd be nice to get at least one video game before the holiday season's officially come and gone :') Also: Why did so many people choose Moon? Literally everyone I know who bought the game chose Moon, and considering I was going to go with Sun, I can't help but feel like I might've missed something somehow. . . .. . *insert obligatory "what starter did everyone choose?" question here* I'm gonna go with rowlet and never evolve him so he stays smol 5ever On 12/22/2016 at 2:24 AM, Akazora said: Reveal hidden contents 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. Spoiler Thank you. Because my parents are on sort of opposing sides of the political spectrum (the one's a fairly middle of the road moderate that leans slightly left socially, and the other's staunchly conservative it's gotten very ugly, very quickly on one or two occasions), I've been grouped into more than my fair share of political 'discussions' (or whatever you want to call people making their stance loudly known while simultaneously subtly criticizing, if not outright insulting, the other(s)) this past election cycle, and I'm just burnt out by this point. Though there probably is one or two things I did want to say, I don't want to take an additional month to figure out how to accurately articulate those things, especially since they're not exactly important. If you have any specific questions or things you wanted me to expand on now or in the future, that's fine, but I'd prefer to not get swept up in a huge, seemingly neverending political back-and-forth for at least a couple more weeks haha I admire your enthusiasm and optimism when it comes to politics though. It'll be pretty impressive if that trait sticks with you, especially since so many people around our age now are already a bit stuck in their ways (myself partially included in this). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kenzi 146 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 On 12/29/2016 at 10:19 PM, Kid the Phantom Thief said: 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.) The last Pokemon games I’ve played were the gen V games, so it’s been a while, haha. I’ve been told that the newer games tend to be a lot easier since they buffed the exp. share so that experience is distributed among every member of your party (which makes it stupidly easy to become over-leveled, lol). I turned off my exp. share the moment I received it, and admittedly, there were a few parts of the game that caused me a fair amount of stress (one of the trials took me a couple of attempts to beat, and I was actually a bit under-leveled for the elite 4). Granted, I didn’t really grind and mainly relied on trainer battles to gain levels, haha. One of my friends went to even further lengths to up the difficulty by setting the battle style to “Set” instead of “Shift” (“Set” doesn’t give you the option of seeing the opponents next Pokemon after you knock one out). I’d venture to guess that you left the exp. share turned on and had your battle style set on “Shift” if you thought it was that easy? Seeing as you haven’t beaten the game yet, maybe implement these options and see what happens! But to answer your question, the difficulty curve is comparable to some of the older games when the exp. share is turned off. Maybe a little easier, or at least in my opinion, lol. OH MAN, the new features are amazing. For starters, no HMs is probably one of the best aspects of these games. The Pokedex is actually useful for once by telling you Pokemon locations and even giving you typings of Pokemon you haven’t caught yet (which was especially useful since I was trying my darndest not to spoil the games for myself). Also the fact that whenever you catch a Pokemon, the game gives you the option of seeing its summary and letting you put it in your party instead of sending it straight to the PC box! The list just goes on and on, haha. On 12/30/2016 at 10:20 PM, M.K. said: 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. Um, I greet people with “Happy Holidays," lol. But does that mean I'm against Christmas? Not in the least bit (fun fact: it’s actually my favorite holiday). What about Kwanzaa? Well, I don’t exactly celebrate it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I have adverse feelings towards it either. And same, I’m not Christian, but I celebrate Christmas for the exact reasons you do. On 12/30/2016 at 10:20 PM, M.K. said: 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) Quite the opposite, actually. After reading your take on the subject, perhaps our differing perspectives is due to our interpretation of the phrase “Happy Holidays.” To me, “Happy Holidays” is inclusive of all of these different celebrations since you can’t assume what each person celebrates. I don’t see how it can be considered name-swapping unless, for example, you’re solely referring to Christmas when you say “Happy Holidays” (which seems to be what you’re claiming). But again, that’s not what I feel the phrase is meant for. The phrase is meant to be inclusive of every holiday during this time of the year, not just Christmas. In other words, “Happy Holidays” is actually acknowledging every holiday, as opposed to only saying “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukkah” to someone who might only celebrate Kwanzaa. But, in the end, no matter what you consider the phrase to mean, the person wishing you a “Happy Holidays” is ultimately wishing you happiness. It’s not really fair to interpret the benevolent gesture as some malicious attempt to cause you offense, lol. not to drag @machine into the conversation or anything, but I think this just about sums it up pretty well: 20 hours ago, machine said: It's not intended to be a metaphorical middle finger to those who do happily partake in the non-consumerism part of the season, it's just easier and acknowledges that there's other holidays going on around the same time. Plus, it could be argued an empty, insincere "merry xmas" is more disrespectful than a genuine "happy holidays" tl;dr - not offended in any way nor do I have a pronounced dislike for xmas, I'm, personally, just glad there's an alternative, catch-all term available for those who want one 20 hours ago, machine said: If you don't mind me asking, what's its name? Do they know how old it is? before my parents adopted the guy, its name had been “Pickles” for about three weeks we haven’t made a firm decision yet, so its name seems to alternate between “Pickles” and some Chinese variant of “Kitty Cat” lol and it’s about a year old, haha 20 hours ago, machine said: Also: Why did so many people choose Moon? Literally everyone I know who bought the game chose Moon, and considering I was going to go with Sun, I can't help but feel like I might've missed something somehow. . . .. . *insert obligatory "what starter did everyone choose?" question here* I'm gonna go with rowlet and never evolve him so he stays smol 5ever I was asked the same question by one of my friends, except his question was “why did everyone choose Sun because you’re the only person I know who chose Moon” hahahh LITTEN I only did it so I could name the guy “mixtape” no ragrets Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metantei Kiddo 147 Report post Posted January 5, 2017 On 1/1/2017 at 9:25 AM, Raki said: I guess it did....? I don't know. I just really liked it because of how sudden it was and how he just kinda stared into the camera as he said it. The lines that really got me were "If I don't listen to my imaginary friend, why the f** should I listen to yours?" and "He's not a good enough scapegoat for me." It was actually funny that it was sudden and he just started ranting out when everyone was like serious and sharing their life stories. On My Mind: #wengerout Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akazora 293 Report post Posted January 9, 2017 On 1/1/2017 at 4:35 AM, machine said: Also: Why did so many people choose Moon? Literally everyone I know who bought the game chose Moon, and considering I was going to go with Sun, I can't help but feel like I might've missed something somehow. . . .. . *insert obligatory "what starter did everyone choose?" question here* I'm gonna go with rowlet and never evolve him so he stays smol 5ever Because Pokemon fans are edgy nerds who stay up way past their bedtime ^das me at least And I chose Rowlet. If I ever get a second copy of the game, I'd choose Popplio. I'm curious though @machine, why do you like Magearna so much? There are a lot of Pokemon I've taken a liking to over the years, but I've never had the urge to create a full party of any single Pokemon to run through a game with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
machine 52 Report post Posted January 12, 2017 OMM 1: I... I beat it. I beat Pokemon Sun, my rowlet stayed a rowlet the entire time, I was finally able to add magearna to my team, and I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Calling it "easy" is a bit of an understatement though. While I can't say I was really bothered by just how low the difficulty was, it still would've been nice to not unintentionally steamroll my way through everything. (I don't like grinding in turn based rpgs, so I appreciated them making it harder to end up under-leveled, but it would've great if the game had been a bit more challenging) And Ilima's best girl boy, no contest Only 6 of the 15 pages in my passport are filled though, so I'm getting the feeling that I missed quite a few things, yeah? OMM 2: tfw u hear what sounds like a German word u know in an anime and shortly after find out the Japanese word you heard actually is a loanword from German On 1/2/2017 at 1:12 AM, Kenzi said: before my parents adopted the guy, its name had been “Pickles” for about three weeks we haven’t made a firm decision yet, so its name seems to alternate between “Pickles” and some Chinese variant of “Kitty Cat” lol and it’s about a year old, haha Does it happen to have any resemblance to Pickles from Neko Atsume? On 1/8/2017 at 9:11 PM, Akazora said: I'm curious though @machine, why do you like Magearna so much? There are a lot of Pokemon I've taken a liking to over the years, but I've never had the urge to create a full party of any single Pokemon to run through a game with. It's a little automaton with eyelashes, a cog around its head that resembles a maid's headpiece along with a large, bulbous skirt and two decorative bunny ear-like things that are probably only there for aesthetic purposes, and its arm opens up like a flower whenever it attacks ....what's not to like? To actually answer your question though, my favorite pokemon, aron, isn't available in Sun/Moon, and magearna looks kinda similar to aron. My first Pokemon game was Black and White 2, so I've had at least one aron in all of my games, and magearna was going to be my 'substitute aron' in Sun/Moon, so to speak. I like magearna's steel/fairy type combination a lot more than aron's steel/rock combo though, and playing with a magearna-only team for any length of time sounded like it'd be an interesting challenge. I wasn't hoping to go through the whole game with only them, but I did want to see if I could make it through an island or two with only magearna's. I was also planning on catching all the ones I came across in game, so finding out you can only have one kinda ruined my plans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid the Phantom Thief 252 Report post Posted January 12, 2017 On 1/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, machine said: I was wondering if you'd disappeared for a reason; welcome back! Hopefully the latter half of the school year will treat you better! I doubt it will be getting easier, haha. At least I'll be done with it for good. Anyway, thank you! ;D On 2/1/2017 at 7:12 AM, Kenzi said: The last Pokemon games I’ve played were the gen V games, so it’s been a while, haha. I’ve been told that the newer games tend to be a lot easier since they buffed the exp. share so that experience is distributed among every member of your party (which makes it stupidly easy to become over-leveled, lol). I turned off my exp. share the moment I received it, and admittedly, there were a few parts of the game that caused me a fair amount of stress (one of the trials took me a couple of attempts to beat, and I was actually a bit under-leveled for the elite 4). Granted, I didn’t really grind and mainly relied on trainer battles to gain levels, haha. One of my friends went to even further lengths to up the difficulty by setting the battle style to “Set” instead of “Shift” (“Set” doesn’t give you the option of seeing the opponents next Pokemon after you knock one out). I’d venture to guess that you left the exp. share turned on and had your battle style set on “Shift” if you thought it was that easy? Seeing as you haven’t beaten the game yet, maybe implement these options and see what happens! But to answer your question, the difficulty curve is comparable to some of the older games when the exp. share is turned off. Maybe a little easier, or at least in my opinion, lol. OH MAN, the new features are amazing. For starters, no HMs is probably one of the best aspects of these games. The Pokedex is actually useful for once by telling you Pokemon locations and even giving you typings of Pokemon you haven’t caught yet (which was especially useful since I was trying my darndest not to spoil the games for myself). Also the fact that whenever you catch a Pokemon, the game gives you the option of seeing its summary and letting you put it in your party instead of sending it straight to the PC box! The list just goes on and on, haha. I should probably turn the exp. share off then, haha. Thanks for the tips, Kenzi Didn't know about the set/shift options! What I like most about the game is probably that it's 3D(/2.5D), instead of the sort of top-down 2D we've had so far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsukiko 73 Report post Posted January 12, 2017 On 12.10.2016 at 0:20 PM, -NL- said: Yeah, I'm still here :3 But, I ain't really that active anymore. Well, neither am I. Look at this! Last I was here was around three months ago! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akazora 293 Report post Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 7:46 AM, machine said: OMM 1: I... I beat it. I beat Pokemon Sun, my rowlet stayed a rowlet the entire time, I was finally able to add magearna to my team, and I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Calling it "easy" is a bit of an understatement though. While I can't say I was really bothered by just how low the difficulty was, it still would've been nice to not unintentionally steamroll my way through everything. (I don't like grinding in turn based rpgs, so I appreciated them making it harder to end up under-leveled, but it would've great if the game had been a bit more challenging) And Ilima's best girl boy, no contest Only 6 of the 15 pages in my passport are filled though, so I'm getting the feeling that I missed quite a few things, yeah? I'm surprised you found it so easy, especially considering you seemed to have just finished 6th gen. Most people considered XY and ORAS to be the easiest game in the series, and that SM did a lot to ramp up the difficulty. No one thought it was Dark Souls level of hard, naturally, but a lot was done to make it significantly more difficult to find yourself sweeping through the whole thing. I'm assuming you kept Exp. Share on and used Pokemon Refresh, but I'm curious what your team was, and what level they were by the time you versed the Elite Four. Also, that's a weird way of spelling "Lana" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) And yes, you fill out the rest of the pages by completing the Pokedex, reaching certain milestones in the Battle Tree, and upgrading your Pokefinder. You can find the details here. Aside from that, there's the Ultra Beast sidequest, the Eevee sidequest, collecting all 100 Zygarde pieces, obtaining all 100 TMs, locating the rest of the Z-Crystals, catching the Tapus, and backtracking to previously inaccessible places using some of the later-game Poke Rides like Machamp and Sharpedo. Oh, and sometimes going back to places you've already been to results in special NPCs, dialogue, and cutscenes, some of which you may have accidentally discovered during the main story (the restaurant "dates", the Hau'oli City NPC, the trail captain battles, etc). On 1/12/2017 at 7:46 AM, machine said: It's a little automaton with eyelashes, a cog around its head that resembles a maid's headpiece along with a large, bulbous skirt and two decorative bunny ear-like things that are probably only there for aesthetic purposes, and its arm opens up like a flower whenever it attacks ....what's not to like? To actually answer your question though, my favorite pokemon, aron, isn't available in Sun/Moon, and magearna looks kinda similar to aron. My first Pokemon game was Black and White 2, so I've had at least one aron in all of my games, and magearna was going to be my 'substitute aron' in Sun/Moon, so to speak. I like magearna's steel/fairy type combination a lot more than aron's steel/rock combo though, and playing with a magearna-only team for any length of time sounded like it'd be an interesting challenge. I wasn't hoping to go through the whole game with only them, but I did want to see if I could make it through an island or two with only magearna's. I was also planning on catching all the ones I came across in game, so finding out you can only have one kinda ruined my plans Ohh, interesting, Aggron is actually one of my favorite Pokemon (his regular form specifically, not his Mega). I'm assuming you just prefer Aron to its evolutions because it's smol? -- OMM: MERRY SWITCHMAS!! The Switch event was really hype, and for the most part I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. The only thing that really worries me is the paid online subscription, which may get in the way of me really being able to enjoy Splatoon 2. ARMS looks surprisingly good, Super Mario Odyssey looks decent as well, as does Xenoblade Chronicles 2. I wish Fire Emblem Warriors was an actual main series FE game, but perhaps there will be more news during that Fire Emblem Direct on Wednesday, especially about the mobile game. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe looks alright, but I've already invested so much money in the Wii U version and its DLC that I won't be double dipping. And as for indie games, Snipperclips is where it's at. I somehow managed to get the Special Edition of Breath of the Wild pre-ordered (don't fail me now Best Buy), but by the time I was able to convince my parents to get me the Switch on release date, they've already completely sold out online, and my winter break isn't over yet so I can't pre-order in store . . . Nintendo, please don't mess with me like this; I'm getting PTSD from amiibo hunting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kenzi 146 Report post Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 7:46 AM, machine said: Does it happen to have any resemblance to Pickles from Neko Atsume? not exactly, bit I'd say there is some resemblance my parents ended up sending him back because taking care of him was too much work it might've been for the better since he never got the attention he deserved during the daytime since no one was home the poor guy just kept meowing and pawing at the door until someone opened it for him :c On 1/12/2017 at 1:55 PM, Kid the Phantom Thief said: What I like most about the game is probably that it's 3D(/2.5D), instead of the sort of top-down 2D we've had so far. I agree! the extra touch of realism can really help, haha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsukiko 73 Report post Posted January 17, 2017 I ate four mandarines and now my stomach is hurting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raki 15 Report post Posted January 17, 2017 OMM: Today this girl in my class said "I only consider being real friends with people when I'm comfortable looking them in the eye." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A L 217 Report post Posted January 19, 2017 On 17/01/2017 at 11:57 PM, Tsukiko said: I ate four mandarines and now my stomach is hurting. Man, I always have to catch myself with mistaking cannibalism when I see mandarin and eat in the same sentence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
machine 52 Report post Posted January 22, 2017 did MK actually leave this time...? -------------------------------- OMM: "Stardew Valley dev considering ps vita port" please please please please please please please please On 1/14/2017 at 9:05 PM, Akazora said: I'm surprised you found it so easy, especially considering you seemed to have just finished 6th gen. Most people considered XY and ORAS to be the easiest game in the series, and that SM did a lot to ramp up the difficulty. No one thought it was Dark Souls level of hard, naturally, but a lot was done to make it significantly more difficult to find yourself sweeping through the whole thing. I'm assuming you kept Exp. Share on and used Pokemon Refresh, but I'm curious what your team was, and what level they were by the time you versed the Elite Four. Also, that's a weird way of spelling "Lana" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) And yes, you fill out the rest of the pages by completing the Pokedex, reaching certain milestones in the Battle Tree, and upgrading your Pokefinder. You can find the details here. Aside from that, there's the Ultra Beast sidequest, the Eevee sidequest, collecting all 100 Zygarde pieces, obtaining all 100 TMs, locating the rest of the Z-Crystals, catching the Tapus, and backtracking to previously inaccessible places using some of the later-game Poke Rides like Machamp and Sharpedo. Oh, and sometimes going back to places you've already been to results in special NPCs, dialogue, and cutscenes, some of which you may have accidentally discovered during the main story (the restaurant "dates", the Hau'oli City NPC, the trail captain battles, etc). Ohh, interesting, Aggron is actually one of my favorite Pokemon (his regular form specifically, not his Mega). I'm assuming you just prefer Aron to its evolutions because it's smol? u must be confused because everyone knows Kahili is best girl after Ilima I technically haven't completed the 6th gen yet, I'm a little before the 8th gym in ORAS actually. While it's also not exactly challenging, I can't compare difficulty levels between the games very easily since I played the two fairly differently. I beat Sun/Moon in 10/11 days and I put effort into having my team be more diverse by utilizing types I usually don't have on my team, but in ORAS my team had/has a lot of overlapping types, and despite getting it on release day, I'm still not done with it. And my team was garchomp, honchkrow, rowlet, solgaleo, sandslash, and drifblim. In addition to that being much more well-rounded than I'm used to, excluding solgaleo, they were all between lvl 60 - 67. My friend told me that her team was in the high 50s when she beat the Elite 4, so I was aiming for low 60s just to be safe. I did keep the exp share on since I tend to end up underleveled in RPGs due to my dislike of grinding, and I used refresh fairly frequently since I wanted to get rare candies from the cafes. I didn't think using those would overshoot me by so much though What exactly did they do to make it more difficult than gen 6? Thanks for the link btw I'll have to look into the NPC stuff and eevee sidequest I have a question about the Tapu battles though: if you accidentally KO one, can you try to catch it again later? That's part, if not most, of the reason why aron's my favorite out of the three haha Aron's also the evolution you encounter first in the games, and for whatever reason, a lot of my favorite pokemon are just the evolutions you have the opportunity to catch first, so there's also that. That is an interesting coincidence though. Is there a specific reason you prefer regular aggron over mega aggron? On 1/15/2017 at 11:34 PM, Kenzi said: not exactly, bit I'd say there is some resemblance Reveal hidden contents my parents ended up sending him back because taking care of him was too much work it might've been for the better since he never got the attention he deserved during the daytime since no one was home the poor guy just kept meowing and pawing at the door until someone opened it for him :c That's too bad, but pretty understandable since cats can be pretty clingy ): He's a nice looking cat, hopefully someone else will adopt him soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akazora 293 Report post Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/21/2017 at 10:49 PM, machine said: u must be confused because everyone knows Kahili is best girl after Ilima I technically haven't completed the 6th gen yet, I'm a little before the 8th gym in ORAS actually. While it's also not exactly challenging, I can't compare difficulty levels between the games very easily since I played the two fairly differently. I beat Sun/Moon in 10/11 days and I put effort into having my team be more diverse by utilizing types I usually don't have on my team, but in ORAS my team had/has a lot of overlapping types, and despite getting it on release day, I'm still not done with it. And my team was garchomp, honchkrow, rowlet, solgaleo, sandslash, and drifblim. In addition to that being much more well-rounded than I'm used to, excluding solgaleo, they were all between lvl 60 - 67. My friend told me that her team was in the high 50s when she beat the Elite 4, so I was aiming for low 60s just to be safe. I did keep the exp share on since I tend to end up underleveled in RPGs due to my dislike of grinding, and I used refresh fairly frequently since I wanted to get rare candies from the cafes. I didn't think using those would overshoot me by so much though What exactly did they do to make it more difficult than gen 6? Thanks for the link btw I'll have to look into the NPC stuff and eevee sidequest I have a question about the Tapu battles though: if you accidentally KO one, can you try to catch it again later? That's part, if not most, of the reason why aron's my favorite out of the three haha Aron's also the evolution you encounter first in the games, and for whatever reason, a lot of my favorite pokemon are just the evolutions you have the opportunity to catch first, so there's also that. That is an interesting coincidence though. Is there a specific reason you prefer regular aggron over mega aggron? at least post best Kahili picture if you're going to post at all smh and I'm sorry to burst your hipster bubble, but Lillie takes the cake after Lana It's interesting you decided to have a team mainly of old Pokemon instead of a full team of gen 7 'mons. And my experience was more in-line with your friend's; I'm fairly certain I was also high-ish 50s because I remember being pretty evenly matched in the Champion battle. (reasons for why the game was more difficult than gen 6 in spoilers, both because there are some story spoilers in there and because I ended up writing a lot...) The major stuff they did to turn up the difficulty was subvert expectations. Because gen 6 was notorious for being broken with the new Exp. Share and Pokemon-Amie, a lot of people were upset when they used those two features and found their runthroughs in XYORAS to be too easy. So a lot of them assumed that the case would be the same for Sun and Moon and so turned off Exp. Share immediately and refused to use Pokemon Refresh. However, the level balance in SM was a lot better than in gen 6, so long as you didn't dawdle too much in the grass, so people found themselves in a bit of a pinch once they realized they were trailing behind the NPCs had they chosen not to use Exp. Share or Pokemon Refresh. Another thing they did was make Alolan Pokemon generally really slow. Lots of Pokemon with base speed in the 40s, and some even get slower once they evolve (Torracat > Incineroar, Trumbeak > Toucannon, Crabrawler > Crabominable, etc). That may not seem like much of a problem, since there were so many Pokemon from previous generations to be caught, but a lot of people like playing through a new generation with only new Pokemon (I'm one of those people). So you can imagine the surprise of people when they catch and raise all these cool, new Pokemon only to find that they're being outsped by NPCs who have no qualms with using the generally faster Pokemon from previous generations. Even if you OHKO your opponent every time immediately after they use a move, you're give them at least one opportunity to damage you or leave behind a nasty status condition. This eventually starts eating away at your potions, or, if you're one of those "no potions allowed" types, trying your patience because you have to go heal at a PC more often than if you had someone that could reliably sweep. And then there was the case of SOS battles, the ones where a wild Pokemon calls for help. This is a first for the series, and made catching Pokemon much more difficult, or at least more annoying. I'm sure you're had the frustration of trying to catch a Pokemon only to have it call for help over and over again, never giving you the chance to throw a ball. As your (slow) Pokemon is assaulted from two fronts, it forces you to use more potions than you'd normally use, which wastes money and turns and time and potentially opens up the opportunity for the wild Pokemon to call another friend (if you've just KO'd the first one it called but are in the red and desperately need the HP in case your Pokeball fails and the wild 'mon knocks out yours in retaliation). It also made training harder. Training an underleveled, slow Pokemon is painfully difficult, especially if they can't OHKO or at least 2HKO a wild 'mon. And for those not using Exp. Share, their only option is to switch in with one of their stronger Pokemon, which gives the wild Pokemon a chance to call for help, attack, or boosts its defenses. Are you starting to see how people's assumption about how the game would be based on gen 6 are adding up and making for a surprisingly difficult game? But it wasn't just how people played the game; Game Freak put more thought into making some of the landmark battles more difficult. There wasn't much on the first island that was too surprisingly, but a few people were caught off guard by the teacher at the trainer's school (Magnemite was a pain for Rowlet, Popplio, and the vast majority of Pokemon on Route 1), Ilima's battle (his Smeargle has a move super effective against your starter which is boosted by the Technician ability), the wild Vullaby that dropped from the sky (Moon version only, they're bulky and the first wild non-Totem Pokemon in the game most players meet that call for help, which make for a painful first encounter), and Hala's Crabrawler (first time in the game a trainer is capable of using a Z move on you). From what I've gathered, people doing self-imposed Nuzlockes were the ones most affected by this. On the second island, while I'm sure some of the other battles were notable, the ones everyone remembers are the trials. Almost everyone I know had a least one of the trials kick their ass, be it Lana's, Kiawe's, or Mallow's. Lana's Wishiwashi was given automatic advantage because the weather was rainy (Water-type moves boosted by 50%). Because it's a Totem, it received +1 Defense boost, which was exacerbated by its Growl which lowers your Attack (ultimately locking out physical Pokemon). The SOS partners both have Helping Hand, making Wishiwashi's Water Gun even more powerful, though the most notably frustrating move was Alomola's Healing Pulse, which kept the Totem in Schooling form longer. Oh, and the Totem was holding a Sitrus Berry, further prolonging the battle. Kiawe's Salazzle was difficult for a completely different reason. Salazzle and its little Salandit buddy both have moves that can poison you, and if that wasn't enough pain already, they also have moves that can capitalize on that poison. Salazzle has Poison Drench which lowers your attacks and your Speed if you're poisoned, and Salandit has Venoshock which doubles in power on a poisoned Pokemon (from 65 base to 130). And you can't fight fire with fire either, since they're both Fire/Poison, meaning they're immune to burn and poison. Mallow's Lurantis was pretty hellish as well. It hits fast and hard, and it also has a way of sustaining its health. It has a Speed boost for being a Totem, and it's holding a Power Herb allowing it to get off a powerful Solar Blade immediately. Both of its SOS partners are threatening in their own way. Trumbeak has Rock Blast which counters Fire-types (and if it has Skill Link it'll hit 5 times), Supersonic to confuse you, and Screech to sharply lower your defense making Lurantis's Solar Blade even more deadly. Castform has Sunny Day, the linchpin of the trial. Under the sun, Lurantis will not only be able to rapid fire Solar Blades like no one's business but Synthesis will heal two-thirds of its health instead of half. Oh, and Lurantis has Leaf Guard, so while it's sunny you also won't be able to cripple it with poison, burn, paralysis, or sleep. Some people say that was the game's peak difficulty, but there were still parts that caught people off guard. Immediately upon stepping on the third island, right after visiting Aether Paradise for the first time, Hau battles you. This is the first time he has his Alolan Raichu and it's fast (even faster if you have a team of only Alolan 'mons). Psychic and Electro Ball are strong against just about anything you might have to counter it, and they both get STAB. Because it hits hard and fast, a lot of people are unprepared for it and are swept by the Raichu alone. And worst thing is, he battles you immediately following an extended cutscene so if you turn off your game to try again you go back to right before the Nihilego battle (if you even remembered to save then). But if you let him beat you, instead of whiting out the game just automatically heals your Pokemon and carries on as always, so no redemption for you! I don't think there was anything else on the third island particularly special though. Sophocles's trial was relatively easy unless your team build is bad or you got unlucky with paralysis. And Guzma's first appearance wasn't too rough either, though that Goliospod's First Impression OHKO'd one of my 'mons, which was certainly a first impression, hah. The only other thing I hear about on this island is Acerola's trial. I know a lot of people who used their starter's Z-move on Mimikyu to try and end the battle before it began (if the previous trials taught you anything, it was to finish asap else you'll be in for a world of hurt). But what they forgot or just didn't realize was Mimikyu's Disguise which completely wasted that Z-move. Team Skull's hideout wasn't too difficult, neither was the Aether Paradise fiasco. It didn't get a bit harder again until the fourth island. Some people had trouble against Hapu, and apparently there was a bit of a level jump in general from Aether Paradise to the island. And it doesn't help that the island is so uninhabited that there aren't really any places to heal your Pokemon while exploring. From here on out though, it's a bit of breeze until you reach the Elite Four which was either really difficult or really easy. I only had a bit of trouble with Kukui, because his Lycanroc set up Stealth Rocks before I could knock it out, which made it really difficult to heal up and switch my Pokemon around without being severely punished for it. Oh, and when I said "Hau'oli City NPC" in my previous post, I actually meant Hau'oli Cemetery NPC, oops..... And yeah, KO the Tapus all you want, they respawn I may or may not have accidentally KO'd Tapu Koko the very first time with a crit And I just like Aggron's design better than Mega Aggron's, ahah. That's the main reason, but I guess I'm also a sucker for cool Pokemon that aren't really competitively good. Aggron has a lot of shortcomings that prevent it from being in a higher tier, which its Mega kinda fixed, but I like the underdog types, so I prefer it in its regular form. -- OMM: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kjeldahl 47 Report post Posted February 11, 2017 My night duty is starting this semester. Meaning I have to attend classes from 8am to 5pm, then work around the block for 5pm to 12 am. I can be excused 15 mins of being late. This is what true hell feels like ;-; Anyways Valentines is just around the corner. How is everyone planning to celebrate it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid the Phantom Thief 252 Report post Posted February 22, 2017 On 22/1/2017 at 4:49 AM, machine said: did MK actually leave this time...? Probably not. ;P On my mind: I want to watch anime, but I'm as picky as ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
julia azrina 2 Report post Posted February 28, 2017 On 10/7/2015 at 1:28 AM, Rye said: What do you call Shiratori and Kobayashi's pairing? ShiraYashi...eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid the Phantom Thief 252 Report post Posted February 28, 2017 17 hours ago, julia azrina said: ShiraYashi...eh? Did you just quote a post from 2015? And hey! You're new huh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
julia azrina 2 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 16 hours ago, Kid the Phantom Thief said: Did you just quote a post from 2015? And hey! You're new huh! Haha yes...i just found this forum few weeks ago Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid the Phantom Thief 252 Report post Posted March 2, 2017 On 1/3/2017 at 2:34 PM, julia azrina said: Haha yes...i just found this forum few weeks ago Haha, that's cool! So what're you up to? Busy life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
julia azrina 2 Report post Posted March 3, 2017 12 hours ago, Kid the Phantom Thief said: Haha, that's cool! So what're you up to? Busy life? yeah of course btw may i ask something? what about last week's episode which in the preview that shows Takagi and Sato are married? i think in my country there's no channel that broadcasted this series so i tried to search for it in the internet but couldn't find any of it's video. what about it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maltavite 61 Report post Posted March 6, 2017 Anyone here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid the Phantom Thief 252 Report post Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/3/2017 at 1:18 PM, julia azrina said: yeah of course btw may i ask something? what about last week's episode which in the preview that shows Takagi and Sato are married? i think in my country there's no channel that broadcasted this series so i tried to search for it in the internet but couldn't find any of it's video. what about it? I haven't watched the episodes (only read the manga haha), but if you tell me which episode number it is I could try to help! (: @Traxex Yes, I am! Long time no see (: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
