Tediz64

Okay so I got to like 7:30 and couldn't continue. Within the first few seconds I knew this video was gonna be bad cause he said "white people shit" when referring to content around games, anime, and so forth. Like since when did white people own that content and those hobbies? Plus this video seems very much like the intended audience is just for one group. A group I'm not part of. Needless to say, I understand that to a certain extent this video covers some legit info that is real but the way the info is presented is very off putting and narrow in scope. I get your good intentions about sharing the video. But now I'm stuck on that fact that some dude out there think white people own those hobbies and interests. Which bothers me greatly. So I kinda wanna end this part of the discussion while still have more composure. Suffice to say, I know my type and that I'm easily susceptible to being indoctrinated into a cult. I took a test once. It was kinda funny. But I got a few people who keep me in check so I'm safe. Regarding your comments on the military stuff, I get it. I won't remark on it since that would take way too much time to talk about though. Nothing wrong with having a healthy amount of skepticism and cynicism in your life. Also I totally agree! Who doesn't love Pokemon! Off to the Pokemon forms I go!

Someone quoted a philosopher saying something along the lines of "to be apathetic towards public policy will result in being ruled by corrupted officials". I'm not trying to discourage being informed. Being educated is indeed an important thing, but i guess I'm just concerned about people's well being. My perception is that some of you are super active, and I hope you aren't letting it drive you into the ground. I don't mean to be condescending. If people know how much they can tolerate when it comes to their stress levels, then by all means, consume the info hourly if you want. I suppose my words conveyed a tone that implied that doing this regularly is a waste of time and you could spend it better. I should have put more of an emphasis on stress levels and how passionate some of you are talking about this stuff plus how visible your anger is showing. Then maybe it would have been interpreted as me pointing out that it sounds like your letting this info and discussion bring out the ugly in you and how I imagine this must also being affecting your health negatively. Bolded = that is pretty eye opening. My mind is kinda blown now. I should have pondered my words more but what I was trying to convey was that maybe you shouldn't let it control you so much and bring out ugly side of you. You sound passionate sometimes when you talk and I wonder how negatively you're letting it affect your health. And here I thought I took it down fast enough. I lost my composure and ranted then thought about it and decided I didn't want to begin discussing that stuff. Not so much cause of the fact that it I shouldn't be bring how I feel about a certain group of people which of course would open up alot of debate, but cause I thought, you don't get what it's like and to put a spot light on a civilian isn't professional much less it is unreasonable to expect you to understand something you've never even encountered or experienced Not the first time I've been accused of that so I'm pretty sure you are right. But I'm also like that cause I think one should speak a certain way when out in public. Similar to the grandma rule (ya know the one where if you wouldn't wear it and her see, then you shouldn't be wearing it all) I use the same kinda rule when talking to others. If you wouldn't talk to your mom like that, then don't do it to others. But hey, everyone is raised differently so if she wants to talk like that, then by all means, have at it. Also since the internet is tone deaf, I probably also just interpreted yesterday as being agressive and hostile based off my mood and what I was already in based off my position so now if I go read it again, maybe it wasn't that bad.

So regarding the first tidbit, I get your point, but that is only one perspective to look at it from. If you were to give me the benefit of doubt and assume I mean well, then you should have been able to reach the same conclusion that he has to go within or at the least, by the end of his first year. With that being said, as citizens your only duty and time to act is when elections roll around. You can't do anything else until then because like with this process currently being the newest media coverage, you as a citizen don't start an inquiry or an investigation. That is the responsibility and job of other elected officials and law enforcement. If all they wanted was to see if public opinion supports going forward, it could have been a one and done kinda thing. Didn't the vote to start Brexit start off similarly? It got public support and then after that, it has been constantly getting spinned around in the Chambers. So now that I said that, why stress yourself out constantly with unending updates on his character and actions? I'm trying to make the point that it isn't good for an individual's health. Stress has been studied very heavily in the medical field and has averse affects on one's health. It shortens your life span, makes you grow gray hairs and lose them, it wrecks and messes with your diet, messes with your sleep, and the list goes on. The dude has to go. We got it. It's one thing to keep yourself updated every other month to make sure you don't get overwhelmed with info, but it is another to daily antagonize your own well being and livelihood. I guess I'm only saying that though, cause I'm not willing to be involved anymore than just a few minutes or an hour once every two weeks. I just grab a few facts and drop the topics and focus on games/anime. Those make me happy and ease my stress. But I see some people posting here weekly, citing resources, and showing off their array of knowledge on the topics meaning they must be clocking hours upon hours possibly daily. I couldn't stress myself like that so frequently and not suffer in my workplace or in my personal life. I'd shoot myself. I get what you mean though, if people want to be invested, then that's their choice. But sometimes when I read this forum, I just imagine people on this thread super stressed out and probably suffering. And over someone they hate. That just shows how much control he has over other's lives. He doesn't control mine. Ever since he got into office, I haven't really noticed any difference in my lifestyle or haven't had to adjust my plans for the future. So what gives? Also evaluate others arguments? That he needs to go? That he is bad? To stay afloat on his daily shenanigans? I don't think I need help with that. All I hear is how some have personalized his actions and how it offends them directly leading to them wanting to do something about it asap. I don't want to change anyone's thinking or opinions. I came to answer a question and give feedback so some could have insight into the perspective of others. It seemed like as if they weren't going to be able to obtain the info otherwise, so I walked around and talk to people on my spare time at school then relayed some of that info. If you think about it, I kinda just strolled in here and handed out food for thought and got attacked for it. When I read the fuck word dropped in eclipse's post, I just went e__e "this is why I don't comment here often". People want to know what the grass is like on the other side so I came to share. Again, this place isn't very welcoming. Regarding your last paragraph, above all else, I refuse to make enemies out of otaku and gamers. Pundits aren't something I'm worried about. I just don't want to lose to chance to talk about fun stuff with others who have my same interests. Here on this site, it is very critical i not make enemies since like 90% of the population likes not only my favorite game franchise but anime too. Hence, why I don't seek confrontation with the people here. For the most part. Am I making sense?

I don't know? I just walk up to people and ask/state "hey, I'm a student conducting a survey. I don't want your name but if you could please answer a few questions it'd help me with my project. Try to answer these questions while role-playing as a scholar and keep it academic as possible". Then I get the feedback and relay it here. I think the idea that "those are so bad then this must mean the inverse, which is equal to these must be better ideas" logic isn't right here. Maybe they think both suck really bad but instead of weighing which one sucks more it is a matter of, which one is unacceptable and then they roll with it. I mean depending on who you are and what your priorities are, some stuff might be a deal breaker right off the bat. I recall we discussed once before, that some people only really care about one single issue and make compromises on others as long as that one is dealt with how they want. Like I can try to better articulate my words so that you comprehend what I'm saying, but it's kinda hard to do when people read it and then respond emotionally. I'm trying to approach this topic like as if I'm discussing it like a scientist and doing what I can to explain this phenomenon. I don't think my response was intended to "defend" why not to go forward with impeachment. I was simply answering "what would it take to turn moderates against him. How bad does it have to be". So I have no idea how you are responding to me. I'm sorry I don't get it. I ask this earnestly. Do you trust polls? I don't. My freshmen year in psychology, my teacher told us at the beginning of class that if any of us conducted a "survey" style experiment for our project that we'd get an automatic F. She said surveys are the most subjective and offer the least accurate results possible when posing questions and trying to answer them using the scientific method. She said you could easily fish for the results you want by asking a question a certain way and furthermore, some people don't answer honestly when they feel they are being watched. I don't know how polls are conducted but I sincerely doubt their integrity and don't give much credibility to them. Then don't listen to all his crap? Is that an option? Why are you so invested in politics that you follow his daily actions or follow him weekly? Don't you have better things to do? Keep in mind that for this paragraph here I'm asking these questions to better understand where this passion comes from and why can't it redirected into something more positive. Like I dislike him too. But I don't allow him to run my life. I still move forward thinking that the time will come when it is my chance to make a change. Allow me to use a metaphor here or something akin to an analogy. Do you follow certain football players outside the regular game season? Do you constantly pay attention to their personal life? Cause as far as I'm concerned, I only care when it's game time and I do what I can to keep up with the matches and see what their results are. I had a teacher once tell me that he remembers a time when politics changed for ever. He said that before, you never use to hear anything or see anything untill one day in our history they started treating it like a sport. They even had collectibles and trading cards! I don't know what time period this was but that changed it forever. I mean, I got that the current president was a bad dude right from like the first 2 or 3 months but I guess maybe I'm just more patient and just waiting for when the time comes that I'm supposed to do something about it. I mean politicians like staying relevant and in circulation since it is what helps them get elected and there are plenty running for offices that require attention on a 2 year interval. What better way to spice things up and keep people entertained than to put on a show and flame the media with epic titles to keep you in the loop. But I think for some of you here, it is stressing you out and eating at you. Like some of you are making it personal and that isn't good for your health. All of us already have daily little stressors from work, social relationship, home responsibilities, and so forth so why add more to your plate? I guess that is my two cents on this. So onto your next paragraph. I'm a moderate that votes conservatively most of the time and didn't defend him or his actions or the "values" they claim to represent. But even I still feel wary stepping foot into this thread. I dislike all politicians. I mention this a few pages ago but I'm happy I have a brother and a sister in arms who are currently running for office. Tulsi Gabbard and Peter Buttigieg got my vote if they make it any further. I don't know why, but I feel more comfortable trusting someone who has served like myself than some random person who makes a career out of rubbing elbows with people. It takes a certain character and a certain level of personality to make it past boot camp and AIT. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone who joins the military is a good person, I know there are some bad people there too. But by a long shot, they'd beat anybody who doesn't know a thing about hard work, blood, sweat and more that get shedded living the soldier life. Like I could try to explain it better but that would require I type a whole bunch more and I'm pretty sure my text wall is already getting pretty long. But back to the point, I said this place isn't very welcoming and it mainly is cause, if I'm not on your side, then by default most assume I must be on the other side. And most others only assume there is one other side only. I think it was mentioned before, but this country sucks for having a two party system. There isn't a big enough and strong enough platform for others to go to that takes middle ground. So by default most want to make me their enemy. They don't want to talk and try and meet me plus the others somewhere in the middle. I dislike the republican platform and some of what it stands for, but I also have things I dislike about Dems too, but I notice when people like me or others come to try to provide constructive criticism to help balance you out and make your platform more stable so it could fit us on it too, we get pushed into your enemy camp and are told that is where we belong. Long story short, it's like I'm not allowed to be your ally unless I cave in to all your demands. So I guess I'll join the other team since they are nicer to me. I mean, I'm not hurt by it, but like how else am I supposed to respond when eclipse was like "what the fuck". I already knew going forward I had to back track and make her unangry and stop cussing before I could even begin to get her to see I'm not the enemy, and I come in peace. Like I just feel Dems are way more hostile. Repubs will take any ally they can get. But I like some Dems. They tend to like anime, fire emblem, Pokemon, and so forth. I want those peeps as my friends. But I gotta be lying and hiding my stuff since if they find out, they'll hate me. Sorry everyone my response became less articulate as I typed it. I had to break to do something and when I came back i was tired. This took forever to type up.

Do you think maybe it is possible that people who are moderate are still willing to vote for him because that is how much they disagree with the policies and ideas being espoused by the current Dem party. So regardless of how bad his crimes are, that isn't enough to get them on board with and give the green light to the current Dems who want to take the country in a direction they don't like. Is it that hard to imagine that it isn't a vote for him, but against dem's ideas. I'd also like to point out literally it is day in and day out hate him for this, hate him for that, hate him cause of reason 1, hate him for reason 2, hate him for reason 3, hate him for reason 4, hate him today, hate him tomorrow, hate him next week, hate him next month, hate him next year, let's talk about him forever, let's not stop mentioning how bad he is, let's remind people how bad he is, and so forth. I swear. All of you that have been commenting for the last past few pages have me imaging you guys foaming out the mouth when you talk about this dude. It is very unhealthy. Y'all have some weird relationship with him. It wouldn't change a thing. Like I said above, a vote for him doesn't necessarily equate to agreeing with or liking the guy. You don't vote for Mr. Trump. Just cause he face is plastered all over the news doesn't mean that he is forever the representative of the party forever. Once he leaves, a new face will be what represents the party. Neither party is "for" the people. But one is the lesser of two evils. What logic and reasoning is used to reach that conclusion is dependent on the person you are addressing. So have fun combing thru answers and trying to put people in a box/category for simplifying purposes. This forum isn't very inviting to moderates let alone republicans. It is more of an echoing chamber. You can't really understand what others think unless you go find them

Decided to delete

That's interesting. I've been hearing Buttigieg and Yang have been making a comeback and also were polling way unexpectedly higher than what was predicted. They seem to also demonstrate a level of sensible and reasonable points and also, like Biden, seem as if they'd compromise and work together and make decisions for the greater good. I love that fact that Buttigieg is ex military plus has some background in making moderate choices. He even discusses things trying to engage everyone fairly. As for Yang's , his ideas might need a little tweaking but his approach is pretty great. At the very least, he is focusing on something everyone cares about. Our economy and infrastructure. I'm sad Tulsi Gabbard isn't probably gonna make it. A soldier in office as Commander in Chief would have been such a huge reward, I'd be proud to salute her. Plus it's be our first female president which is great and way better than Warren as an option. I've even heard that if it was Trump versus either Buttigieg/Gabbard, those two Democrats could nab hundreds of thousands of votes from Republicans/conservatives in several districts that are red to the core. Let me see if I can't find that source so I can link it

I ponder the fate of people not politically active. I remember someone once told me that less than half of the population is engaged in politics when it isn't time for elections, and even then only a small % of the country's population votes. I haven't done the homework on the active-ness of our citizens, but it really does seem like a tiny population controls the the fate of over 300 million in our country. I wouldn't mind so much if we made mistakes and voted the wrong people in, cause we could easily recover from that after a few years and if we picked out better people next election cycle. But we got slim pickings. I hope my candidates make it for the next debate. They made it in for the Nov19 debate but they aren't polling so we'll despite having the funds to keep going on the campaign trail. Any predictions on who is gonna get knocked out by the Dec debate

I had once pondered the unfairness of FoW maps back when I was playing Radiant Dawn. I thought, this is some bull. But when you phrase it like that and how it's be almost impossible to program an AI to "guess" or "act confused" then I guess I can't blame the Devs. You know, that is a really good idea for a chapter! @Glennstavos We should have a map where we have to rescue allies. Kinda like Radiant Dawn when we were breaking the Daein soldiers out of prison so they could join us. We also did that back during the prologue to save Gordin. He got a bow right away to help is fight on the same map. But we should make a plot or chapter out of it in a future FE.

So as I was taking a break from the game to eat, I had a random thought. Why is it that bad guys or the evil villains know how to teleport but good guys don't or can't? In addition, if magic is magic and how you use it is up to your own judgement (kinda like in the real world how guns are. They can be used for bad or for self defense) why aren't certain magic spells banned or even more emphasized as broken? So let's go over some examples so we can see how absurd it is. Fire Emblem Blazing Sword. In this game we see Nergal able to use the broken magic to get away despite several times being surrounded or being put in bad situations that would have other wise ended the game prematurely. This is one of those few times I see good guys use it as Aothis the old sage teleports us out of the desert. Fire Emblem Sacred Stones. The only reason Lyon lasts so long in this war is cause of that broken ability. Several times was he pinned in by both Eirika and Ephraim but managed to escape cause he could teleport. The one scene I remember most was near the crater when he was pleading to Eirika to kill him while he still had control after the merge near chapter 16. Fire Emblem Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. In PoR, the Black Knight only managed to make it so long in the war thanks to that teleporting powder when he would have possibly been routed after fighting the Lion King shortly after slaying Ike's dad. Again to escape from Nados castle when it crumbled. Lekain from RD managed to black mail the prince after using the staff and I other plot skits, he always escapes using it. Im unaware if Awakening, Fates, or Echoes using the broken magic since I don't recall those games very well. I don't think anyone did. Oh wait, that guy who hates Corrine and serves Garon. Forgot his name. Now let's look at this 3 Houses. The only reason the Flame emperor managed to escape after getting pinned in on chapter 11 was cause they could teleport. Thales saved that one Kronya girl using it as well. Like I'm pretty sure this game would have ended a whole lot sooner if they couldn't teleport. Edit Addition : Forgot to add, need I mentioned how many times the Death Knight escapes cause of that broken magic? Like more than 5 times. So now that I've listed all that, let me point out my two questions. So we know teleporting is usable since we've seen in the series our own characters get either warp or rescue spells (in the past, it was staffs/staves). Why couldn't someone just use the rescue spell/staff to recall the villain so we could surround them and kill them? I mean when you cast magic, I'd have to assume it isn't locked on people since you can use it on anybody so why is magic (aside from it being a game device) not more broken? I mean if you could use fire ball to hit someone or to light a camp fire and the spell in itself isn't restricted to how you use it, why isn't it explained in the game that you can't use it on your enemies. I would think a caster could use the magic based off their own creativity or imagination. I'd go on, but I think you get my point right? My 2nd question is, how do y'all feel about that magic as a plot device? At this point, now that I've pondered it, I think it's pretty cheap. Plus pretty lazy as game developers and story tellers use this mechanics so often but never go out of their way to explain how come our own good guys never get it. I mean imagine Ephraim escaping back with Kyle and Forde back when they hit the castle. Or when Ike was carrying Leanne in Serenes Forest. I mean, we have magic on our side. So why isn't it ever mentioned? I noticed how no game ever actually directly talks about it as well!!! Like no one ever says "damn, he teleported away. Next time we have to make sure to deploy magic dampeners to prevent him from escaping". It's always the generic "he got away" but they didn't put an emphasis on HOW. Like as I'm typing this, I'm just now coming to the realization that for over 20 years I've been playing various games that use such a cheap and lazy device to justify their stories. I demand to use rescue spell on my enemy commanders so i can pummel them to death. Or at least have a back up priest with the rescue spell so our protagonist can never ever again be surrounded. Did anyone ever else ever think of this plot mechanic and how absurd it is? Like those are some weird rules on how it works.

I just mainly want to contest this point only. Byleth has always given me the impression that he/she was a back up mage in case you let all your better ones die. And only if you are desperate for a magic dealing damager. I mean hybrid classes have never been my cup of tea so maybe I'm just being extra harsh. But seriously, at least 10 other people and more either copy Byleths faith or reason spell list and if you want to assert that is a good mage, than people like Dimitri and Dedue can be made mages. And we know they good for that path. They only slight edge Byleth has is the fact that his magic growth is pretty mediocre and he has no skill bane's plus a boon in faith. Let's look at this reason list. We can already minus one for him/her not having Meteor or Bolting (even though they made it look like this was gonna be a heavy fire user). Another minus for no 3 range Thoron. Another minus for not crit magic like the wind or ice spells. So he/she has the most basic plain spells here. Faith is even more awful. Out of the offensive stuff he got the pretty tame Aura instead of Abraxas and despite for plot reasons you'd think he'd be good at beating monsters he didn't even get Seraphim. Let's look at this support spells. Just....plain....God.... horrendous! No warp, rescue, or any of the two ranged healing (physic or fortify). They didn't even at least give him/her Ward or Restore. All Byleth can do is heal standing next to a person. I played mage once and never again. It's just not worth it. Better abilities make Byleth more gear toward being flying or horse back. If an infantry class is gonna be used then the more bearable one for Byleth is Assassin or War Master. If I need magic damage I'll just use a magic variant weapon. That's my 2 cents on this though. I feel others make better mages. I'm dumbfounded they didn't give us another utility spell. At least make us a little better than other people. I would have even settled for Ward.

I wonder if you'd be echoing the same statement if we had a mandatory law saying everyone needs to join the military and serve for at least a certain # of years. After all that logic sounds pretty fair. Want to enjoy this country? Then contribute to it, protect it, and show your patriotism. I wonder if you'd be quick to say we should deploy people and be ready to fight. There is a reason why draft dodgers exist. They don't actually care about their country plus are selfish and simply want to take and never give. I get that these days you volunteer to join and should know that is part of the job, but people take for granted how difficult that job is and think it's easy. Not everyone can be a soldier. Thousands don't make it past BCT and another few thousand can't cut it in AIT. The cost and penalty that is inflicted on soldiers is way greater than what we give them in return. Then when they finish and come back, they need to adapt to a civilian life and world. They have to be able to make ends meet out here after spending so much time with only a certain skill set needed to get by but now they need a new one since nobody can just stay in the military till they die. At some point they have to retire. Anyways, I think this is pointless to discuss. It seems they some people just see them as tools to use and are so happy to chunk them at problems like as if it's that simple. I wonder what would happen if soldiers started to go on strike and people started enlisting less how people would treat those who remain in the service. I get what you're saying, I really do, but I find it like an empty statement that isn't meant sincerely. I often enough hear candidates and the entire democratic party talking about slashing the military budget. (Well not all of them, but for sure the majority) So many people want to cut the price and make our soldiers live on the bare minimum while I see people buying and living an extravagant life style. It's like they want to reallocate the resources to themselves. So before anyone can make the statement about it being the practical solution, tactical decision, and/or the more wise investment, I also want to stop hearing people talking about cutting military spending. I get having a team of people in charge to make sure they aren't doing it frivolously and arbitrarily is necessary to prevent corruption as well as a host of other problems, but some of the proposals I seen are so unrealistic. It's crazy they'd even write it up and present it like as if they are seriously gonna put it to vote on the floor.

1) as for what or why I object is a matter of cost versus benefit. Do the benefits outweigh the cost. Putting aside being moral/ethical I could see us putting another base there if the benefits really do out weigh the cost. Now I'm not sure what all has to be factored in since I have no idea how many of the various angles this can be looked at from, but from a general outlook it seems like as if not only do some people in that part of the world not want us over there and keep telling us to stop making things worse, but aside from a few resources I have no idea why we keep getting ourselves tangled up in that area. I get it's a smart idea to have bases for strategic reasons in the event that fighting breaks out. But touching up on what you said about bases in other places, I'd like to point out that if I became some type of accountant or some person in charge of make my sure resources are being allocated properly and for good reasons, I'd seriously would have to do a massive amount of homework and history reading on why America is all over the place. I sometimes wonder what secret back door deals our country is making. But I feel like this topic is way too deep with a massive amount of implications to take into consideration for discussion. Suffice to say, this new conflict of Turkey and Kurd sound like another reason for us to keep spreading ourselves out in places that maybe we aren't even wanted in, let alone that are beneficial to us. But hey, I don't do know the bookwork looks like, I just know the main points being driven is that it's a ethical and moral issue on why we pulled out and everyone is upset President Trump made another decision not everyone agrees with. 2) I understand how alliances work. I don't need clarity on that or why that group needs our help. But is that relationship really as beneficial as you say? Is the choice we made to pull out as detrimental as it is being presented? I myself am pretty skeptical. If you present info (not that I'm asking for it though since I don't understand all the nuances that go into this type of thing) that beyond a shadow of doubt shows it is in our best interest to help, then by all means keep our soldiers there. I just wish our media was in the habit of presenting more info and telling us things in a way that's objective without me having to go dig it all up and come to my own interpretations on if it balances out on the ledger book. Seriously, it always trash talking and not enough info being given. I prefer sources of info that don't even mention party affiliation or say a person's name unless it's relevant to the info. It's pretty difficult to find that these days. 3) no I don't help random strangers. That would be a great disservice to my community if I was like that and to our nation if people were more like that. How do you know you aren't helping enable people and bad habits? Do you not use any discretion what so ever at all in figuring out why people ask for help or what is going on? If your the type to blindly help others, then you are in fact a bad person. For all you know, you could be supporting and helping someone who has a bad habit that hurts others. Also what happens if you keep helping to the point were it isn't help anymore and now that person sees it as expected income or expected free service of some type. Then what happens when you stop helping? What if they demand you continue and claim your obligated since it's the morally right thing to do? What if you made that person dependent on you and they are no longer self sufficient? What happens if you have to leave or stop? Then they'll be screwed. By all means, go messing up other people's lives. I hope you aren't one of those altruistic people. Some experts in the psychology field say that's a mental disorder with serious life debilitating consequences. It spreads and hurts more than just the person who is altruistic. Although I'd prefer diplomacy in any given circumstance, it sounds to me like this problem over there between those people isn't our business and if we keep butting in, we'll end up also getting caught in a conflict. As much as I want to help the Kurds, I'm not willing to spend American soldier lives to accomplish that goal. The impression I got so far is that, we can't stop them from fighting. It seems like they hate each other's guts and I don't want us getting between them and getting our people hurt too. That's my only concern and point in this discussion. If everything is going to be okay with us still trying to mediate between them, then fine. Im just worried about the lives of our soldiers. It seems so many people these days are quick to say "let's stick boots on ground over here, and over there, and in that spot, and in this spot" and not realize these guys face real danger and come back with PTSD and all kinds of other problems. (not implying your one. My bad if I keep making generalized statements that implicate you). I want more people to care about our selfless troops that go pretty far in taking care of our way of life. I just want us to really really really be absolutely 100% sure it's necessary. Our veterans barely get any attention and help back home, and we keep sending more troops to more areas. Troops are treated like tools, not people. And some of the people in this thread make that pretty clear with the way they refer to them. These guys and girls got names plus family and friend back home over here. I swear. It's like two different worlds. Civilians really just don't get it. I'll stop there cause I don't feel like going on and on about soldiers. I can tell when it's falling on deaf ears. If not deaf ones then unsympathetic ones who don't get it.

Let me ask you this. How serious are you about pursing a relationship with her? I mean when you are young, inexperienced, haven't tried out dating to figure out what you want in a future partner, and haven't also included or factored in your career or the direction your life is going in, getting into it now would be pretty half assing it. I mean still date I say, you need the experience. But like I asked, how serious are you? I have just a few tips I could give. But which ones I give you depend on what stage of life your in. Can't off load on you too much mature wisdom when you probably wouldn't even comprehend it. More accurately, you wouldn't embody it and live it. You gotta have that light bulb in your head go off that makes you feel like you get it. Like you are looking at the bigger picture now. (Sorry if I sound condescending. I try pretty hard to fix my words and the way I deliver them but damn does it still come out all wrong lol. I retyped this like twice)

So just to confirm what your expectations are, I want to ask questions on logistics. For how long do we have to stay there? Plus what if after every attempt to get them to hold peace talks, they refuse adamantly and want us to leave so they can start fighting? What then? We stay? Indefinitely? What about those soldiers and their families? Do we just keep rotating shifts in half a year blocks so everyone can be picked for desk duty? Keep in mind our tax money is going towards keeping them there with all the costs it inflicts. This logic sounds to me of the type where someone says something taking the moral high ground in a arrogant looking down your nose kinda way. Like as if your better. So let me ask, if watching people be slaughtered is bad why don't we stick soldiers everywhere? I mean forget asking what's in it for us. Let's just spend man power, resources, time, and more for no gains what so ever. I get that we have history with both Turkey and the Kurds but it isn't our business to stick up for people all the time. It creates a precedent that anyone can ask us to to protect them simply cause it's the morally right thing to do. But what if we end up protecting the wrong people? What if they end up using us and we end up the short end of the stick? All is well since we did the morally good thing right? What happens when we can't protect someone that actually matters or really needs us? Let me change direction, when do we stop protecting everyone? Who don't we protect, enemies like Russians and Chinese citizens? But what about the Hong Kong group? If you want to exhaust yourself for everyone else's sake, by all means knock yourself out, but don't drag everyone else down with you. By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood? Regardless of what it costs? Do you do this indefinitely and indiscriminately for everyone? I mean it isn't your business to help everyone but you refuted that logic with this instance of saying we need to keep our troops their to protect them. Regardless if you get anything out of it, you must help everyone right? I so thought this too. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed they kept coming up with stories to tell. It's like almost every question at least 3 to 5 of them came up with stories of their past on how they can relate to us as an average citizen or conjured some story about imagining a struggling person and how they intend to help. I heard broad vague ideas with none of them saying "hey, if you want more info, check out my blue print of a plan on www(dot)something(dot)com so you can see exactly how and in what steps I'll take to fix so and so problem". They all sound like they were making fake promises and empty platitudes. None of them sound like they have a clue on how to fix some issues. These last 4 debates have been pretty disappointing. I'm just glad we got some ex service members up there. I really can't decide between Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Buttigieg. If only they could hold a mock debate with some of them against Trump now so we can actually see how they fair. It's a shame we have to wait till more of them get weeded out. I thought this too. Like I thought he had this line of thinking at one point "Since everyone hates me and will harass me after I leave office, let me just put them in a really f**ked up position that way I can get even for all the stress they'll inflict on me later". I have no idea how long it'll take to undo some of the damage done now. I'm also hoping those Supreme Justices are taking those secret life extending potions and take caring of their health. They need to stay on the court. I don't trust the same statistics that told us Hillary would win for sure that are now telling us Trump will for sure lose. It's giving me anxiety waiting for next year.

White magic, swords, and fist users are good at this because their level 5 prowess skills gives +20 avoid. The runner ups are Lance and bow who give +15 with Axe and Reason coming in last only giving +10 (assuming everyone has their level 5 prowess skills) The evasion ring gives 10 The flying skill alert gives 15/30 based off the version you have (+ gives 30) Battalions can give decent mounts of avoid. Some good ones are 15, a very few give 20 or more. Someone mentioned dancer giving +20 sword and some people getting budding talents that add another 20 with white magic or black magic. Support bonuses are a thing to keep in mind Certain classes like Pegasus knight, Falcon Knight, and Wyvern Lord give a base 10 avoid as a class skill. (Pro-tip even though flying classes can't take advantage of terrain bonuses, you could still keep the class skill but have them dismount and become foot units!!!! You still keep their respective +10 avoid even on foot. You just lose access to movement and go back to the default 4 or 5 movement that adv units have plus you also can't trigger canto) so that's another nice little +10 Another skill that adds +30 avoid is "Defiant Avoid" but it requires you have 1/4 hp and you get it from mastering Falcon Knight. It's a bit of a gamble Some people mentioned breaker skills but I feel they are way to nerfed in 3 Houses to be practical when you can equip other abilities that are more complimentary. Back in Awakening days you could have whatever equipped and the bonus was +50 but in this game it's only 20 and you have to have a specific weapon equipped. I think other abilities are more suited to round off a character than breakers. Certain people with high speed stats or personal skills are something to take into consideration but so are people with high str and people who went down that path or ranking up armor skill to A+ since you can equip -5 weight (which gives you back your attack speed which is also your avoid). The reason I mentioned high str is cause you also can carry heavier weapons when you're the correct threshold. People who have like 35+ str can lug around silver weapons and even steel and take no speed penalty provided you also give them the -weight abilities. It's something to look at. I would not recommend though being a Fortress Knight for the -5 weight since that class has a speed penalty of -6. When you do that math you are losing 1 attack speed which is 1 avoid plus you get the awful movement range. Another thing to take into consideration is classes that can move unhindered by terrain. Like theif and assassin. I believe that should also be considered since it means you can position without worrying about crossing thru forest tiles. Those classes and brawler/Grappler can move thru forest tiles with their full 5/6 movement giving you more flexible strategy when it comes to moving around enemies or finding a good spot to stand and hit wait for your turn. Since taking advantage of terrain is something you might wanna consider. Plus those classes I mentioned give you base class speed and as we already discussed, speed is also avoid. Throw in the fact that they can equip swords/fist respectively which are the best when it comes to giving +20 avoid at level 5 prowess and they are more suited to be Dodge tanks. I think that about covers most of the information you can get regarding avoid building. If you want more details I can share but candidates I'd recommend for dodging are Goldeen Deer: Hilda, Marianne, and Rapheal (if you send him down Grappler or War Master class) Blue Lions: Ingrid, Mercedes, and Felix Black Eagles: Petra and Lindhardt Seiros: Manuela, Flayn, and Catherine. All of them are good and have their own niche utility depending on what abilities you give them and how you use them but they fulfill the role the best. Others seem more suited for different roles. Marianne, Mercedes, Lindhardt, Manuela, and Flayn fulfill the role while being supportive. On the other hand, Rapheal, Hilda, Felix, Petra, Ingrid, and Catherine fulfill the role while being front liners vanguard. The first set I recommend based off being supportive with abilities that compliment their utility while the 2nd set I recommend keeping in mind damage countering while dodging so in other words, enemy phase specialists. I kinda believe most Dodge tanks work best as enemy phase if you are using defiant avoid or alert stance. Hope all this helps.

Oh. I thought there was an actual brother and sister (or cousin) thing going on like in Fates. Or something like the twincest from Sacred Stones. Hmm, I haven't seen enough content from all the routes and it never struck me as them being related. Oh well.

I think I'm going to creat a thread to put an emphasis on gathering this info. Im pretty sure plenty of people want to know what the fallen text in the epilogue is for them based off your route. Also which people are the incest pair here? I didn't realize anybody was related that is playable and could have a paired ending with A rank support.

I've been lied too! I thought I was talking to a red head! At least you have glasses (even though they aren't shades) Jokes aside lol, you have a fellow otaku and fire emblem friend in Texas! Your welcome to all our anime cons, game cons, and the community down here in Houston! I remember when i first joined the forums, you were one of the first few who talked to me and welcomed me. Glad you feel comfortable enough to share you experience with us on serenes. I wish you well with working it over with your sister and Mom. Don't ever forget you have people who got your back in the fire emblem community, we are here for you!

Why isn't the house voting to move forward with the impeachment inquiry?

Okay, i like the universal college idea. At one point, i was wondering why i didn't bump into people who audited classes like i did from time to time on the fine arts subjects (like piano, music history, sculpting, etc) but then after asking a few people i learned quickly that not many people know you can take a class purely for the enrichment of it (ie: just for fun, to improve a hobby, or to meet more people with the same interest). By auditing you pay a fraction of the price but the downside is you don't get credit for it on your transcript. Anywho (just wanted to throw that out there for a few people reading), i learned people use college as a means to an end. They go for the degree to be qualified for the job they want. Very few go for miscellaneous reasons. So i can agree with universal college and smashing up the concepts of it being private and funding elite members of our society who own the universities. But the debt forgiveness? I could get into it with plenty of points, but i still think that part is the worse part to try and implement. I think the biggest beef i have with that is that, you send a message to people. Like a profound psychological message but not a good one. Next thing you know, people will vote for candidates talking about forgiving debts for car loans or mortgage loans since people will cry that it's a broken system and its elites taking advantage of the poor. We should veer away from setting that precedent. I think you can become empathetic towards others only after you enter some type of relationship with them (basically not acquaintances). Otherwise, you see others outsiders or people "not like you". Thus creating a barrier between the individual and the less fortunate. How you teach that or get someone to experience that is gonna be a tough one. I came out of a class that taught me a new phrase and had me do a paper on it. Its called "compassion fatigue". You could probably do a good job guessing what that describes just looking at the two words that make up the phrase. People in professions like law enforcement, medical field, legal advice/consultation field, and human resources tend to become vulnerable to this phenomenon. After learning how to combat it and then looking at society, i can say that its an uphill battle. Trying to prevent people from losing the empathetic part of themselves is only going to get more difficult as person ages and goes thru life. I see it as, it just becomes taxing on the mind and exhausting to keep caring about others. Eventually people break and stop caring. Now i'm concerned about the direction of Texas' future if more and more Californians come over here. People who vote on single issues (what you called hot button) tend to not see the far reaching impact of their choices. Metaphorically it's like a boulder being chunked into the center of a lake. Even they only wanted to disrupt a part of the water's surface, those ripples will spread out and inevitably reach other parts. I won't chastise those voters though. It beats the reasons other people use to justify their voting preferences based off a lack of knowledge and understanding. I hope people know what they are doing when they vote and understand our government and how it works. Not just whimsically voting for fun or cause they let other's form their opinions for them. I detest sheepeople.

Is there something going on that the news isn't reporting over there in California? Cause i'm seeing a hell of a lot of license plates from that state over here in Texas. The few times i've talked to some people, i've also come to find out that they moved over here and left that State behind. Is there something i'm missing? Was there one too many fires? An earthquake? Its barely past noon and i've already seen like 24 license plates from that State. Edit: I did a quick google search. I'm not seeing a mass shooting or any natural disaster that happened lately.

No. Sadly you'll still keep picking up the occasional junk stuff or i guess we can refer to it as "less valuable". I still get low quality fish bait, sometimes a torch or healing item that isn't elixir. I also noticed something else. Within a given month, if it is the first time exploring, the amount of green sparkles around the gazebo is way higher. But when i explore on the 2nd or 3rd time, the number of sparkles is less. When i break from exploring and battle and then subsequently return to exploring (all within the same month btw) the number of sparkles is also back to being high again. Like i noticed a few times during back to back explorations, the number of sparkles in the tomb near (Sothis/Byleth) was like around 2 to 4. But on the first exploration of a new month there could be anywhere between 6 to 9 sparkles. So i'm not sure if it is random on how many items get generated or if this is a correlation between how frequently you explore and then break for battle. But don't worry, you for sure will still keep picking up high quality stuff. Like once i remember i got 5 stat boosters in one exploration. It blew my mind. I can honestly say that the spawn rate for hexlock shields is RIDICULOUS. Literally i had like over 20 of them by chapter 7. I just said to hell with it, i'm not giving everyone this buckler looking shield and started selling them. Pretty good money. I don't see the rings too often. I've barely managed to pick up i think 3 or 4 (within the span of 8 chapters). So i'm assuming their spawn rate is low. I've never picked up a weapon from the green sparkles so if someone has before and wants to chime in, let us all know. I'm going to venture a guess and say its strictly non-weapon items. There is a lop-sided proportion of tea leaves being given as well as seeds. If i were to count how many items i pick up and create a percentage for it, i'd have to say that most of the green sparkles tend to be like 60% either tea or seeds. That is at least what i'm observing. I'll try to give more feed back if people request it. I'm not sure if staff is working on compiling a list of the stuff that spawns and giving each of those items %s

At first I only heard it on one site. That was only about a month and a half ago. Now I'm seeing it trending on more than 6 sites and at least 2 social media apps. I think discussions are under way on preparing for civil war. I don't think either fraction is willing to work together or coexist anymore. Since someone else said it I'm this thread already (I didn't want to go first) and I wanted to know ask what other's opinions are on it happening. As in, let's say hypothetically it was set in stone but we don't have a scheduled start date. Im almost pretty sure the majority who own guns are conservative, so I don't think liberals odds of winning are looking too good. Assuming that about 50% of the military won't be able to be mobilized to come back and assist due to them needing to maintain their stations so we don't leave any vulnerable locations open to being seized by enemy countries, that another modest 20% refuse to shoot civilians, about 10% are conservative so they defect to that side, 10% stand down since they don't want to shoot their brother's in arms, that leaves our military more either joining conservatives or not participating. So not only do you have armed civilians (which are in hunting season so they are working on that aim or theirs) but even a small fraction of the military who will support the right, it seems to me like the liberals don't have a chance of winning or living past a civil war. Especially since our current Commander in chief will clearly order most soldiers to assist areas under siege by antifa or any liberal groups. Of course the above percentages are speculation but you can see that the bulk of our military isn't really stationed in America and it's actually on bases scattered all throughout the world. I just don't see any tactical or strategic advantage the liberals have up there sleeves. Are they hiding the fact that they have weapons or something? I mean why else would they be poking a hornet's nest (metaphor for the more extreme right side people). Are they gonna use biological warefare? I mean, I'm trying to see what good comes out of (metaphorically speaking) the little guy trying to step up to Hulk Jr thinking they are gonna win. And then looking more forward into the future at the bigger picture, what happens during or after our civil war (under the assumption it's pending). Other countries might try to seize this chance fight us.

I only scanned the amiibo on my first play through but i'm getting green sparkles around the gazebo even on my 2nd play thru (NG+) If you scan a NON fire emblem character amiibo you'll get pretty cheap items. I only scanned my Mario, Bowser, and Peach and i was getting pretty generic stuff like tea supplies, some healing items, resources like fish, food, and bait, other miscellaneous items like a leather shield, torch, and spirit water. I did notice the on-screen prompt told me after i scanned Bowser and Peach (2nd and 3rd respectively) it said "items will already appear near the gazebo" as if it was implying all you need to do is scan one amiibo (non-fire emblem) and you get the items to start spawning Near the end of my 1st play thru and starting on my NG+ when i scanned my Lucina, Ike, and Marth then i noticed even better items. I started getting stat boosters, rings, hexlock shields (all at the beginning of the game too =D) and even more rare resources like certain meats, certain 4 and 5 star food items like angelica, certain 4 and 5 star teas, and what not. The prompt said to me when i scanned one fire emblem amiibo that "even better rewards will now be available" (I think it said something along those lines). But when i scanned my 2nd and 3rd (Ike and Marth) amiibo(s) it was giving me the same prompt as before. Something like "items are already appearing". So in conclusion, i think you need to scan 2 types of amiibo. One character who isn't from fire emblem, and one who is. I don't scan weekly/monthly. It was a one time thing. I tried on my NG+ but it gave me the same prompt from before saying i already did this. So i'm like 99% sure that once you scan it, the game will forever remember you own one and it linked it to your logged in profile on the switch that you are using to play fire emblem. I didn't test out starting a new separate file to see if items were spawning but maybe someone else has. Edit: OH YEAH, i forgot. When i scanned the fire emblem ones, it was two prompts that were spit out at me. The first one was talking about items and the 2nd one was telling me that i unlocked a new song that i can play during auxiliary/free battles. The Ike gave me the sound track from that plays during part 3 of Radiant Dawn when a battle starts. Its the one with an upbeat note when viewing the map. Not one of the battle songs. The Lucina, gave me a song from Awakening which was one of the Blaze verisons of the songs that play when you are battling. The Marth gave me a song i don't remember hearing.