Jump to content

Tryhard

Member
  • Content Count

    4,640
  • Joined

1 Follower

About Tryhard

  • Rank
    messenger of the gods
  • Birthday 02/12/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scotland

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Gaiden

Member Badge

  • Members
    Edelgard

Recent Profile Visitors

15,986 profile views
  1. Food for thought, but it seems like there is at least some democrat political figures that would not do the same. Joe Manchin said a while back he wouldn't support Bernie over Trump. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/468278-manchin-says-he-wouldnt-back-sanders-against-trump-in-presidential-race Hillary Clinton said more recently that she didn't know if she could support Sanders over Trump, and then walked it back when she was called out on it. Say what you want with Sanders supporters, because these people obviously exist, but he was the one that campaigned for her extensively after he lost because he did think beating Trump was more important. And the same way she slammed him for failing to unite Democrats in 2016 is a common argument. Yet there have been many, many examples of Democratic media figures and politicians slamming Bernie and disregarding his support as "misogynistic Bernie Bros". Unity - and Democrat party goals - seem to be a fluid concept, sometimes. We will see how this continues to progress if he is, indeed, the frontrunner. Joe Biden, for all the problems I have with him, at least said that he would support the person in the general which is probably the best thing he's said all election time. By the way, what has happened with this whole impeachment thing? He was acquitted as expected because the documents were sent to the Senate, and Trump's approval is now the highest since winning the election... exactly as expected. He also got a similar bump in after he was not charged after the Mueller report. Evidently, the two stories that the Democrats have pushed the most have not worked out no matter what you think of them. Obviously, these type of Sanders supporters exist in some capacity - because they think the current 'mainstream' of the Democratic party is utterly broken. I don't agree with them that is more important than voting against Trump, but talk to them and they will tell you why they think the way they do.
  2. @Nobody a new drama arc, hes filing for bankruptcy https://mobile.twitter.com/NoContextDSP/status/1223372638292258816 Somehow Phil has managed this much debt including $131k over thirteen credit cards I thought he was lying about how much he was in debt but yikes
  3. my fictional character could beat up your fictional character
  4. that's more than I expected! I have not played FE1, 3, most of Fates or Three Houses so I'm omitting them. FE4: 8/10 - Some of the maps are fucking awful, but the game has a strong core and I do like some of the edgier themes in Jugdral. FE5: 7.5/10 - Certainly has a lot of "interesting" moments that are outside of a regular FE and is rather unique like FE4, but it's entertaining enough. FE6: 2/10 - The only game I actively dislike. There's nothing to the story or characters and it basically functions as a rehash of FE1, but without the excuse of being on the NES. FE7: 7.5/10 - I consider it a good baseline game for a traditional Fire Emblem in every way. FE8: 6/10 - Not particularly engaging. There's nothing tremendously wrong with it in terms of presentation but the game is rather undertuned in terms of difficulty. FE9: 8/10 - Good story, and the gameplay is pretty decent while being fairly easy like FE8. There's nothing particularly wrong with it. FE10: 7.5/10 - I like the game, but it can definitely feel plodding at certain parts of it. Because of that, I find it hard to start another playthrough of this game and a lot of the tedious nature of the opening chapters for each act can be frustrating. Story is a step down from FE9. FE11: 6.5/10 - Barebones, but playable. It has some design decisions I find baffling (gaiden chapters requiring you to kill off characters unless you're really bad, for one) but it at least is a functional remake of FE1. FE12: 8/10 - Not sure how much of this is because of FE3 considering I never really played it, but it does feel as though the newly added stuff is not executed well. The game itself it is based on is very good, however, characters and their supports that were added are at least more interesting than FE11. FE13: 5/10 - Mediocre, I finished it once and have no desire to replay it ever. The map design tiles may look a little pretty, but it's simple and plain. FE2/Echoes: 9/10 - Mostly speaking of Echoes here because while I did play FE2 multiple times and was an advocate of it, Echoes is of course a superior version of the game. The cast is done very well. The story, barring some very confusing moments (that were in the original Gaiden), is good enough. The potential of the class system and the mechanics of Gaiden are used to their full potential. Whenever there's a remake of a game you like there's always the concern that it will be done poorly, but more or less the game is done in the best way they could have.The main problem being that if you have map design as one of your highest priorities in terms of what makes a good Fire Emblem, you are not going to enjoy this one - like FE13, it has poor map design to say the least. The soundtrack for this game is in my opinion still the best to date. I don't feel as though this game is one that lends itself to multiple playthroughs, but I have been content after finishing it a couple times. TearRing Saga: 8.5/10 - The game felt like a hybrid of FE2 and FE5 to me, but there is too much text in the game that it can become tedious. The game is still worth playing and despite not being from the series itself I would consider it one of the better ones (because mechanically it is basically the same as FE).
  5. You also have to take into consideration that a random person espousing their views and an elected representative are very different things, especially when the latter often tries to enforce it through legislation. The Republican politicians that were for banning gay marriage were never just choosing it for themselves, after all. My grandfather was a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, and once remarked that 'Hitler would have sorted out those Jews' to us. He was also powerless in life and only served as an example to myself in what not to be.
  6. I generally attack Republican politicians for having outdated and horrible socially conservative views. I'll question any individual voter with the same draconian views, but while there are a large amount of Republican voters with views I find wrong, outside of the base that is simply "too far gone", they may be reachable. My goal is to show them that the Republican party is about the furthest from anti-establishment as you can get. The frustrating part is when you start to go through reasons why you and a Republican voter may want more in common than you think, and they vote the way they do because of solely one thing, i.e abortion or guns (because they think the Democrats are going to send the round up crews or something, I guess)
  7. I'm really sorry, Rezzy. I'm sure you did all you could have.
  8. There probably might be a little to say about the fact that the country is run by an autocratic leader, with his oligarch friends. The one who blatantly rigged his own Russian election and swaps titles every so many years so he can remain in power indefinitely. The same people who admire him as a strong leader are probably the same to bemoan the loss of 'western civilisation' and in the same breath supposedly hold democracy to the highest degree. A strongman leader to fall behind seems to be a common thing that conservatives desire, while saying that individualism is integral to them.
  9. mean in the same way that any insult can be considered mean?
  10. Iran retaliates. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html
  11. they were never going to do it before and they are never going to do it now. the best thing that nancy pelosi and the rest of the democrats can do is sit on sending the articles of impeachment to the senate indefinitely so they can repeat that Trump is impeached and not let him have his victory lap when the republican senate inevitably acquits him.
  12. I've got to tell you that the majority of people that pass for "left" in the US are religious (because the majority of the people in the US are religious). Sure, if you're non-religious, then you're more likely to be on the left, and those that aren't are far less likely to be fundamentalists, but if that's a sticking point then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Not particularly religious, but that's always fairly overstated.
  13. I'd say anyone who goes into an area where their views are controversial or uncommon would think it to be an echo chamber. It's not uncommon for conservative thought to be congregated in certain areas of the internet. If I started espousing social democratic views in The Donald subreddit, I wouldn't expect to be well-liked or to stick around long. The part I don't understand: when someone says that they are now a left-winger or a right-winger because of other people. Does that mean they have changed their opinion on abortion? On gay marriage? On immigration? On gun control? On healthcare? On government social welfare? On foreign policy and diplomacy? On religion? I find it unlikely that a person would immediately switch their entire philosophy based on not liking other people that may be part of their political opinions. No matter what policies I support, there would always be people I dislike that would be under the same umbrella as me. Now, a general wave of hateful and bigoted rejections of who you are as a person, that may just do it...
  14. They mixed up Meath and Manster, they're both taken directly from the provinces of Ireland (Meath and Munster), as is the rest of Alster, Leonster and Conote (Ulster, Leinster and Connacht). Mease/Meath is just meant to be a city & castle in Thracia.
×
×
  • Create New...