Dr. Tarrasque

A monarchy is a monarchy. It is not inherently evil and the possibility of a benevolent monarch/dictator is as existent as the capability for humans to do good and bad. Monarchies have just been plentiful throughout history and probably seen as simpler for storytelling purposes. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 and even if there are people that understood that the atrocities they were committing at the time were evil, unfortunately popularity and self-preservation do have to come in to play because a man that may try to protect others from being burned because they're considered witches would likely just end up burning alongside them as they may not have the backing of others. Here, it's a gamble of your life to throw in your support. Similar thing with the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel camps today. As for why some are perceived differently or why people defend it with "it was a product of our time", it often comes from identity protective cognition. If you're someone who's detached, you won't care much when someone says horrible truths like George Washington was a slave owner, many of our previous presidents were jerkbag politicians just like Trump, our most successful 3rd party candidate ran on Segregation. Whereas your typical American will play defense because being American is a part of their identity and like with most people, if you attack something that's a part of their identity, chances are that it will be backfire or be ignored to protect themselves. I'm for history just being delivered raw and factual, not just telling the good parts and leaving out the bad, it's why I detest the pro-confederate American history.

That's the beauty of it. It sounds like nonsense but it really is just them admitting out loud how worthless they know they are in terms of being a governing party. They're more interested in just taking the bribes as they have been for years and enabling corporations to do what they want so long as the rich keep donating to anything that backs the Republican party. They count on suckers, religious and old people falling for their culture war BS to hold on to power without providing a real platform or solutions to the problems people face. What, you need a second job to get by? You're upset that CEO pay has gone up 1400% or so since 1978 while your wages haven't kept up with inflation? You're tired of the ridiculous health care costs? You just found out the absurd tipping culture we have here isn't a problem in other countries? It's your fault and you just don't understand capitalism. We're in DC to get paid to say no to raising taxes on the rich and we'd have no problem taxing you normal fucks if we could enough enough suckers to give us total control: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2022/4/senator-rick-scott-s-plan-to-raise-taxes-on-working-families-and-slash-essential-programs-would-cost-job-sand-reduce-economic-growth Pretty much. They understand that they banked too hard on the whites that resented the Civil Rights act and the white population is decreasing while the nonwhite population is increasing and they don't really have a solid way to get more non-whites without alienating the ones they hold on to. Cubans in Florida have become a boon for them in that state but it's still not enough in the grand scheme of it all. Places with lower voter turnout tend to be low-income areas packed with people and whenever you see that term, you assume it's non-whites so opening up that pool isn't something they're confident will get them votes without giving Democrats more pieces of pie. It's the same logic they use for denying convicts that have served their time the right to vote.

Because if more people turn out and vote, "you will never see another Republican president". Again, in their own words.

Can't get Election Day as a holiday because it would be a Democrat Power Grab according to the Republican Senate leader.

I'd have to disagree. A better way to have handled it is to have kept Annette and Tera as they were previously and introduce the 2 new characters much in the same as fashion as Sumi and Taka from the original series instead of trying to shoehorn one of them into a lead role when the source material has them as a "non-character" as you suggest. Doesn't mean that have to work the same way as Sumi and Taka did, it just means that have a lesser role that takes less time away from the show with a character who is so far unlikeable and rather one-note despite the narrative trying to suggest otherwise.

Yeah the way it's worded implies the populace itself but like you said, the glove fits lol That's interesting about Sypha. All I remember about the character from the source material was the manual and game referring to them as a "he" which they reference in the show.

Without a doubt, the original series does have an anti-church rhetoric emphasizing altruism and sciences over blind belief in the church. At least the source material had details in it to make it all plausible.. Lament of Innocence (1094): Leon Belmont's game, Monsters started attacking nearby and his betrothed was captured by a Vampire. The Church forbade him from doing anything about that as they were more focused on fighting heretics. Leon relinquished his title of Baron and went off to find Sara on his own. Dracula's Curse (1476): While it wasn't directly state it was the church, the bit about the Belmonts being exiled and nearly extinct because they were feared by the people is a detail in the bare bones story of the NES game. Who?

Correct, Erzsebet Bathory seems to be an original. The closest thing to her in the games is Elizabeth Barthley from Bloodlines who is a niece of Dracula and shares the same historical figure referenced for the name, Elizabeth Báthory and her design seems pretty similar to Carmilla from Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust. Because of the ending of the original series, creative liberties in what they could use as villains was expected and I have no issue with the villains. The same does not hold true for good guys though lol. Alucard's Japanese friends were not in the games. I was fine with Shaft's absence but yeah, he could've been the abbot used here.

It's hard not to think it's woke pandering. The original character of Annette was just a damsel in distress who was Richter's girlfriend and Maria's older sister. The PSP game then gave her a boss fight in which she was turned, that's something they could've reused here and the evidence to that is basically what they did with making Tera be Maria's mother and what happens late in the season. With those elements, it really feels like they just wanted to shoehorn in some new creations (Annette and Edouard) into major roles while repurposing someone to keep a similar structure (Tera as mother instead of sister to Maria and caretaker instead of girlfriend to Richter). A damsel in distress with a boss fight, you really didn't need to do much else with the character but they chose to recreate her and have her take time away from developing Richter and the others. Her short temper and anger issues does not make for a likable character, she made those early episodes miserable. Why change an existing character into this and make it sap so much time from the main duo? Eduoard himself is a new character and he is fine (at least compared to this Annette), why didn't they just make Annette another character without doing all these changes just to make this new character replace Annette? Isaac probably works better because like Annette, he was a minor character altered but he was developed from what he is in the source material and introduced slowly AFTER the main characters had their time. Annette was kinda just shoved in our faces early on as this character we're supposed to cheer for who is of African descent and is "more than someone just born into slavery" but EVERY SINGLE THING about her character revolved around her having been a slave.

The latter episodes were the best part about it, most of the first season I found rather miserable because early on the show wanted us to focus on Annette to justify having changed her from being Maria's sister and damsel in distress to a girl who's entire character revolves around her having been born a slave who conveniently got magic powers. The change gets even weirder with Tera being repurposed to be Maria's mother. I went in curious as to what they'd do with the antagonists and what kind of creative liberties they would take given how the previous series ended. The villains are fine/meh with Olrox being the most interesting of the bunch so far. Juste being there makes sense because his game takes place literally before Richter's Rondo of Blood and by the time he showed up it felt as if they finally threw a bone to the fans of the games. The new characters, I either didn't care for or just wish they didn't exist (Annette). I don't normally listen to reviews or comments of shows that plaster the word "woke" in it but I honestly cannot see the show as anything but woke garbage at the moment. I watched it with someone who has 0 knowledge of the Castlevania games and they shared the same sentiment.

The first instance of a playable Warrior in the series and Axe fighters promoting into that class was in FE4 with Johalvier.

Most of the Ys fans I knew from here are no longer around, but there were definitely a few back in the day. Before XSEED picked up Oath in Felghana and put it on Steam translated, a few of us had played a fan-translated version that had some interesting history behind it lol. As for myself, I've beaten Ys I and II on the DS, Felghana before and after it was released on Steam, and Origin with all 3 characters A friend of mine has been recommending Ys 8 for a while now, maybe I'll look into it if I ever feel that Ys itch again.

That was surprising and hilarious. The rage from those expecting a massive red wave has been pleasant to see.

Fetterman seems to be quite the perfect example of Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sounds like we need to add "Attack their pockets" to the usual "Follow the Money". Here's hoping the Fox News lawsuit costs them dearly.