Dr. Tarrasque

Fox news is laying out the ground work to dump Trump when it becomes convenient enough to do it so they can later claim "balance and fairness". Really hope Democrats don't screw up too much on these hearings.

Talk about interchangeable. These 2 have such minuscule differences it makes you wonder if the question is rhetorical... I'd give the slight edge to Ferdinand for the better Combat Arts and Seal Speed via budding talent. However in terms of stats, Sylvain probably ends up better stats-wise for the lategame if you recruit him later due to the way auto-levels work. If you were to recruit Sylvain immediately at the game's start, Ferdinand's the SLIGHTLY better choice.

The only thing I can think of is some shitty logic governed by the notion that blocking and undoing legislation is equal to a win. Otherwise there's just the anti-immigration crowd salivating and getting scammed (by people other than Trump too) with the promise of a wall.

Here's the map if you need it. There isn't much to say other than his Speed is 19 so avoid sending someone with 15 Attack Speed or less in his range if you'd like that person to live.

That's not surprising, you'll always be able to find music that samples/covers existing work. Doom's OST for example Kanye West literally took most of one of Daft Punk's well known tracks. And in the age of Rock and Roll that our parents lived in, many of the songs by famous Rock and Roll musicians were covers of R&B and Blues. Elvis Presley's Hound Dog basically came from this one

One guy representing one state and blocking the voices of the other 49 states from debating and voting on policy in the Senate. But it pretty much is the Republican party as whole, check out this graph on the use of the Filibuster by the minority party. Notice how the newest speak has always been set by the Republicans? Notice that massive spike during the Obama years? Republicans did not take kindly to a black man being President. First of all, Sharia law has absolutely no chance of becoming a thing in the US with all the fear-mongering the right-wing has done on about Muslims, the closest thing we've had to that is Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders justifying the concentration camps to hold people from Central America by using the bible as well as anything they reference the bible for when they're trying to legislate crap allowing assholes to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Secondly, the majority voting in a President does not equate to the majority suddenly being able to pass EVERYTHING that they want. That's why the system has the Separation of powers but that's currently being abused by the Republicans. I'm sorry, I don't follow what's going on here at all. What does discussion of the popular vote and distribution of seats in the Senate and House have to do with assimilation of Hawaii into another state? What is the point you're trying to make here? Doesn't really change what's been said unless you know of a candidate on the popular side that's going to be such a danger to Hawaii. If such a candidate were to exist in the Democratic primary and details of his/her plans to harm Hawaii came to light during the election, that candidate will easily lose the primary. Action is being taken, action that's typically stifled by... you guessed it... REPUBLICANS! With no real arguments whatsoever! You should look at that HR 1 Bill I linked earlier, it addresses a lot of issues related to voting and as you can see, it passed in the house despite 100% of the Republicans voting against it. There was also a bill introduced to regulate marijuana and it's one of the issues some of the Democratic candidates are bringing to table because at the end of the day, criminalizing marijuana was something that was kept during the Nixon era to make it easier for him lock up blacks. Today, there's no real reason to keep weed illegal and all they respond with is "It's a gateway drug" when evidence debunks any argument they have and suggests it's less problematic than Alcohol and Tobacco which are both legal. Then there's M4A, college affordability and debt, all those issues are being put on the spotlight and legislation is being introduced to deal with it all while Republicans, instead of suggesting alternatives or talking about how to address the issue, will just tell you it's all natural and nothing needs to be done while they try to figure out how to pass another tax cut for the rich. Sure, you can be opposed to all those proposals and the debate is welcomed but that's just it: There's nothing substantial from the Republicans, they just lie, distract and block the vote. I know it probably seems like I'm a partisan tribalist, specially when I say that "Republicans should be voted out to extinction or endangerment" but I say that because it's literally one of the simplest solutions to come up with when it comes to the issue of our Congress being ineffective. All evidence points to those motherfuckers being the biggest perpetrators of the "Pay to Legislate" garbage the entire country is sick and tired of and it is infuriating to see that such a simple solution has yet to be enacted due to the right-wing media's brainwashing. Fortunately, the disaster that is Trump is making a GOP wipeout more of a reality with each day they keep defending Trump and failing. Then once the Republicans are voted out you'll probably end up with another set of 2 factions in Congress: Progressive and Conservatives functioning better than what we have today as Republicans are more accurately described as Regressives. It isn't hyperbole, many of those fucks haven't even read the Mueller Report before saying Trump is innocent and based on their recent defenses of Trump and that Ukraine call, you'd have to question whether they've read the constitution or have abysmal reading comprehension. It's not like I'm a fan of Democrats either, they're just the lesser of 2 evils.

That doesn't really answer the question or clarify the point I hoped you would so let me rephrase it. Do you believe that McConnell should have the power to block legislation as he has done? You say this but you don't really explain why that is. A city getting voting power proportional to its population does not equate to smaller states losing their voice. You yourself have acknowledged that under the current voting system, your vote doesn't matter for the presidential election. How does the country electing Trump, a buffoon who's made it clear he hasn't read the constitution and has no interest in states that didn't vote for him give your state a voice? How is that the case with any president the unpopular party puts forward? The other side would probably do less against your state or if they did, they would get a ton of flak for it. With the current unpopular party (Republicans), being an ass to states that didn't vote for their president is a feature. I dunno, I haven't see a good response to this and the ones I have seen boil down to "I want power, I'm not interested in fairness because you states with the bigger cities are assholes who will be unfair to us anyway". To which I respond with: Then why the fuck are we still subsidizing smaller states as opposed to just adding it to our public institutions? Plus it sounds like these problems are more of a state level deal than federal. Yes but that history is as a result of a bunch of rich racist assholes who thought they could run the place better and later annexed the country with the help of a corrupt Ambassador when they figured it would be better for trade. If it sounds familiar to some it's because it's the same exact shit people want to do away with by getting corporate money out of politics. If Hawaii wants to become a sovereign nation again, it'd have better chances of being heard on that front with a government that's more representative of the people living in it rather than the current mess we have that's giving so much power to the fuckers appealing to racists assholes as well as the rich. I don't believe it was your intent but to suggest that (assuming the country is truly representative of its people via the suggested adjustments) the US of today would be the same assholes of the US from back then is very similar to right's attempts at framing the Democrats as being the racists today using examples of the past when they were the racists. Hell, we're literally living at a time where one side is simply suggesting that we treat others how they'd like to be treated while the conservative base is threatening people over political correct that they don't like. The voice of the disenfranchised is heard more today than it was decades ago.

Both your Reps voted for the HR 1 "For the people Act of 2019" and that's sitting in the Senate graveyard. I assume you're not counting the fact that McConnell can just block it like he has when you say the bolded? Secondly, what's your reasoning for opposing the popular vote and how would you pair the electoral college with ranked choice voting? What would you change from the Electoral College and do you think that's easier to achieve than just switching to popular vote for the Presidency? Why keep the Electoral College at all?

Byleth could stick with one of the houses but it should cover parts from the other perspectives that felt kind of left out like Dimitri's death in Golden Deer route. That said, I'd prefer the Golden Deer route myself. It sucks that it and the church route are basically copy paste of each other but these are the routes where most of the "resolutions" are actually encompassed and playthrough. Azure Moon wouldn't work to me because it doesn't address Shambhala or reveal the truths of Fodlan's legends and Crimson Flower is obviously too big a step in the opposite direction of where the other routes go to.

Like I said before, Republican talking points have a tendency of making someone unwittingly argue things that don't add up the way you think they do. A popular vote doesn't automatically result in the smaller states being ignored. Smaller states and the minority in general have a lot of power as is. Let's take for example the biggest issue of all: Corporate money in politics. As far back as 2012, 81% of the people surveyed on the matter thought that the campaign spending rules are "bad for democracy" and that sentiment hasn't changed very much today as you can ask anyone and most will agree that our politicians are bought by companies. A solution to this is a constitutional amendment to rule out corporate PACs and donations and for that you need 2/3 majority support in congress or a convention called by 2/3 of the state legislature and with the current Senate rules and majority in place, the numbers don't even matter because Mitch McConnell himself can just block any debate. Let that sink in, the minority of the country has the power to stop legislation that over 2/3 of the country want. You talk to about a potential disenfranchisement of the smaller states while there's disenfranchisement when it comes to voting for every state that isn't a Swing state. That's not even going into detail how the orange turd and the current administration is basically saying "Fuck you" to states that didn't vote for Trump, specially California even though such states are actually contributing more money to the government... money that the orange turd is funneling to his pockets with all those golf trips. Money that was used to pay the fine of $100,000 when Betsy Devos was held in contempt (which she could've payed herself obviously but it still came out of the Taxpayer's dime). 48.18% of those who voted saw Trump for the racist con man he actually is, many simply choosing the lesser of 2 evils. 46.09% said nuts to that and voted for him for various reasons, most of them not being very good. At the end of the day, both sides pay for his fuck ups even though the majority chose to reject him. Lastly, I want to re-iterate a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Candidate X even though their state voted for Candidate Y. It's a really bad Pandora's box just waiting to happen and defenders of the Electoral College don't even consider removing this issue out of the equation.

The most heavily populated states having the highest number on paper is a typical thing because you know, they have the highest numbers overall. But when you look at it by percentage of the population, you yourself admit that California's case is 10% and if we want to see which states are most dependent on SNAP based on the percentage of the population requiring SNAP, well there you go. All this talk of which states are most dependent on X, which states contribute more of X is just more evidence that anything but the popular vote will just lead to endless debate as to which contribution deserves the most power. Having the vote equal for each individual puts a stop to all that. Also, according to the orange turd, the popular vote is "easier to win than the electoral votes". If so, why aren't the Republicans for the popular vote? LOL they really know how fucked they should be

The argument again goes both ways. One side will want to argue "Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? " while referencing whatever they like to try to make their argument look good (these states provide agriculture, food, etc). The other will ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" given how the states you're trying to benefit here are the states being subsidized the on Blue states Republicans keep hating on. At the end of the day, Shoblongoo's right: you get an Oligarchy if you're looking to concentrate power among some because of some arbitrary criteria. Those who suggest going for the popular vote aren't looking to turn an oligarchy in their favor, the goal is fair election. If the goal of the Blue states was to gain control over the Red States like some Republicans love to suggest, they would do so by getting rid of the subsidies they provide to the Red States and watch them sink under the failing Republican tax policies that were once again proven to be bad thanks to the Kansas tax experiment. Kentucky is the 3rd most Federally dependent state and it is the state mostly at fault for breaking our politics due to their continuous voting for Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Republican talking points have a tendency of making someone unwittingly argue things that don't add up the way you think they do. That's horseshit. Combined, the population of New York state and California is 18% of the country. Then you also add in the fact that the state's population isn't entirely voting for the winning party as it currently works in the Electoral College. If the electoral votes were awarded proportionally for example, 20 of them from California would've gone to Mitt Romney in 2012 for example. Catering to 18% of the country when that 18% isn't even going to entirely vote for you is a losing strategy and it's a talking point Republicans use because people take it at face value and don't try to think about whether the argument is at the very least mathematically sound. They'll also bring up "But rural states" when the data points to most political events during the Presidential Election happening primarily in Swing states and actually ignoring the most rural states (look up how often Maine and Vermont were visited in 2016 compared to Swing states). The goal is to have each individual have the same voting power when switching to the popular vote and when idiots like Dan Crenshaw try to justify their BS power grab by saying crap like this, remember that it's no better to be ruled by the minority that's overall less educated and unwittingly voting us into an Oligarchy. Hell, New York and California KEEPING the "Winner Take All" vote distribution is technically the unfair power grab they're trying to suggest as the Republicans don't matter at all. Republicans are not complaining about that yet because in the case of other states, it helps them win but the moment that Texas ends up voting Democratic, they'll be singing a different tune. And yet instead, I'm in one of the cities in Texas where we're more educated and yet our votes amount to exactly 0 for those that vote against the Republican. With this system, we are knowingly leaving the fate of our electoral votes to the increasingly unhinged whims of neo-confederates and white supremacists. It works both ways and a way to make it fair is for every person's vote to count equally. It's not, it's made voter turn out in the country terrible by comparison to other nations, rightly so because when it comes to the presidential race, voting only matters in the Swing states. 80% of the country basically has no impact and the larger picture of keeping the Electoral College system in place is as, former GOP governor of Maine Paul LePage has suggested to have keep power to white people because "if minorities had the same power you might as well just turn the country into Venezuela". Ok to anyone reading this and echoing the "we are not a democracy, we are a republic": this is a talking point the right will use when they're trying to convince you that the people they're opposing are wrong and don't even understand the basics of our government, ultimately distracting from the substance. A Republic is defined as: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. A Representative Democracy: is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. So you see, The US is indeed a Representative Democracy as well as a Republic because the 2 things are not mutually exclusive. The right will often provide quotes from the founding fathers showing their disdain for "Democracy" but what they don't tell you is that their use of that term referred to Direct Democracy where the people directly decided on the policy. Lastly, the notion that smaller states would have no representation if you switch to popular vote. The president is just 1 individual and regardless of whether it's popular vote or Electoral college he/she is not the ultimate authority on policy, that's what Congress is there for and Senate's representation is distributed in favor of the Smaller states.

It's definitely Congress. Obama and Clinton wanted to do away with the Electoral College and make it work with the popular vote instead but as long as Republicans held control of the Senate, that simply wasn't going to happen and one of them basically admitted to it when he said "the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes." Efforts to curb and eliminate Gerrymandering have one primary attacker: Conservatives (of which there may be some Democrats) and Republicans. And yes, you're absolutely right that the interest to get rid of that shit will wane and we'll probably repeat the cycle of not discussing the issue and then discussing it when an incompetent buffoon wins the presidency again via the electoral college. This is why Democrats maintaining the house, taking the Senate and having a worthwhile Democratic president willing to Abolish the Electoral College are a must as a result of 2020. This is not even taking into account the worse Pandora's box we've got lying around: the possibility that a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Trump even though their state voted for the Democrat. The country would be very fucking pissed off to see that by some miracle, Texas voters actually went for the Democrat but the Elector gave ALL of those 34 Electoral votes to Trump. "Republicans should become an endangered species or extinct" is something I've said a few times it is not hyperbole if you wish to see change in the country and fairness in our elections. They are the obstacle for the latter and because of Trump's win in 2016, we've given Mitch McConnell the ability to shape the courts and you better believe he's using his chance to do what he wants with that while he still can.

According to polling, the country is more willing to abolish the Electoral College. You have to get people willing to pass it first and that's through the Congressional and Senate elections that get less attention than the Presidency. The President can help by campaigning on that issue and publicly pushing for it while in office. I would expect it from Warren or Sanders but not from Biden until that reaches like 85% support (and even then, he may not support it). Election day as a holiday is an even easier issue. It's already passed under a bill in the house much like many others. The obstacle in this case is the turtle, Mitch McConnell. In mid-late 2018 there were 569 house-passed bills stuck in the Senate. His polling has been pretty bad as of late due to him sticking with Trump so if he cares to get re-elected, he might end up throwing Trump under the boss when the Senate trial happens. If people want anything to get done, the outcome of 2020 should be that the Democrats take over the Senate and the presidency while maintaining the House. The latter being the only certainty. All in all the data points towards the people of the country agreeing with progressive policies. It's just that our politics are a fucking joke thanks to right-wing media.