Zasplach

First, the RNG is one-hundred percent predetermined, it's one long chain, so if you burn rn's you can get the results you desire. I think if you want a more familiar FE experience Binary is probably a good option, but I'll talk about the skills. Giving everyone pursuit with the current rule set, ie Attack speed (AS)= Speed-Weapon weight(WW), doesn't really help very many units; the AI is already really weighed down by mostly bad weapons or really low speeds on cavs that use swords and classes that can double you, like swordmasters, already have pursuit as a class skill, so I can't see it really helping anyone except maybe some late game bosses. In terms of the first gen, pursuit would help Ethlyn, Noish, and Cuan, they are all mounts without it and pursuit would make them stronger, but most of your best first gen units: Sigurd, Finn, Lachesis, Fury already have pursuit. And Lewyn doesn't really need pursuit. Really the big change would be the viable pairings for the 2nd gen, it basically makes Lex, Jamke, Holyn, Dew, and Lewyn pairings even better and makes pretty standard pairings like Adean-Midir pretty bad. Pursuit for everyone helps Leif too I guess, makes his early game even easier. Critical, as it currently stands in Fe4 (Critical%=Skill), would really break the game if everyone had it. Lots of characters get really high skill and the skill ring is a pretty early item, so yeah, crtitical with more standard FE rules or growths, would probably less game breaking, just more standard. I personally like the weird idiosyncrasies in FE4, I don't really find making everything the same or similar, even if it's good, that fun. FE4 isn't a good first FE, but it's a fun juxtaposition to the other more standard games, not everybody likes it's foibles, but I do. My advice would be try the standard rules for a first run, the game is pretty forgiving honestly and you can save after every turn even without an emulator and if you don't like it, but want to like it, play binary or some other balancing patch.

Those things all sound fair, I'm afraid that most voters are best motivated by fear honestly. Whether it be fear of others or fear of having benefits being taken from you or fear of having higher taxes or whatever, the ideas are numerous. And I don't think your wrong that the GOP leadership is dubious, I just don't think I have much nicer things to say about the leadership in the Democratic party. But like I said, I think most of the population has the government it deserves, so it's a mixed bag. Some people in the GOP really are bad, hell it was only 50 years ago when George Wallace said this to great applause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C-kBVggFrs (Segregation forever speech).The system really isn't designed for the kind of participation it has now or the amount of transparency it has. Even before the political machines of 19th century, American politics were always on the dirty side and the personal side too. The Constitution is pretty much the penultimate example of about 100 men getting together to tell the nation what was best for it. President Trump's election shook my faith in the Republic, it's sad but true, I've always been a cynic, but an optimistic one, and yeah I didn't think we would ever produce a meme president. There's going to have to be structural changes to the system, whether it be a movement towards a truly liberal democracy, because the framework we play in isn't really close to that, or we have to restructure the Republic somehow because that speech broke federalism for good reason and 50 years haven't fixed it.

Both parties have enthusiastic and fickle voters, African Americans voted for Mrs. Clinton at about a 90% clip and evangelicals voted for President Trump at about an 80% clip. What I was specifically referring to in that idea was that the Democratic Congressional members were more lockstep with leadership's ideas than their Republican counterparts. Both parties basically rely on winning by getting certain people to vote and getting certain people not to vote. Look at what happened in Alabama, are you telling me that if the same people who had voted in 2016, even with the new people who voted in 2017, that Doug Jones would have won? The country is pretty entrenched as we speak, most people's vote don't swing, it's really about who votes. It's hard to say, but I suspect that if every American voted, Presidential elections would look relatively similar to what it looked like in 2016, Democrats would run up huge numbers in states like California, but Republicans would squeak out elections in states like Ohio and Michigan. Yeah, voter ID laws make it harder for students and minorities, I suspect mostly African Americans to vote, but Americans tend to like voter ID laws for one reason or another, probably a misunderstanding of how vote fixing worked in the 19th century with political machines, and I don't think the laws are unconstitutional.

John Oliver bits are always fun, though I have a distinct memory of watching something similar, I just think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about Voter ID Laws. I think they are stupid and unnecessary, I might find them okay under certain circumstances like having those ID producing offices open 5 days a week for 12 hours a day and if their services were free and if the government gave assistance in traveling to those locations, but that'll never happen, so the laws are dumb. I don't think the Robert's court is going to rule that these laws are unconstitutional, hell they struck down most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which enabled these laws to happen, don't get my started on all the activist judges on the court. These laws mostly inhibit inner-city residents who have no need for driver licences from voting, mostly students and minorities, people who generally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I understand it; I don't see any means by which they will be ruled unconstitutional expect by the 'rule of stupid' and the Constitution doesn't have that. Party loyalty is huge in both parties, it's the nature of the creation of ideological, rather than coalition parties like the US has historically had; Republicans to me seem to be the less 'united' party, there have been a lot of grievances aired publicly and votes gone down that only needed GOP support (I'm thinking of the Sen. McCain moment with Obamacare) on the other hand, Democrats, even those from Trump states, have stood lock-step against the President's agenda. I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, rather what it seems to me. Besides it makes sense to me that the party who avows individuality would be more raucous than the party who avows cooperation. Secondly, I think you should be careful about characterizing bad motives to 'others', it creates a society where we have divisions and rifts that can't be solved. I'm not going to say I love or wholeheartedly support GOP leadership, least of all the President, but I think you're applying needlessly nefarious motives to that which can be prescribed to pragmatism and circular thinking. The point is the GOP is mostly citizens like myself and my family and millions of others who generally, not all, want what's best for the country as a whole; just like I assume you're a Democrat, correct me if I'm wrong, but needless to say there are millions of citizens, not all, who belong to the party who wants what bests for the country as a whole. You could be right about the President's health, but to me he seems like the crotchety old person type and in my experience those are the kind of people that life has got to beat down several times before they are ready to die; only time will tell.

Complain to your heart's content, our politicians are obnoxious, I'm just both a rationalizer and conflict averse so I like to make platitudes to 'why can't we all just understand each other'. I think I said it earlier, but the spectrum of 'left-right' is a construct that we use to place ourselves into groups needlessly, but you clarify your own mind when you use them to layer your thoughts. Centrist may be more accurate, but I come from a long tradition of Calvinist Whigs in this country and though I'm no longer a Calvinist (I consider myself Arminian) I still firmly believe in the family's Whig roots. And to be frank, I have a blood and soil relation to how I think, not a vile Nazi blood and soil where you try to expand your empire and expel other racial groups, but rather a real connection to what is real in the present requires an understanding and connection to what is real in the past whether you want to run towards it or flee from it and I consider myself a traditionalist in many ways. We've been conservative Whigs since the country's foundation, not Tories who believed in the crown, but believers in the limited republicanism of the Constitution in direct opposition to Jacksonian Democracy. And the country my family comes from in Illinois, Bureau, near where Ronald Reagan was born (Grandma loved that story, a long sill one) is near where one of the first meetings of the Republican party was in 1854 and we've been Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower Republicans ever since. I'm a Republican mostly because of pragmatism, the Maricopa Democratic party hardly holds primaries so I might as well try to help the GOP run not crazy people, mostly unsuccessfully, but also because of tradition. Besides, I consider a lot of the vileness, vehement anti immigrant (minorities too) anti free trade, and anti US world power, in the Republican party right now to be a direct result of 'populist' movements, which in a Fisher/Stone (my family names) will always be associated with President Jackson and his rabble overrunning the White House in a party in 1829 and then William Jennings Bryan and his 'cross of gold' and then the Marxists movement that swept across Europe and ruined once great countries. When the party of Lincoln let George Wallace into our party, my family's confidence in the republic died a little.

I wouldn't use the word bulk or antagonistic, 'most are suspicious' of government 'welfare programs', but we are probably parsing words, it's hard to narrow down exactly how they all feel. President Trump is strange to me, so your interpretation may be valid, I'm just calling what I see, and I feel like being a one term president would sit really poorly in his craw and he's rich enough and seemingly in good enough health he could live another 20,30 years. We live in a republic, when you vote for someone, you endorse everything they stand for and vote for, it's why every vote should be carefully considered. And yes, I know what 'voter suppression' is, Republicans make it tougher for the poor and the young to vote and while I think the policies are stupid (so few Americans participate in the electoral process as is, those who want to participate should be encouraged), I don't suspect that the Robert's court is going to find them unconstitutional, maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think these measures rise to the level of poll taxes and the like and I expect that's what the court will rule. Making it tougher to vote is dumb, not illegal and I suspect that the court will find while the provisions set by the conservative states made it harder for the poor and the young and minorities to vote, it didn't make it impossible. I suppose we will see about the court's ruling though.

The make up of the political parties have changed drastically in the past century, the movement of the party of George Wallace from the Dems to the GOP is only a small piece of the overall movement and in fact a considerable number of Republicans voted for both the SS act and the Medicare act; granted the parties were less ideologically rigid, there were conservative dems and liberal gopers, but they did participate in their creation and sometimes it was conservative Dems who made the passage of such programs difficult. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/ Trump is a narcissist first and foremost, thus why he talks so much about 'winning', so he doesn't give a damn about regretful voters, but he does care about 2020 and I believe that undertaking entitlement reform in a unipartisan way would ensure that old people who voted for him would either switch sides or just not vote, making him a heavy underdog. I think you are overemphasizing the importance of gerrymandering in the GOP's power, yes there is evidence to some effect of its existence, but the gerrymandering was created by duly elected legislatures and governors of the citizens of many states, ergo in a republic, it's what they wanted, elections have consequences. The GOP didn't create the boundaries to states which gave President Trump the win, those were created over a long period of time with only a little political interference. You live in a Republic, a conservatively drafted republic, the nature of the elected officials is the only tried and try way to know the will of the American people, yes some states, like my own, have referendum, recall, and initiative, but the Constitution does not provide, nor does it really believe in those things. If you want them, rally for them and get 3/4 of the country's support. And I think the country is generally more conservative than you think, but that's not really something I care to argue, we live in a Republic, it doesn't much matter. Polls are important, they help way the general feelings of the American electorate, but elections are the only thing with consequences, win and you make policy, lose and you have to fights hard to get what you want.

This may very well be true, I think you are slightly conflating the statements of a few, admittedly influential, senators and a general policy. Remember President Trump, unlike most GOP candidates, ran on not cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid (I understand he lies, but I suspect some old people may stop supporting him if he lies on this, unlike the other lies). But if they have control of both the house and the senate after next year's mid-terms, I would argue that the American populous generally wants 'entitlement reform' (now I understand that gerrymandering is a thing, but +10 for the Democrats will ensure they have the House, maybe even the Senate, so the American people have recourse). So if we have a GOP senate and House in 2019 I would think that the country wants entitlement reform, what other conclusion should I come to?

I agree with your first sentiment 100%, more if I could, but I think your idea comes to the wrong conclusion. They've already passed a bill for their base without a single yes from the 'D's', something most Americans in the middle, yes even the center-right don't like, now they won't touch anything without at least some Democratic support. The tax bill will help get out their base to at least have a chance of rivaling the Democrats base, so know they have to fight for every vote in the middle to have a chance at keeping the house. Touching entitlements will put every seat but the very reddest at risk, even senate seats in TN, TX, MS, and NE. Much too risky. While I won't disagree with you is that some on the far right seem to have a hard on to completely blow up the social-net state, any societal protections for the poor, weak, downtrodden, elderly, etc. I think the center-right (of which I generally label myself, if messily because I don't fit well in any ideology per se) generally believe in those programs, I myself do and I think many, not all, but many Republicans in Congress also do, they just view the current amount the country is required to spend on them to be alarming and potentially destabilizing if they continue to balloon, leastwise that's how I fell. The country needs some sort of consensus to run a cleaner fiscal house, I think a balanced-budget amendment is dumb because sometimes deficit spending is necessary, but when times are good, like they are now, the feds shouldn't have to run up huge deficits like they are right now, it's ridiculous. The people in general need to pay more taxes, but we also have to decide how much the elderly get from the federal coffers and how much we as a society can help the poor, it requires an adult conversation that neither party seems to be up for. I had hoped the Clinton years would illicit more bipartisan support for a 'responsible' government, but alas.

There is already speculation that Speaker Ryan is planning on retiring after this next year and I suspect he will if he loses the majority, which seems to be at best for the GOP 50-50, probably more like 40-60) he will. Talking about entitlement reform now is more about him covering himself in his own mind so he can not feel so bad about raising the deficit willingly. I suspect there will be a time when we can all come to the table and talk about how literally 1/3 of the federal budget is required to go to medicare, SS and medicaid and how 1/3 is basically required to go to military spending, but the country/congress is too divided right now, so a consensus seems unlikely, ergo 'entitlement reform' won't happen soon. And yeah, Republicans only are staunch 'fiscal conservatives' when there's a Dem in the White House, it's partly what's become so distasteful about GOP politics, talking out both sides of their mouths/.

the Post wants my money, so I can't read it, but I'll assume it's Paul Ryan saying he wants to talk about welfare reform and yeah, he always says that; he's been doing it for 10 plus years. On the other hand, Senator McConnell, a man who holds a much tighter majority and has a lot more power than very wonky, not so strategic Speaker Ryan says he doesn't expect his chamber to even bring it up next year. I'll believe the majority leader's pragmatism. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/mitch-mcconnell-does-not-expect-to-take-up-entitlement-reform-next-year.html

I agree with the substance of your argument, yes most of us voted for Mrs. Clinton, but not enough for her to be President and not enough in the places it counted. And nuance requires subtlety and the American people lack it, if you want to talk about the specifics of American politics we would have to look at individual states and individual congressional districts and to be frank such specifics would give us no clarification on the overarching spectrum of the American situation at hand. I speak in generalities because they are generally true, no more, no less (though I'm not subtle by nature, that is a fair observation). We have to deal with what is. It's hard to really say why most Americans don't like this bill, it's currently at about Trump's popularity rating, somewhere under 40%. I think the general perspective is that it's a bill will raise the deficit and mostly help wealthy Americans, and I think most of us think rich people help themselves alright. Americans have a heart for helping the less fortunate, but we mostly have an innate fear of authoritarianism; it's why many of our ancestors and parents and etc left their country of origins because of the obligations they placed on our forefathers (it's why my family came to this country almost 400 years ago and it's why different wings of my family kept coming to this country) and taxation is just a form of compulsion, a form we all agree to as a society, but taking from some to help others, sometimes against their will, is a form of authoritarianism and our forefathers either fought authoritarianism or ran from it. I'm quiet certain that's why the socialistic states that exist in Europe doesn't exist here, for better or for worse. But this bill is mostly unpopular because it's bad and poorly thought out, I will agree with @Lord Raven about that. I would have likely endorsed true 'tax reform', but this is a mess. And to be fair to the American system, there are lots of good public services that many people have provided for them, but upper-middle class people tend to view themselves proudly as 'self-reliant' and want to build themselves up. There isn't a direct one-to-one connection between this bill and possible 'entitlement reform'. Many Democrats have speculated that this bill will precipitate 'welfare reform' from the Republicans because of the deficit spikes, but the Republicans, just like was quoted in the last page, could truly sit on their hands about Medicare, SS, and Medicaid and do nothing about them if they really want to. It will be interesting to see what next year leads to.

I find these kind of topics because when you ask, what do you want, you come with a grab bag of items, but what you don't want clarifies what you like about something and why future installments shouldn't have certain aspects. I think mostly what I don't want from future installments is this attempt to cull together all the aspects of older games into a new game. I think what I respect most about Fire Emblem as a series and IS as a developer is that they take risks, they try new things, and they are willing to put popular features on the backburner to try new features. Not every game that is made needs to have every feature that I find enjoyable because sometimes they have to think outside the box. Not considering SOV because it was a pretty faithful remake of an old game, the last two games have felt like a grab bag of 'these are things people like about Fire Emblem, let's put them all into a game'. I understand that that was the point of Awakening, they thought this might be the last Fire Emblem game ever so they made it a homage to every game, so they threw in all the features they felt summarized the other games: child units, skills, world map, skirmishes, gaidens, etc etc, but it also had new features, like casual mode and etc. I feel like the lesson IS learned is that people want the games to be a throwback to the old games (what I will call the 'star wars' effect) and so they turned Fates into a 3 part game, one for people who liked the old games, one for people who liked the new games and one for in-between; that seems like an untenable model. So basically, I don't want them to keeping try what's worked, at least not ad nauseam, give me a new 'arc' for FE; something that isn't Archancea, Judgral, Elibe, Magvel, Tellius, or the 3ds era.

I'm not arguing it's okay or it's not okay, rather I'm arguing it is politics and it's what the American people want, I'm arguing it is. Politics is merely the execution of the people's will, people sent a Republican to the White House and sent a majority of Republicans to the House and the Senate, that clearly states that they wanted some sort of 'conservative' policy, lower taxes, trickle-down esque economic policy, limited action on immigration reform, pro-life policy, and pulling back on regulations, maybe even deconstructing the ACA. How the Republicans got control is irrelevant, there wasn't anything illegal done, maybe unethical, but nothing outright against the law. The American people act like this is what they want because they continue to elect the same type of people for the job and we continue to act like business as usual is what we want. I've always been found of idioms and the line 'people get the government they deserve' seems to be truer and truer everyday. The American people sent Republicans to Congress to do something and tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy seem to be as orthodox thing as Republicans believe in as anything, the fact that senators like Flake, Corker, Collins, and Murkowski who all have bucked President Trump's agenda in one way or another voted for this bill says that's as true as anything. Their caucus is divided on issues like immigration, trade, and infrastructure (govt spending really) so what is and isn't 'orthodoxy' is up for debate and a fight, but the fact that every Republican but a handful of House members in NY, NJ, and CA who knew this would instantly raise the taxes on their constituents and that would probably piss them off shows you that this kind of policy is what the GOP stands for. Election have consequences my friend, that is idiom that should and must remain true because despite the anti-majoritarian aspects of the American Republic, majority rule is still how our country works; like it, love it , hate it, this is how it works.

I'm such a bad reference to an average American for a variety of reasons, but partly because I can see the merits of both ideologies and define myself outside of them, but I may not support this version of 'tax reform', misleading label for it, but I can certainly understand why Majority Leader McConnell had to do it. The big job of politics is doing what you think is best for the country, but the means by which you do it is by winning elections and not getting this bill passed was putting every Republican in mortal danger. How do you get any of your base to come out and vote for you if you come home and tell them, 'you sent us to Washington for 2 years with the house, senate, and presidency and all we delivered is some federal judges? Talk about a on sale. Basically every American believes in a government that does stuff for them, so you expect your representatives to do stuff for you. Doing nothing for two years would have put not only the House in easy reach for the Dems, it would also put the Senate within reach; not only could DEMS win AZ and NV, it could also put seats like TN, MS, NE, and TX at risk, talk about a nightmare for the GOP. It's a bill that doesn't really do as promised, ie it doesn't simplify the tax code and it doesn't do a ton for middle class tax payers, especially not in 10 years, but I don't think it'll be much detriment in the short run, just political fodder.

Combination of things, the House passed a version of the tax cut bill that would have broken the rules of reconciliation that were set before the process so the Senate had to make some slight alterations that the house then passed this morning to ensure the two bills were identical. The personal tax cuts are temporary, but the corporate tax cuts are permanent, this is a combination of things mostly relating to the rules of reconciliation that no bill can go into effect that will raise the deficits for 10 years, so because the personal tax breaks will raise the deficit, they would have required 60 votes to be permanent (something similar happened with the Bush tax cuts and when they came around President Obama/ the Republicans make the tax cuts for like 60%of the country permanent). So the corporate tax rate is set at 21% for the foreseeable future. President Trump really needed a major piece of legislation passed, anything really and this was the easiest way to do it. It's hard for Congresspeople to go back to their constituents and say 'yeah you gave my party control of all 3 branches of government and we did basically nothing but appoint federal judges' and then expect them to vote for you. They could have risked losing more senate seats like Alabama which would have been a nightmare for the GOP.

This is a strange place to argue this, but the purpose that many fought for in the Revolution may have been a liberal democracy, but the Constitution established a deferential republic with a fear of the masses. This is a direct quote from Madison's Federalist 10 From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm Hell, it isn't until Jacksonian democracy in the 1820's until universal man-hood (white man) suffrage even happens. The US was founded on the principles of limited government, limited citizen participation in government and separation of powers in government. Heck, it isn't until the 20th century when women can vote or even there is popular election of US senators. The constitutional convention only happens because of problems like Shay's Rebellion where the fear of the landed masses of the unlanded masses requires a stronger, less publicly accountable government that could regulate a free society. 'Liberal Democracy' is a new thing, mostly post WWII, but a little bit with the Progressive movement too.

This has already happened for millions of Americans, the predictions of Federalist #10 have to come to fruition, people have factionalized themselves into two tribes. The whole cold war era joke of 'better dead than red' has turned into better dead than republican or better dead than a democrat and people carry out those ideas by its most extreme logic. Half a million people showed up to vote for Roy Moore, a man accused of having sex with fourteen year old, most of them didn't believe it, but there wasn't any credible reason not to except it clashed with their political beliefs. I see no reason, but hope, to not expect Democrats to not do the same. Our society is fractionalizing while we speak. The whole thing with President Trump's judges brought this to the forefront of my mind, when the Republicans won control of the Senate they stopped having hearings for any of President Obama's judicial nominees; it didn't matter if they were incompetent political hacks who didn't deserve the job or perfectly qualified decent humans who had the right to sit on the bench. Now President Trump is nominating everyone left and right (only half of it is a pun) to the federal judiciary whether they be qualified or unqualified, like the gentlemen who couldn't answer basic legal questions because he knows the Dems will get the Senate soon and when they do, they won't hear any of his nominees, whether they be qualified or unqualified. It's an unending fight of escalation. Sometime, I pray to the Lord soon, some of us are going to have to unilaterally disarm, unilaterally deescalate from this conflict with each other. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-judicial-nominee-who-struggled-to-answer-basic-questions-pulls-out/2017/12/18/eadf1326-e424-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.8a8777860759

It's a small topic, but a leak turns whole which turns into a flood which turns into a mess if you keep poking holes. The problem is that the monopoly laws on the book are as good as we are ever going to get. Let's be frank, the American people aren't 'smart', I can't think of a better word for it, enough to care about monopoly laws. Economic rules and regulations are complicated and no politician in their right mind is going to campaign on issues like 'I believe the current economic problems of the nation are because hegemonic powers of monopolies and our inability to identify them.' 90% of Americans are going to tune you out and call you a blowhard and unable to be related to and something horrible like an intellectual, you'll get blown out of the water. The reason why the bureaucracies like the FCC exist is because the politicians can insulate themselves from powerful corporate lobbyists whose money politicians desperately need to win in this century. Corporations and lobbyists care a lot more about monopoly laws than the rest us, a lot more.

Understanding what someone is saying and buying into the paradigm aren't equal, you should understand what someone is saying, not have to buy what they are saying, listen, observe, understand; polite and required for civilized people to argue, buying what they say, not required.

I don't think his argument, maybe I'm wrong, is that SD's re-classing is less broken, I think he's arguing that it is considerably more of a limiting resource than it is in Awakening or Fates where you could re-class everyone through the best classes to get the best skills, at least SD is limiting the number of dracoknights you can have at one time so you aren't draco rushing the whole game.

Mr. Pai like any human can say whatever he thinks will help him win an argument, we all do it, doesn't verify the veracity of the statement. I can say unicorns fly out of my ass if I think it will help me win an argument, it's not true, but I could say it.

There is a clear and obvious difference though, youtube and other video providers survive and fail on the capitalistic merits, whichever people think are better for whatever reason. On the other hand ISPs have huge barriers to entry and large providers can keep small providers out by monopolizing the means of giving the internet the literal infrastructure. It's why we as a society we regulate banks, hospitals, utilities and the likes because you and I can't start a bank or an ISP and have chance to make it with the big guys, but I could certainly start a video sharing site and have a chance to compete with youtube, ergo capitalism works.

Do you have access to hundreds of ISPs? Because I don't @Lord Raven and I are in the same boat, I live in the Phoenix area, we have 2 ISP providers, Cox and Century Link, Cox is very okay and Century Link only works in some parts of the valley, on the other hand you can use any video sharing site anytime you want to, and I could open dozens of windows right now to lots of sites, in fact I could create my own site to share any type of wholesome or unwholesome or conservative or liberal or gross or cool or any type of video I want. Think about your argument without the personal feelings, maybe Youtube is blocking conservative content, I don't know, but they aren't a monopoly none of the evidence points to that.

Youtube is a provider, but it isn't the only one in its field, there are lots of video sharing sites, hundreds, thousands, maybe more I don't know. So even if it is a utility it doesn't have to be regulated like we do monopolistic utilities because there are lots of providers and producers and consumers have basically equal access to the product.