Shoblongoo

Looks right. But those numbers show the majority of abortions are performed on single women in their 20s. The numbers further show that the two most common reasons given for why termination of pregnancy is sought are [not ready] and [can't afford it]. The numbers further show that Medicaid recipients (i.e. poor people) are three times as likely to have abortions as non-Medicaid recipients. So I'm still not quite sure how you're looking at that and getting "rich white women getting abortions for their physical appearance and lifestyle presence" as your typical case. The typical case is where a young woman's primary form of birth control has failed. ...Maybe the condom tore. ...Maybe she miscalculated her safe days. ...Maybe the guy who promised he was going to pull out at the end was a lying sack of shit. Now she's pregnant. Career just went out the window. Education just went out the window. The ordinary life pursuits of a single 20-something year old just went out the window. She's barely covering regular monthly expenses to begin with. If she keeps the baby, she's looking at an additional $800 a month in daycare expenses just to maintain full-time employment, premium hikes for child healthcare coverage on an insurance policy that's already costing her $250 a month in take home-pay. Additional expenses for baby clothes. Baby food. Baby furniture. Baby toys. Etc., Etc. Etc., On a $30,000 a year retail job??? ...That's whats filling the abortion clinics. Not uptown socialites trying to keep their figure.

The life-of-the-mother exception makes perfect sense. And I have never seen or heard a single person argue against it. ...but on the matter of rape... For all the reasons set forth by respondent posters since I yesterday made my inquiry as to why this exception should exist and be observed by otherwise pro-life persons. We would not allow a rape victim to drown her 1 year old child-conceived-in-rape in a bathtub or say that we do not condemn such actions. We would not allow a rape victim to shoot her 1 year old child-conceived-in-rape in the head with a handgun. And so on and so forth; we would call such acts "murder" and the the mother a murderer. The premise of the pro-life position is that abortion is morally equivalent to the aforementioned acts; it is the murder of a small child. That is why its a moral evil and people should not get abortions. If that is what one believes. But if it is said that you can abort a child-concieved-in-rape. Then what is really being said is that abortion is NOT morally the same as killing a child. One is permissible in circumstances where the other is not. And that again just seems to beg the question well then why feel the way you feel about abortion to begin with? Like--you know its morally unconscionable to make a woman carry to term a pregnancy she never wanted and never intended to have. You've worked through that much. It just seems like such a glaring we know intuitively this doesn't hold up, and we see how problematic this gets if we take it to its logical extreme. But abortion is murder. That's our position and we're sticking to it--don't call us out on this.

Andddddd I can't figure out how to double quote in one post. w/e. This is probably too long to be one post anyway, and its separate subject matter. Yes there is. What we want to be looking at are the laws governing the conduct of state and local police. Lawful use of force statutes. Professional liability standards. Rules of administrative procedure for responding to reports of police misconduct. Prosecutorial burdens of proof and defenses available at trial, where an officer faces criminal charges for wrongful deaths caused by inappropriate use of force. Washington State, for example, has a proposed bill now to remove statutory protections which make it damn-near impossible to prosecute officers who kill people by way of police misconduct. At a more local level; various municipalities are adopting ordinances that require their local police departments to wear bodycameras at all times while on duty, and establish a presumption of efforts-to-conceal-guilt where an officer accused of misconduct had his bodycam turned off and cannot produce footage from the moment of the confrontation in question. I think there's been some movement there recently in the State of California. Ideally, the change-of-law we'd like to see when all is said and done is a professional liability standard for police that looks something like the professional liability standard for lawyers and doctors or any other profession. Not the unique set of privileges and immunities police and only police are given. Like if a doctor abuses a patient under anesthesia. Or if a doctor makes a medical error that kills someone. That doctor is going to lose their license to practice and face severe legal consequences. We don't do this because we hate doctors. We do this because we respect the profession and the important work that it does enough to hold it to the highest professional standards, and keep sub-standard individuals who would besmirch the profession with their bad acts out of the profession. Moreover, if we did not have these standards, we would have a crisis of confidence in the medical profession, due to an abundance of unpunished medical errors and wrongful deaths and no mechanism for distinguishing those who cause them from good doctors. The medical profession benefits from strict enforcement of these standards in that it continues to be held in high esteem. The same should be true of policing.

...Well it Looks like I'm going to have to start my Saturday Morning Calling Out Bullshit... First lets make something very clear. It is not the method of protest you find objectionable. It is the message. They protest in the streets. The hater says: “This is rioting. This is lawlessness. They’re ruining their communities. They're disrespecting the police. If these people want to be taken seriously why don’t they protest peacefully somewhere where it won’t cause a public nuisance?” They protest by taking the knee during the national anthem. The hater says: “Inappropriate. This is not the right forum. They’re ruining football. They’re disrespecting the flag. If these people want to be taken seriously, why don’t they go out into their communities and protest what they’re really mad at—the police?” You will never be satisfied; not unless they shut up and stop protesting. Because you don’t think they have a legitimate complaint. You think that THEY are the problem, not the response. You do not accept that there is unaddressed racial inequality in this country, insufficient legal protections against police misconduct, and an intersection between the two that is THE pressing civil rights issue of our day. That message—to you—is an expression of disrespect for law enforcement and racemongering. You hear it and it doesn’t matter where you hear it or how its communicated. You don’t like it. You wanna talk MLK??? Okay, Lushen. Lets talk MLK. MLK’s protests had lower support among White Americans in his day then the NFL protests have today among White Americans in 2017. It was only after his lifetime—AFTER the injustice he was protesting was addressed and the next generation saw the prior law of his day for what it was in comparison to their own—that MLK became revered among Whites and Blacks alike as this great American Hero. …in his day… -They said he was protesting over NOTHING. There was no injustice. There was no inequality in the law. Blacks were just being treated the way people who commit more crimes and show more disrespect for authority should be treated in a fair country. -They said that he was causing racism and racial division. That he was making black people hate white people by telling them that they were being unfairly treated. That he was making white people hate black people because white people were very uncomfortable with these protests and saw it as black people blaming whites for their problems. That race relations in America would be better if people like MLK stopped agitating everyone with all this talk of racial injustice in America; that’s what was causing all the problems. -They said even if he had a legitimate grievance, his METHODS were wrong. His protests were “unpatriotic.” His protests were disrespectful to law enforcement. He shouldn’t be saying the things he was saying about America. He shouldn’t be getting arrested. He shouldn’t be forcing his activism into public view. He was just hurting his own cause. Dr. King was speaking specifically to people like you when he wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail, following his arrest for refusing lawful directives from police officers during one of his early protests in Alabama: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Some choice bits: “You may well ask: Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.” AND “You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.” AND "Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation." Again. Please read and review. I want you to understand how absurd it is that you would invoke—of all things—Dr. King’s memory, to defend the position you’re defending. Dr. King would have some VERY choice words about this position you are taking, if he were alive today to offer his thoughts on the matter.

Source?

…as long as we’re on the topic of intellectual consistency, this is something that genuinely confuses me about the internal logic of the “pro-life” position. The rape exception. If you truly believe: (a) that abortion is murder; (b) that a pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child; and (c) that the harm of killing a child in the womb is greater than and cannot be justified by the emotional and economic hardship of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Then what difference does it make whether the pregnancy is the result of a rape or consensual sex??? Because following the key points of the pro-life premise it really shouldn’t matter. -there’s an unwanted pregnancy -the pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child -ending the pregnancy is murder -the superseding harm of murder cannot be justified by the lesser harms of economic and emotional hardship If one who would otherwise identify as pro-life takes the position that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, then that is a tacit admission that the termination of a pregnancy CAN be justified by purely emotional and economic hardship; moreover, that such hardships can be properly regarded as greater harms then loss of life from termination of the pregnancy. Well then that raises the obvious question: Why is that the exception rather than the rule? If termination of a pregnancy can be so justified by unwanted hardship, on what grounds can you claim abortion is wrong to begin with? It’s a simple enough inconsistency to resolve from a pro-choice perspective: there is no inconsistency, because a pregnancy has no vested right to be carried to term and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed regardless. But from a pro-life perspective? How do you work that out?

You know as dumb as this whole Republican tax plan is, I'd actually support it. If they passed it as part of a larger bill that raised the federal minimum wage and did away with the part-time employee exemption. Then it's like fine--we got an actual economic growth policy out of the deal. Here's your tax cuts for top earners, if that's what you need to sell it to that base you've got buying into trickledown as "pro-growth." It's bullshit, but we know you have to go back to your home districts and explain your vote. Take it. Once upon a time that was how we moved big legislation in this country. This Congress??? Never gonna happen.

...Oh Trump was just called out for his lack of a disaster relief response in Puerto Rico, while he was busy getting into a Twitter war with the NFL. His response was: "White House response in Puerto Rico getting great reviews!" Its all just a reality TV show to him. Kim-Jong has to know that if it comes to all out war with the United States he gets annihilated, whereas Trump has no such fear. And Trump might be thinking that if the domestic news events around his White House and the ongoing investigations against it get bad enough, war with North Korea is the obvious way to generate superseding headlines. ...speaking of... Tonight, there are some significant new developments with the Special Investigation into Trump/Russia tonight: The Criminal Investigations division of the IRS is now working with the Special Prosecutor and his team The Special Prosecutor has, in the course of his investigation into Team Trump and its Russian associates, found sufficient circumstantial evidence of financial crimes (i.e. tax evasion, money laundering, bribery/corruption/fraud...) to subpoena tax returns and subpoena going all the way back to 2006. The IRS has answered the subpoenas; these records are now in the possession of the special prosecutor and are being reviewed by his team. Persons close to the investigation are reporting that the special prosecutor is preparing to begin interviewing White House aids, on conduct and conversations that occurred in the White House during the course of Trump's presidency. Persons close to the investigation are reporting that Mueller is preparing to hand down the first pair of criminal indictments for crimes related to the 2016 election, against Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn. Story Developing. (theres gonna be a whole load of mess coming down the pipeline in the next few weeks)

...Also...this is happening with the NBA...

For a while now, certain (mostly African American) players have been refusing to participate in the salute-the-flag pageantry and instead taking the knee during the national anthem as a show of solidarity with BLM, and a form of protest against the lack of progress on issues of overpolicing and police brutality. A lot of these guys come from communities that are heavily affected and experienced it growing up; they get what its about. The League allows this. It does not expect its players to be silent on issues facing their communities. Recently--obscured by all the news of the Hurricanes and Healthcare and North Korea--America just had its first major BLM flare-up, in St. Louis (hi Lushen), following the acquittal of a white officer who killed a black suspect and was then found [not guilty] at trial under a rather dubious set of circumstances. As a show of solidarity with the protestors, players again took the knee during the national anthem and refused to look at the American Flag. Now past presidents have known to just ignore this sort of thing and issue a measured statement on the underlying issue of public policy. Because it isn't any of the Presidents damn business in a free country whether or not private businesses want to agree with him or speak against him, and it isn't the president's job to tell them what they can and cannot say. Trump of course, being Trump, decided he as president of the United States had to give a speech making it known that anyone who refuses to stand for the national anthem is a "Son of a Bitch." And that it would be so great if refusing players were just yanked off the field and told "You're Fired! YOU'RE FIRED!!!" There was also recently an incident where an African American ESPN sports commentator called Trump a White Supremacist; the White House issued a press statement calling upon ESPN to fire the commentator. Trump himself threatened: "ESPN paying really big price for its politics and bad programming" and called on the network to "Apologize for untruth!" ESPN not only ignored the White House, but issued an official statement in defense of its employee explaining: the reason so many people think Donald Trump is a white supremacist is because of things that Trump himself has said. So Trump was already pissy about being belittled and blown off and treated in a way that you're not supposed to treat Dear Leader before the latest player protests. ------- EDIT: Trump today just issued two (2) new "presidential" statements: "If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" AND "NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S." ...The word "fascist" gets overused alot on the internet. Often inappropriately and without proper context... In the most clinical sense of the word; Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

Just in case it wasn't clear from the previous post that Donald J. Trump is a fascist. His new thing today is that he's calling upon the NFL to fire players who refuse to stand during the national anthem.

This is where you’re getting tripped up: remember there’s two (2) dimensions to the political spectrum: 1) Liberal (i.e. “Left”) vs. Conservative (i.e. “Right”) 2) Libertarian vs. Authoritarian This yields a classification scheme of four (4) broad categories of political ideology, by which we can categorize various forms of government and schools of political thought: 1) Authoritarian Left 2) Authoritarian Right 3) Libertarian Left 4) Libertarian Right Communism and Fascism (Nazism is a sub-category of fascism) are both authoritarian systems. They share traits common to all authoritarian systems in the scope of power exercised by the state, and the extent of state’s interference in private enterprise and civil liberties. Authoritarian similarities notwithstanding; they are ideologically opposite on the left/right spectrum. The core ideology of the Communist state guiding the exercise of authoritarian state power is Marxism, and the Marxist vision of a classless society where private wealth and private property does not exist. The Marxist state has no vision for an ethnically or state-exclusive national creed; to the contrary, Communism is a globalist ideology which seeks to facilitate the global spread of communism. The Stalinists had no notion that communism was exclusively Russian, the Maoists had no notion that Communism was exclusively Chinese, and the Castro’s had no notion that Communism was exclusively Cuban. Communism in its purest form was seen to be a global movement that would supplant nationalism, on a theory that people are more divided by class then by nationality . The Marxist creed was: "Workers of the World; Unite!" That is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The core ideology of the Fascist state is nationalism and ethnocentrism. The fascist state puts forth a narrow definition for purity of “REAL” countrymen. Posits that those who fall outside this definition must be working at cross-purposes to the country; this is why so great a country has so many problems. And that the way to fix those problems is to crackdown on the out-groups, to the benefit of “REAL” countrymen. The fascist state has no vision for a classless society or for the denial of private wealth; it only provides that wealth and opportunity belong in the hands of “REAL” countrymen. Not in the possession of globalists and foreigners, or the “traitors” who think that they should be co-equals in an open, multicultural society. That is a fundamentally conservative idea. EXAMPLE: The government decides that it needs to produce more guns and ammunition. Under Communism: The government assigns more of its citizens to produce guns and ammunitions. They go to work in a government facility, where they produce guns and ammunition under the supervision of a State Commissar. Everything they produce is the property of the government, which proceeds to take the guns. The worker’s compensation is whatever food, housing, and money the government has decided is the uniform standard-of-living for its citizens. Under Fascism: You go to work for a private company that produces guns and ammo. You are paid by your boss to work in his private manufacturing plant; he can fire you and you can quit. The guns produced belong to the company, which sells them to the government. The boss keeps the difference between the sales price and the material-and-labor costs of production as PROFIT, which becomes private wealth. If the state isn’t happy with how you’re running your company, however. Say: if you employee Jews and Immigrants. If it comes out that the boss is a known homosexual. If the government says “Make More Guns” and the boss says “No; I’m not going to make more guns. We make enough guns. We’re pursuing other business—we’re making cars and television.” ...Well then the state police are going to get involved. The local concentration camp is going to get some new inhabitants. And the company’s day-to-day operations and private profits are going to very quickly find themselves in the hands of more—cooperative—management.

The thing about rightward-leaning American libertarianism is that it's rooted in ideas of Constitutional Originalism and Founding Intent. So the American "libertarian" is conventionally libertarian in the spirit of limited government and federalism...UNLESS it's in a sphere of policy where the Constitution gives the federal government expansive plenary power to act (i.e. Military Deployment and Immigration). Then they display political leanings that would be more usually considered athoritarian. America is wierd like that.

Its a not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles type deal. Conservatism is not inherently fascist. But fascism is inherently conservative. There are plenty of conservative schools of thought that attract good people and that aren't fascist; "conservatism" is a broad label for a number of loosely affiliated political ideas that sometimes overlap and sometimes don't. ...you've got your religious conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the nationalists or the fiscal conservatives ...you've got your fiscal conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the nationalists ...you've got your nationalists, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the fiscal conservatives ...and then you've got your Nazis. They're not THE right-wing. But the right-wing is their home. They live there. You would be describing government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production. This could be a description of Communism. Nazism. A tinpot dictatorship. A theocratic church-state. A feudal monarchy. Pretty much any authoritarian government, left or right, ever devised by human minds. A common feature of authoritarianism is government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production...its what the people in charge in an authoritarian state do... Framing fascism in this matter is like being asked "What is a human?" and answering: "A hairy, milk-producing animal." Okay. You're not technically wrong. But you just gave an answer that describes something like 5,000 different kinds of animals. You haven't described a human. You've described mammals. A BETTER answer would set forth the unique attributes that make humans--different. Distinguishable. Not just another big dumb animal. Maybe something about tools or complex language or abstract thought. So what then is unique to fascism? We move beyond the blanket similarities in command-and-control economics common to every form of authoritarian and that does nothing to distinguish any of them into fascism's more defining traits: what is it that clinically makes a fascist a fascist? ...its that marriage of hypernationalism and outgroup scapegoating with the power of the authoritarian state. Its: "[Country] is the greatest country, because it has the greatest people. We don't win. We have the greatest people; why don't we win? Its because THOSE PEOPLE are screwing you. The [insert litany of outgroups here]. We're gonna crack down on THOSE PEOPLE because we care about REAL [country]. The politicians...the media...the academics...all the guys telling you our ideas aren't serious--you know they're part of the problem, right? They don't care about REAL [country]." ...and then the policy of the fascist state flows from this manner of thinking. Thats what makes fascism different then other forms of authoritarian government; this overarching goal of the authoritarian state. It is a distinct creature of the nationalist right. That is the ideological point-of-origin. That is where fascism comes from. And this isn't just me being nitpicky. its important to get this right, because if you don't know where its coming from then you don't see it coming. That's how it sneaks up on you. And that's how you get a Donald Trump; when you have an electorate that knows its supposed to hate facism. But doesn't remember what fascism looks like or why it's bad.

No comment on the "marxist definition of facism." ...thats... yeahhhhhhhhhh. I'm not touching that. I'm ambivalent on all this talk of North Korea. The dirty little secret in all of this (not even a secret--more like the 800 lb. gorilla in the room) is that America isn't holding the cards right now. This is China's sphere of influence. This is going to play out the way China wants it to play out. Like as tough as Trump wants to talk here and as much as he loves going tit-for-tat on firey rhetoric with Kim-Jong, because its damn-good television and at the end of the day that's all Donald Trump really cares about. Short of North Korea actually attacking Japan or South Korea or a US territory, I just don't see us getting involved. ...Unless of course Trump just needs a good old-fashioned war to distract from impeachment talks, when Mueller publishes his report.

Yeahhhhhh; No. You don't get to play that card against me. Now calm yourself and use your head for a moment. If I were to describe a NAZI by political belief and preferred policy. Without using the word NAZI, or any national or party identification. I would be describing: An emphatic nationalist who believes that the greatest threat facing his country is the subversive influence of diversity and multiculturalism, and who would have his government take corrective action to increase ethnic homogeneity and limit the social and political power of minority outgroups. Preferred actions against target outgroups will include mass incarceration, mass deportation, physical exclusion from national entry or admission, and broadly permissive use of lethal force by persons wielding state police power. This is not a trick question. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with? ___________ EDIT: You know who didn't think the comparison between the nationalist right and the Nazi party was "clueless and disrespectful?" The Americans who fought the fucking Nazis. ^ This is a 3 minute film produced by the United States government in 1943; educating citizens on how to identify a fascist politician and stop fascists from coming to power in America. Please watch it. Its so, so relevant to whats going on today.

Nazism at its core was a hypernationalist movement based around the idea that Germany was supposed to be the greatest country in the world; if Germany wasn't the greatest country in the world and the German people weren't winning all the time, that meant something was wrong with the world order. Germany was being cheated; screwed; taken advantage of by its lessers. Nazism posited that Germany was in decline because it was being crippled from within by subversive elements--The globalists, the liberal academics, the communists, the homosexuals, the Jews--and that the way to make Germany great again was to purge these un-German elements out and make Germany culturally pure. Aryan. A Germany that would assume its rightful place as the greatest country in the world when populated and governed by "Real Germans," unencumbered by the degenerate influences of multiculturalism and diversity and inferior subcultures. If you can not see the likeness to the nationalist wing of the Republican Party, you are willfully blind. ("The Mexicans," "The Chinese," "The Muslims,"--all the hysteria--its all just the new Globalist Jew)

...it also gets a lot more far left then the Democrats. There are people who think Democrats sold out their progressive values and have become too beholden to entrenched interests to fight for progressive reforms--that they should be pushing hard for universal healthcare, living wage laws, an end to the war on drugs, LGBT protections under federal antidiscrimination law, and looser immigration laws allowing for easier legal entry to the United States + retroactive forgiveness for unlawful entrants. Most Americans, however, are neither to the right of the Republicans or to the left the Democrats, but somewhere in between. And so the need to appeal to the center defines the metes and bounds of the parties.

You sorta answered your own question there; House Republicans have to run for reelection in heavily Republican districts, and they're terrified that any who are seen as coming out too strongly against Trump will be primaried out of office by more partisanly inclined Republican challengers. There are no profiles in courage among House Leadership. You will not see them turn on Trump unless their voters turn on Trump, and they perceive no political cost in so doing.

...I mean with what's public knowledge at this point, there's enough to institute articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice (i.e. the same grounds for impeachment brought against Nixon). What's missing is the political will from a Republican controlled Congress, not the evidence of an impeachable offense. And that's without even speculating on what may or may not come out in the Mueller investigation concerning money laundering, racketeering, and ties to Russia.

Behind the curt "because" is an unspoken "for reasons I'm not entirely comfortable discussing."

...my boss is a Trump supporter. My dad is a Trump supporter. My uncle is a Trump supporter. All concede and acknowledge that Trump is a terrible person and that his conduct in office is a national embarrassment. Pressed why they continue to support him, they all say something to the effect of well I DO agree that we need to be tougher on illegal immigrants and respect our police and stop letting these black lives matter thugs loot and riot. And why does half my paycheck go to the inner cities to pay for people who want to drop out of school, get pregnant, and do drugs? That's what's wrong with this country. I work so hard for my money and the government doesn't care about me; they only care about people who are looking for a handout. "I support Donald Trump because he's right on the issues that matter most to me and all that other stuff just isn't as important." Coax a more complete answer out of your roommate and I suspect you'll hear something to this effect. I also suspect you'll find your roommate has some rather--colorful--views on major issues.

He can turn out good as a samurai and has more speed then mage Odin. Which he needs. But samurai Odin has many of the the same problem as mage Odin: -low bases -quickly falls behind unless you go out of your way to baby him and feed him kills -pretty much unusable once he falls behind And this is compounded now by starting with E-Rank swords. I know its frowned upon. But I really have found that the best way to make Odin a good unit is to just give him the ebon wing as soon as he joins and let him go to work as a dark flier. Its the once class that immediately gives him everything he needs to hit the ground running, while also giving him the growths and the utility to stay relevant through the endgame.

...you know what... I'd go so far as to say the map design and strategy beats out Thracia. Its a shame the writing was so shit. They put so much talent and attention to detail into the gameplay. If everything else had been executed at that level, Conquest could have been the best game in the series.

...the fact that you even have to ask that question cuts to the heart of the everyone can marry every problem, where you just get these flood of nonsense-relationships that shouldn't work on any level. Every available S-rank should be a happy pairing from an in-game perspective. ...From the ones listed here... Odin/Elise is the only one that stands out to me as these two have great chemistry. They're so good together. (and its just a nice little bonus on top that Elise happens to be one of the best mothers for Ophelia) Takumi/Oboro is your classic princess-and-her-knight pairing in reverse. Like its not great compared to Eirika/Seth or Lyndis/Kent or Elincia/Geoffrey, but its a sensible pairing, and one of the very few in Fates thats actually hinted at or built up in anyway outside of supports. I can dig it. Saizo/Beruka, beyond that, is the only one that stands out as okay; I get why these characters are compatible based on their respective personalities, why quirks about them that would be bothersome to other characters would endear them to each other, and how this dynamic they have could work as a long-term commited relationship. (although I still swear by Benny/Beruka as heads-and-shoulders above the rest of Beruka's relationship options in the I-get-how-this-turns-romantic department) Peri/Laslow--I wouldn't say thats a good relationship; Peri is an unhealthy partner. For everyone. There's no way around that. But Laslow is one of the few men in Fates I could see being able to tolerate her because of what makes him Laslow (i.e. he digs the ladies. All the ladies. Even the crazy ones.) so...w/e...its one of her less unpleasant pairings... (there really isn't any 'happy' way to pair off Peri. Someone is getting stuck with a psychopath for a wife). Leo/Sakura works purely on a political-marriage-of-convenience level. As any pairing between a Hoshidan and Nhorian royal can. I don't know if it works on any level beyond that, but thats enough. Annnndd I don't have a particularly positive reaction to any of those other pairings. Some like Ryoma/Felicia and Niles/Mozu just make me shake my head and go ...How is this a thing? Like why would this even be an option. Wtf Fates....get your shit together... _________ ...Now that I think about it, I have yet to see a revelations run with full-pairings where each-and-every pairing makes in-game sense... The way Fates is written (poorly) just makes it exceptionally hard to do. I don't even know what that would look like.