Anneal

Hey, California has some cool stuff, too. Lassen Volcanic National Park Lake Tahoe Muir Woods California has a lot of national parks, possibly the most in a single state, and it is incredibly diverse in...ecology. Thank the Sierra Club for their efforts in preserving all that many decades ago.

Republicans don't even have a strong presence in Oregon. Oregon is a very blue state, though it's not as blue as California. Climate change has been mostly divided in the Republican party, though more and more Republicans have become more accepting of it. Even if they don't, and some believe it's naturally caused, both parties are usually fine with funding alternate energy programs or conserving resources.

Only Canada and the US really celebrate Thanksgiving. Europe usually doesn't do it, if at all. And forget about Asia. Canada's Thanksgiving comes before Halloween, so it usually gets mashed up with Halloween merchandise...which is why you don't see it very often. It's also commemorated for the French colonials and English explorers that came in the 16th and 17th century. On the other hand, the US celebrates it on the fourth week of November, to commemorate something entirely different: the Pilgrim's first harvest in America. Interestingly, Liberia has a Thanksgiving too, though it's for the colonization from freed black slaves in 1820.

Right now it's too early to conclude much about how is presidency is going to go. We can only base it off of what information we have received during the election. Trump, however, appears to be shifting his policies, mostly to try to win back some support from the losing side and the Republicans themselves. I doubt there would be an apocalypse or whatnot, however. If Trump turns out to be actually bad, I'll say we had worse and we survived through that.

On the contrary, Donald Trump said he's refusing to receive a presidential salary. Being president doesn't mean you fill up your pockets. That's why rich people run for president (Truman is the only president in the last 100 years to have a net worth below $1 million); they have more than enough money to sustain themselves beyond the salary of a president. No one would ever use the presidency or a government seat to "fill their money". They're already rich, they don't need to. Trump's money is still sitting fine, too, and he's trying his best to maintain a better image after he won the election or he will get nothing done in his first term.

But it's not as eerie or shocking as the OP says it is. Trump had played around the idea of running for president ever since the late 90s, so it won't be too surprising for the show to joke about the whole idea. If there was even a prediction in the show, there were many inaccuracies to say it is reliable or beyond coincidence.

By the way, it's false. The episode was made last year after Trump had declared that he was running for president, and it wasn't even talking about Trump winning the election, but rather doing a speech for his campaign. Furthermore, the "Electoral College" scene was from a completely different episode made back in 2012, covering that year's election instead. This whole idea that the Simpsons somehow predicted the result is made up entirely by social media.

I feel like Trump did that in an attempt to appeal to conservative Christian voters. A fair amount of Trump supporters dislike him, too, and I still don't know why he picked up over much more respectable Republicans. Kasich would have been much better. At least the VP isn't Christie.

It's basically any sort of footwear that you would wear in your house only. While I would have said slippers, some people wear sandals or even an extra pair of shoes inside, so I used a broader term for it.

Whoops. I actually live in California, so state size usually gets in the way of interpreting distance. I just thought "oh, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are in the same state", and since Pennsylvania is in the East Coast it must be a small state. Clearly that was wrong, and apparently a good search says they're 4.5 hours away, which is...basically the distance from LA to Las Vegas. With that in mind it would take weeks.

Well, I added that option to whoever wears socks indoors.

I'm actually a bit curious since it's often not made clear in certain European and American cultures whether people wear shoes in their home or not. I've never seen anyone wear their shoes in their house, but I want to know what it's like for other places. So how is it like in your home? Do you wear your shoes and walk with it around the living room, or do you leave it on the doorway or on the shelf, or do you wear another pair of indoor shoes?

I would actually like to see...Atlantic City, though I think it's much better suited for a DLC and after Nuka-World I don't think people need a repeat of it. But at the same time, it can be like a massive city, partially flooded, with the Brotherhood of Steel around the outskirts of Jersey, controlling the farms and minor settlements for basic resources in return for control and apparent security. It would make for a very interesting wasteland region indeed, especially with flooding greatly changing the geography of the state. At the same time, Philly is not too far from the Pitt, so it will also get its fair share of lore from Fallout 3 and 4. It would also be a prime target and would have been much more heavily nuked, and be closer to the conditions of the Capital Wasteland instead of the Commonwealth. And it would be well within the Brotherhood of Steel's influence. I would like to see what factions it has, in fact.

If it wasn't obvious enough, it'll have to be Minccino, the chinchilla Pokemon. Not only is it cute, but it's perfectly viable in competitive play with it's powerful Hidden Ability, Skill Link (all multi-hit moves hit five times). Also, I only use UUs or lower, so there's that.

Right now I'm a bit more anxious that the American people are becoming more and more divided post-election. I doubt it'll go as far as secession but this election has shaken people more than any other, and right now it seems very difficult to unify the people once more. I don't think it's going to something people are going to easily forget and forgive after 4 years. Already I know I'm going to hated forever for the things I say on here.

That's also why Trump had started changing his policies and ideas a few weeks before the election and post-election. Some have been subtle, but right after the election he openly said that he was "open to amends" on Obamacare, unlike a few months ago where he had talked about outright repealing it. Trump has already shifted his policies to try to unite his own party and voters; if he didn't do so he would have trouble doing what he wants to get done as president. Appealing to your population has been something regularly done by president-elects, so I don't really see that as something wrong. And to be honest, I feel like Trump has been toting his policies more extremely to attract attention before leading them to a more reasonable policy, or pacing and leading them to certain ideas. Of course, for some people it has backfired. Right now I'm waiting to see what he does, but I completely doubt the US is going to be in ruins within four years if we had nearly a dozen terrible presidents before. Trump isn't going to be that bad.

The article is simply wild conjecture. Reading articles made by the same author it's very clear that she does not have an objective voice in the matter and therefore the article can not be trusted to provide reliable information. There are pictures, but there is no proof that it actually links to him apparently "disliking the job", just moments where he was taken with that expression, some of which can be interpreted in many ways. Also, if he didn't want to be president, he wouldn't have run for it in the first place and held onto the campaign for the next eighteen months. I'm not following the writer's logic here.

I'm not excusing some people from the Trump side who's acting all cocky and smug that their candidate won. But from what I'm seeing here, it seems that some Clinton supporters simply refuse to listen to the other side. Case in point.

I'm having the impression that people who don't like Trump simply refuse to listen to the reasoning of his supporters on this site.

And it's not like it isn't removable, either. If human microchips actually become a thing, for medical purposes and such it should be in a place where it doesn't get in the way of diagnostics and surgery, and it can be easily removed in some way.

What I found ever harder this election wasn't choosing who to vote and who was better, but trying to deal with people bickering and fighting with each other simply for having different choices. These last few years, the First Amendment for certain individuals has warped from "freedom of speech" to "freedom of speech as long as you agree with me". In fact, the pessimism of others over this year has started to make me miserable, too, and come election day I have lost several friends in real life and online because of the result. Conversely, I have become more involved in politics as I grew up. When I returned from Taiwan I was already interested in social sciences, and I see most teenagers around my age not giving a crap about what was going on in the world. It should be pretty ironic to say that seeing people around me distasteful about politics ended up getting me into it. I watched a bit of the 2012 election and even the 2014 congressional elections. And now in 2016, I finally have the right to vote...but as I said, the fierce reactions from both sides has shaken me. I try not to be pessimistic or anti-American. I feel like too many people bandwagon into those ideas. But now it's getting harder to keep a smile in front of a sea of anger and depression. I try not to generalize the left-wing. I try not to complain about pessimism. And I try not to get irritated as the misanthropy bandwagon that's been going on in the millennial generation these days. That's what polarized politics do you, I guess.

She was too careless herself as well. Clinton didn't campaign in a few states because she was too convinced she would win these states, not expecting Trump to suddenly flip them red. Winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida was essential to Trump's victory. And even since the primaries she did not campaign in Wisconsin, which proved to be her final nail to the coffin. At a time where she should be convincing poor whites to vote for her she failed to appear most of the time. Likewise, she lacked personality. Most of her campaign relied on the idea that "Trump is worse" and because of that she did poorly in establishing her personality. Her efforts to connect to her voters looked more like your embarrassing mom trying her best to be "cool". Meanwhile, most people put their attention on Trump thanks to his temperament, and in the end it worked out for him and not so much for Hillary. Americans want change, and some don't believe Hillary would bring any.

Don't go there. Plenty of people here support Trump and certainly it isn't because they're racist or sexist or homophobic or...you get the point. In fact we should be steering away from talking about the supporters. Remember that Clinton hurt her chances of getting independents to her side when she called Trump supporters "deplorable". ( And people who say she retracted it...the damage was done). As much as Trump may say some crazy shit, you should never attack supporters. And now we're doing the same here and it's dividing up people more and more. We had several topics locked and cleaned in the last few days, and could possibly be the most topics we had locked in MLPForums in a week. We're better than this. Restricting the immigration of Syrian refugees isn't pleasant but it's a necessity. Most Americans don't believe in accepting Syrian refugees (and an overwhelming majority of states, including liberal ones), not out of racism or "Islamophobia" but because they are concerned about terrorists. There have been terrorist attacks in Europe over the last few years and in a few countries like Sweden they have been suffering from increased crime...mostly done by refugees. If refugees are going to come in, we need to put them through tight screening and checks, or we're not accepting any at all. It doesn't matter who they are. Europe has been in a big mess for unconditonally accepting Syrian refugees and the US isn't going to repeat that mistake. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/19/most-americans-dont-want-us-accept-any-syrian-refu/ ) While I don't agree on the wall, I do believe tighter border control can cut off the access routes that are flowing cash into the cartels. There's no denying that the cartels has infiltrated well into the US; there are even drug factories and farms well north of the country. The influence of drug cartels are prevalent in Ohio, where you are guaranteed to know a close family member or friend using opiates. And in northern California there are illegal weed farms and drug centers guarded by the cartels, and they are primarily responsible for the increase in crime and homicide around that area. If Trump builds the wall or something similar, it would cut off their economic cycle. However I believe it would be more expensive than it is worth, even if we built it with the terrain in mind. A fair amount of illegal immigrants are illegal because of overstayed visas. If anything we need to improve our overworked immigration courts and make sure they go back to get their visas. Also, it's not going to be "on the first day" because even with the GOP having a majority in both the House and Senate Trump would be lucky to do anything within thebfirst few weeks. That's just presidential rhetoric. More likely than not nothing is going to happen in the first month. And I would be willing to accept Trump's increase in defense spending over Clinton's "no fly zone" (which does nothing to stop but everything to anger Russia) and risk war with Russia. Trump has clearer goals on how to stop ISIS. Some call Clinton more of a warhawk than Trump or even the Republicans...that's saying something. ( http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) I completely disagreed with Trump's climate change ideas, however. If it weren't for that I would have voted for him. But as long as he doesn't try to stop alternative energy funding (some Republicans may not accept climate change but they're usually in for improving alternative energy sources or being more self-sufficient on energy sources) I would be fine with him.