Jump to content

vla1ne

vla1ne

Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Member ID: 659,748
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
***--

#7136597 [RIRA] Draw Game

Posted by vla1ne on 14 April 2019 - 08:22 PM

Dark hole, kaiju slumber, torrential, (I believe) diamond dire wolf, kuraz, ect. There's quite a few things that can trigger this pretty consistently. It's a good enough condition. That said, giving your opponent two cards while triggering this by yourself is a clear negative. so if your opponent isn't the one triggering this for you, of if you aren't gaining some additional form of advantage from the destruction, then you're likely doing it wrong.




#7136358 [RIRA] Tlacaelel, the Evil King

Posted by vla1ne on 07 April 2019 - 11:26 AM

I'd say it's more monarch/true king support. it doesn't tribute for any costs, so lair wouldn't do anything for it. Tributing the big monsters is a free nuke, and it lets you get tenacity off for free. that said, barring the stat line Dark dust spirit is imo a better monster than this. It clears the board with fewer conditions, and even though this one only hits the opponent's board, you have to already have a bigger monster to pull it off, so it's kind of useless if your opponent has a bigger monster than whatever you plan on/ are capable of tributing. Dark dust might hit your own board, but in decks that would use either of these, that's really not too much of a problem, and the bouncing to hand, while a possible detriment, also makes it a reusable nuke, and can do some adorable combos with stormforth and/or escalation.




#7136350 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 07 April 2019 - 02:32 AM

The only way it would actually be effective is if it could be affordable, and while you have claimed that there are areas that could be "easily" drawn from, we have seen firsthand that it's simply not true. Your solution seems to be that money allocated to one source can simply be redirected to other sources at the flip of a switch. The United States has thus far failed to coordinate all three of them. What's happening is that you're asking me to judge the effectiveness of a hypothetical scenario, and I am stating the reality of the situation, which includes how they have failed to recruit adequate personnel, which I did cite, so claiming that I've only attacked the cost of the wall is yet another lie, but what else should I expect from you?
 
Your hypothetical scenario is not worth denying any further because this administration has consistently failed to get anywhere close to it. If they have failed thus far, then they have not proven in any way that it would truly be effective. You're asking me to ignore the evidence that exists and just assume that your idea will somehow work. If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them.


 
Allocating the funds from any of the areas i mentioned, would be enough to turn the wall into a 2-4 year process. The 7 billion that trump is working towards with his executive order, the 10 billion in foreign aid that trump is pulling from foreign aid. The billion from the reopening, the money saved pulling out of wars, the billion that the pentagon was willing to allocate towards the border wall, that's 19 billion already. 10 billion would be more than enough to make things progress smoothly on a yearly budget. That would be 3-4 years total. The refusal of congress to do so does not change that. The wall costs 25 billion tops (by the estimates of most professionals) for a standard wall. You are not telling me how a wall+surveillance+personnel would not work, you are telling me that we are hitting roadblocks towards getting them. I 100% agree that trump is hitting funding roadblocks that's not something that we disagree on, that does not mean there is nowhere that we cannot pull from, it merely means that congress is playing at the same old song and dance in that area, where they obstruct instead of work together. I am talking about the actual effectiveness of said combination once implemented. But i can see where you may be making this mistake, and you claim to not want to try making some simple hypotheticals on the topic

So i" ll break it down point by point to avoid any misunderstanding this time

 
@Horu Ishayuki @Winter  @Nathaniel D. Striker  @ Flame Dragon
I ask that you all read the hypothetical above in relation to my question. Please tell me if, in the scenario i laid out in the spoiler, which situation would be better for the border patrol. Even if handling the larger numbers, my opinion is that in the second one, with the barrier in the center, managing the patrol side would be FAR simpler, but roxas and i appear to be misunderstanding each other. so i ask to make sure i'm not missing any detail in my example. now back to roxas.
 
 
But let's make this easier for you to understand: Do not mention money. At all. That is not in any way related to the current question i am asking. Now from the top: Using just basic logic, once implemented, would the combination of wall+border+surveilance not be far more effective than simply having people and cameras? Would a wall not delay the people who try to cross long enough for people to actually arrive more often? would cameras not allow people to be detected earlier? would beolple be under less strain with a wall granting a buffer and cameras detecting more locations? wouldn't the individual workload of each person decrease with a wall and cameras, meaning fewer people could do a job to greater effect? these are the things i am asking you to refute. you seem to not want to answer the question as if it were a hurdle beyond common sense. I asked the same question to horyu and he understood and responded immediately. I laid it out the same way, and only you seem to be stuck on money alone. that is not the topic, the topic is potential effectiveness. it's not that hard.
 
You serious with that last bit? I don't control the money unanimously, Nor does trump outside of executive order, and that's a last ditch use, to ensure that the power isn't overly abused. If I did, or if trump did, this wall would be getting built already. It's being blocked by his opposition, But a block does not mean it would not work, it simply means the people blocking will not even allow you the ability to try and complete the task.

 

 

You said that America needs to ensure that those coming into America have an actual desire to become Americans. You were the one who brought up that people need to come in legally, and you asked that I addressed that point. So I did. It was not "pointless to the context", it was the context. You brought up an argument about legal immigration, so I responded to it accordingly. And I responded by showing that the administration has failed to control the border. You asked for a response about controlling the border, and I gave you one that was directly related. Do you not demand an answer, and then call that answer pointless when it directly addresses the argument as you asked me to. It just further highlights how your arguments are completely dishonest.



Did you not read my statements with this one?

I am going to list my recent comments that relate to your immigration comment(s), first to last, and in relation to your comments

 

Now, going by my own statements, word for word, in response to your own, let's go step by step to break up any misunderstandings you may have.

 

1) I stated in my first comment, that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. I stand by that, even if The U.S. had paperwork and people backed up to a million, we would be under no obligation to accept anybody. people get rejected for citizenship daily, and people are accepted just as often. I Personally believe that we should have a better immigration policy, to make sure things are better streamlined, but that does not mean the U.S. is under obligation to accept people from different countries. understand me so far?

 

2) In my second comment, I said controlling the borders of your country is a standard rule for any country. Letting anybody in, and sheltering any and everybody is not a sustainable practice in any capacity. Can we agree on that much?

 

3) This is the third reply in relation to your line of comments about legal immigrants. I have already established that this country has no obligation to accept anybody. It could even refuse everybody, and remain well within it's rights. You cited a backlog of citizens well after knowing that i made the above two statements that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. You have clearly misunderstood me, but this goes on further.

 

4) This is my comment right after your own relating to the backlog. Now going by my three prior comments, what exactly would make you come under the assumption that a backlog would be relevant as an argument against my points? I have stated that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody from another country, I have stated that I agree the legal immigration process should be reformed, and While i do not believe this country has to accept people, I have never defended the current immigration system, and i have advocated countless times that better laws are needed in this very thread. I cited the reasoning from the official spokesman for the backlog, within your own citation, and the logic of it checks out well enough from where i'm sitting.

 

5) The thing i asked you to respond to was: "There is only so much room in america, there are only so many opportunities, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become Americans, makes perfect sense"
This fits well within my prior statements, and does not conflict with either of my prior points. Those points being:

A) The U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody

B) The immigration laws and process should be reformed to make the process work better so long as we are allowing it, as it will improve the country's image as a whole to have a more effective immigration process.
America having such a slow system is something i already said should be corrected, and the fact that said people have even been given a shot is something that america did not have to grant them, but has don. In short, I have been saying from the start that we need to refine the process, that way if we are willing to accept people, we have less tangle for both the U.S. and any immigrants.


There we go. I have given you ample amounts of logic and reasoning. I have literally built a hypothetical step by step to demonstrate what i was talking about and ensure that we are on the same page. I have given you no unattainable requests like ["If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them." To which i have responded by explaining to you multiple areas we have money, and could siphon from without damaging any essential programs] I have done everything in my power to avoid further misunderstandings, and i have addressed your points in extreme detail. even addressing your citations, line by line in many cases to ensure that i fully refute your points.



 




#7136105 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by vla1ne on 31 March 2019 - 05:41 PM

I made my prediction. There's nothing more to discuss here for now.  I'll be back to laugh when i'm right or admit if i'm wrong. We'll see in a few days.




#7136101 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by vla1ne on 31 March 2019 - 03:03 PM

Currently, my claim of being correct is a fact. there was no collusion as far as we know objectively.

 

That's why it's fun, you can disagree with me, and you might be proven right. I explain myself whenever i say such things. and i tend to only use character when i tell you that democrats will block everything trump does, which is something they themselves have already admitted to, and i have backed with ample past examples.

 

I would gladly do so. And you would have all rights to call me out were i wrong on the case. so far, i haven't had to do so, because the case has backed my claims, but were that not the case, what reason would i have not to? my ego's already staked, whether or not you agree with the little bet, i'll still go through with the apology, because i've already said i would, even before the results came in.

 

i will tell you exactly what i see happening next regarding the report. the report will come out in full, there will be nothing to stick on trump, there will be no obstruction of justice charges, CNN and the like will first declare further corruption, demanding more investigations as their ratings fall, and they will eventually find some small thing trump says after the report to latch onto, declaring a new report needs to be opened up (likely on his tax returns). all the while, I will sit back laughing as my predictions come true. That's my prediction. Now let's see what happens next. My ego is waiting patiently.




#7135783 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by vla1ne on 23 March 2019 - 10:49 PM

 
 

https://www.buzzfeed...a-investigation
 
What "narrative"? There was a narrative about Paul Manafort being sentenced for witness tampering and obstruction of justice? There was a narrative about Roger Stone lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks? There was a narrative about Mueller indicting twelve Russians who work for the Internet Research Agency? There was a narrative about Mike Flynn lying to Congress about his contacts with a Russian ambassador? There was a narrative about George Papadopoulos lying about his meetings with Russians to get "dirt"?
 
You want to vilify the Democrats as traitors to the nation when all the did was respond to an investigation that indicted more than a fair amount of people with connections to the President. Even if you want to claim that the worst crimes were that these mean lied to Congress or the FBI, I really have to ask, why is it that the recurring pattern is that they lied specifically about contacts with Russians, either about Trump's business plans, or about getting dirt on Clinton?
 
Seriously, look at you absurd your reaction is. The special counsel charges multiple people with connections to either Trump or Russia, or even both… and it's the Democrats who are the traitors? And their worst crimes are that they agree with Mueller's indictments? This is, of course, also ignoring that Devin Nunes abused his position on the House Intelligence Committee to bury evidence to protect Trump, so what I'm seeing is that Republicans committed crimes because of this investigation, meaning that they were only guilty after the fact, so claiming that people were getting pinned for things we already knew about is completely false.
 
Treating the Democrats like the real villains here is the least logical course of action here. It just means you're less mad at the person who did something wrong, and more mad at the person who called them out for it.
 
EDIT:
https://patribotics....ct-indictments/

“Well, what it means is that the Office of the Special Counsel, which is essentially a contract attorney to the Justice Department, that that Office won’t be bringing any further indictments. It doesn’t mean, of course, that main Justice, or the Southern District of New York US Attorney’s office, or the Eastern District or others may not bring indictments; in fact, given the lengthy redactions in many of the pleadings of the Special Counsel alluding to other investigations, I think it’s entirely possible, if not likely, that there will be other indictments. Now how central or peripheral they’ll be to the core issues of potential conspiracy is yet to be determined.”

And there were 37 indictments that were made thanks to this investigation. vla1ne, can you honestly say that this investigation didn't change anything?

 

The narrative was that trump was colluding with Russia. They have absolutely nothing yet that proves that. and as far as we know, we never did. I said that from the middle, and winter has, albeit roughly, explained from the start, exactly why the investigation was pointless. Manfort was busted on things that had nothing at all to do with trump. He got hit with charges for things he did years before he ran with trump. Roger stone was arrested on charges that were proven false. The Russians had approximately nothing to do with trump, they were in fact caught up in a cyberattack that was actually approved by trump, so how they count against this i'm not seeing. mike flynn lied to Congress, and that is what he got busted on, his lies do not connect to trump though, and he got caught up on multiple lies, so he's arguably just a liar. His entire testimony is unreliable as a result, so there's no conclusion to be drawn aside from he was just a casualty in the crossfire. George was the only person involved in his indictment and had no lasting effects on the election OR the trial.

 

I'm not making them villains, i'm pointing out that they have been dogmatic in their pursuit, even in the absolute absence of anything resembling collusion on trumps part. Had they taken a step back and looked at the case as a whole, they would have realized that the case held no grounds in the first place. let me remind you again, as winter has said prior, absolutely nothing that anybody was indicted for had anything to do with trump, and trump aside, very little of it was even remotely related to the 2016 election. So yeah, they hit people for anything they could find. and some idiots managed to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

 

To that argument, i say this:

Democrats don't agree with the indictments, they just want anything they can hit trump with. I have proven this time and again, in the government thread. and this once again shows what i mean. Now that they know the investigation against trump is a nothing-burger with extra salt, some of them want to disregard the entirety of the probe. That's not justice. That's TDS. By the way, as we have seen already, from everything currently available, trump has done nothing wrong they have nothing on him. So your analogy falls flat rather quickly.

 

 

They already brought indictments from the higest seats in the land, coming off of a two year invesigation. Nothing came out that hurts trump, Let me repeat that: A two year long investigation from the highest seats in the land (as relating to such investigations) has to the best of our current knowledge, pulled up nothing that ties trump to russian collusion in the 2016 elections. What this means is that the entire point of this investigation, has been fruitless. No matter how many people got shot down on the side for unrelated issues, this investigation failed in it's actual goals, and nothing of any value was gained, practically everything anybody got hit for was from times well before trump sat in, or ran for office. the rest was solo action that produced no results on either end, and the entirety of the investigation was kicked off by a proven false dossier. So yeah, honestly, the investigation changed nothing of value.




#7135455 [RIRA] Draw Discharge

Posted by vla1ne on 13 March 2019 - 09:18 PM

the worst thing about this is that it doesn't trigger if you make them draw. it's already really slow, why exactly can't it be triggered by your own effects?




#7135314 UK EU Referendum [In or Out?]

Posted by vla1ne on 10 March 2019 - 12:41 PM

Hard brexit is looking like the best option imo. Theresa may has bungled the damn deal so hard that it's hard to believe she didn't screw things up on purpose.




#7135173 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 05 March 2019 - 09:04 PM

First, roaxs is right winter. You have to focus more on the argument than the person in the discussion. personal attacks don't do anything to an argument, and the person themselves could be a saint or a living sack of excrement and it would not change the validity of a solid argument one bit.That being said, trumps declaration of a national emergency is only wrong from the opposing angle. What i mean by that is, Illegal immigration is a problem that affects the entirety of the country negatively, it is something that should not be encouraged, and steps should be taken to prevent it, but many people today don't seem to view it as enough of a problem to declare it a national emergency, and some states are even willing to step against federal law to ensure that they don't have to locate or deport illegal immigrants. Those who view this as a good thing, or at least those who have even a remotely favorable view of this way of thinking, will likely not see illegal immigration as a problem at all.

 

On the flip side to this, there are those who see illegal immigration as a major problem, and consider it a matter of high priority to secure the borders in order to prevent the problem from remaining as pervasive as it is today. These people, when faced with the recent flaunting of federal law by individual states, and when observing the progression of "sanctuary cities" will more than likely view it as a national emergency of the highest order. We all know who's on what side of this discussion, and we all know that this is going to be a major battle because of said sides. my prediction mirrors trump. it'll make it up to the supreme court, and be upheld by virtue of being directly related to matters national security, an area trump has direct authority over.




#7135095 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 01 March 2019 - 08:29 PM

On the second article (https://www.npr.org/...in-three-graphs),

The first statement is kinda off. It uses stats on apprehended illigals to attempt debunking trumps claim, but his claim is on the crossings, not the captures. so the statement isn't really a proper rebuttal.

 

The second statement kinda makes trumps point more solid. It admits that 2017 was an outlier, where the end number is far lower than the starting point of the year, and that 2018 is seeing a rise in comparison. 2018, by the charts admission is pointing to a rise in numbers, and end of year figures are backing that up, considering the caravan problem that arose in the last few months of the year. 2019 is still a bit too early to tally numbers, but we'll see there. It also grants that the numbers year by year vary, and that central americans, alongside asylum seekers have risen in number over the past years. it also attempts to tie in the economy, but that's a point not worth debating yet, due to my own time constraints.

 

the final point is one that relies on the people who were willing to answer, and assumes they were answering 100% truthfully. Not to attack character of them though, but put simply, we know there are gang members,and drug traffickers who have actually used family as an excuse in an attempt to stay, or avoid getting caught. I'm 100% sure there are those who come over to be with family, but if they come over illegally, then i have to ask whether or not they realize just how badly that looks on them and how much it can cost their family. Also, family may be a reason, it is not an excuse.

 

It's an interesting article. and while i don't really think it adds much on the topic of solutions, it does give some extensive reasons.

 

 

 

The second article though, technically the first (http://www.pewresear...ion-in-the-u-s/) has more points to it though.

 

The first point, while pointing out a drop in illegal amount, also points out the massive increase in amount till this point from prior history.

 

The second, points out that while the number of mexicans has decreased, the overall number from elsewhere in central america has been fairly constant, been increasing in places. (also claiming that it's actually lowered from elsewhere, like canada and europe) pretty odd.

 

The third point is a pretty standard one. The illegal immigrant workforce dropped alongside the rest of ours during the recession.  

 

For the fourth one, over half of of the six most illegal populated states have, or are attempting to hold, sanctuary city laws. the other ones are pretty much lined right along the border. Two of the three states that have seen the largest increase, are right next to the sanctuary state of new york, the last is right next to the texas, so that kinda speaks for itself.

 

As for the fifth, time spent means very little really. We know the general location is shifting, but the immigration from the south is still continuing at rather high numbers.




#7134776 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 17 February 2019 - 08:27 PM

We've seen that trump has attempted, multiple times, to get funding for the wall through the proper channels, After 2 shutdowns, and as many months of waiting and compromise attempts, democrats are unwilling to budge for funding. Trump has already placed troops at the border to assist with the problem. He's got reasonable grounds to argue for a national emergency at this point. It is a fact that democrats will fight anything at all that trump does, one look at the state of the union, the shutdown deal, or the supreme court nomination, should tell you everything you need to know about the democrats supporting trump related topics. At this point, a national emergency is required, because a compromise cannot be reached.  Anything short of pretty much not building the wall, and the democrats would veto the hell out of it in house. This is a fact.

 

Using past actions taken as a precedent, trump could be literally be talking about the cure for cancer, and they would not even agree with him there. Thy could be calling the caravans coming over a crisis one day, and the second that trump says "I agree, we need to work on it" they would revoke their statements and fight tooth and nail to deny that anything at all is wrong on the border regarding people trying to break across.




#7134639 Italy helps prove that we live in the best possible timeline

Posted by vla1ne on 11 February 2019 - 05:18 PM

So... A group of italians decided to make a massive float in (what was rumored to be mockery but clearly lead to) appreciation of trump. the video itself pretty much says everything that i could possibly say on the topic though. so i'll leave it at this:

 




#7134421 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 27 January 2019 - 10:15 PM

You know it could also be for those people who weren't getting paid for their work. makes sense to reopen things to at least keep people from going homeless.




#7134180 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 19 January 2019 - 08:22 PM

Nothing at all is paranoid about it. I meant fining from the start, if negotiations to be allowed to build a wall in exchange for compensation are shot down. If the wall is completed, and theirs are the only open areas, if it is discovered that cartels, traffickers, or illegal immigrants are entering through said gaps, then fining them is pretty much in order, as they are at that point, willfully compromising the security of the border. But I already suggested an alternative, aka building the wall outside their land, just around it. That would work as well.

 

 

He just gave a speech on what he would like to have allocated in funds, the 5 billion goes directly to the wall, he also requested additional border security guard funds among other things as well. Stating it goes towards the wall is more than enough info.

 

And like I said, they don’t have to accept the wall on their land, but they will damn sure accept the responsibility of monitoring their part of the border if they do not allow it, and will be fined accordingly if they are proven to be slipping on their end of upkeep.

I’m not even claiming that he’s already built the entire part of the border that’s unowned by the sovereign folks. Fact remains, there’s more wall to be built than just the bits owned by people who disagree with him, and that 5 billion he’s looking for is aimed directly at it.

 

He laid out a deal with them today, and stated his requests, we’ll see just how wrong I am about that.

EDIT: Turns out, she rejected the deal before he even made it, citing several reasons why she wouldn't accept it, he then makes the speech, addresses each and every issue she preemptively cited, and she STILL rejected it. I was right, and for this one, i'm flat out boasting about it, because not only did i call it, he directly addressed every thing she used in her statement against him, giving her ALL of it and then some, and she said exactly what i said she would, Dude played every move right, gave her everything that she, practically minutes prior said she wanted in the deal, and the answer was still no. Do you doubt my point any further? She rejected it before it even existed, AND after he gave her everything she claimed to want just minutes prior.

 

 

There is no fear there. It’s reasonable point making. The biggest gaps in a barrier are the easiest to break through. Do you disagree? If the wall’s completed everywhere but on citizen owned land, would that not make said land (the main land open) the most simple place to break through? What homeland security did in the past has nothing to do with trump at the moment, and with actual funding, I’d say he’s far more likely to be able to do something with the stubborn folks than without it. No, I’m not imagining that the 5 billion would convince them all, I’m stating that it would be better leverage, and grant more wiggle room by far than 1.3 billion, which is a complete fact, as you can do more with 5 billion than you can with 1.3 billion (over 3x more in fact, that 1.3 billion itself could be allocated to opening up negotiations). A few dozen million to build a fence on private land is a price that could be well worth negotiating. Like that, you could slowly make deals with those who agree, and temporarily skip over those who do not. Sure, it’s slow, but I doubt most people would absolutely refuse 30-40 million in exchange for a fence in their distant backyard. This isn’t a mall, it’s a border barrier, if anything, it would protect their peace and quiet. Given some time, and upfront money available, I’m pretty sure a decent number of them could be convinced.

 

No, almost had it though

  • Cut out a couple hundred million of the 5 billion budget to negotiate with a few of them (small steps, not covering the whole thing at once, as 5 billion cannot reasonably do that) 
  • Notify those who refuse, that they will be responsible for their open border section from the point of the walls completion on, (as it IS a matter of national security)
  • If they are found to be actively negligent in their maintenance, say if drugs or human traffickers are found to be coming through their area en masse, and they are doing nothing to report, stop, or at least slow the flow till border patrol can begin handling it, then they will be fined appropriately.
  • Provide some form of incentive to upkeep their area of the border in either case, like tax cuts, or yearly assistance so long as they help with the due diligence.

This is border security, not home upkeep. That’s as nice a deal as they can get, and be it church or individual, the same conditions will apply. They would have had a chance to at least leave part of it up to the authorities, yet chose to send them packing at that point.

 

 

That article is not actually true, see, the ones who get caught, are generally those using legal ports of entry, there are thousands of pounds in the U.S. though.  You telling me all the stuff we miss comes in right through the front door? No, that’s them twisting the fact that 90% of the drugs we catch, we catch at points of entry. Unless you can explain to me how they know exactly where the people we don’t catch (and thus don’t know about) are coming in from? We may catch the greatest number of drugs at the entry port, but the amount in america due to cartels is far more likely to come in from far away from the point of entry, as they are clearly quite good at catching them there. Unless you're telling me the drug cartel is entirely dependent on coming in through the most basic ports of entry, instead of the slightly bumpier, but far less occupied middle of nowhere? Where the security is far lower, and their escape routes don't involve traffic, drug dogs, and higher overall security? Where's the logic in that claim?

 

It’s trump demanding funds for a wall, in combination with a request for future legislation that would rework and remove some incentive programs. Border security, whom are the people he got the facts in his speech from, are the ones dealing with it day in and out, and they are the ones he’s getting his wall update ideas from. In other words, the people who actually do the job, are the people giving him advice and new ideas for the wall. As far as plans go, the guy who’s talking directly with those whose boots are on the ground, is higher up on the list than the people writing incorrect articles.




#7134145 Trying to brainstorm genericly good LV5+ Warrior-Type monsters with no summon...

Posted by vla1ne on 18 January 2019 - 09:03 PM

I think I miss worded that: I meant that one should ignore how hard they are to summon so long as they don't have special summon restrictions e.g. If Jinzo were a Warrior-Type it would be a consideration ignoring the fact that you'd need to tribute summon it.

Ah. In that case, both level 5 U.A. monsters are pretty good.