I do agree with Sheepy on the fact that Cruz is worse than Trump. Both are awful choices for presidency, but what reassures me slightly about Trump is that I feel that he's more competent than he lets on; he deliberately drums up controversy and intrigue to appeal to the Republican voting base. Cruz on the other hand is a 100% nutjob, who instead of funding drone strikes against ISIS, wants to bring back carpet bombing, which would cause catastrophic collateral damage to both innocents and property (as someone said earlier, he's been quoted as to wanting to make sand glow). Rubio seems to be the only remotely electable out of the Republican nominations due to his higher appeal to moderates than the alternatives.

As for the Democrats, I reassure myself about a Hillary presidency by envisioning her as Bill's meat puppet. She's a weak option for the Democrats, and I would have preferred Sanders, but her moderate stances are far and away better than the anti-progressive Republican stances.

One thing I can say for a certainty is that people are REALLY going to miss Obama when he's gone, no matter who wins.

Are you even aware of what a moderate is? Moderates are primarily not associated with a particular ideology, and tend to only vote in the final decision and not so much in the lead-up to said decision. These are often who determine the winners and losers of any political election, not the extremes on either side, and this is what makes the campaigning progress of any vote so important. Trump's radical proposals are the complete opposite to this train of thought, and Clinton, whilst flawed in her own way, is much more likely to garner votes from this large portion of voters. In fact, I would say this selection of voters is far larger then the official members of the Democrats and Republicans combined.

And if you sincerely believe Christie doesn't have an ulterior motive for his sudden support for the Republican front-runner, you're a fool.

Also, the first two thirds of your insult also apply to you and the third is irrelevant to the argument. Do I really have to scrutinize this?

Realistically, I can't see Trump winning the Presidential election, especially against Clinton. Clinton's moderate views may have turned off several of the left-wing demographic who supported Sanders during the Democrat primaries, but come November, there's no chance in hell the Sanders supporters will vote Republican, let alone Trump, and unless they waste their vote on a third-party, their votes will be going to Clinton. The moderates will be turned off by Trump's extremist views, which will further solidify Clinton's route to the White House. To add to this, a few Republicans are repulsed with the idea of Trump becoming President, which could easily see votes flow away from the Republican and into the Democrats favour. This isn't a large percentage of course, but these aren't just votes disappearing from the GOP, these are votes reappearing on the other side of the fence, which has twice the impact.

Trump will earn votes from the die-hard Republicans, even those currently backing other candidates and will secure common strongholds within the Republican dominated states, but will struggle in most other areas. His anti-political rhetoric is attractive to the undecided voter, but ultimately, I can't see enough of them voting Trump to give him the edge over Clinton.

As a side-note, it's so cute seeing Chris Christie attempting to cling onto relevancy. He's trying so hard to be Trump's running mate, it hurts.

I know exactly how you feel. I've recently been through an extremely rough break-up, and my ex has moved on to another relationship. It's heart-wrenching when you love someone, and they don't feel the same way about you.

The best advice I can offer you is to not ruminate about your decisions and choices on the matter; to not make the past the present. Whether you agree with the decisions you made or not, the one thing that is factual is that those decisions have happened, and you need to come to terms accepting them and moving forwards, living in the moment. Engage yourself also in activities that promote and condition a positive state of mind, and attempt to address your perceived short-comings to make yourself into a stronger person.

Before I voice my agenda, I share my thoughts and sympathies with anyone affected by the attack, whether that be those directly involved, those who know anyone involved, or anyone in general hit hard emotionally by the attack. Keeping you in my thoughts is the most important thing to me, more so than voicing my agenda, and thus I wanted it to be the first thing I addressed with my post.

I am a hardline atheist, but I hold a high deal of respect for the good that religion has done to improve the world in the past. Of course, holy wars were much more prominent in times old, but the Church actively taught people how to read and write, as well as providing food, drink and shelter for those in need. The Arabian Empire was not dedicated to plunder and worldly wealth, but rather to the development of culture, science and the arts, with faith being the primary driving force for their efforts. For their time, they were an incredibly advanced civilization.

But at this stage of humanity, I feel it's reached a point where it is actively holding back our progress as a species. It's being used as an excuse to deny people basic human rights, such as gay marriage, or to promote racism, sexism or any other type of prejudice, or to enact horrific atrocities such as the ones that occurred in Paris yesterday. Whilst this all happened during times old, times old also had the significant advantages that religion brought, whereas the advantages that religion bring today are readily available elsewhere due to the advancement of society; making the advantages obsolete. With the advancements in science and philosophy, it's also fair to assume that it has been giving people false hope all of these years, and that it's time for people to move on from it. It's essentially become a collective of glorified cults and it's another excuse for the world to be driven apart from one another.

The world has evolved a lot for the best since its inception. Religion hasn't.

The major problem with TF2C for me was that administrative decisions were often made by those unqualified to make them. While Masternoob and Mother Tereza were qualified to make changes to the website in terms of development and coding, there was no line between those duties and duties such as bans and PR. On the contrary, people such as kkaltuu and REM are not exactly script kiddies, but they have a better understanding of how to deal with people, and are more equipped for administrative duties.

Of course, there were rare instances such as Foxy where you could manage both, but having no divide between the positions severely impacted the efficiency of the site.

As I mentioned in my PM to you Digresser, outstanding post, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Really surprised I've never made a post here. Let's rectify that.

I actually can't get over how Masternoob felt that barring me from attending Deutschlan (an event hosted by ETF2L, not by TF2C by the way) would be a necessity in order for the event to warrant TF2C's sponsorship. Does he think I'm going to attack him at LAN or try to sabotage the event just because I'm disenchanted with the leadership of his website? I have much better things to do at the event, like meet new people, explore a country I've never been to before and play some video games, and even if I didn't, I'm not nearly stupid enough to do things like that.

I'm just glad some good has come out of this, and the sponsorship is now in more capable hands. As an admin on TF2Pickup now, I'll do my best to contribute to the event, and I still plan on attending to play with my team.