BruceVC

Come on its Christmas and holiday time You can do much better than that, playing the " look how bad the US is because of enhanced interrogation " card is so....so 2010ish I can appreciate the appropriate use of whataboutism but this is not one of those times We talking about the reality of the long list of Russian war crimes in Ukraine and how some of the Russian military have been involved in rape and killing of civilians. Lets stay on point

Sure but its completely unrealistic the idea of leaving the US. Its just populist rhetoric that legally is almost impossible to imagine it could happen, its possible but Constitutionally very hard But joining the US is different, would you like and support the idea of Canada to become part of the US? Remember despite all Canadas social problems its a rich country, 9th largest economy in the world so they wouldnt be an economic burden

Yes its well known and been reported on regularly the Russians systemic practice of rape and killing of civilians Nothing new or surprising

Nice, so are you going to be living and working in Denmark? Or is this just while you look for work in the EU?

https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-rules-based-international-order-explained There is understandable criticism about the term "rules based order " but I think its because often the rules based order is misunderstood around what it is and what it can do and what it cannot do I found this link that clarifies this accurately and it discusses its history, shortfalls and advantages Its a good read for those that have concerns about what it means and how sustainable it has to be. @Malcadoryou should find it particularly relevant because we have discussed this before on several occasions Some quotes from the link " The term “rules-based international order” has become commonplace in government statements and joint communiqué. For many, the corresponding message is that it is necessary to reinforce that order to preserve the conditions needed for peace and prosperity. Others argue that the rules-based international order is nothing more than a tool for a select group of countries to advance their own hegemonic or exploitative ambitions. The one commonality between the two sides that present those arguments is that neither tends to define what the rules-based international order really is or why it matters. For those seeking to manage conflict, to advance relations between nations, or simply to understand the state of global affairs, the definition of the rules-based international order is important. It is neither some nebulous concept without practical effects nor is it some oligarchical construct meant to impose “rules for thee but not for me.” The rules-based international order as we know it today is predicated on a system of laws, rules, and norms, and it has underpinned international interactions since its formal establishment in 1945. Whether its overall influence is positive or negative continues to be predicated on the actions of the members of the international community, but one cannot influence what one does not fully understand. Because there is no overarching enforcement authority, it is incumbent upon the members of the international community themselves to work together in establishing the rules and upholding them. This is why so many governments talk about reinforcing the rules-based international order: it is their responsibility to mitigate threats to the global ecosystem that can negatively impact countries across the world. As with any system, the rules-based international order is imperfect. There is no law that has gone unchallenged, rule that has gone unbroken, or norm that has been unobserved. There is no overarching enforcement authority to oversee the implementation of these laws, rules, and norms. And yet, there is still utility, for in an otherwise anarchic world, the system established in 1945 anchors the international community against the chaos of war, disaster, violence, and crime. That is why it exists and why it matters. "

I realize he was been charged with terrorism and this becomes a technical legal charge so it doesnt matter what we say but personally I dont consider it terrorism Its first degree murder definitely which he has also been charged with and he will be found guilty either way And the reason I dont think its terrorism is because he killed the CEO because of the reality of how unfair the US medical aid industry is and this is a private sector industry and he wants to achieve private sector policy change I can understand the logic behind the terrorism charge but would you charge someone who kills a bank manager because your loan was refused with terrorism? If he had killed a member of Congress for not voting or supporting medical aid federal legislation that would be more terrorism because his target is a political person The CEO is not a politician Anyway Im just throwing my view on this out there because the definition of terrorism is using violence to achieve a political objective or change

Malc would you vote in favour of a referendum around Canada becoming part of the US ? It would solve lots or problems and you can REALLY become closer to American celebrity culture Plus you can go to Vegas easier

I do have the Expedition DLC which includes new mechanics like the Rift Gates Mamie you MUST play this game but buy Expedition because there is another region to explore after the main quest is completed It has this constant reality where you have to utilize different strategies for different battles I have never played a game like that before, most games you can rely on more or less the same combat approach with some buffs for protections but not this game You have to think and adopt in most large battles

https://za.ign.com/the-witcher-4/204170/news/the-witcher-4-developer-cd-projekt-explains-why-it-went-with-ciri-over-continuing-with-geralt-as-pro Here is a good interview from CDPR around why Ciri is the main character I am still not happy with how Geralt is no longer the main character but I understand the whole " this is a new narrative " from CDPR I just think why change something that works and Geralt is so iconic? Anyway I wont be complaining about this decision anymore and I will comment further once I have played W4 and I can comment objectively on W4 " It was always about her, starting from Saga when you read it in the books. She's an amazing, layered character. And of course, as a protagonist we said goodbye to Geralt previously. So this is a continuation. I guess for all of us it’s like she was meant to be. That was always her.” " She's actually about to become the Witcher,” Kalemba explained. “She's about to actually form her own codex, but on her own terms. The way she actually deals with the monsters, the way she deals with quests, the adventures, it's her own unique way. And also I think that she gives more room to be able to tell different stories here and there. Of course, we want to give the opportunity for the player to explore more nuance because this is what we do. But she deserves that.” " Both Mitręga and Kalemba acknowledged a potential backlash from some corners of the internet at Ciri’s role as protagonist in The Witcher 4, but both insisted Ciri was always going to be the game’s main character."

Absolutely and this is the best way to " survive " the unnecessary anxiety of another 4 years of Trump Trump has demonstrated 3 main ways he communicates and you shouldnt reflect on them in the same way because they often dont mean the same thing or why he does it First way : His SM comments, often just rants and raves and part of his capricious mood swings, definitely not to be taken seriously Second way: His comments at rallies, often also part of the theatre and attention he loves. Should be taken more seriously if its part of the official script but Trump often deviates from the script Third way : Interviews, WH media updates and official meetings with world leaders. Should be seen as more credible because he seems to take these interactions more seriously But Trump has a constant problem with staying on script but that doesnt mean there arent times where what he says he believes. Like border control and mass deportations of illegals You just need to learn to filter and separate what he really believes and wants to implement from the drama and hyperbole And what I find constantly amazing is the endless media appetite from certain media houses to always be "outraged " by what he says as if everything he says in the 3 examples I mentioned should be taken seriously all the time in the same way It must be incredibly mentally draining and requires real mental fortitude and that applies to his hardcore supporters and surrogates who have to constantly " explain " what he meant or give context

90 hours into Underrail and still loving it Several major developments in my journey and adventures I completed the Arena and I now have the Invictus title, great challenges and another example of where you need to be selective around combat strategy to win battles. I started the Gauntlet but then decided not to complete it. I dont like the idea of not having all my equipment which means I cant adopt my numerous combat strategies I decide to join Coretech as my Core City faction, they have useful tech items and they make sense to me around there politics I also aligned with the Protectorate and completed there quests, I like there vision of the future of Underrail. I went on the Chemical Assault Unit quests and ended up wiping out the Free Drones with mutagen gas . This was another example of a clever and unexpected mission. It turned into a complete disaster with me having to avoid the gas and escape the Free Drones base, I let the gas do most of the work and allowed the Free Drones and Mutants to kill each other Im now at the Tchort Institute to get the cube back and its a fascinating place and what they believe. I am doing all the quests and I have read up on all the lore on the Original Report. I just completed the quest where you have to secure Station 7 in the tunnels underneath the Institute and the battle was other epic struggle of needing to use different strategies. I used mines, caltrops, stealth, grenades and then my Psi to finally win. It was like the Shopping Mall quest, you cannot rely on one approach The Fast Travel option using Rift Gates is probably the most realistic and best implementation of Fast Travel I have ever come across, I realize this was added in the DLC so for most people who played the original game they didnt get to use it. But you need to find Rift Gates which is almost impossible without a guide and then they just make things easier. Its very convenient but you still need to explore and travel on foot And then I still find Easter Eggs from randomly exploring , I came across this canyon and then I climbed down and found a Lunatic base and Formedictator selling rare items The game really delivers on open-world, sandbox and different ways to complete quests

Yes but that doesnt mean Trump is going implement them because this is the Heritage Foundations Conservative views on policy So they selective because it was suggested this is what Trump believes and this particular image contains the most controversial policies

Sure but as I mentioned the Heritage Foundation is just one of over 100 Conservative thinktanks and you will find policies in the Project 2025 manifesto that Trump or some of his advisors support because these are expected Conservative policies or commitments he made like mass deportations for illegal migrants and securing the border We should all expect that Thats different to some of the fearmongering from the Project 2025 manifesto that did the rounds a few months ago Which is why I say lets be specific about what are your concerns around what points of Project 2025 will be implemented, I can understand anxiety if you believe everything that was alleged But there was definitely exaggeration and misinformation like Trump will implement a federal ban on abortion and this was despite the fact Trump has stated on several occasions he will leave it up to the states Here is an example of Project 2025 but these are the selective points that ended up being posted and these are most controversial points

This would be part of it but its not the main reason. Obviously there always concerns around any new president and the impact to the US economy. And that concern resonates around most of the world and when it comes to Trump there is often degrees of sensationalized and exaggerated concern because many still take everything he says literally and then that becomes a media taking point And yes Trump is sometimes to blame for this because he says certain things at rallies or on SM but after all these years people should realize how Trump is around comments that dont mean anything or is Trump just being Trump and saying things that dont reflect realistic US policy So for example in South Africa before the election we had US analysts and some people in our media talking about how Trumps " isolationist " views , US first and tariffs was going to weaken the global economy and all these possible and legitimate concerns could weaken the South African economy So when you find a company like Softbank suddenly investing in the US because they believe in Trump its a good sign because if highly successful global companies can trust his economic policies then we should be able to? It is fearmongering until someone can tell me what parts of Project 2025 specifically Trump is going to implement I have asked this question about 3 times on this thread but no one ever responds and we do have that selective screenshot of the most controversial parts of Project 2025 I still maintain that the way Project 2025 suddenly became " Trumps policies " was exaggerated and an example of the media overreacting But we can and should discuss specific concerns and policies that Trump implements Do you not see a benefit with the idea of venture capitalists? Dont they provide money for people and companies who have good ideas but lack the starting capital? And yes they gain something from it around a percentage of control but they have to gain something?

For the obvious reasons, a strong US economy is good for the global economy and its an example where Trump as president is not all doom and gloom around concerns like the whole Project 2025 fearmongering