BruceVC

Im making good progress in WoRT after about 45 hours and Im busy with the siege of Drezen, its intense and I made a huge mistake last night I decided on the Regill suggestion and targeting the giants but somehow I overlooked the part where you can select your party so I started the quest with only me and Regill in my party and I assumed other party members would join me like the Lost Chapel quest Imagine trying to complete Drezen with 2 party members And I did well considering my serious combat disadvantage, I barely got to the 3rd gate and then I realized " this cant be right " So I restarted the quest and I have added my full party, at least I have knowledge of certain enemies Im really enjoying WoRT, it has some deep and thought-provoking narrative choices like the initial Worldwound choice and what to do around repairing it And the crusade battles are fun, they like mini-RTS features in the broader game I do have one conundrum, for some reason I can have more than 6 people in my party. And I have decided to have 7 because I like all the party interaction and combat contributions Does anyone think its a form of "cheating" because it can unbalance combat in my favour or is it fine because its only 7 people?

Im not " goalpost shifting " He cant Constitutionally run for a 3rd term and the GOP cant change the Constitution because they dont have the numbers This is the legal reason he wont run for a 3rd term even if you believe he intends to

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20lwedn23o Here is better link that summarizes this debate, Trump would have to change the US Constitution and the GOP dont have the numbers in Congress or support in the state legislatures even with there current majority. Then there is a " loophole" way to do it but that doesnt seem realistic or likely and the link discuses that as well "On the face of it, the US Constitution seems to rule out anyone having a third term. The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once." Changing the constitution would require a two-thirds approval from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of the country's state-level governments. Trump's Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress but does not have the majorities needed. Additionally, the Democratic Party controls 18 of the 50 state legislatures. "

Yes but if you planning on running for a third term in 2028 you wouldnt be responding to questions about a successor because you wouldnt need a successor If Trump was serious about a 3rd term he would have said something like " why do I need a successor, I want to run again " The entire point of the questions was who comes after you and its specific to 2028 which is why he mentions Vance

Imagine Trump being a leader for life But on a serious note, Trump wont be a contender in 2028 and he has discussed his successor several times and those are honest interviews where he isnt trying to troll the media https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/trump-puts-an-end-to-the-third-term-joke/1956953135112089/

He is both, he says weird and inaccurate things but he also cracks jokes and often its done to provoke the media and create drama for liberals. So when he talks about staying on for another term, he is doing that exactly because he knows the reaction he will get But there are lots examples of him just joking, like the baby clip I posted

Yes, I tend to agree Trump "likes " Putin because he admires strongman leaders and autocrats who have complete control of the country and things like the media But realistically comparing the US to any established dictatorship, autocracy or one party state is silly, sensationalized and inaccurate But the whole idea of " Rusmerica" was real for a while and it was peddled by a few people even if was completely unrealistic And it was raised by people mostly outside of the US

This is the type of rhetoric from Trump I found painful, Russia already faces severe US sanctions and I doubt more sanctions will really matter But the pipe dream of a more united Russia and the US is over. What did people call it, " Rusmerica " You might think that was always nonsense but there were Vatniks on Codex who initially believed Trumps presidency would create this new global seat of power with the US and Russia aligned on most issues and they called it Rusmerica But they also thought Russia would abandon its China ties for a better US relationship but thats never going to happen. Russia is far too indebted to China since the invasion to jeopardize that relationship

Come on he is funny sometimes, he says funny things Remember this classic baby crying at the rally

I dont think any serious US mining company would start a mining operation in Ukraine while there is an active conflict, its possible but it seems unlikely considering the risk vs return. But the Ukraine war is going to end, its not like DRC or other African countries that have grappled with instability for decades The Ukrainian mineral deal is a long-term investment like all mining investments and US mining companies have operations all over the world Having a local US mining operation is preferrable but that wont stop global mining because mining companies operate internationally Just one example, here is a mining company that is listed in SA and the UK but has sites all over the world including the US https://www.glencore.com/world-map

I dont think so, mining companies are always looking for new sources of resources anywhere and everywhere in the world But they have to balance this investment with risk and return, thats the biggest hurdle with mining investment in several African countries like the DRC Lots of untapped mineral sources but too much risk and instability

Long overdue but appreciated nonetheless Im not sure it changes the objective of ending the war but it is a positive step around military support for Ukraine

Yes you make several points I agree with and the difference between Bidens real dementia and Trumps habit of sometimes peddling fake news and then doubling down on it But what still surprises me about this type of criticism towards Trump is he has always been like this and it was very obvious even as far back as before the 2016 election, remember the whole Obama " Birthirism " fake news story that Trump raised Trump doesn't see it as lies, I think he repeats most of these things because its part of a political strategy and he considers most of the media as " fake news media " anyway and they the ones lying. For example I think he really believes there is white genocide in SA because he get his information from certain selective sources and other sources he either doesnt trust or he isnt interested in Biden has more integrity and more political decorum than Trump and I believe he means well but the Dems scored far too own goals in the last election and they handed Trump his resounding victory. You didnt need Trumps cavalier way of raising fake news to ensure his victory And the main points how the Dems lost were obsessed with vilifying Trump as the main political strategy, how many times did we hear " Trump is going to destroy Democracy ", no interest in the actual issues US citizens were mostly concerned about like the border and security and illegal migration real perceptions of the weaponizing of the DOJ to achieve political objectives and specifically stopping Trump from being a candidate Harris was not the right candidate, she was seen as Biden V2 and still represented everything that US voters were unhappy with But none of that changes the main point, Biden should never have been the Dem candidate because of his dementia After the midterms the Dems should have had a DNC and decided on a candidate in the normal way. But the Dem strategists became obsessed with believing " only Biden can beat Trump " and they decided to studiously ignore the biggest problem with Biden as the best presidential candidate. And that decision came home to bite them when the reality of Bidens dementia was unavoidable

You honestly consider Trumps mental state is the same as Bidens during the presidential debate? Biden couldnt even finish certain trains of thought and was confused about simple things and this was his reality for years that was never confirmed until much later And this has nothing to do with corruption, Im talking only about mental fitness?

Did you install any mods? I played DA:I about 3-4 years ago and it was fun but I wont play it again I thought the War room mechanics were well done and a good feature and I enjoyed the exploration part of the game

I never had that issue with Kingmaker so I doubt that will happen in WoRT I have read some of the criticisms of both games around them being too long and dragging or things becoming repetitive That was never my experience and I think its because I have breaks between sessions so I dont get bored by how the game unfolds

I dont think Democrats should create too much drama about Trumps mental acumen considering how Dem strategists were fine with the absolute disaster of Bidens cognitive decline in the last 2-3 years before the last election The reality was the Dems were prepared for Biden to become president and many of the top people were aware of his dementia They lied and misled there voting base and this should be seen as one of the worst betrayals of your supporters in the history of US elections Trump is old and he makes mistakes but he is no where as bad as Biden was and Biden was the presidential candidate until the infamous Trump debate where it became impossible for the Dems to ignore Bidens decline

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/23/indiana-explore-redrawing-state-line-illinois-despite-opposition-gov/ @Gfted1 Latest suggestion to reconfigure the Indiana and Illinois border Anything to this, is this something that you know about or is just Internet drama and sensationalism?

Trump said several things that were a combination of exaggerations and then completely untrue Here is an example if anyone watched the press release, Trump produced footage of hundreds of white crosses and each one he claimed represent a white farmer who was killed Thats not true at all, those white crosses were put up temporarily after 2 farmers who were killed in the area and it was in recognition of farmers killed over the last 30 years @Malcador you will find this interesting and Solidarity is a white Afrikaans union https://iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/2025-05-22-misleading-white-crosses-video-solidarity-responds-to-trumps-genocide-claims/

No one likes a racist and it doesnt matter if its a white racist or a black racist and even if the comments are covered under freedom of speech But definitely some of the outrage from the US is from white racists or critics of Africa who are using this opportunity to go on about " look, black people are so racist ...you see we told you they want to kill white people " And they dont care that the EFF is not the ANC and that the EFF rhetoric doesnt represent what most South Africans believe

Yes but thats what Im trying to explain to you Thats not an accurate debate when it comes to South Africa if you talking about land ownership Its not true that " colonizers own all the land " Dont let yourself get fooled and manipulated by that type of false narrative

But thats not a real goal that can be achieved What if a Chinese investment buys land in South Africa or any investor buys land after 1994? That happens all the time, land ownership in South Africa is never going to be about " white people cant ever own land because all the land must belong to black people " It really is an unrealistic and silly objective to have Land in South Africa is already owned by several main groups black tribal chiefs already own large amounts of land. In one province alone called Kwa-Zulu the Zulu king owns 30% of all the land in a trust. And there 8 kings in SA and they have similar land ownership in different parts of the country but the Zulu king has the biggest trust because Zulus are the biggest tribe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingonyama_Trust Local and foreign investors own land for businesses as part of normal investment Government owns large amount of land, 23% of total land is already owned by the state Then you have white and black farmers who own farms and yes white farmers own 70% of farms but thats not total land, thats established farms The point Im making is the whole land ownership debate in SA is much more nuanced and complex than saying " SA failed because the colonizers own the land " Here is good link that summarizes the reality of the land question, if you or anyone else is interested in this topic I would recommend you read it and Im more than prepared to answer questions or clarify anything https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-03-10-land-ownership-in-sa-the-facts-and-figures/ @Gorth I know you cant wait to jump into this link

You just repeating some uninformed BS rhetoric that you read on some selective SM source Anyone can buy or own a farm or land if they have money in South Africa . But title deeds and property rights matter and you cant just expropriate someone's farm because 100 years ago that land the farm is now built on might have belonged to someone else. And we have an entire program that has been running for years around land distribution and its rampant with corruption and inefficiencies And what do you define as a " total failure " Do you believe if someone doesnt own land or a farm then they dont have anything or they cant claim to have achieved anything? Most people in the world dont own land or a farm, most people own a bonded property as there main asset

Yes, what happened in Zimbabwe was the worst kind of state sponsored " nationalization " of land owned by white farmers But it cant even be called nationalization, hundreds of so called war veterans literally descended on white farms and gave them 48 hours to leave. And these were white people who had lived in Zimbabwe for generations and had no other home. And the farms taken ended up being given to ZANU-PF loyalists and politically connected people and then most of the farms ended up not being managed properly and most them stopped being productive. Mugabes wife ended up owning 8 farms or so and that was just her So that entire Zimbabwe outcome was the most failed and worst kind of nationalization Im sure in the history of any kind of nationalization That outcome still resonates within South Africa for several reasons. Firstly its used in a false comparison to what could happen in SA, when its almost impossible to believe that could ever be allowed but then Zimbabwe is basically a failed economic state and we have millions of illegal Zimbabweans within the country because of the collapse of the Zimbabwe economy and the way the land grabs happened were part of that collapse So its very common to hear " we dont want to end up like Zimbabwe" and the way farms were taken is part of that narrative But yes, the reality of what happened in Zimbabwe is not the reality of SA. Even though political parties like the EFF call for Zimbabwe style nationalization they dont represent the government

Overall I was happy with the interview between Trump and the South African delegation As I expected Ramaphosa maintained his decorum and didnt allow himself to become emotional when Trump was peddling certain exaggerations and also nothing was lost in translation because Ramaphosa is proficient in English unlike Zelensky It was a good move for SA to take several prominent white Afrikaners as part of the delegation, I laughed at the whole " golf angle " because Trump loves his golf But you have to engage with Trump like this if you face a potential backlash, you pander to his hubris and connect with him on things he has in common End of the day the main issue that Trump mostly focused on was the claims of white genocide and this was predictable and what Trump does. But as usual with these types of talking points there is some truth to it and the way you address it is not to ignore it but rather address what is true and what is not What is true is we have farm killings where whole families are killed and its a terrible type of murder in a country with a high murder rate. But its not genocide by the correct definition of what genocide means. Its another example of a word being used in a wrong context to achieve maximum global impact But what is incredibly unhelpful around this debate is how parties like the EFF still sing the song " kill the Boer " For many people overseas you hear stories of white genocide and then you see real videos of the likes of the EFF celebrating and laughing while singing this song. It really creates a bad and inaccurate perception I mentioned this before but its a pity the EFF lacks the sensitivity and common-sense to care about how this song adds to false narrative of white genocide Even though the song is allowed under freedom of speech. I am glad the leader of the DA in the interview , John Steenhuizen, clarified that this song is not being sung by the ANC and its opposition parties that are the ones doing it One thing I always find strange in most of these press interviews with Trump is how all the journalists end up screaming to get a chance to ask questions, surly there must be a better way to ask questions outside that type of chaos