BruceVC

I mentioned before that I'm going to try very hard to not focus on the drama and sensationalism of Trumps presidency For example obsessing about Greenland and Canada being annexed and all the SM attention around this I realize this is very entertaining for many people and thats there choice but we have 4 years of Trump so I am going to focus on the outcomes of his policies and do they have a practical and successful implementation So things like ending the Israel vs Palestinian conflict and then the border and his efforts to reduce the illegal migration crisis and also the final reality of inflation. These were the main points around how he won the election The deportations are part of that so it interests me. I am not concerned with those Americans thinking this Colombia outcome was as example of " Trump winning " because like I mentioned its expected for any government to accept its own citizens back Trump also risks overusing the tariffs card, in the case of Colombia it was an effective threat but it should never have been necessary in the first place but thats on the Colombian president for creating this issue

And its this type of egregious sensationalism from the Colombian president that made him look stupid when he folded in 24 hours You must choose your battles with Trump and this was not one of them End of the day this was about one obvious question, do you accept your own citizens when they deported and the answer for any government should be an unequivocal "YES " This type of populist rhetoric has no relevance to that question and its better suited for UNGA rants about the US

Nah, its got nothing to do with kneeling to accept your own citizen back when they have been deported because of illegally trying to enter a country South Africa has deported tens of thousands of people and no country has refused this The Colombia government created this drama and there was no need for it

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/ "U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened tariffs and sanctions on Colombia to punish it for earlier refusing to accept military flights carrying deportees as part of his sweeping immigration crackdown. But in a statement late on Sunday, the White House said Colombia had agreed to accept the migrants after all and Washington would not impose its threatened penalties. " I really dont get the initial outrage from Colombia about this, as I mentioned in the previous post why would any country not accept there own citizens back? Where else should they be deported to ...thats the official definition of deportation? I think Trump is over playing the tariffs card but in this case it shouldnt have been necessary to threaten tariffs because every government should accept its own citizens

Im interested, why shouldnt any country not accept there illegal citizens? Who should accept them if not the country they come from? I explained several times my position on Project 2025 but I will explain it AGAIN Its a 900 page Heritage Foundation blueprint and I always asked what parts of it you worried that Trump will implement. But since no one ever read that document or had any real interest in reading it that debate died But the original discussion was based on this image and that was what I commented on I also mentioned several times that Trump will implement parts of Project 2025 because its considered standard Conservative ideology and linked to campaign promises but I said he wont implement the fearmongering parts like Federal ban on abortion But we can discuss what parts of Project 2025 will be implemented because now we can see. Some things Trump is doing I support like border security so you wont find any drama from me around that and the US leaving the WHO is not a big deal considering how easily that funding shortfall can be solved by dozens of other wealthy countries like China and this is mentioned in the link as an " issue " End of the day lets have these debates but its best to discuss specific points

Okay Im not a lawyer or have much interest in long legal debates, I find them boring and I just prefer to understand the outcomes I looked this up and the Supreme Court cant change the Constitution, they can strike down laws that are unconstitutional and the US Constitution is clear on citizenship and being born in the USA So the only way to change this is if you change the Constitution and that requires the 2/3 majority in Congress, so I dont understand how the Supreme Court could rule any other way because its clearly defined? Maybe Im not understanding something and if you can clarify that it would be interesting?

Wormie I still cant believe you havent played KC:D1 I was under the impression it was mandatory for all Slav gamers to have played this game???? You really need to play KC:D1, its a fantastic game with excellent combat mechanics I would say its got the second most realistic combat mechanics out of any game I have played and only Exanima is more realistic

I dont know, Trump signed a massive amount of executive orders but they dont have the same significance or matter to US citizens in the same way But something like " denying people born to illegal migrants in the US citizenship " was always going to be challenged and rejected legally and Constitutionally This will end up in the Supreme Court but unless you change the Constitution this law will always fail the Constitutional test And its highly unlikely Trump will be able to change the Constitution because you need a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and the GOP dont have that majority So the point Im making is the same, you need to separate what Trump says he wants to do and what he can do Constitutionally Dont get distracted by things that wont happen because the media is outraged about it or its become a media focus point

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/ And this has already been blocked by a Federal judge which Trump will appeal And it was suspended because it is unconstitutional " "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind." The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen." Dont get confused between what Trump says and what he can legally implement or succeed on Thats why I mentioned the US has an independent judiciary and the courts dont just rubberstamp everything the president wants which is one of the main characteristics of an authoritarian state like Russia

Yes I see what you worried about and yes that is possible I think its highly unlikely but its possible So the US will end up like Russia with "elections " and " opposition " parties but the elections arent free and fair and Putin is guaranteed to win But to get to that level of subversion of the Democratic process is a long way to go for the US So for example in Russia ( and all these factors play a part in Putins single party rule sustainability ) You cant seriously publicly criticize the state or the war : In the US public criticism of any government and its decisions occurs on a daily basis People protest all the time in the US and these protests are often about issues with something government has done In Russia there is no independent media so the official media narrative always supports the state : In the US there is only private sector and independent media. Its mostly partisan influenced but the media constantly raises issues with the government depending on the political views of the media Russia has no separation of the judiciary from what the state wants, any law Putin wants the judiciary will rubberstamp. You also wont find things like successful class action suits in Russia against the state States in the US still have vast degrees of independence from the federal government. Lots of examples of this in the US like R vs W During the elections in the US citizens are literally bombarded with political and endless partisan advertising and media focus on how terrible one party is or how failed the current President is. This is almost non-existent in Russia because of the lack of independent media so the average Russian citizen isnt exposed to much media criticism of Putin or his policies during the electoral process And finally the US does have free and fair elections, people do vote and you see leadership change all the time in the US. This doesn't exist in Russia, Putin will never lose an election As I mentioned I understand your concern and its valid. But the US has a long way to decline around its Democratic reality to end up like Russia but its definitely worth watching

But you not seriously suggesting that Trump is going to somehow make the USA end up like WW2 Italy or Germany? Thats full on authoritarian state where people dont vote for leadership change, the Constitution becomes irrelevant and you see the same leader for life The US will never end up like that I understand people dont like Trump and have genuine concerns but lets not exaggerate about his 4 year presidency and what the consequences could be?

100$ is expensive but GTA6 will be worth it considering the amount of time you will spend on it Saying all that I never play games on release because of mod development and official patches\fixes Thats why Im never disappointed with all the games I play, when I play them they the most stable they can be And they always on some sort of sales special anyway

One thing we must realize, Trumps older now and I predict several "Biden acumen problems" as his presidency goes on The Spain BRICS comment was another example of this But it will create entertainment

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/22/tru...-tariffs-if-putin-doesnt-end-ukraine-war.html Trump is threatening Putin with additional sanctions and tariffs if he doesn't come to the negotiation table As appreciated as this sentiment is I dont see it really influencing Putin much. We already have US sanctions on Russia and what difference would this threat make? "President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to impose “high levels” of sanctions on Russia and tariffs on imports from there if the country did not reach a settlement to end its nearly three-year-old war against Ukraine. Trump’s warning, made in a social media post on his third day as president, called out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name. “If we don’t make a ‘deal,’ and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. '

Completed Witcher 1, I have already mentioned what I loved about the game and in summary its a fantastic narrative influenced RPG set in the world of the Witcher where your choices really define the narrative Great quests, lore and the combat mechanics really grow on you. Well worth playing and highly recommended. Its gets a 75/100 on the globally respected " BruceVC game rating system " Now Im going to play Witcher 2, I have looked at the various Mod Collections but I decided to only install 2 mods Project Mersey : https://www.nexusmods.com/witcher2/mods/981 and Dynamic HUD https://www.nexusmods.com/witcher2/mods/276 and I loaded one Adult mod I also made some recommended User.ini changes around graphic tweaks But otherwise thats all Im going to change for my W2 experience

https://www.who.int/about/funding "Assessed contributions (AC) are a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product (the percentage is agreed by the United Nations General Assembly). Member States approve them every two years at the World Health Assembly. They cover less than 20% of the total budget. The remainder of WHO’s financing is in the form of voluntary contributions (VC), largely from Member States as well as from other United Nations organizations, intergovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, the private sector, and other sources." Assessed contributions make up 20% so voluntary contributions still make up the majority of funding of the WHO funding. And my point hasn't changed, BRICS countries barely contribute towards the WHO and they can easily make-up the US shortfall. Especially China, its not complicated

Oh, okay I understand what you meant But the USA is not Nazi Germany for several reasons. The main difference is Trump only has 4 years and then he is gone

Yes, I agree and thats why I keep saying the US and world will be fine after Trumps term is over. Democracy will survive But its also parody and not meant to be taken seriously

You making very serious allegations, have you taken this to your local media? Dont sit on this information, you have a civic responsibility as a global citizen to let people know why the US has stopped funding the WHO !!!! Trump needs to educate himself on which countries are part of BRICS

No I dont support the withdraw because I believe in the WHO as an important UN institution that provides healthcare services to third world and impoverished countries So if you look at @Elerond link the US provides 14.5% of funding so if you remove that it will impact the overall services the WHO provides which I dont want But that can easily be mitigated by other wealthy countries in the world This shouldnt become a problem when the likes of China are basically contributing nothing And thats where BRICS comes in because its a bloc that can easily full the US shortfall

Okay we going around in circles now, it wont be a problem if other countries full the funding shortfall It wont be an issue at all

But why cant BRICS do it? Why cant they make a decision together to fund the US shortfall Again if BRICS believes in a multi-polar world this is one way of demonstrating that belief I dont understand why think BRICS cant do this, China will be the main contributor but other BRICS members can contribute

I dont think the US decision should become the "issue " it has become and it has become an issue because this specific executive order has been mentioned several times in our media The WHO can get this funding from other countries and as @Elerond mentioned BRICS are hardly providing any funding and they can definitely full the gap if the WHO matters. I didnt realize BRICS members contributed so little You say you believe in a true multi-polar world, this is how you do it

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap And BRICS is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA And that objective can only be realized by action and the not the standard rhetoric and platitudes This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap And BRICS is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA And that objective can only be realized by action and not the standard rhetoric and platitudes This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives