BruceVC

I like to see you and Gromnir extending the hand of courtesy and mutual respect , well played. I have always believed you guys have more in common than you realize. And from Gromnirs side he even "Liked " your post which is not common for Gromnir Unlike me I can potentially " Like " 5-6 posts a day but I can also explain in a logical and objective way why I " Like " the post or I like parts of it which is a good enough reason for me to " Like " any post. The point is I dont just " Like " posts on a whim for no reason ....oh and particularly humorous posts or posts that make me laugh invoke a " Like"

Yes you make some good points but the vaccine will, or should be , initially used for elderly people and or people at high risk, I dont imagine young people getting it first so why would elderly people not get it or not take the vaccine unless they refuse but that is there choice because my initial suggestion of making it mandatory will have legal challengers as Im sure you will be able to explain based on the US Constitution The outcome of this should be even if younger people refuse to take the vaccine they wont be able to unintentionally spread the virus to groups at high risk because these groups will have access to the vaccine as a priority . So I believe the harm even hardcore vaccine denialists may bring should be mitigated ?

I think some of you guys are underestimating the votes Trump will gain due to the protracted and unacceptable months of violence and anarchy we are seeing in certain US cities Of course the Trump campaign is going to focus on this and use it to gain support through both real and irrational fears and anxiety that many US citizens feel around the argument " Democrats dont about the rule of law and order " There is definitely degrees of false narrative from both parties around what BLM and the protests mean and both parties are guilty of sometimes politicizing the violence

This makes sense and supports your view and others who are not anti-vaxxers but rather have concerns with the risk that the vaccine may be rushed in some cases Living in SA by the time my demographic gets the vaccine and its freely available I am confident it will be on V3-4 so I will have less concern than living in a first world country which has resources to ensure it citizens get V1.0 ps : I like your characterization of " V1- xxx " , its a good way to frame the general concern about not being a guinea pig Also your view on this has now changed my view that the vaccine should be mandatory because push back can be valid based on the " guinea pig " concern

I consider you a reasonable person so your view on this matters, why woudn't you take the Covid vaccine? Do you ever take the yearly flu vaccine, I have never taken the flu vaccine but its only because I am very fortunate and generally never get flu

What do you guys think should be done about vaccine denialists and or people who claim they will not take the any vaccine around Covid when it is released. We see this in several countries and particularly the USA where apparently as many as 30-35 % of people polled wont take the vaccine Do you feel they have this right or do you think it should be legally mandatory. I think it should be obligatory because the virus spread is not about the individual but how a person by not taking the vaccine can spread the virus so it shouldnt be seen as an individual decision but rather a collective decision which all governments should enforce ?

I love cats, post some pics of the kittens for us cat and pet lovers And as you mentioned its a very safe and recommended procedure so they will fine

But we really need to be realistic about the ME and what can be achieved, Israel is not going anywhere and most of the countries in the world are dependent on oil as a factor that drives there economies. So our views on the way forward need to consider both these points if you want some kind of meaningful peace Also my definition of " Islamist " groups is not the Gulf States but the likes of ISIS, AQ and the Taliban. You can absolutely trade and work with the Gulf States, that include Saudi Arabia but you cannot work with the likes of ISIS

@ Gorthfuscious, I added the post as a response to your previous post in the event you missed this comment as the the post was closed by Amentep There are no real regimes in the ME that dont have some kind of human rights abuses or have mistreated another group so if you judged the objective I mentioned on that then there would never be a solution to achieve peace and meaningful economic stability and transformation But Saudi Arabia, which is a huge part of the objective, understands the importance of economic stability. They have played a huge part in helping the world and the USA in fighting Islamic extremism once they were targeted by AQ after 9/11 and they are the leaders and most influential country in OPEC which is critical to most of the world needing a reliable source of oil So yes, in a strange but difficult way to accept Saudi Arabia and there " alliance " partners do offer the best way forward. The reality Gorthfuscious we have had decades of different ideological conflicts in the ME and now there is a possible way forward that will benefit most of the various groups and countries in the ME Its worth supporting this latest alliance to see if it works?

There are no real regimes in the ME that dont have some kind of human rights abuses or have mistreated another group so if you judged the objective I mentioned on that then there would never be a solution to achieve peace and meaningful economic stability and transformation But Saudi Arabia, which is a huge part of the objective, understands the importance of economic stability. They have played a huge part in helping the world and the USA in fighting Islamic extremism once they were targeted by AQ after 9/11 and they are the leaders and most influential country in OPEC which is critical to the most of the world needing a reliable source of oil So yes, in a strange but difficult way to accept Saudi Arabia and there " alliance " partners do offer the best way forward. The reality Gorthfuscious we have had decades of different ideological conflicts in the ME and now there is a possible way forward that will benefit most of the various groups and countries in the ME Its worth supporting this latest alliance to see if it works?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53971256 This is a very important development in the objective of ensuring a truly stable and prosperous ME It also adds to the view that myself and many others support how there are now 2 " alliances " in the ME with the Gulf States, Israel, other Arab countries (like Egypt ) and the USA on one side and Iran ( or rather the current hardliners who run the country ) Syria, Hamas and groups like Hezbollah on the other side This normalizing of relations between the UAE and Israel is a very positive step to achieving true peace in the ME.....unfortunately I can see one more inevitable conflict in the ME to achieve this peace and the USA will be a part of this and that is removal of the hardliner ideology that Iran has demonstrated over the last 20 years It doesn't have to be a military solution but I consider the hardliners in Iran to be intransigent and therefore I cant realistically see another solution ?

Im also unclear how this is aligns to misinformation and hyperbole being posted by any member on this forum Iraq did use to have WMD, they had Chemical weapons and Saddam used them against the Kurds and Iran in previous conflicts. The misinformation about the 2003 invasion was that Iraq had them in 2003....not that they never had them and had indeed used them

QFT, this is a exactly correct around why Im excited despite no real details, your post explains it nicely. I remember when they shutdown the Bioware official forums I started believing it was the end of Bioware and now I can see there is definitely a future in the DA franchise

And despite what people keep suggesting the usage of Federal agents was legally allowed in certain cities because Barr was never forced to concede he had unlawfully deployed federal agents during the congressional inquiry

This looks excellent, I had to say this

I am 100 % the same as you....and Im very excited about DA 4

Guys the video was brilliant for numerous reasons and you also right. I am a huge DA fan and have loved all games in the series and enjoy all there gaming mechanics and RPG narrative parts Also some of the best Romance options, like Isabella, have come from DA games....so this will be a day 1 " most expensive version " buy for me definitely But what is really weird is all the negative comments on this forum about the trailer not revealing any relevant information is also true......you cannot gain much, if anything about narrative or general gaming detail. Everything they mention in the trailer I always get and expect from DA games...like connecting in a RPG way emotionally with your party members which is always a big part of any Romance arc in my RP journey And yet I am definitely buying the game despite not being to able to tell you specifically why

It is wrong and a complete overreaction to the purpose of any statues on battlefields, I watched a documentary on CNN on this where the official Gettysburg historian who works at the Gettysburg Museum explained why these statues matter, I hope this Bill is immediately blocked ASAP I am not trying to blame anyone on a personal level but GD this is why you shouldnt ever support any statues been taken down unless its someone like Nathan Forrest, I learnt this years which is why you may recall I have been opposed to most statue removal in the UK and very critical of the vandalism done to statues like Winston Churchill and the Cenotaph The activists that demand these things always go too far and never are satisfied because I personally believe most of dont even know what most of the statues represent and are just part of the knee-jerk reaction outrage where its more about grandstanding, social media attention and covert ways to malign and criticize all white people and hopefully offend them around history. Its not about any real offense

You have made your point well, so in other yes the state could authorize it if necessary. As I mentioned its highly unlikely but this potential is something that is not impossible if the governor decides it I can imagine you arent to fond of Barr but he is one person who you shouldnt underestimate, he is very clever and knows how to blur the law with certain realities on the ground...I watched his inquiry and he is a formidable opponent because he came across with many convincing responses based on legal justifications which seemed to be based on the US constitution....not that I would know if it was true but it seemed true based on how members of congress were shutdown or how Barr seemed unrepentant and defiant

I hear you, fair enough. But how do you justify when the National Guard get deployed to deal with issues like rioting and civil disobedience? And this can be legally implemented by a governor or is the National Guard not seen as the military in the article ?

GD just to be clear on why you are vehemently opposed to the military being deployment, is it because as the article mentions The Constitution and laws of the US and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections ... I do not see the US military as part of this process," Milley said in a letter released on Friday responding to questions from two members of the House Would you support the military being deployed to address excessive rioting and violent protests? This is highly unlikely but it cannot be ignored due to the reality of current protests we see in some US cities. So hypothetically speaking if Trump wins and we see the same level of Portland anarchy in 12-15 US cities would you support the National Guard and or military being used ?

Cardi B is seriously hot

Please read my previous and you will see it wasnt a true Muslim ban, so no need to feel you live in a racist\bigoted country And if that is the only reason you wont vote for Trump now you can vote for him

I am not going to get involved in this debate except for sharing something that is true about the Muslim ban. This matters for 2 main reasons If you feel the USA was truly and unfairly banning Muslims from the USA ( this was never my main concern ) and you honestly feel this means it demonstrated that the USA could be seen as a country that was openly bigoted and especially Islamphobic If you are someone following the current developments in the ME and you have a goal of a stable,peaceful ME where there is no disruption to the oil supply (this is my primary concern and is what most of us should want ) The Muslim ban was never about a ban on all Muslims, it has been mischaracterized by some both unintentionally and studiously. It was ban on Muslim countries linked to Iran, which means it was a ban on Shia " extremist\anti-USA " and then it was a ban on any Muslim country that was linked to Sunni extremism and ISIS ideology and these countries couldnt guarantee safe security checks at there airports. So you will see from the links below which Muslim countries were banned and for all of them I can give you absolutely valid reasons (except for Nigeria and Myanmar which arent Muslim ) why you can justify a ban based on the original reasons I discussed the ban https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/house-poised-vote-reversing-trump-muslim-ban-200721235927974.html Now of course I realize the ban has been reversed which I support as the ban was wrong but there are the reasons I mentioned above where you can still justify it The USA never banned any of the Muslim Gulf states like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or Qatar. And this makes perfect sense due to the reality of the important role these countries play in the stability of the ME and the oil supply So in closing, you dont have to feel the USA was ever truly Islamaphobic because it didnt ban all Muslims and true Islamaphobia means you would have banned all Muslim countries

Thanks for this sharing, this post has been very informative and you have raised some points that were what I wanted to ask and its exactly what you represent as voting demographic, yes I remember Captain, He was a good guy and we got on well but we had very different views on the importance of the free market and he believed in a more socialist reality that would benefit all of society in a way that address inequality. And I understand the sentiment but I have several concerns around how you can address " inequality " in a way that is sustainable ....I am wary that these campaigns end up wanting to penalize banks and try to tax people who seem to have more money and that can be very unhelpful to overall economic transformation. I dont believe Biden will change to far left but there is a concern I cannot ignore because I have a strange outcome that Biden could do something that is similar ......I just have a strange feeling What concerns me most is what I still see from BLM extremist comments and it has a direct impact to South Africa and UK which I have direct links to and coincidentally the US narrative bleeds into our narrative ....and we should not be concerned with BLM views because of our real problems not related to anything related to BLM Finally if Trump is going to lose it should have been without the virus impact and made in a normal voting environment because now its not necessarily for the right reason which is Americans deciding outside negative influences which is basically about the virus and lockdown economic impact Oh and dont read too much into Gromnirs pugnacious posts, when it comes to certain realities he will always argue the facts and he is right about these things. Its not personal but remember he thinks like a lawyer so you know he will back what he says by real data but end of the Trump won because of the support he got by choices Americans made which is exactly how the Democracy works ....which brings me to my final question. What were the reasons last time you voted for Trump?