BruceVC

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

https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers " More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact. That’s the second largest total voter turnout in U.S. history in absolute terms. It is also just the second time that more than 140 million people voted in a presidential election. In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900. " Trump won the popular vote and 7 swing states and this applies to registered voters but if you not a registered voter you cant vote and that applied to 89 million Americans who are known as voter-eligible https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election " And while votes are still being counted, preliminary election data shows about 155 million ballots were cast. This would mean an estimated 89 million Americans, or about 36% of the country’s voting-eligible population, did not vote in the 2024 general election." But out of the registered voters Trump won, I fail to understand how anyone can say he didnt win through the Democratic process of voting? If someone doesnt want to register to vote then they obviously wont be included in this data but that doesn't change how he won the election in a Democratic way?

I thought some humour would be appreciated in this thread, you guys must find the sentiment hilarious

There is endless criticism about US imperialism and its " insidious " control of UN and other institutions Its exaggerated and selective but its consistent from those detractors of the US So this is a good opportunity for other countries to take up the slack when the US pulls back its funding Why cant BRICS countries supplement the WHO? They want to create a new world order and help the global south Its not like China or India cant afford it? Trumps policies could be the perfect time to see real global change around this type of support for the likes of WHO We shouldnt rely just on the US for this type of funding ?

There are too many executive orders for me to focus on or understand how they will be implemented and this is one of them https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/ I dont know if it means Trump will bomb cartels within Mexico, I doubt it considering how that will harm the Mexico relationship?

I have raised this many times through the years, the lack of outrage and interest when it comes to African conflicts and conflicts like Ukraine or Israel\Palestine But my criticism is not about global inconsistency, its more about the lack of interest from Africa because these conflicts have the most impact to Africa and its transformation. I dont expect the EU to care more about Sudan than Ukraine considering the obvious geographical and historical reality And South Africa and our foreign policy efforts and energy is an example of this inconsistency I am being generous if I say we have 5% of the same interest in African conflicts than what we do around Israel and Gaza and yet the latter is a conflict that isnt even in Africa and makes no difference to any of our domestic problems. But every African conflict undermines the objective of a united and functional AU and increases both legal and illegal migration to places like South Africa So you would assume that would be our foreign policy focus because African conflicts have a direct impact to South Africa's continental geopolitical aspirations Then last year when you see a UNSC resolution around declaring a ceasefire in Sudan only Russia vetoed it at the UNSC because they involved in the Sudan war And yet no outrage or much media or public attention about this but we always hear when the US vetoes UNSC resolutions on Israel and our government will generally comment But a Russian veto on an African conflict like Sudan, deafening silence

The current border is an unmitigated failure around illegal migration and if one of the steps you can take is making it more secure than deploying the military or National Guard makes sense just from a manpower perspective The real question is how much of a difference will it make and what will the cost be as time goes on Can you really secure a massive geographical area like the Mexican border? But lets wait and see

The current border is an unmitigated failure around illegal migration and if one of the steps you can take is making it more secure than deploying the military or National Guard makes sense just from a manpower perspective The real question is how much of a difference will it make and what will the cost be as time goes on Can you really secure a massive geographical area like the Mexican border? But lets wait and see

Going forward I doubt Im going to respond to the drama around Trumps presidency, like Musk being a Nazi Im interested in the policies and outcomes that we will see. I just dont have the energy or interest to get involved in all the predictable SM outrage that will characterize another 4 years of Trump Trump will be deploying the military to the border as part of securing it and he has declared the border a national emergency https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/ This is part of his campaign promises and I support this as an additional way to secure the border, in South Africa our military is also used to secure our border but we dont do a very good job at it " Section 1. Deployment of Personnel and Resources. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Armed Forces, including the Ready Reserve and the National Guard, as the Secretary of Defense determines to be appropriate to support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security in obtaining complete operational control of the southern border of the United States. The Secretary of Defense shall further take all appropriate action to facilitate the operational needs of the Secretary of Homeland Security along the southern border, including through the provision of appropriate detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services in support of civilian-controlled law enforcement operations."

But what about how Trump has been the most persecuted president in 250 years Imagine that, that cant be nice

Trumps about to sign dozens of executive orders and those will create interesting debates Especially when we evaluate the outcomes and successes of these policies at the end of his presidency

Im about 50 hours into W1 and Im in Chapter 5 and going to the Manor House in the swamp I decided to remove the FCR mod because of combat bugs and I was able to do that without corrupting my old save games and then my new saves dont include FCR There are several main things I love about W1 and they include the entire Alchemy mechanics works for me, I like how you need to find out about monsters and herbs before you can get the ingredients and I like how the crafting works for potions, bombs and oils. It makes finding and buying recipes worthwhile There are 4 main types of quests. The ones with the obvious map locations and you can go there easily, quests where you have to explore to solve ( blue eyed girl quest ), the ones where you cant complete until you progress in the chapter and do certain things and then the quests that span chapters you can only progress and solve them as time goes on like the Berengar quest the narrative choices are completely thought provoking and you feel like you end up shaping and influencing the world and outcomes Its often spoken in the beginning about the whole Abigail vs Village moral conundrum but that was just one type of choice you need to make and W1 creates many other similar choices that include ( SPOILER ALERT ) who to side with, the Order or the Scoia'tael : I decided the Order, I dont think terrorism works or is sustainable Vincent as the Werewolf : I didnt kill him because this is another example of a good monster that helps you Queen of the Night : A really paradox but I sided with the Vampiresses and again its because there are good Vampires in the Witcher world like Geralts friend Regis and the Queen wasnt an evil Vampire which I would have killed. Sadly the Vampiresses all died in the final battle Adda as a Striga : I saved her because this makes sense for a better relationship with Foltest and her second curse was triggered by De Wett so it didnt make sense to kill her And then there are lots of smaller quest choices you need to make like the Blacksmith and the Succubus which are more light hearted and not as significant I decided to support Triss around Alvin and I admitted my love for her, I like Triss But in summary the narrative choices are some of the best and varied in any RPG I have played and Witcher 1 really delivers on this

All this drama about Trump launching his own crypto and he isnt even president yet Its going to a long 4 years if this triggers you Wait till he starts on his campaign commitments like the border and mass deportations of illegals, then we can get REALLY outraged