MC Prussian

A glorious day for history - in dozen of years, mankind will look back at Boris Johnson's time as PM and craft the term "Johnsane" in order to describe his tenure. But who knows - maybe he's actually able to turn things around now. Hope usually ends up last, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Giuseppe Verdi - Marcia Trionfale (Aida)

Yes. And no. I have been active in other threads instead.

13 and 17. So close... But I'm glad another weekend is over. The amount of lucky one-timers in this game is astonishing. Couldn't bear any more of that stress. Always have that nagging feeling that out of all people, it's me usually pinned against some of the very best players... No really easy opponents left, it seems.

Just beat a team full of Icons on Weekend League.

The moment you know you're 2-1 up and you're going to concede an equalizer just before the end of regular time. I hate this game so much.

What's the longest half in FIFA 19 you've ever went through? I just recently set a new personal record at 54 in-game minutes.

Trump has been known to the American public for close to 40 years, "no one in the world of business – not Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett – has been as famous as Trump for as long." (Michael D'Antonio) He has written countless books (mostly about himself ), among them one bestseller, and has seen many books written about him, several of them bestsellers, and he featured on the US "Apprentice" for fourteen (!) seasons, which was seen by roughly 10 million viewers each season on average. Needless to say, the US population had seen more of Donald Trump and gotten to know him pretty well in the decades prior to 2015/2016 than they had heard of Illinois senator Barack Obama leading up to the 2008 presidency. Trump even described himself as a Democrat at some stage, but usually refrained from affiliating with either party. Trump was a registered Democrat from August 2001 through September 2009. https://www.thoughtco.com/was-donald-trump-a-democrat-3367571 US voters didn't vote for Trump based on his personality mostly, it was one big "fvck you" to the Democrat establishment. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/politics-disillusionment-rise-trump-160303135024517.html And we can debate and talk about Trump all we want, what matters is mostly how the US population sees him, and his approval ratings have gone up again in the last twelve months: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ 42% percent might not look that impressive, but below the Trump approval rating, you can see comparisons to the presidents before him, so in relation, it's not that bad at all. Trump is very likely to get another four years, this mainly thanks to incredibly weak and faceless Democratic candidates. What I'm curious to find out is whom the Democrats will push for 2024. I can't but repeat myself: Tulsi, Tulsi Gabbard is the one solution. If I were a swing voter, I'd give her my vote in an instant. And by that time, she might have gained just enough traction to sweep the Republican candidates off the table. It's time the Democrats give her the attention she deserves.

Same here. Could turn out a bargain, or another Jahanbakhsh.

I never said that human activity had "nothing or next to nothing to do" with global warming, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm questioning the extent of that influence - and the climate change research, the IPCC data available claiming to portray the truth, their methods and the factors coming into play for measuring increase in temperatures. Surely you can acknowledge that it does no good that the global population, in Asia and Africa in particular, has increased massively in just the past 50 years? It has doubled from over 3 billion to now close to 8 billion! This development thus puts much strain on resources, agriculture, soil, etc. I'm not convinced by climate change activists such as Greta Thunberg, who do nothing but incite division in my eyes (in the sense of "lots of talk, no action"), and that in (European) countries which are already very active in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The issue is that these emissions know no boundaries, they don't stop at the border. It's a global movement, so every country needs to chip in. And right now, it's China and India especially, who are the biggest polluters on this planet, plus some of the African states ruining their own rivers. So I am asking myself: Why do people such as Greta Thunberg not put more effort in protesting on location in China or India, or Nigeria or Egypt? I find it hypocritical. Over here in Europe, they are in fact preaching to the choir. Global warming and climate change happen. No doubt about it. Now it's up to us to figure out how we can use the recent increase in temperatures to our own advantage, but for that we need way better and more efficient solar energy technology. Wind turbines are a laughing matter, they are a sore sight in the landscape and are no way efficient enough. Water energy? I'd welcome technological advances there, too. Or fuel cell technology.

Trump's personality has been known for years prior to his election as US president. I'm just curious to find out why it is so shocking to people now that they're getting so upset over a single person's personality? Obama will fondly remembered for his charismatic personality and he was pretty much unknown outside the US prior to his election. Charismatic personality aside, it overshadows his rather poor domestic policy-making and questionable military and foreign politics decisions. Part of it the fascination with Trump has indeed to do with this constant media bashing, when they should be focusing on Trump's policies instead. The US media in particular profits heavily from Trump, as he gives them all the verbal nuggets they need to stretch a non-story no end. Social Media, and Twitter especially also play a part in this, as Trump's Tweets tend to be on the inflammatory or divisive side, deliberate or not. He's only the second president that I know of who is on Twitter. And I don't consider it a particularly positive platform, to be honest. Way too much hostility, social outrage and useless opinions on there, anyway. It's given way too much importance these days. It's an activist's paradise, and offers little in constructive (political) debate. I don't particularly like Trump - yet going back to 2016, in a choice between him and Hillary Clinton, you'll be hard-pressed to find better arguments in favour of the other side.

Really have started to enjoy Oliver Harper's reviews of 70ies/80ies/90ies movies on YouTube. Brings back fond memories of getting scared sh*tless in the 80ies, watching TV with all these great and sometimes cheesy horror and science-fiction flicks readily available. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4zKSynEH_sLA1TC8_kU0gQ

Not quite. Fox has indeed become the most watched US news channel, but only in recent years. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2018-ratings-fox-news-is-the-most-watched-network-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943/ Still "only" the fifth-most-watched network across broadcast and cable.

Time will tell. But I think in parts we talk about the same, just see it differently. Football has become such a major industry, it's only natural that the news coverage grows alongside it. Just have my doubts about how much of it is really needed or in the end simply l'art pour l'art, coverage that tends to be rather self-congratulatory or self-absorbed.

Because it is part of a particular religious belief and potentially infringes freedom of religion. It also has some health advantages, according to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision I have to make it clear though that I find the mutilation of the female genitals in certain Muslim countries a barbaric act.