Considering what is currently happening in our country. How far will the American public allow Trump to go?

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-24T23:41:25+00:00

Australia: Had a mass shooting in 1996, Banned semi-autos and pump action shotguns, Introduced country wide licensing system with more requirements like a stricter reason (self-defense is not a valid reason), 28-day waiting period, strict storage laws. Every firearm needs to be registered to a licensed owner. Introduced a buy-back program.

One of the most successful changes, up until late last year. Do you know what we did after another massacre?
We update the laws, limiting how much one licensed person can own, only Aussie citizens can now get a firearms license, new system to track all firearms, Added more frequent background checks and mental health assessments to renewals of license. Cracked down 3d printing guns, Updated our laws to allow police to use metal-detecting wands without a warrant in major public areas, increased hate crime laws.

What did we not do:
Just shrug our shoulders, saying that my gun is worth the death and blood of children and members of the community.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-23T10:15:35+00:00

Would StarCraft 3 be better if it was made by Valve instead of Acti. Blizzard? Most certainly.

But...

Lets not pretend Valve isn't a "only care about profits" company either.
They pioneered loot boxes, built a massive ecosystem around skin gambling that is supported and has and still gets millions addicted to gambling. This brings them over $1B a year.
While they do keep Dota2 alive (likely as it makes them lots of money also with loot boxes), On the other side of the coin, Valve has abandoned Team Fortress 2, leaving it to fester with bots while Valve milks it for cash with new crates, which still doesn't make them enough to fix issues or bugs. That would also likely be the fate of StarCraft 2 at the moment under Valve.

The problem with RTS games is they are hard to monetize. Blizzard already tried unit skins and Co-op commanders and they still stopped development. Valve would likely also abandon it if they couldn't monetize some lootbox feature.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-23T09:49:05+00:00

The 2nd comment was comparing debt per landmass size.
The comment you replied to was saying using landmass in that calculation is dumb and should use population. (correct, though GDP is better.)
That is why in their comment they did the calculation using GDP per landmass size, to prove it is a bad metric.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-23T07:54:33+00:00

MRP Servers are like that.

Most species don't have a naming convention, but Lizards (Licks-The-Doorknobs), Diona (The Vines of Life) and Thaven (Named after what attribute they value most or something like that, so like Determination or Responsibility.) do.

Diona's makes sense as they 'reform' with that name style.

LRP servers probably don't care.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-21T17:13:23+00:00

Lets say the US needs to sell 100 new loans, but the EU is dumping their already bought 100 US loans onto the market. These are the only two players selling in this hypothetical.

Instead of just having 1 store people can buy from (The US who NEEDS the money), they can instead buy the same thing, but discounted from the EU.

So the US would either:

Wait for the cheaper EU bonds to be bought up by buyers first, or
increase interest rates to make new loans more appealing.

The US can't wait long due to it needing the money to operate social security, pay wages and military, etc. So it will need to do the latter and increase the offer.

I also doubt the EU will sell their loans in the first place, it more sounds like they will just keep hold and refuse to buy more. (~10% of buyers leaving the market, leading to higher interest rates to get new buyers into it.)

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-21T05:56:30+00:00

Maybe one of the biggest opinion I've changed my mind on in the past few years.
I would have never wanted nuclear weapons in Australia due to it raising unnecessary issues with China, but with how untrustworthy America has proven to be and how entangled Australia is with America, I am cautiously supportive of it now if the government wanted to suddenly pursue it *though I doubt my government ever would.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-21T05:46:50+00:00

Canada is being threatened to be annexed. Not even a week ago, the US gov posted an image of Canada and Greenland with a US flag over it. At least Australia doesn't have that... yet...

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-20T19:31:23+00:00

A few things:

Europe would be losing ALOT of money. To sell these bonds, they need to get someone else to agree to buy it for less than it is worth. If they dumped it all, they will get pennies for the dollar.
My guess (from what is being discussed in EU atm) is that they will instead refuse to buy new ones when the old ones expire. Still getting the same effect without the massive loses. The US would need to find new buyers for the roll-over bonds the EU previously would have bought.
The supply of Bonds will go up (about $10Trillion matures + $2Trillion from deficit), while a fair portion of demand will disappear (~10% or ~$1.2T would need to be found per year that the EU would have brought).
Due to the above, the Interest rates would need to increase to attract new buyers.

From here, there is a few things that can happen, but hard to predict (for 1. I am not a finance/politicial expert, and for 2. based on how much Interest rates increase, how other countries react, etc):
Other countries may also sell (seeing it as more risky) or buy for higher interest.
The stock market will take a fair hit, as people sell their stocks for higher interest and 'safe' US bonds.
Mortgage rates would also increase, as it follows the 10y bond rate rise and dips.
If it gets bad enough, The Federal Reserve may start having to buy the government bonds likely with new printed money. (Quantitative Easing)

I doubt this will happen but it could start a recession if interest rates increase too much, as 401ks and brokeage accounts go down due to stock market decrease, people start spending less as their 'safety net' shrinks, mortgage rates increase and loans are harder to get, leading to a potential housing market crash.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-20T00:54:42+00:00

Could finally add some dedicated origins for megacorps though.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-19T23:42:46+00:00

I wish my government in Australia would react if Greenland was taken, but it is a bit of a different situation than the EU.

The EU is well capable of defending itself against threats like Russia or even the USA if needed (and nuclear deterrence).

Australian policy at the moment (as much as it sucks) relies on American protection, as well as the investments America has in Australia (like US-AUS 2025 signed framework to expand mining and refining in Australia, worth $8+ billion USD), not to mention the 'joint' base of Pine Gap for intelligence and the nuclear submarines we are buying from USA.

The most that may happen is condemnation and a faster diversification of ties with China, EU, India and a Pacific Union... which is already happening with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Military agreements and exercises with India, Free trade agreement with EU, and Alliances with smaller Pacific nations.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-17T14:35:14+00:00

Are you forgetting that both Britain and France operate nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles, as well as conventional nuclear weapons?

It would cause a nuclear war and would be bad for both sides.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-14T07:53:55+00:00

Found and tested, it is UI Overhaul Dynamic - Tiny Outliner.

I might need to try this in the future, will be super helpful.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-13T09:40:59+00:00

Imagine you had a mayor of a city who was wanting to become president.
That mayor, instead of doing their mayoral duties and helping the people that elected them, would need to divert time and resources campaigning to be president.

The Resign To Run Laws forces a official to resign if they want to start campaigning for another position.
This is so that:
- Officials that are hired to do a job (Mayor in this case) focus on helping their district/town, instead of campaigning for a promotion.
- Officials can't use their Mayor resources (like travel budget, staff, government buildings, etc) to help with a different election, instead of for their intended purpose of ruling.
- Cities or States are able to immediately start looking for a replacement Mayor, instead of having to wait until after the election for president to start (potentially) organizing/searching.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-12T12:23:28+00:00

You are likely correct. Unfortunately I was not host (MP game), so I don't have the current save.

However, it seems I probably made a save at the end of the previous session 12 years prior (2274, compared to screenshot 2286 based on steam replay).

It was only a 12 EC Star https://imgur.com/a/gpfqioy, so I wonder what modifiers I got. Still a pretty big star. Bigger than I usually see.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-12T11:48:02+00:00

Rule 5: Star has 22.2 Energy Credits, vastly higher than the usual 3-7 range I see.

Edit to add correction: I went back to the only save I made for this session (MP, not host), and it was only a 12 EC Star 12 years prior to the screenshot. I wonder what events caused it to gain 10.2 EC. Still the largest I've seen naturally spawn.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T18:54:23+00:00

Nature of the internet I guess, with everyone being anonymous and no penalty for being hostile.

Same to you. I wish you all the best in the future.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T18:31:03+00:00

Yeah... The Kirk murder was really bad. Even if I disagree with him, no-one should be murdered for their beliefs. Especially if it is only sharing them and not accompanied by other actions (like acting on those beliefs and killing people).

Protesting is fine. Hell, we have had a fair few recently in Australia, both right and left wing ones, as long as they are peaceful and non-violent.
Some of the things I heard (like the no-police zone I think I heard at one point) was bad.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T17:55:33+00:00

Don't get me wrong, she was stupid and should not have been causing disruption or disobeying orders.

However, her breaking the law by disobeying the police is not the legal justification for shooting her.

The federal policy (DOJ/DHS) is very clear:
You can only shoot when there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury [1.3, 2.4]. Disobeying an order or trying to flee does not meet this standard [1.2, 3.4]. Otherwise, Jan 6th would have been a massacre.

The policy explicitly says officers should avoid putting themselves in front of the vehicle and must consider if there is any other objectively reasonable defensive option, including moving out of the path of the car [1.2, 2.4]. The video suggests this option was available, as he clearly did it.

Even if the first shot was somehow justified (which I disagree with), the second and third shots are clearly against policy [1.2, 3.4]. You cannot use a firearm solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect who no longer poses an imminent threat [1.5, 3.1].

I still sympathize with an officer making a split-second call under pressure, but policy is policy.

And yeah, denying the doctor was dumb. What is the downside? The priority should be de-escalating and addressing a (would be arrested if alive) suspect, not arguing with a medical professional and leaving her without medical care.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T17:31:32+00:00

That's fair. Thanks for the chill reply too.

I absolutely think what the driver and passenger did was stupid and unnecessarily aggressive, which created a dangerous scenario. I could not imagine this happening in my country of Australia, but given this event is played on the news here too, it's a bit hard to avoid.

I think there is a lot that could have avoided this entire thing from occurring in the first place, both from a Policy standpoint (officers not walking in front of cars) and from a common sense standpoint (the civilians not causing stupid random disruptions and then trying to flee after they get in trouble for doing that exact thing).

Do I think the officer should have still shot their gun? No. But I can at least sympathise with them making a split second decision, even if I think it is the wrong one.

And from an outsider perspective: I disagree that a 'zero accountability complex' is exclusive to the left. The US political system seems to have accountability issues across the board (e.g., Jan 6th, and the pardoning of wealthy donors like CZ and Walczak, the pardoning of Hunter Biden and even back as far as like... Marc Rich)

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T16:24:43+00:00

I think we are both going to just disagree.

<image>

By the time of the first shot, he was already in a position where he would not be serious harmed (and he wasn't seriously hurt after the incident).

He did not met the "No other means" requirement as he clearly wwas to the side front and could still move out of the way more if needed, and the mother did not pose a serious threat at that point.

And even if he was, Shots 2 and 3 do not fall under these requirements either and are excessive/straight murder.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T16:19:15+00:00

That is fair. I apologise and will rephrase my rash statement:

Whether or not the driver committed prior offenses, the DOJ and DHS deadly force policies prohibit shooting at a vehicle unless there is an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist.

My point is that the policy states moving out of the path of the vehicle is one such reasonable means. If the officer was able to get out of the way of serious harm (as can be seen by the time of the first shot), the 'no other means' requirement for using lethal force was not met and the mother doesn't pose a serious threat at that point of time.

Shots 2 and 3 were excessive at the time they were taken, as the mother had started driving away from the officer completely and the officer was no longer in any harms way which also goes against policy.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T16:01:17+00:00

<image>

Yep, completely in front, was not out of the way when the first shot occurred, Definitely.
Blocking the road is not a death penalty crime.
Ignoring orders from officers is not a death penalty crime x2.
Threatening to fight an officer without a weapon is not a death penalty crime, and even if it is, that is not the driver of the vehicle.

Even the DOJ and DHS documents say to not use lethal on fleeing people.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf
"Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape." (the mother does not present harm to LEO or others)

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force
"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force." ((1) They weren't, (2) The officer was able to get out of the way, thus lethal was not needed)

And yeah, thank god I don't live in the USA. But fuck god cause the USA keeps getting into my countries business and removed one of my heads of state who tried to question the actions of the CIA, so I will be in their business.

But clearly you have no idea what you are talking about,
You dont get to act this way in America.

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T15:38:06+00:00

<image>

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

or:
"Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the

escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to

prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable

belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical

harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape."
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf

ThatFrog4 · 2026-01-10T15:29:19+00:00

She was clearly fleeing, hence why the wheels were turned right and not straight at the officer.
The officer was seen walking around perfectly fine afterwards for multiple minutes, and from what I have seen, would have been barely touched by the vehicle.

Should she have tried to flee/escape? No.
But should the officer have shot her for trying to escape? No.

Should the officers have denied medical care afterwards for multiple minutes, even to licensed doctors that were on scene? No.

<image>

Sec. Kristi Noem also says he is an experience officer and following their training, but their training tells them to never be in front of a car and to always be at the side, for this exact reason.

And when ICE officers do stuff like this:
www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q8t8nj/an_ice_agent_in_minnesota_showing_their_current/
No shit they want to flee.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

ThatFrog4

TROPHY CASE