ants

Read these novels back when I was in my teens, and consuming a lot of D&D novels. I actually read Homeland and its sequels first, so remember the first Crystal Shard book being a little jarring. I haven't touched the D&D books in, well, decades, but have very fond memories.

I saw a pretty well laid out argument that the main reason Trump is talking about this is because its one of the few areas he can appear "strong". He can't talk poll numbers. He can't talk the economy. He can't talk much of anything. Focus on how the Republicans will win even if they lose is a way to appear strong and stick it to the Dems (which as @DMC posted before, is actually a key priority for his base). Obviously this doesn't play well outside his base, but we've clearly seen Trump's focus is on his base.

Yeah,

From Google and Reddit: I'll have to rewatch the start of the last episode of Season 1. I don't remember any of those elements (beyond him arriving via immigration). Edit: done so. And yes, that occurs. Not sure how I missed it and the fireflies.

So you think it's better for a club to play with 17 positive people in and around the first team so that they can get a paycheck??????

Was this in the episode where you see him arriving and buying/starting an umbrella factory at the start? I still don't remember the mentioned scene.

Um, @Maia, I think you need to add some spoilers in there! I really enjoyed both S1 and S2, and enjoyed Vanya's S2 arc. Comments on Maia's questions/comments and other points:

I know it isn't technically the rule, but I've got no real problems with the ManU penalty. Ayew had a shot on goal, it was going towards the goal, and Lindelof's arm got in the way. For me, that is the kind of thing the handball rule should be trying to stop, even if its accidental. We don't want arms stopping shots on goal. But then, I'm often out of line. I thought the Declan Rice decision last year was a good outcome! Thought it would be incredibly unfair for Rice to benefit with a goal from a handball when the defender got there first and put their head on the line to knock it out of his path.

Rats. Not a fan of that at all.

You can't say voting matters on an aggregate level but not the individual level. The aggregate is composed of individual votes. To say that because an individual's vote isn't the deciding vote that individual votes don't matter is totally misleading. Especially if the people who believe this could skew the election. Your argument also ignores that the margin of victory/loss also sends a message. If one side is only getting 25% of the votes versus 45% is going to affect their policy positions in 2/4 years time. So even if your vote isn't the deciding vote, it can still matter.

RIP Terry, and best wishes for his family. I enjoyed his first few books but the series went a little silly and I dropped it. I admit, I initially read the title of this thread initially as Terry Brooks, and was going oh no. Then I read the replies. Then I double checked and realised my mistake. For a moment there I thought you were saying Weiss/Hickman had died! And Brooks! Made me sad before I checked. The other's I think are from the 90's would be Michelle West (my favourite), Wurts, S. Douglass, Tad Williams, Tanya Huff, Rawn, Katherine Kerr, Kate Elliott, Anne McCaffery, Modesitt, CS Friedman, J.V. Jones, Jane Welch, and Robin Hobb. Actually, I just looked up some of those publishing dates. A few in the late eighties, and boy, I had no idea that Dragonriders of Pern started in the 1960s!!!! Also, looking at that list, I'm once again gobsmacked that anyone doesn't think there were plenty of good female authors in fantasy to grow up with....

I think I would have heard about it if that had stopped being the case.

So, I've missed the last two threads. Apart from RBG dying, anything else of particular note happen?

Well duh. That's what anyone informed on this is saying. Boris signed the agreement. The backstop was pretty much put in there so that the deal could be signed, and was one of the major issues for May getting anything through parliament. Now Boris wants to pretend that the evil EU are somehow wrong to interpret the agreement the way it reads (and which everyone understood was what it meant) because it means the UK may start breaking up under his watch. I just don't understand what his end game is, unless he thinks the EU will miraculously fold. Maybe the intention is to try and break the trade deal by exporting/importing goods via Ireland, in the expectation that the EU won't build a hard border due to the GFA? Its a head scratcher.

On the first bit, I've got no idea how the movement of people will work. Messily I suspect. On the second, that would be why the internal markets bill is breaking the treaty ... and why Boris is saying enforcing the WA would be the EU trying to break up the union.