I do own the game, but having played a game online I found out the hard way that if you're not a gamer, you're dead before the game has finished loading. The custom game list contains lots of fun maps though!

If this reporting is accurate, then it's outrageous how seemingly corrupt the voting system is! Perhaps an independent, neutral state or federal governmental vote counting body would be a good idea?

Casimir is such a cool name!

There's still lots of art and architecture made today in the style and theme of old European Catholicism by people who're completely atheistic. I think it's more stylistic and cultural inspirations than religious, because even though the style might've been developed by and incorporated into catholic art and architecture, originally it was from even older cultural and religious styles.

There is this comedian in my country who does this bit about how this "first world problems" thing is so annoying and done with. Instead, he goes through some hilariously horrible "third world problems"

That was not cool.

I'm not sure how you would gather statistics of females using rape as an excuse for abortion, and distinguish between those who actually have been raped or not. It's not like you could survey rape victim abortions with a questionnaire on whether or not it was really a rape or just an excuse to get the abortion.

First of all, there's no real set definition of rape as I've understood it, so it's entirely up to the woman to decide in gray area-cases. The way it works in my country, a woman can discover that the intercourse she partook in willingly and consentingly at the time, was in fact rape and as such she can file for rape charges. The term rape is so incredibly powerful for at the same time being so incredibly vague. This, I think, is the heart of the matter with what Paul's trying to get at, saying he would allow an abortion of a rape victim in the emergency ward but would be hesitant to someone 7 month pregnant.

Hilariously poor wording by him here, but this is one of those lose/lose-cases in US interviews. Had he defined what he meant by "honest rape", he'd been attacked for the definition whatever it would be. Now he's just attacked for not defining it.

The way they throw money at a greenscreen to avoid having to actually film stuff. I'm sure the animators are working very hard and are extremely good at what they do, but all impressiveness of a special effect is lost for me when it's computer rendered. They're over relying on green screening to such a ridiculous degree, even in areas where it's completely unnecessary, that it totally breaks my immersion.
Also, I'm pretty sure they could do this scene with practical effects if they at all cared about the art of film making. The physical restrictions of actors and effects were one of the reasons film makers had to be innventive, which did lead to interestingly shot scenes.

Doesn't it seem sad, somehow? A chubbier, balding, middle-aged Ferris, doing the same routine alone because his friends have all grown up and moved on. I guess there's a moral in there somewhere about conceit and ambitionless high school popularity.

Hey, equality! Who said only men can be ninjas?

He didn't say the war had nothing to do with slavery, though. He said that he didn't agree with the public schools teaching that slavery was the ONLY factor involved in the war, which is a significant difference. He even goes on to say that "you can't deny it wasn't an important issue". However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

That's almost everything I despise about modern movies.

Says the video is private

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?

I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.