Anti-democratic political decisions in the Western countries

[Spathi]

1) In many US states and in Poland, the abortions are prohibited. At the same time, in some US states the referendums had been performed relating this question, and as far as I know, everywhere the people voted to allow abortions (both in Democratic and Republican states);

2) During last 20 years, the Europe had been de-militarizing, the governments of the European countries did everything to reduce funding of the armies. Since 2016, Trump tried to criticize the European leaders for spending less than 2% of GDP for the armies, and only in last months he had success with this – after his public “betrayal” of Ukraine and new defeats of Ukraine. At the same time, in Switzerland several times the referendums had been performed, where people voted to keep conscription. So I am sure that people in other European countries would always vote for increasing the spending of money for their armies, if they are asked about this;

3) In Germany, the nuclear plants have been closed; at the same time, in Switzerland some referendums had been performed where people voted for keeping the nuclear plants working.

The closure of last German nuclear plant in 2023 was a crime; in fact, Europe continues buying oil from Putin as before, funding his war. I can explain this statement if it is not clear yet.

 

[dlu]

What discussion about democracy are you attempting to initiate?

Your examples are more complicated than written.
1. a pregnancy lasts for 9 months. During this time period, when should (on demand ) abortions be allowed, and for what reasons. Do you think pro-lifers or pro-abortionists have the moral superiority?
2. Having a national security force is usually necessary to some degree. To what degree should finances be directed to an armed force, and what areas of the national economy will then receive less than they could have?
3. Germany and Switzerland are two separate countries. Comparing the response the governments of each other to having nuclear power is disingenuous, in that does the decision of one population have to mirror another?

 

[Spathi]

1. a pregnancy lasts for 9 months. During this time period, when should (on demand ) abortions be allowed, and for what reasons. Do you think pro-lifers or pro-abortionists have the moral superiority?

As far as I can see, liberal pro-abortionists usually talk about the abortions at first 3 months of the pregnancy. They do not deny that an abortion at 6th month is a bad thing.

2. Having a national security force is usually necessary to some degree. To what degree should finances be directed to an armed force, and what areas of the national economy will then receive less than they could have?

Europe is placed close to Russia, and it seems important for Europeans to have an army for protecting themself against Russia.

3. Germany and Switzerland are two separate countries. Comparing the response the governments of each other to having nuclear power is disingenuous, in that does the decision of one population have to mirror another?

I suppose, common people are not really different in these countries. The closure of the plants in Germany made it more dependant on Russian oil, and it seems very reasonable for me, that Putin has a strong lobby in EU... As you possibly know, former German chancelor Gerhard Schröder is living in Russia and working for Putin now.

 

[dlu]

Abortion rights on their own can become a testy subject. I would include instead such a topic in general extended rights from basic human rights for those countries that do have a written constitution such as the US, or implied from amalgamation of historical laws and charters such as Britain ( unless they have one now ).

Europe is placed close to Russia, and it seems important for Europeans to have an army for protecting themself against Russia

Russia was OK after the Communists fell and the country joined the world for a while. Putin, and his imperialist agenda, changed Europe from not having the need of large standing armies to what is happening right now. He actually could have applied to join NATO rather than do the doinkiness he is doing , and the world, and Russia, would be a better place.

This ties in with your previous posting of the war in Ukraine being "This is the first war in history, when one side uses nuclear threats to dictate to the other how it can and how it cannot fight." The European countries now arming themselves for a possible direct conflict with Russia/Putin will find themselves in a dilemma. If another country is attacked, such as Romania or Poland, do they declare war against a nuclear power and go full on out, or do the wishy-washy and wag their finger as they were prone to do with Crimea. Your premise may be coming to light I dare say.

The closure of the plants in Germany made it more dependant on Russian oil

I have no idea why Germany, wanting to go green, closed the plants. Better minds know better. Perhaps the life-cycle was up, and the refurbishing was too expensive they thought, or the removal and storage of the nuclear waste was problematic. BTW, Quebec in Canada did the same thing, closing ( 2012 ) Gentilly-2 for ' social acceptability issues ', choosing to instead do the more environmentally disruptive route of producing extra electricity by damming more rivers, yet calling itself green and responsible. A lack of foresight by the politicians of the day, ( even though they had a contract to continue buying heavy water for the Candu style reactor ).

 

[Spathi]

The Western countries have adopted the ideology of protecting LGBT and other minorities. I am not a homophobe and I rather support the original idea, but now this policy has led to some abuses (Putin's propaganda loves to talk about them in order to instill in Russians hostility towards the West and democracy). As examples of these abuses I can name transgender people in big sport. I hope you respect Sabine Hossenfelder, and even she has become concerned about this topic:



One of the reasons why Americans elected Trump was his promise to end such things. However, Trump is an unpleasant person in other aspects, so it is very likely that after 4 years the Americans will elect a president from Democrats who will return all this to the way it was. If Trump was smart, he would hold an all-US referendum proposing to enshrine only two genders in the constitution and so on, but unfortunately he is not smart (if he was smart, the ruling class would not have allowed him to participate in the elections).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I hope you respect Sabine Hossenfelder, and even she has become concerned about this topic

Outside of tiny margins of elite sports this is a non issue and devised as a weapon of cultural war by bad actors.

 

[dlu]

The Western countries have adopted the ideology of protecting LGBT and other minorities. I am not a homophobe and I rather support the original idea,

As do a whole lot of people support the notion of not picking on people different than themselves, but letting them have a fair chance at pursuing life dreams, within reason of course.

The movement of the LGBT community has warped into becoming an orthodoxy, by the activists and uncritical mindless supporters.

Orthodoxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is evident by you having to explain yourself as 'not homophobic', perhaps so as to not become at target, hopefully it is wished, of their wrath, and labelled as an extremely bad, bad person, in asking the slightest question(s) about the standards of the movement. The messenger ( questioner ) is attacked as a heretic, rather than the message being analyzed, and suitable retorts produced.

You also say "I rather support the original idea". Even so. being sensitive to LGBT movement and the trials and tribulations of its members, will not act as a shield against the activists and uncritical mindless supporters, who let themselves be word triggered for the slightest reason.

Sabine talks about the science. Nothing about the social and cultural implications.

all-US referendum proposing to enshrine only two genders in the constitution

Not a guarantee to ensure everlasting peace and compromise.

 

[dlu]

Outside of tiny margins of elite sports this is a non issue and devised as a weapon of cultural war by bad actors.

One orthodoxy coming up against another will always lead to cultural and societal friction. What is considered a bad actor? Those who point out flaws in the others arguments? Or those who consider the others' arguments as being irrelevant to their cause?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What is considered a bad actor?

It's all about intent. Conservative MAGA operatives have ginned up this topic because it rallies their base for political wins, not because it's a priority issue that needs to be solved. The John Oliver video I linked to has direct quotes of this intent.

 

[dlu]

it rallies their base

Of the 51% of those who voted for Trump, not are all die-hard Maga supporters, where this issue could make or break. The Hard Boys, or whatever they are called, are not representative of the Maga crowd. The activists on both sides, use sideline arguments that obfuscate, and suck the life out of any meaningful discussion. John Oliver does this himself, so not innocent in his attempt to sway or re-enforce opinion - he is in the business to cherry pick events for ratings, and in doing so, can solidify what an individual witnesses about the issue, be that person either a Maga or a non-Maga.

Most trans just want to left alone, lead the simple life, like every one else. but instead get swamped into the fray. The Maga crowd as being all against trans is a illusion, as is the proposition that all trans want to do is go out, protest, and convert. My post was about the activists who prey on uncritical mindless supporters, of which John Oliver is one on this and other issues, trying to utilize comedy as a cover so its OK to fan the flames. That is dis-honest.

Bad actors with large social media audiences on the Maga side are also many talented in their approach with the men-women issue, utilizing arguments that seem simple and iron clad, but is actually an attempt also to glean and opinionate supporters into their way of thinking.

We all are uncritical and mindless to some extent - that's how humans are able to survive in many social settings by joining the crowd be it in politics, love and war, religious settings, the corporate and legal world.
Activists can bring about change and revolution of thought as seen throughout history, where the change, can be gradually accepted or rejected, or violent to the point of war winner take all.

Whether at one time there ever was decent conversation about this issue, or just the one-sided "we should do this, and only this" is forgotten, Having morphed into the for/against binary choices seems to me to be detrimental to those who may not quite fit into the mythical versions of the male-female versions of the species.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think my main takeaway point is that we need to learn to prioritize properly. All this energy on trans issues on the right could be refocused on actual critical systemic issues affecting millions of people.

 

[Spathi]

Sabine talks about the science. Nothing about the social and cultural implications.

As far as I can see, she is relatevely pro-Trump for a person from Europe. Here is one more of her videos:



She tells an interesting fact revealed by polls: the Dem supporters are more prone to violating the freedom of speech, if this is needed for the victory of their parties, than the Rep supporters. My observations at different web forums support this trend.

 

[dlu]

As far as I can see, she is relatevely pro-Trump for a person from Europe.

I have no idea. I have never looked at her political persuasions.

Not a bad video.
I have to take her extra quiz, as I had thought that for a republic, one elects the country's head of state, but I could be easily argued with.

I did not understand her AI app for politics - for lazy people I suppose.

She did not mention the 'politician for life' problem, the dynasty problem ( 2 Bushes, possible 2 Clintons for President, and possibly a second Trump son, daughter for 2029 ( who knows ).

If she thinks democracy is not so alive and and well in the US, then she should have looked at Canada where it is/was even worse. At least in the US Democrats and Repubs can argue and disagree amongst the members of their own party, and votes on and issue follow some sense of personal moral and ethical reflection. In Canada, you tow the party line or get backbenched if not ejected from caucus, career over.
Broken promises ran rampant during the last 10 years - one was electoral reform to proportional representation, but sidelined once the Trudeau liberals got into power, and now forgotten.

Better now with Carney - so far he hasn't cried fake tears, blabbered away about nothings, done in any of the women members, shown his socks, dressed up as an east Indian, nor appeared on the cover of magazine. He seems to be more about the business of running a country rather than superficial self promotion.