Linkey

This does not contradict to what I wrote. If I say that a politician A, which is supported by you, does something bad, and you reply that a politician B does some other bad things - even if is this true, this does not mean that I was wrong relating the politician A. If we compare USA with Europe, I suppose, Europe looks like USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom. In Europe, it is too difficult for a smart person to start his own business. The state controls almost everything, and the numerous laws make small business too difficult.

This forum is owned by a person from Europe?

These reactions are expected, since I know that all people who could support me have been already banned long ago ("we had some pro-Trumpists here before, but we banned them because they lied" ©). Can I ask the members one more question - who is sponsoring this forum and determining its moderation?

I believe that there is a very easy way for Trump to stop the war in Ukraine: he must initiate an all-US referendum with suggestions to prohibit big sports for transgenders, and establish that there are only two genders, men and women. If such a referendum is performed, Russians will experience a cognitive dissonance – they will realize that democracy leads to prohibiting gender diversity – and their worldviews will evolute, so they would stop supporting Putin and his war. This is so simple… Now I have a questions – what does Trump do now, to prohibit big sports for transgender people?

Bitcoins are analogous to gold; both gold and bitcoins are limited in total amount, making them an effective way to store money without paying the "inflation tax". However, there are currently many problems with cryptocurrencies, such as the division into "pure" and "dirty" crypto, and I am not sure that cryptocurrencies are more convenient to use than gold. And this leads to a new question: why the gold is not growing as fast as bitcoins? Maybe buying gold is illegal in the US/Europe?

People often claim that the referendum democracy is a bad idea, because common people are profanes and can't vote competently. I have an argument against this: as far as I know, during last 170 years, only one time people in Switzerland voted on a referendum for increasing the social benefits.

Ok, that seems good. I am sure that a person must be obliged only to read some amount information in the voting application and choose any decision including "I don't know". This choice will be equal to not voting for the decision, but it increases the voting turnout. I suppose, it is not necessary to force people to study something that helps to vote competently, because there is one more mechanism: people need to have a common aim for friendship, and it will be an easy way to get friends - participate in some political club where each referendum is discussed. In these clubs the people will voluntary study sciences like economy or history.

I created a thread "Referendum democracy - how it can work", but Swansoft moved my post here.

Firstly, you should read about the Easterlin paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox The economic growth itself does not do anybody happier. During last 500 years, the productivity of labour of the planet has increased maybe 1000 times, but the people haven't become happier because of this. So, an inefficiency of governing the country will be only a small problem with the referendum democracy. Only psychological factors can make the society happier, and they include the aim in life, which helps people gather friends (for friendship people need to have common aims).

Current idea of modern (representative) democracy is simple and looks fine: the population choses between several professional politicians in power via voting. However, in fact this does not work: these professional politicians establish a “cartel agreement” (often even unconscious) and a monopoly of elites on information, and this prevents people who do not belong to elites from starting a political career (only Zelensky as exception). Here I suggest “democracy 2.0”, and the main aspect of it is a big number of referendums, which are performed maybe each week. This system will motivate common people to study sciences like economics for more competent voting. The referendums can be performed online; currently some IT decisions like DeFi can be used for guaranteeing that the votes will be calculated both closed (anonymous) and confidently/honestly (I can explain this later). Here is most important idea: these multiple referendums will not be referendums in strict meaning, because they will not have a legal force; instead, they will reveal what people want, and the power will have to fulfill the will of nation. If a referendum was “profane”, theoretically the power can reject is in the interest of people, but it will have to explain this later, after leaving the power – otherwise the politicians who ignored the will of nation will be imprisoned via a decision of people via a new referendum. I mean that the people will be able to either imprison somebody, or vice versa give somebody a juridical immunity, via a referendum.

Israel is currently afraid of starting a full-scale war with Iran, because Iran is bigger and has more resources. However, I believe that Israel could easily win this war if it turned it into a nonzero sum game and set its goal to interest the Iranian people and turn them into an ally. To do this, Israel needs to announce in social media that it is starting an offensive with only one goal - performing a referendum in Iran with the following questions: 1) Unblocking Youtube; 2) Freeing political prisoners; 3) Abolishing censorship and repressive laws; 4) Transferring power from the Ayatollah to the President; 5) Amnesty for all Iranian military personnel who went over to Israel's side. Israel must emphasize that it will play by the rules, and aims to make the Iranian people an ally; It is necessary to promise that the Iranian people will be able to vote against all these points in a referendum, and Israel will accept this choice. Why the Israeli authorities didn’t choose this path?

Nobody has denied this connection. You claimed that Ozempic and Mounjaro affected these, and you have given no evidence of that. I watched this information somewhere in a vlog. Currently I tried to find this information, and found e.g. the following: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-ozempic-and-wegovy-might-change-your-favorite-food GLP-1 drugs—initially designed to help treat type 2 diabetes by triggering insulin release—can cause weight loss by making people feel full faster. But some people report that in addition to an increase in satiety, they experience changes in their preferences for specific foods—they find meats suddenly repulsive, fried foods too heavy and savory snacks unappealing. On online forums and in scientific surveys, some people have expressed a general loss of interest in food overall—a few have even said that the drugs have redefined food as a necessity rather than a joy for them.

I tried to find studies relating the connection between the pleasure from food and phychological factors; GPT agreed with this statements, and provided me a lot of refs like these: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3498255/#:~:text=In%20the%20present%20studies%2C,about%20orange%20juice%20%28suggesting https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/166275/arcp1069.pdf?sequence=2#:~:text=We%20also%20identify%20key,marketing%20context%2C%20including%20social https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244021989318 It is not clearly stated in these studies what I wrote, but the number of refs also matters, and in general, the refs lead to this conclusion.

The idea of psycho-activity is mine: previously I watched a science blogger who said that our pleasure from food is psychological to a significant extent. So I thought that suppressing this pleasure is a psycho-activity.

In last years, Elon Musk have been using Ozempic against obesity: https://www.axios.com/2024/12/26/elon-musk-ozempic-mounjaro-weight-loss As far as I can see, the Ozempic can be considered as a psycho-active drug (usually, the pleasure from eating is maybe rather psychological then physiological). And here is some more information: it seems that last time Musk have lost his mind: Maybe these two facts are related?

In last years, Elon Musk have been using Ozempic against obesity: As far as I can see, the Ozempic can be considered as a psycho-active drug (usually, the pleasure from eating is maybe rather psychological then physiological). And here is some more information: it seems that last time Musk have lost his mind: Maybe these two facts are related?

The West has 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, or gender-neutral toilets. I hope you respect Sabine Hossenfelder, and even she has become concerned about this topic: https://youtu.be/cZ9YAFYIBOU 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).

Again, at this forum people say that I "lie" when they simply don't like my formulations. Anyway, at the Reddit pose I cited above, it is said that the response rates have decreased from 70% in old times to 2% now. If the response rate in a poll is indeed only 2%, it is correct to say that this poll is fake.

You shouldn't trust the polls in the Western countries, they become more and more fake in last decades. For example, no poll could predict the victory of Trump. This is explained by the decrease of the percentage of respondents who agree to participate in the polls (response rates): when people are afraid of saying "politically incorrect" answers, they simply refuse to answer in the poll. The decrease of the response rate in USA and Europe is reported in many sources, and according to the refs below, the response rate have decread 6 or maybe 30 times in last 3 decades: Pew Research CenterResponse rates in telephone surveys have resumed their de...Response rates to telephone public opinion polls conducted by Pew Research Center have resumed their decline, to 7% in 2017 and 6% in 2018. Cambridge CoreThe Twilight of the Polls? A Review of Trends in Polling...The Twilight of the Polls? A Review of Trends in Polling Accuracy and the Causes of Polling Misses - Volume 53 Issue 4 https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-polling#:~:text=In%20January%202018%2C%20Gallup,As%20Gallup%20points%20out%2C

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany Energy in Germany is obtained primarily from fossil fuels, accounting for 77.6% of total energy consumption in 2023, followed by renewables at 19.6%, and 0.7% nuclear power.[1][2] It seems very arguing that Putin has a big lobby in EU, which forces such decisions (de-militarization and de-nuclearization). Maybe you know that a former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder is living in Russia now and working for Putin.

In 2023, the EU spended 279 billion for the defense (1.3% of GDP), while USA spended 916 billion (3.5% of GDP). I want to say that the people in European countries would vote for spending for the defense more, if any referendum was performed. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ https://eda.europa.eu/publications-and-data/defence-data

I have already explained: Russia sells the same amount of oil as before 2022, but the Russian oil now goes to China instead of Europe. If the European countries reduced the oil consumption, they would not start buying the oil from Saudi Arabia, and in this case China would still buy the oil from SA, not from Russia. The closure of German nuclear plants have increased the dependence of Europe from oil, and Europe can't stop buying the oil from SA.

Oil too. Before 2022, China bought oil from Saudi Arabia, Europe from Russia; now it is just vice versa. Besides that, if I am not mistaken, Germany is buying the petrol from India which is made in India from Russian oil.

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 the last 20 years, the Europe had been de-militarizing, the governments of the European countries did everything to reduce funding of their 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 you don’t understand.

For those who are interested in the topic of the growth of inequality, I can suggest this article: https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf The author attributes the growth of inequality to the fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich in the 80s. The inequality can be measured as the percentage of the property in the world which belongs to the richest 1% of population. The author also writes that the mainstream Western media is silent about this problem or is lying. This is evident with CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply — these 1% of the richest are interested in such a state of affairs, and they control these media.