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.

5 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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;

This does not make any sense. Downsizing of military followed the end of the cold war. It is also a bit silly to extrapolate demands of a country, which isn't even part of the European Union to the whole of Europe. In fact, polls and articles around that time highlighted the different path Switzerland was taking compared to other European countries, including UK, France and Germany.

14 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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.

This also highlights how badly this extrapolation works. In Germany, nuclear plants were deeply unpopular with a large swath of the population. While the Green party was pushing for it politically, most of the time, the anti-nuclear movement was a deeply populist movement with large protests throughout the 90s and 2010s against nuclear power. The Fukushima incident further empowered that movement and ultimately made a continuation of nuclear power politically nonviable. However, with the threat of global warming increasing, combined with high energy cost, the mood has been shifting in the last few years.

Also you are misrepresenting the situation in Switzerland somewhat. First after Fukushima, there was a big push by the population to phase out nuclear power (from Wiki):

In May 2011, following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, some 20,000 people turned out for Switzerland's largest anti-nuclear power demonstration in 25 years. Demonstrators marched peacefully near the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant, the oldest in Switzerland, which started operating in 1969.^[5][6] Days after the anti-nuclear rally, Cabinet decided to ban the building of new nuclear power reactors. The country's five existing reactors would be allowed to continue operating, but "would not be replaced at the end of their life span".^[1]

The failed referendum was aimed to limit that lifespan. However:

: On 21 May 2017, 58 percent of Swiss voters accepted the new Energy Act establishing the energy strategy 2050 and forbidding the construction of new nuclear power plants.^[9]

24 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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.

Germany is buying natural gas, not oil. There are lot of wild extrapolations in OP and none of them are pointing out, as the title suggests, "Anti-democratic political decisions in the Western countries". With the possible exceptions of abortions, which seems to run counter the popular vote in the respective country.

42 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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

Nope. EU spending was (in USD) $176B in 2005 and $258B in 2022. There was a post-2008 decline, almost like there was an economic crisis, not caused by Europe, that might have had an effect.

And budget cycles are long, so anything happening in the last few month is likely not driven by the current Trump administration

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget

Care to revise your premise? And explain the “anti-democratic” issue here?

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

With the possible exceptions of abortions, which seems to run counter the popular vote in the respective country.

And people are free in the US to vote for representatives who align with their wishes. But in several states, they don’t do this.

The right wing government in my country (Poland) that was in power 2015-23:banned abortion and several women died because of this.

It also stopped funding IVF which resulted in 50,000 fewer children being born.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by Otto Kretschmer

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Germany is buying natural gas, not oil.

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.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

Besides that, if I am not mistaken, Germany is buying the petrol from India which is made in India from Russian oil.

Oil generally refers to crude, and petrol is used in automobiles. What’s the connection to nuclear power, which was part of your premise?

In any event, Germany’s imports from Russia dropped to basically zero since 2023. The decrease began in 2022

https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/crude-oil-imports-from-russia

And total crude imports are lower than in the past

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/Foreign-Trade/Tables/crude-oil-yearly.html

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.

8 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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.

That’s beside the point, though. The issue was about your claim about Germany, which is false. They are not importing more oil. Trying to move the goalposts does not help your credibility. I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice your habit of making arguments based on dubious (and unsourced) claims.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Nope. EU spending was (in USD) $176B in 2005 and $258B in 2022. There was a post-2008 decline, almost like there was an economic crisis, not caused by Europe, that might have had an effect.

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

Just now, Linkey said:

The closure of German nuclear plants have increased the dependence of Europe from oil, and Europe can't stop buying the oil from SA.

Actually no it doesn't follow at all.

Year	electricity production 109 kWh
1961	0.024
1970	6.0
1980	42.6
1990	146.1
2000	168.5
2005	163.0
2010	140.5
2014	97.1

The first graph show the expansion of non nuclear renewable electricity in Germany and the following table shows the generation of nuclear power.

The timescales are the closest match I can quicly and easily find.

It is obvious from these figures that

1. The decline in nuclear started well before the Ukraine war.
   

2. Renewable generation has more than replaced the lost nuclear capacity ( in fact nearly double by 2014)
   

Edited June 4Jun 4 by studiot

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.

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

In 2023, the EU spended 279 billion for the defense (1.3% of GDP), while USA spended 916 billion (3.5% of GDP).

Which is quite different from claiming that spending decreased (“reduce funding of their armies”)

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

I want to say that the people in European countries would vote for spending for the defense more, if any referendum was performed.

Easy to claim, but what evidence supports it?

Just now, Linkey said:

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.

Would you like to know what my first reaction to your post was ?

Well I thought " Germany is famous for its dependance on coal.

Well did you read that article you linked to ?

If my figures about renewables v nuclear cut your russian oil argument off at the knees, this comment from your article, this article cuts the legs off it completely.

lost in Germany's phase-out was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by studiot

35 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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.

You just saw your de-militarization claim debunked, and here you repeat it.

I don’t see how Fukushima is related to Putin, and Germany’s electrical capacity from nuclear (just over 20 GW in 2010) is much smaller than the installed renewables that have been added since 2010 (~60 GW in 2010, ~180 GW in 2024)

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts#

Maybe stop trying to push a narrative without checking to see if it’s supported by facts

On 6/3/2025 at 9:20 PM, CharonY said:

In fact, polls and articles around that time highlighted the different path Switzerland was taking compared to other European countries, including UK, France and Germany.

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 Center

Response 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 Core

The 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

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

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 Center

Response 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 Core

The 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

There is no evidence here of any poll being “faked”. This just seems to be another of your unsupported assertions.

There are challenges with obtaining representative poll responses, now that people are more cagey about answering the telephone. That may have an impact on poll accuracy. But accusing polls of being fake implies deliberate falsification, which is quite another matter.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by exchemist

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

You shouldn't trust the polls in the Western countries

Nor internet randos named Linkey who are quite clearly here to push propagandist narratives

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

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.

You shouldn't conflate a poll, in the public eye, with a fake, or anti-democratic process; it's ill informed... 😉

Much like your hero 'the Trump', or how history may remember him, 'the anti-democrat'.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

There is no evidence here of any poll being “faked”. This just seems to be another of your unsupported assertions.

There are challenges with obtaining representative poll responses, now that people are more cagey about answering the telephone. That may have an impact on poll accuracy. But accusing polls of being fake implies deliberate falsification, which is quite another matter.

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.

29 minutes ago, Linkey said:

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.

No it isn’t at all. Fake implies deception.

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

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.

Polls are samplings of a very tiny fractions of a population, to begin with. The question of sampling error is if that 2% of answerers is somehow skewed with respect to the target population. A sampling error is NOT fakery, it is just an added challenge in terms of what weightings are applied to your data. Pollsters ask demographic and background questions precisely to detect skewing, e.g. if landline answers are dominated by bored 75 year olds who lean conservative, then reputable polls look for other methods to poll younger people, people who can't afford landlines, people who mainly communicate through social media, etc. And they use demographic data to see if raw data needs weightings to compensate for missing groups, groups that have a cultural reticence, etc. It may all fail to get a good cross section, but that doesn't mean there was deliberate fakery.

What it calls for is making use of "polls of polls" where one can try to average out results from companies using a range of data collection methods.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Polls are samplings of a very tiny fractions of a population, to begin with. The question of sampling error is if that 2% of answerers is somehow skewed with respect to the target population. A sampling error is NOT fakery, it is just an added challenge in terms of what weightings are applied to your data. Pollsters ask demographic and background questions precisely to detect skewing, e.g. if landline answers are dominated by bored 75 year olds who lean conservative, then reputable polls look for other methods to poll younger people, people who can't afford landlines, people who mainly communicate through social media, etc. And they use demographic data to see if raw data needs weightings to compensate for missing groups, groups that have a cultural reticence, etc. It may all fail to get a good cross section, but that doesn't mean there was deliberate fakery.

What it calls for is making use of "polls of polls" where one can try to average out results from companies using a range of data collection methods.

I think this came up in a thread not too long ago - how phone responses are used a lot less precisely because the response rate had dropped.

I agree that fakery requires deliberate intent to deceive, which has not been demonstrated, and is not sampling error or bias.

15 hours ago, Linkey said:

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.

People on this forum are saying that you are not reading your own sources and you are wildly extrapolating based on what you think and not what the information that you provide says. For example, from your earlier link it says:

But low response rates don’t necessarily mean that telephone polling is completely broken. Studies examining the impact of low response on data quality have generally found that response rates are an unreliable metric of accuracy. Pew Research Center studies conducted in 1997, 2003, 2012 and 2016 found little relationship between response rates and accuracy, and other researchers have found similar results. In the 2018 midterm election, polls – including those conducted by phone with live interviewers – performed well by historical standards. Nonpartisan polls in 2018 were more accurate, on average, than midterm polls since 1998.

Yet your interpretation is that somehow the polls are faked.

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).

I love the smell of bait in the morning.