开云体育

1. Did Ukraine make a mistake giving up it's nuclear weapons in 1994?

Yes

2. What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th century?

Anthropogenic global warming aka climate change.

3. Should biological males who self identify as female be allowed to compete against biological females in athletic events?

Of course not. The whole idea is nonsense. Males and females compete separately, not so everybody can feel all warm and fuzzy because they're competing against their own gender, but because male bodies are on average bigger, stronger, heavier and faster than female bodies. Competing against each other can be dangerous to someone with a female body in some sports, and even when it's not dangerous there is no possibility of equal competition. So what matters is the body, not the chosen gender. If you have chosen to be a girl but you live in a male body, you should compete against other male bodies. Be a girl in every other aspect of your life if that's what you want, but for physical competition gender doesn't matter, physical body does.

The same should apply to housing people in public institutions such as jails. There are too many women being raped by the "women" housed with them who have fully intact male bodies. If you have a penis you belong in a male housing unit, not among female bodies. Simple. I don't understand why there is even a controversy over this, it is so obvious. If you have made the full commitment to being a girl by having male parts surgically removed, then you could be housed with female inmates. But for sports competitions, if your body was male through puberty it has grown bigger and stronger muscles and longer arms and legs that will not change; your natural competitors are other male bodies.

I predict that a lot of these male athletes who have become girls for competition will suddenly decide, after their competitive careers are finished, that they don't really want to be girls after all, and reverse their "conversions". There are too many of them for this to be anything other than taking advantage of their physical advantage over girls with female bodies. And the ones in jails have claimed to be women in most cases specifically to get into women's prisons so they can freely commit rape.

True gender dysphoria is very rare. The epidemic of trans happening now is driven by other things, those mentioned above among others. Adolescent girls are claiming to be trans in ridiculous numbers, absolutely impossible to happen naturally. In part, all this is being pushed by "woke" teachers who should all be fired. It's also the only way to get yourself into one of the "special" groups under the despicable doctrine of woke. Being "oppressed" is the only thing that gives you status in the woke world. To be classed as oppressed you must be either black, homosexual, or trans. Being female ranks if you're a black or lesbian female but not if you're white. So, to be part of the "in" crowd, which every teenager has always craved, they must declare themselves trans.

A generation ago young girls were killing themselves with eating disorders and life-threatening weight loss to be "in". Now they are destroying their lives just as thoroughly by taking hormones or having surgery to become trans, leaving them mutilated and infertile when they finally grow up and realize what they have done. The big difference is that, last generation, adults recognized the danger girls were putting themselves in, and tried to help them recover. Now, there are no adults in the woke world; teachers, therapists, and even doctors encourage them and give the harmful drugs and surgeries without adequate psychological testing or counselling.

The only solution is to defeat the woke movement and get the world back in the hands of adults.

Good question. In personality and character the 2 of them are almost identical, ruthless narcissistic psychopaths. At the moment, Putin is by far the more dangerous. He has training and experience, and operates in a country that is accustomed to authoritarian rule and corruption. Trudeau has neither the training nor the experience, and is operating in a country accustomed, until the last 6 and 1/2 years, to freedom, autonomy, and good governance. And Trudeau's natural incompetence makes him less dangerous. He doesn't inflict all of the harm that he wants to because he simply doesn't know how to get things done. Really, his incompetence is his only positive quality. But that only answers which one SHOULD be taken out of power first, not which one will be.

Trudeau has just announced a deal with Canada's 3rd political party, the NDP, to prop up his minority government and keep him in power until 2025, when an election must be held. This deal doesn't really change anything; the NDP have been propping him up all along, voting with the Liberals on every question. This deal just formalizes what they were already doing. But it means we know the government won't fall to a non-confidence vote. The Liberal caucus could still remove Trudeau in an instant, but they won't, not unless he does something to really make them angry, and they weren't bothered a bit by his authoritarian treatment of the Freedom Convoy; they all went along with all of his lies. So don't hold your breath.

Putin, who knows? He will only be removed if his own people decide he's a liability. Even then, he seems to take a lot of precautions to keep them far away from him; he would be hard to take out. Are they unhappy with him? He appears to be losing the war in Ukraine, but is that true? Maybe he's playing NATO like a card shark, holding back most of the strength of his army until NATO, thinking the Russian army is weak, makes a move that he can retaliate against.

Personally, I would like to see both of them gone, and I don't care how it happens in either case.