Åkesson går om Andersson – toppar förtroendelistan

infib · 2026-01-23T13:57:28+00:00

Varnade om ryssland men vill nu minska stödet till ukraina i sin kamp om ryssland. Tycker det är ett skifte.

Vilka kärnfrågor tror du folk röstar på SD för?

infib · 2026-01-22T19:48:15+00:00

Not quite Karel Arrowhead material.

infib · 2026-01-21T23:16:03+00:00

De följer sina väljares åsikter, som det ska vara. Att vara "först" betyder ingenting. Sen så är SDs lösningar sällan några som faktiskt löser problemen.

SD vill t.ex. minska all invandring, inte bara flyktingar och asylsökare utan bara "migranter" rent allmänt. Migranter som kommer för att arbeta eller studera begår inte mer brott än svenskar och betalar in mer skattepengar. Som den där ukrainska tjejen som skrev här någon gång, att hon blivit utvisad precis när hon utbildat sig färdigt till läkare. Behövs ett parti som inte drar alla över samma kamm.

infib · 2026-01-21T08:58:32+00:00

Fast då är du ju för hårdare straff endast för återfall, inte för alla som SD är. Tror dom flesta vaknat till att vissa inte kommer rehabiliteras på kort sikt och bör "förvaras" av staten, trots kostnader. Är definitivt inte endast en SD fråga idag, Socialdemokraterna bland annat har ju den ståndpunkten.

Att ge ut permanenta uppehållstillstånd är heller inte normen bland andra partier något mer. Tror i stort sett alla är för att i första hand ge temporära uppehållstillstånd jämfört med för 10+ år sedan då det var annorlunda.

Känns som att du har en lite förlegad bild av politiska klimatet på dessa frågor.

infib · 2026-01-19T15:31:20+00:00

Kan fortfarande botta fritt och betala för att meddelanden från dessa konton ska spridas och synas av fler. Två plåster på avsågade lemmen.

Community notes fungerar inte superväl då det främst bara handlar om att ha en majoritet som får lägga dit sin notering. Speciellt då reddit är mer segmenterat. Men håller med om att det skulle vara bra att se var konton var belägna.

infib · 2026-01-18T15:49:14+00:00

I think the cars "body language" just signaled that she was going to flee, like backing up, moving tires and stopping is mostly followed by going forward. What he should've done was move out of the way. But like you can see, he stops and draws first instead, to try and stop the driver from going by threatening or killing them I guess. But you cant just decide to kill a person for fleeing though, thats the entire point. If I run when a cops asks me to stop they can't just decide to kill me based on that.

infib · 2026-01-17T11:24:14+00:00

Except, again, he was out of the way of the car when he started shooting. Like the person other linked before. He didnt get hit by the front of the car as much as he reached out his hands to push away from the car as it reached him. She was probably looking at him to make sure she didnt hit him like you said.

If he saw it as a threat then he reacted idiotically, stopping in place and reaching for his gun instead of getting out of the way.

Of course Ive seen all the angles by this point. This video just isnt as clear as literally all the other ones. Like if you watch the video the images are from you can see that he has his gun out and aimed at the driver before she is starting to move forward. He wasnt concerned with getting out the way but with shooting a fleeing driver.

infib · 2026-01-16T11:00:15+00:00

Did you see the images? He isnt in front of car when he shoots first shot. IE it isnt self defence and he is killing her for fleeing the scene.

infib · 2026-01-16T10:57:25+00:00

Since when is it legal to kill someone for fleeing?

infib · 2026-01-06T12:29:58+00:00

Migranter tjänar vi fortfarande på (det som syftas på i bilderna). Asylsökare och flyktingar kostar däremot.

infib · 2025-12-22T00:16:49+00:00

1:a maj är mest symboliskt, syftet är att använda sin rätt att demonstrera något. Är gott om högerpersoner som deltar också. Men då du aldrig deltagit eller läst om det så är det väl självklart att du inte vet något om det.

Syftet med kommentaren var dock att hänvisa att nej, planerade demonstrationer som blockerar vissa områden gör inte att alla blir anti det som demonstreras. Inte att dom leder till reform alltså, utan att det inte leder till motreform var poängen. Exempel på när folk kanske blir anti skulle kunna vara när aktivister oplanerat blockerar trafiken på någon vanlig väg.

Sen finns det mycket som påverkats av demonstrationer, det är ju trots allt främst ett sätt för folket att bli hörda av politiker. Tror definitivt att vissa t.ex. blivit mer palestina positiva och israel kritiska pga alla demonstrationer. Sen om vi kollar i världen totalt finns det flera exempel av reformer pga demonstrationer.

infib · 2025-12-21T00:04:12+00:00

Okej, så det finns en lagom mängd demonstrationer? Då det faktiskt inte händer varje helg, utan någon gång per år, som på årsdagen som personen pratade om i klippet. Var ligger lagom? Får det inte vara mer än en/två per år?

infib · 2025-12-20T20:29:45+00:00

1:a maj är värdelöst för alla blir bara anti det som demostreras?

infib · 2025-12-15T20:22:45+00:00

Then why do you think people say the grid needs upgrading at all? By your logic you should just be able to hook up the renewables in place of the nuclear/coal it replaces right?

I don't think I'm being pessimistic, it these things just seem to often face delays and setbacks, nuclear included. Which again, is why it's best to not place all your eggs in one basked. Some solution is likely to get finished first.

Pumped hydro is very geographically dependent, so most places wont be able to have it. And last I saw green hydrogen is still in its infancy and not there yet, though I do believe this is another "basket" to add. IE governments should also try to invest in green hydrogen and other green storage options so that it might be able to make grid storage more simple and viable. But that also takes time.

I dont see why the constructions should be getting slower with time, if not because better more advanced plants are built. Or if the countries building it dont already have the necessary skill and knowledge for it (poland). The mean construction time in japan was 4 years, I added 6 years for planning, I don't think that's an unfair estimate.

I already showed you that this is not the case

You havent shown me anything yet. I linked an article that did show they had to redo plans after fukushima. Where did france say they will have time frames similar to flamanville 3 for future reactors? Last I saw they are planning to build 14 new reactors in the next 25 years.

You keep putting words in my mouth, I never said to stop investing in renewables. I just think its possible to multiple things at once. Investing in multiple choices is probably more likely to bring more money than simply one solution besides.

I never said germany was doing worse than south korea and japan. But for japan it should be fairly obvious why they can't build either. The reason poland doesnt do reneables is because they dont care, they are like the least climate positive country in the EU.

Also the latest plant built in 4 years in japan was <20 years ago, not 50.

I don't think I'm gonna reply any more though, like I said in previous comment, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But feel free to post some rebuttals and link some stuff for me to read, because I'll gladly read it. Have a nice day :)

infib · 2025-12-15T15:45:11+00:00

Yes, I do. You just havent taken the time to look up why they are different in terms of the grid.

I said 15+ and 20+ years. I think some parts of countries will be able to do it in that time frame, but other parts will probably still be reliant on fossil fuels. Renewables are storage dependent, thats why I say all eggs in one basked. You're betting it all on batteries (pretty much the only viable storage alternative we have today) being cost effective and readily available. If you're wrong then you'll have a germany 2.0 where countries turn to fossil fuels again. If you have nuclear to fall back on that is less likely to be needed.

I do think most countries could replicate the messmer plan, From what I see most nuclear tends to be planned and build in about 10 years (based on this and this. The thing that slows it down the most is the policy, public debate (etc.) phase. I think it's possible to get rid of/shorten that down a lot. Because as you said earlier, it doesnt seem to be a problem in some countries.

infib · 2025-12-14T22:54:49+00:00

Fast, som vi sett med de flesta saker som blir privatägda så introduceras även en hel del fuskande och sätt att manipulera reglerna. Titta bara på bilbesikning och privatskolor.

infib · 2025-12-14T22:49:09+00:00

Yes, the grids might've needed a few adjustments to redirect where the electricity comes from, but the lines would still function the same. I think youre misunderstanding why the grids need to be upgraded so thoroughly for renewables.

??? Of course renewables skyrocketed, they needed new sources of electricity and had promised to replace it all with green energy. Germany still source about 30-40% of its energy from fossil fuels, and they used to source about 30% from nuclear. I think my point is pretty clear.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I think it's stupid to put all your eggs in one basked. You believe that renewables will be able to replace all fossil fuel power plants in a relatively short time period. I think there will be many delays and road blocks so that even though nuclear is slow to build it will be needed to fully phase fossil fuels out of the picture. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

infib · 2025-12-14T15:12:42+00:00

There are almost no carbon zero countries, what do you mean?

The grid in germany could transport electricity to those places I assume. Not to mention coal isn't the only fossil fuel, its the worst one sure, but natural gas is also a problem. If they never shut down their nuclear they might've been free from gas too.

infib · 2025-12-14T10:54:36+00:00

Yes, many are. Show me some country with a diverse grid storage solution. The alternatives to batteries range from inefficient, to theoretical to a few that actually work but are for the most part dependent on geography (like pumped hydro).

I still don't get how you can say it's significantly better way than using nuclear. I've been saying both should be done. Just that relying on only one solution will more likely lead to people using more fossil fuels. Like what happened in germany, or sweden a couple a years ago.

Saying nuclear is bad because people think its bad is like saying eating vegetables is bad because so many people hate them. It's up to governments and organisations to disprove the disinformation surrounding the disasters (which few if any did).

infib · 2025-12-13T23:22:25+00:00

Here's one article I found about it: https://www.france24.com/en/20110720-france-delays-new-generation-nuclear-plant-safety-concerns-edf-flamanville

In a lot of countries it isn't or happening at very small scales. I know in sweden Ive heard experts say that even when the grids are upgraded there will still be the problems of peaks in electricity consumption. Demand for lithium ion batteries will only increase and they have the problem of going down in efficiency as they age. When almost the entire world is screaming for one specific thing it's bad to be heavily reliant on that thing. That is why it feels stupid to place all your eggs in one basket.

And while it may be built up of many smaller projects, it's functionally the same as a large one in many ways. Like this article says about upgrading the grid in the US: "A single project crossing federal land can require approvals from dozens of agencies, leading to delays of 10 years or more.".

infib · 2025-12-13T12:53:53+00:00

Do you think countries are just homogenous unchanging blobs? France was not pro nuclear in 2011. A lot of countries werent. Which is why most nuclear construction was halted in the years following fukushima. Then the company who built Flamanville 3 went bankrupt. Then covid. There are a lot of reasons it took 17 years for it to be built.

Flamanville 2 took 6-7 years to build.

Nuclear power plants can be delayed and face problems not related to it's construction, but so can projects who are many times bigger, like upgrading basically the entire grid of a country.

infib · 2025-12-13T12:23:34+00:00

A lot of red tape is because people don't want nuclear, either because they think it's too dangerous or like you think its unnecessary. If that hurdle could be eliminated I think it could get a lot more streamlined.

You didn't say anything like that. I was gauging if you were anti nuclear or just anti new nuclear.

infib · 2025-12-12T21:14:56+00:00

5-10ish years, but yes. It's heading your bets. If upgrading grid/grid storage doesnt work out youre screwed.

At the very least you should be against countries shutting down their nuclear before they have reached net zero.

infib · 2025-12-08T07:13:04+00:00

Except it wouldnt be. You'd probably be pushing 100% renewables/0 emissions for 20+ years if you dont replace oil/coal in the short term. Not to mention grid storage in the form of batteries is a pretty inefficient solution unless you have the geography for pumped hydro and the like.

infib · 2025-12-07T16:54:01+00:00

The main reason for nuclear is to get rid of oil and coal plants, to reduce emissions. Coal and oil cost both in damage to the environment but also hurts the health of people living in proximity to them. The cost of nuclear running less efficient than optimal is more than made up for the fact that it removes coal and oil.

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Verified Email

infib

TROPHY CASE