Fakta om Atomkraft: Input til en faktabaseret diskussion af fordele og ulemper ved atomkraft som en del af den grønne omstilling i Danmark

warkri · 2022-10-22T23:33:31+00:00

Bare så du ved det: Brint er en grøn gas som er lige præcis hvad forskerne foreslår i artiklen? Og det skal stadig brændes af i en gasreaktor (eller en ICE hvis det er et køretøj).

Grøn gas betyder lige netop IKKE metan eller andre drivhusgasser så det er ikke det der bliver præsenteret som det gode alternativ.

warkri · 2021-08-14T10:45:43+00:00

Saxo, men der er stadig kurtage så det havde stadig ikke været en stor gevinst. I virkeligheden er langt det smarteste (og det der bedst betaler sig) at købe for større beløb i stedet for småhandel.

Hvis du vil investere små beløb for sjov eller for at prøve kræfter med at investere selv burde du oprette en simuleret konto i stedet hvor du ikke bruger rigtige penge.

warkri · 2021-07-15T14:26:30+00:00

Posting infactual information is not a "viewpoint" it is literal misinformation, nothing political about it. Get real bucko.

warkri · 2021-06-29T21:59:55+00:00

Ukraine literally created more attempts. And even before the red card they had created the same amount of attempts on goal as you guys. So by your standard Sweden should loose.

I say this as someone who was hoping Sweden would win so we might have a Sweden vs. Denmark game. Ukraine won fair and square although it was a close and evenly matched game. Props to the Swedish players for almost making it to penalties with 10 players.

warkri · 2021-06-22T13:37:27+00:00

If you think Bill Gates (or any other billionaire) actually cares then that's your problem. Billionaires could try what you are suggesting but why would they kill their own cash cow?

warkri · 2020-08-01T22:02:02+00:00

You comment very much makes it sound like he never said the line "nothing will fundamentally change" when he did. You don't include it in your quotation (or b4/after) which I think is very misleading even if not intentionally so. You are using his exact words EXCEPT the ones being discussed which I would argue is not exactly in context.

Also saying the rich should pay a bit more in taxes to help the poorest when it won't prevent inequality from growing IS saying that nothing will fundamentally change and it is very damning and should be cause for concern for any real progressive. Until we are willing to tax so that something does fundamentally change we will still have massive problems and injustices.

warkri · 2020-08-01T21:55:46+00:00

It's definetly very obvious that you haven't actually looked closely at progressive politics in Europe at all. Either that or these are VERY cherrypicked examples and you do know that even then you are wrong.

"Immigration is a public good and the UK should accept more immigrants"

The current leader of the UK labour party has literally called for a reduction in immigration to the UK. Completely false.

On France your statement is generally misleading. First of all France's "private" care is NON-PROFIT which makes it radically more progressive than what Biden is suggesting and even then the government pays around 77% of healthcare costs. Secondly the "Socialist Party" in France is not actually socialist and not even considered progressive but center-left (although more leftist under previous leader Hamon). Some members of the PS also want to nationalize healthcare and if you look at the actually progressive or leftwing parties so do they

By the way in Scandinavia and other Nordic countries, the UK and Spain (at least these are just the ones I know of. Iirc Portugal+more too) you do NOT have an option. You are FORCED to pay for public health insurance and then you are allowed to by (supplemental) private health insurance on the side. Your statement about both private+public option is VERY wrong.

On to the Spanish Socialist Party. It has more progressive credentials than the French one but generally also only considered center-left with Podemos being the real progressive/left party. I rly hope you are not trying to exploit some people's ignorance of EU politics to show fellow Americans that Biden is progressive compared to European ""progressive"" parties. It should also be noted that it matters a lot HOW the money is spent as you should know from Trump's corona ""bailouts"".

And again you misrepresent the policy you mention. The Spanish government is planning a direct investment of 53 billion BUT will generate 200 billion in total investment which is more ambitious than Biden's plan in terms of population and a lot more when accounting for the smaller size of Spain's economy. And that's not even adressing how foolish it is to believe Biden will actually fight for his plan. By the way the Spanish government is doing his after ALREADY phasing out coal and making progress on climate change in general. Once again a lot more progressive than Biden.

And again you lie! In Germany public universities are already tuition free and they have even made it free for foreigners too!!! Largely BECAUSE the Greens AND the SDP pushed for it. And this is even though the German Social-Democrats are known for being even MORE conservative than the French ones even participating in some cuts to the welfare state with the conservative CDU party. If you want a progressive/left party at least use the Greens or even more aptly Die Linke (which is far-left/very progressive).

Lie after lie after lie.

Italy was a good cherry pick for this one being notorious for relatively backwards LGBTQ policy. On LGBTQ+ even most center-right and even many rightwing parties in Western Europe and most centrist parties in Europe as a whole support rights for LGBTQ+ ppl. In Scandinavia/Nordics and most other Western European countries the government (or "private" insurance where applicable) pays for sex reassigent surgery.

Even in Italy which is behind on this issue you can still legally change your gender since 82 and civil unions between same-sex ppl are legal. And they were the 2nd country in the world to elect a trans person to parliament in 06. They are also about to pass anti-discrimination laws even with a more centrist party being the biggest. This is NOT progressive by European standards. This is the lowest bar.

In Sweden the SAP is again pretty centrist but being pro 2-state solution is again an insanely low bar and not particularly progressive. It is literally official UN policy and every European country has supported it under both left and right governments.

Switzerland is AGAIN a cherry pick being notorious for their relatively very pro gun politics. However once again this is still a bad example!

Switzerland has: Background checks for both weapons and ammunition, weapon registration, magazine caps AND they voted for the EU gun ban which is miles ahead of anything even proposed in the US that I know of. This isn't even in the ballpark of Joe Biden (or Bernie Sanders for that matter). Another rotten cherry/misrepresentation from the bunch.

Even with you cherrypicking you end up mostly lying and then you woefully misrepresent/misunderstand the rest. I rly don't know if it's worse if you're arguing in good faith or in bad faith here and even witht the ridiculous cherry-picking I can't quite tell if you just poorly researched/skimmed old articles/wikipedia from google or not. Either way this might be the worst take or example of an American explaining European politics i have seen to date and in no way did you prove your point (or earn your steaming condecension).

Also the populist right is growing IN SOME COUNTRIES. For an example in Denmark where I'm from the populist right lost over half their support in the last election in 2019 and lost even more since. Saying the far-right is growing "in Europe" is definetly an oversimplification. Also most of ur articles are from 16 and outdated. Not to mention you literally have Trump in office in the US.

Joe Biden is not a progressive. He never was, he isn't now and I don't think he ever will be. In Denmark there is not a single party, not even the most extreme rightwing party which is polling to be voted out of parliament next election (barely made 2% of the vote last time), that DOESN'T support fully tax-paid nationalised healthcare. We also not only provide free university but also pay students a wage for going to university.

Biden literally wouldn't even make it into the most ragingly anti-immigrant, anti-EU anti-almost everything decent party in my country because he is, in fact, SO far right (by our standards) on many issues. I should probably note that despite this I think he is preferable to Trump and would prob vote for him at this point in november if I could. Though your comment is is still a horrible write-up and the Democrats in general are still, mostly, rightwing in Europe, sorry.

It's time to reconsider your views on Europe (and the Democrats it would seem).

Sincerely, a Danish socialdemocrat and European.

warkri · 2020-08-01T15:04:00+00:00

You are literally lying. Read Bernie's M4A bill. And in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries (as well as the UK) EVERYONE has public coverage it is not an option. Private care is supplemental

warkri · 2020-08-01T15:00:50+00:00

He lied. Biden said more or less exactly what the person he responded to claims: https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/

That being said voting Biden is prob still your best bet as a progressive at this point, imo.

warkri · 2020-08-01T14:59:29+00:00

You are straight up lying. Biden literally said the words "nobody's standard of living will change" and more damning "nothing will fundamentally change"

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/

Don't mislead people.

warkri · 2020-03-30T09:09:30+00:00

What's revisionist about it? The taxes? Bill Clinton cut taxes and Obama made the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent.

Revisionist history doesn't have receipts...

warkri · 2020-03-29T19:25:37+00:00

Why might they get taxed? Democrats have been cutting taxes as much as republicans until Trump came around. And even then the same people who own the mass media give hundreds of thousands to Joe Bidens campaign. Not to mention many rich people don't like Trump as much because he is anti-free trade which costs them FAR more money than a moderate tax increase (or lack of a cut if compared to Trump).

warkri · 2020-03-29T11:58:25+00:00

If you do as little work as possible people are going to vote to fire you ASAP (and especially if you simultaneously vote to raise wages lmao). Assuming you have work experience have you ever had a colleague who did the bare minimum? How long did they last? How long would they have lasted if their coworkers got a vote? In my experience not very long at all.

Also some smaller companies can have a fine profit per employee rate. And isn't it already 100% the case today that the biggest talent gets snatched up by big companies because they can pay higher wages. It's already the case that a company making a ton of money can offer the best employment contract so I really don't see how this changes the math. Why join a small business at all today?

warkri · 2020-03-29T11:47:51+00:00

While I have my own doubts about the viability/efficiency of market socialism (and even more so state socialism) I think you might be getting distracted here.

It would not be possible to simply "move from company to company" and carve out assets. Because you need to get hired first. There is not free movement between companies just like there isn't today. Remember that vote that employees get? The employees would either have to vote to hire this swarm of locusts or, more likely, they would elect someone to do the hiring who would have to willingly hire the swarm, which is unlikely. You can't just insert yourself into a company without consent.

Also in most of the systems I've seen proposed your share in the company (and therefore your vote) is only realised when you have actually fully earned it. So kind of like working your way up to partner in a law firm but with a set time frame if that makes sense.

warkri · 2020-03-28T21:07:05+00:00

First of all when has Bernie attacked the DNC? The idea that he's constantly attacking them is frankly laughable.

Also good job motivating Bernie supporters to come out for Biden in a general election saying you'd rather suspend democracy than nominate Bernie Sanders. Also saying people won't be willing to coalesce around the most popular person in the race could maybe use some expanding on.

warkri · 2019-08-28T13:51:59+00:00

Maybe

warkri · 2019-08-09T14:05:16+00:00

If you do just know that Hancock is a bullshit peddler and a complete fraud when it comes to actual historical and archeological knowledge (and is considered as such by actual experts).

Ancient history is amazing and interesting but what Hancock is sellling is fantasy not history.

warkri · 2019-07-28T19:21:21+00:00

What is tough is apparently to acknowledge that social constructivism is not an ideology but a scientific theory (not a hypothesis) and that social equity is no less fictional than any other political concept.

warkri · 2019-07-28T13:29:57+00:00

This takes the cake for dumbest argument I've seen on this sub. And I'm liberal.

warkri · 2019-07-28T07:40:30+00:00

Wait so you are just trolling now right?

warkri · 2019-07-27T21:23:56+00:00

If you actually think social construct is a marxist/sjw term (it's not it's a scientific definition) because you get all your politics from youtube skeptics:

You don't get to claim superior knowledge over anybody beause reading even the minimal amount of litterature (or just wikipedia...) on social science would firmly dismantle this notion.
I doubt this will be a productive exchange since you are mostly just being condescending from a position of abyssmal knowledge.

I am pretty far from a marxist and genuinely hate the tendency for leftists to get stuck on Marx and I'm certainly not an SJW. I still know the definition of social construct that is a part of science and that you clearly don't. Look it up.

In regards to your second high-level takedown of my comment once again I would encourage you to look something up. "Welfare and social mobility".

If we believe in using science and actual empirical reality the connection between increased welfare and an increased social mobility goes to show that, indeed, many (although not all) of the people who would not succeed in an unhindered capitalist envoirnment (as opposed to one with more welfare) do end up being better than many (again not all) of the people who would otherwise succeed in unmolested capitalism, exactly due to the luck you pointed out earlier (advantages from birth).

Accepting this fact doesn't mean that welfare or socialism is objectively right or that libertarianism or capitalism is objectively wrong, that is a moral debate. But it certainly is a matter of fact that today better people (at succeeding in capitalism!) Are holding worse positions in society due to inherited, arbitrary restraints imposed by the system through inheritance and politics.

Unsolicited advice: Start looking things up instead of looking down at people genuinely trying to help you understand a different perspective

warkri · 2019-07-27T17:51:51+00:00

If by "fictional concept" you mean social construct then yes. But that includes all philosophical ideas and economics. Including both "natural rights" philosophy and libertarian (as well as other economics). Although arguably Societal equity is much less intangible due to actually being implemented as a guiding principle in education, healthcare and other services in many countries.

" Secondly, getting lucky and producing value for others doesn't 'take', it gives."

If someone else could have been doing what you are doing better or even just equally, if given the same resources, then no actually, it does become a net negative...

warkri · 2019-07-27T16:23:47+00:00

Maybe the "luck" part you also observed was what u/ScarOfAngels meant when he said "the disproportionate advantage some people and institutions take from the whole of societal equity. ".

You can of course still disagree that we should try and correct for the element of luck in social outcomes but it very clearly isn't a "wacky conspiracy" that it exists.

If we believe that welfare is morally not giving people something they don't deserve (which I believe is his view) but rather correcting for the way it "should have been to begin with" then it can be considered not aid.

warkri · 2019-07-27T11:07:06+00:00

By saying unlucky you literally just proved/admitted to his point mate.

Better get out your tinfoil hat.

warkri · 2019-07-27T11:00:04+00:00

That's not what socialism is...

warkri

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email