Ooops

joined 2 years ago
[–] Ooops@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Ach, das ist gar nicht nötig. Im Zweifelsfall bewerfen die sich in ihrem Wahn selber und Faseln dann von Angriffen durch böse Ausländer oder die Antifa.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Klar gehört da mehr dazu, aber Wagenknecht und Kumpane sind nunmal genau die Schwurbler, die anti-Impf-Idioten und die Russland-Kuschler, die die Partei für die meisten unwählbar macht (außer für die lebenden Beispiele des Hufeisens). Ohne diese Leute hätte die Linke immer noch so manche interne Diskussion aber wäre in der Lage, die Diskrepanzen aufzuarbeiten und eine gemeinsame Linie zu finden. Mit den Typen ist die ganze Partei einfach ein verlorener Fall.

Oder anders ausgedrückt: Die Linke ist schon immer problematisch. Aber glaubst du, dass eine Linke, die grundsätzlich gegen Militäreinsätze ist, sich zähneknirschend auf eine Regierungsmitarbeit für soziale Ziele und unter Inkaufnahme von Hilfen für die Ukraine ausnahmsweise (den russischen Angriff verurteilen sie nämlich tatsächlich) einlassen könnte?

Wie sehen die Chancen stattdessen aus, wenn da auch noch ein ganzer Flügel offen russischer Trolle deren Propaganda wiederholt (und auch jede andere mögliche Verschwörungserzählung) und für die Frieden scheinbar bedeutet "halt still und wehr dich nicht, dann ist dein Tod weniger schmerzhaft". Genau... willkommen bei der dauerhaft unter 5% Partei.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Stichwort Maaßen: Guck dir die gesamte CDU-gegründete WerteUnion an. Dann kennt du die Werte dieser AfD mit Substanz...

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

Das ich nicht lache... Warum glaubst du ist die AfD bei 20% und CxU und Konsorten predigen trotzdem unentwegt, dass die Grünen ihr größter Gegenr sind und die Partei mit der es keine Koalition geben wird?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

Sie wird die AfD auch wählen, wenn noch andere Möglichkeiten offen wären. Oder was meinst du, warum die fleißig tagtäglich den selben Grünen-Hass predigen? Das ist Vorbereitung, um später behaupten zu könnne, dass sie keine Wahl hatten, weil ihre Wähler nichts anderen zugestimmt hätten.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

But here is the fun fact: Basically all countries going for nuclear instead (with the exception of France, and even they need to scrap the bullshit about 6 new reactors and admit that the full set of 6 plus the 8 optional ones is their required minimum) are doing exactly that: having no actual plan for zero co2 emissions but just building some for symbolic reductions. If they actually had any workable plan they would need to plan and build much more (often by a factor of 10 even) just to cover the minimum base load for their projected demand in 2050+.

And no, what Germany got into this mess is intentional sabotage by conservatives to keep coal alive. Please look at these graphs and extrapolate the amount of renewables we would have if first the solar, then the wind power industry wasn't destroyed intentionally via overregulation. Gas as a transition energy and switching the existing plans over to hydrogen used for storage is a perfectly well plan. Even with today's gas prize as they -unlike other countries- don't use gas for regular production anyway. It's only used for short-term peak production to adapt to fluctuations. The actual problem is the screwed up European energy market that makes you pay the gas price for all energy, no matter how few (or much) you actually use.

Contrary to popular narrrative a potential gas shortage was never a problem for Germany's electricity production. The problem was heating. And the bottle neck there is not electricity but the ability so get and install the amount of heat pumps needed alternatively (I have personally seen waiting times of nearly a year 5 years ago already...). We like do forget that Germany alone makes up nearly 20% of the EU in households.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's not how reality works. The remaining reactors produced less than 5%. But the money needed to keep them running for a few more years -especially as the shut down was planned for years, checkups and revisions were skipped, no more fuel was ordered- would have come from the same budget that is now paying for grid upgrades and renewable build-up. So keeping them running would have had a minimal impact of a bit less co2 now but a massive damage to the transition to clean energy for the next 10+ years. But that's of course a fact we don't want to talk about in media as that doesn't fit the narrative of stupid Greens having killed nuclear for ideological reasons.

For reference: The shutdown of all but 3 reactors was decided a decade ago, planned for years and came into effect 2 weeks before that new government came into office... the ones they were left with produced -up to their shutdown- ~1,5% of all electricity in 2023. But sure... keeping them alive for the sake of having nuclear reactors (they basically did not have any value other than as a talking point) would have totally made sense... in some alternative reality.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Because the actual plan was to build-up solar and wind, then phase out nuclear and coal.

But the conservatives intentionally sabotaged solar power and wind (see here and here) and also blocked grid imporvements and extensions to keep their beloved coal alive. After more than a decade we should long be past the point to not need coal anymore (Just look at the graphs and extrapolate the amount of solar and wind without their de facto destruction of the solar (2012) and wind (2016) industry via overregulation), it's still a big chunk of the produced energy.

Nuclear was simply phase out because the existing capacities were rediculous low (~5% of the production top), the shutdown was already decided and planned for years and keeping them few reactors alive would have costed rediculous amounts compared to their value. And completely restarting nuclear basically from scratch makes zero sense today, when you won't need it in 15 years anymore.

This is pure and simple the result of corrupt conservatives pushing coal and their propaganda (killing 100k jobs in solar production to protect 10k coal miners for example). And instead everyone now eats up their propaganda again and blames the current government, not only for the problems but also for a nuclear pahse out that was actually decided and prepared since a decade ago.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

"Zustände wie in Lampedusa haben wir heute schon im deutsch-polnischen Grenzgebiet. Das ist eine Rieseninvasion, die hier passiert."

Welchen Hirnschaden müssen Menschen haben, bevor sie sich so einen Schwachsinn anhören und auch noch glauben?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's not some "approach" but a symptom of conservatives fighting change tooth and nails. And it's always easier to destroy something. So while one side is trying to improve public transport and create proper bike infrastructure at the same time, the other side is sabotaging.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

FDP... die mit Abstand effektiviste Opposition, die wir seit langer Zeit haben.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Ich kann meine Energie halt besser einsetzen, als der selben Person zum 20. Mal zu erklären, dass eine Lüge immer noch nicht wahr wird, nur weil das schon wider in 'ner Facebookgruppe gepostet wurde...

view more: ‹ prev next ›