volodya_ilich

Dang, I wish there were a term for that...

God, you're so brainrotten by the narrative of "not voting for Harris is voting for Project 2025" that you can't even get the words of the comment you're responding to into your brain.

your proposal is

My proposal, as stated in the previous comment that you answered to: "enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide".

What part of that isn't clear, or what part seems like calling for Project 2025?

By giving your unconditional vote to Harris, you're not saying "I'm voting for the progressive candidate because of trans rights". What you're doing is saying "you can being the most republican-minded, Dick-Cheney-endorsed, conservative economically, and gaza-genocider candidate, as long as it's minimally less harmful than Le Drumpf". That's how you enable the constant slide to the right in politics that you've seen for the psst decades. The idea isn't solely "I'm too morally superior to vote for either wing of the American Corporate parties", it's also "enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide." And if not even that will make democrat leadership even question their commitment to the extermination of Palestinians, then the conclusion is simple: death to America.

If Harris wins, the republicans will nominate "evil candidate Mk.2", and we'll have you libs criticising people for protesting against Kamala's support of the genocide, saying that "protests weaken democrats and we need them to win again in 2028 or else..."

So you must certainly agree with me that the US is consequently a terrorist state

The solution is obviously not exclusively from pricing models, we need other energy sources than renewables for the time being, that doesn't mean we need to have market-based electricity pricing.

Imagine the state installing as many solar panels as society, guided by experts, democratically decides it wants, basically deciding as a society the energy mix instead of hoping that companies will install enough if we bribe them enough with taxes to do so, and if it's profitable. Then, it decides a pricing model based on a mixture of subsidy and incentivising consumption during production hours.

Problem solved, innit?

Do I really need to explain the concepts of taxes, subsidies, or fixed prices regardless of demand, to an adult?

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, "well, screw producers," but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can't do that if the amount of electricity you're generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that's good for consumers, but I'm sure you can see how that's not a sustainable business model.

Fully agreed: let's eliminate business from the issue, and create national, for-service electric grids, that produce the cheapest renewables at all possible times in the most efficient way possible, disregarding hourly profit and taking into account exclusively the cost in €/kWh produced over the lifetime of each energy source.

Suddenly it's obvious that the problem isn't with renewables, but with organising the electric grid as a market

abundance of electricity when people need it the least

Isn't peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

it's not economical

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

Ok, that's really good insight, so it boils down to France not respecting the 1935 treaty by refusing to declare Czechoslovakia as a victim of aggression?

As a Spanish, I can relate too well (sadly) to the part where the president of Czechoslovakia says "I did not dare to fight with Russian aid alone, because I knew that the British and French Governments would make out of my country another Spain", I assume they're talking of how the Soviet Union was the only country to sell weapons to Republican Spain in their fight against fascism, even as the Nazis and Italian Fascists were militarily and economically helping the reactionaries in Spain, and how France and England didn't do anything under the guise of "non-interventionism".

Sorry, I was going with Wikipedia there, care to elaborate more on what happened then?

invading poland side by side with the nazis

Again, literal Nazi revisionism. The invasion of Poland was mostly a peaceful process, and the only aim was to establish pro-communist forces in the area that would ensure Poland would join the USSR against the Nazis when the Nazis attacked. The same was attempted in Finland, and what do you know, Finland actually did join the Nazis during the Continuation War. And what do you know, the USSR retreated its troops from Poland after WW2.

Poland could have entered a military alliance with the USSR for the former 10 years, Stalin went as far as offering to send ONE MILLION soldiers, together with aviation and artillery, to military allies if France, England and Poland joined in a military alliance against the Nazis. But I guess they would rather see the Nazis massacre the communists first. That strategy didn't work out as planned now, did it?

They didn't want to get rid of the Nazis

This is incredibly ahistorical revisionism. The USSR prepared for the war against Nazi Germany for many years before it started. In the second half of the 1930s, seeing the Nazi rising to power (Nazis being overt enemies of Communism, as proven by what they did to Communists and to Unions in their controlled territories), they ramped up the weapon production and their military industry, and I'll say it again in case it didn't register: they spent the entire 30s seeking out military alliances with France, England and Poland against the Nazis. They offered military help to Czechoslovakia in 1938 during the Munich agreements in which Sudetenland was given to the Nazis.

Why do you think they had a NAP?

They had a non-aggression pact because Germany was an established industrial power for 100+ years at that point, while the USSR had had 19 years from 1921 after the Russian Civil War and WW1 to rebuild the country and to industrialise. They desperately needed every year they could get to reduce the industrial gap between them and the Nazis, as proven by the immense human cost to the USSR in the war against Nazis.

The Soviets literally saved Eastern Europe from an even worse fate, at immense cost of human lives (25+ million human lives lost in the USSR to Nazism), god knows how many millions more of Slavs (and other groups like Jews and Roma) the Nazis would have genocided if it hadn't been for the Soviets. Have some respect before spewing anti-communist, nazi propaganda here, please.