Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57615638



Hopefully this is the first of many challenges, and that the DoJ is very serious about going after people harassing/threatening election workers.

My guess is the suit gets tossed by every judge it goes in front of.

Cited in the complaint: The Georgia joined the Texas lawsuit on the election, that the bill was introduced with only white sponsors, that it coincided with the first Black and Indian Vice President, that it coincided with Warnock's runoff election, that no Black representatives voted for the bill, someone who called it Jim Crow 2.0 wasn't invited to witness the signing, and it goes on.

Maybe he gets a sympathetic judge on the way up, but man is this a laughable political messaging stunt.

[Kellhound]

The rest of the world is evidence to the contrary, you are basically arguing that buses that show up on time less traffic because people are using public transportation is bad. You are quite a hoot, we both agree the current system suck it was made to suck.



The US is too large for high speed rail or there's not enough space for new infrastructure, pick one?

Again, the best system in the world would not change that busses SUCK unless the traffic and parking is so bad that it is a nightmare to use a car. I have used bus and light rail to commute, and I caught a bus a few hundred yards from my home that was a direct trip to the light rail that was then a direct trip to a station a few hundred yards from my work. I only took it because it was impossible to find parking where I worked that didn't cost an arm and a leg. Thankfully I have avoided working in downtown for over a decade, and will never work there again.

Those are not mutually exclusive. For instance, how do you expect a highspeed train between Portland and Seattle would be routed?

[Draco-Onis]

Again, the best system in the world would not change that busses SUCK unless the traffic and parking is so bad that it is a nightmare to use a car. I have used bus and light rail to commute, and I caught a bus a few hundred yards from my home that was a direct trip to the light rail that was then a direct trip to a station a few hundred yards from my work. I only took it because it was impossible to find parking where I worked that didn't cost an arm and a leg. Thankfully I have avoided working in downtown for over a decade, and will never work there again.

Those are not mutually exclusive. For instance, how do you expect a highspeed train between Portland and Seattle would be routed?

We've already agreed that the current system sucks and I have stated that it's by design, why do you think using it as an example makes a good point for you. Is your statement that there's no space above and below ground for a transportation system

We get it you think America is a magical land where it won't work like most of the world where evidence shows most people will use it.

[CostinR]

We've already agreed that the current system sucks and I have stated that it's by design, why do you think using it as an example makes a good point for you. Is your statement that there's no space above and below ground for a transportation system

Honestly buses DO suck regardless of where you live in. I say as a European where we have a big focus on solid public transport. Using light rail ( or trams ) is better and far more comfortable, but the subway in big cities is the best.

In a country the size of the US with as much widespread population? Yeah the car should reign supreme except in cities.

[Draco-Onis]

Honestly buses DO suck regardless of where you live in. I say as a European where we have a big focus on solid public transport. Using light rail ( or trams ) is better and far more comfortable, but the subway in big cities is the best.

In a country the size of the US with as much widespread population? Yeah the car should reign supreme except in cities.

Some people don't like buses but that's a matter of opinion, we chose to build highways to sell cars so highways spread the population the way it is. However long term that is not a good plan we can build infrastructure in several states that would make the lives of our citizens better. You can chose to have a car the keyword here is choice right now there is none.

[Kellhound]

We've already agreed that the current system sucks and I have stated that it's by design, why do you think using it as an example makes a good point for you. Is your statement that there's no space above and below ground for a transportation system

We get it you think America is a magical land where it won't work like most of the world where evidence shows most people will use it.

What I am saying is it is not possible to make one that doesn't suck. What Europe has done is make the use of cars suck even more while making busses suck slightly less.

Going above or below increases the cost in a massive manner. And going above would still result in a massive amount of destruction to build the pylons needed to support the roadbed.

People would use regional high speed rail, not so much long distance.

[Draco-Onis]

What I am saying is it is not possible to make one that doesn't suck. What Europe has done is make the use of cars suck even more while making busses suck slightly less.

You keep saying it's going to suck but you have no proof that it will aside from feeling that it will, would you rather we blow the money rebuilding another ME country? or another fancy plane that is already filled with obsolete tech to pad Lockheed Martin's stock price? Oh I know maybe you want to give more billions to daddy Bezos in tax cuts.

I am going to have to ask, Why are you so against having the option? no one is coming to take your car away you can do whatever you want with it that makes you so attached to having one. You just seem to have a giant boner against people having the option of choosing.

[Kellhound]

You keep saying it's going to suck but you have no proof that it will aside from feeling that it will, would you rather we blow the money rebuilding another ME country? or another fancy plane that is already filled with obsolete tech to pad Lockheed Martin's stock price? Oh I know maybe you want to give more billions to daddy Bezos in tax cuts.

I am going to have to ask, Why are you so against having the option? no one is coming to take your car away you can do whatever you want with it that makes you so attached to having one. You just seem to have a giant boner against people having the option of choosing.

It would suck because you cannot overcome the limited stop points, limited cargo capacity, limited schedules that are part of a mass transit system.

The F-35 is not obsolete, it is the most advanced fighter in existence.

I object to their costs vs their benefits. However just because they suck and I wouldn't use it unless I had to does not mean I am against the option in principle.

[Draco-Onis]

It would suck because you cannot overcome the limited stop points, limited cargo capacity, limited schedules that are part of a mass transit system.

The F-35 is not obsolete, it is the most advanced fighter in existence.

I object to their costs vs their benefits. However just because they suck and I wouldn't use it unless I had to does not mean I am against the option in principle.

Neither one of us has degrees in architecture, structural engineering, public transportation and finance. I say we should do a cost benefit analysis find places where we can copy the EU model to bring costs down and make our public transportation better. What proof do you have it cannot work? you are against even trying to see if we can make what we both agree suck better in any way.

I say the tech in the F-35 is obsolete and by all means it is obsolete, the US is stuck fighting conventional warfare it's a toy with no practical use jack of all trades master of none.

[Kellhound]

Neither one of us has degrees in architecture, structural engineering, public transportation and finance. I say we should do a cost benefit analysis find places where we can copy the EU model to bring costs down and make our public transportation better. What proof do you have it cannot work? you are against even trying to see if we can make what we both agree suck better in any way.

I say the tech in the F-35 is obsolete and by all means it is obsolete, the US is stuck fighting conventional warfare it's a toy with no practical use jack of all trades master of none.

No matter how hard you try, public transportation will always be inferior (sans constrictions) to cars for ease of use and cargo capacity. You can make it suck less, but it will always suck because of the absolute limitations it has.

The F-35 has the most advanced avionics/weapons/ECM package in use. It is a master of strike, capable in AAW, and a master of situational awareness. Its negatives are its cost to operate and its inferior dogfighting ability (which is of debatable consequence).

[Draco-Onis]

No matter how hard you try, public transportation will always be inferior (sans constrictions) to cars for ease of use and cargo capacity. You can make it suck less, but it will always suck because of the absolute limitations it has.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? again if public transportation is always inferior why hasn't the rest of the world caught onto this secret knowledge you seem to have? your objections are illogical and purely an emotional attachment to your car.

The F-35 has the most advanced avionics/weapons/ECM package in use. It is a master of strike, capable in AAW, and a master of situational awareness. Its negatives are its cost to operate and its inferior dogfighting ability (which is of debatable consequence).

You hear that guy we are totally going to dominate those Taliban jet fighters /s

Explain why do we need it? who are we fighting that make it necessary? the countries that would have nukes conventional warfare between super powers died decades ago.

[Elegiac]

Neither are good unless there are traffic jams or parking issues to navigate.

Which there always are in a car-dependent system like the US' because the vast majority is traffic is forced to use the same infrastructure rather than having the load be split among a diversified network. It also massively drives up the financial cost of other infrastructure like electrification, telecommunications, and sewage through encouraging diffuse metropolitan areas - to say nothing of the social and environmental impacts, which are also a consideration beyond just the sticker price.

The irony is that all of the things you whinge about whenever it comes to cities like Seattle are the direct result of US infrastructure being built around cars. Rofl.

[Ivanstone]

I like the bus. For the price of a bus pass you get the opportunity to read instead of fussing about with fuel, insurance and parking costs.

[Dontrike]

Its pretty absurd for you to make up your own definitions of words, then argue based on those made up definitions and do so without even telling anyone you made up new definitions or cluing them in to what those fake definitions are.

Oh no, someone on the internet was wrong!

[Kellhound]

Do you have any evidence to back that up? again if public transportation is always inferior why hasn't the rest of the world caught onto this secret knowledge you seem to have? your objections are illogical and purely an emotional attachment to your car.



You hear that guy we are totally going to dominate those Taliban jet fighters /s

Explain why do we need it? who are we fighting that make it necessary? the countries that would have nukes conventional warfare between super powers died decades ago.

Name the transit system that picks you up anywhere and drops you off anywhere. How useful is a bus if you have more groceries than you can move in one trip? As I said, it is only when the usefulness of the car is reduced below the usefulness of transit that cars suck more than transit. A Pinto is a good car compared to a Yugo, but that does not mean the Pinto is a good car.

Ah, you are one of those guys that wants to let Russia and China do whatever they want, got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Which there always are in a car-dependent system like the US' because the vast majority is traffic is forced to use the same infrastructure rather than having the load be split among a diversified network. It also massively drives up the financial cost of other infrastructure like electrification, telecommunications, and sewage through encouraging diffuse metropolitan areas - to say nothing of the social and environmental impacts, which are also a consideration beyond just the sticker price.

The irony is that all of the things you whinge about whenever it comes to cities like Seattle are the direct result of US infrastructure being built around cars. Rofl.

I have neither issue commuting to work. I was smart enough to not get a job in downtown.

I dont like cities because of all the people packed into a small space, don't see going carless fixing that. You could not pay me enough to live in the center of any major city on the planet.

[Elegiac]

I have neither issue commuting to work. I was smart enough to not get a job in downtown.

I dont like cities because of all the people packed into a small space, don't see going carless fixing that. You could not pay me enough to live in the center of any major city on the planet.

No one's asking you to, and no one much cares. Point in fact, there'd be more available real estate for rural living with even less of a commute to services because the majority of people who do prefer urban living wouldn't have to keep pushing out with suburbs and urban sprawl.

But that's the thing, good public policy actually requires being able to view a situation from a perspective besides yourself. Rofl.

[Kellhound]

No one's asking you to, and no one much cares. Point in fact, there'd be more available real estate for rural living with even less of a commute to services because the majority of people who do prefer urban living wouldn't have to keep pushing out with suburbs and urban sprawl.

But that's the thing, good public policy actually requires being able to view a situation from a perspective besides yourself. Rofl.

If most Americans wanted to live like sardines, we wouldn't have so much suburban area. Oh, and obviously you care enough to being it up.

[Kellhound]

Nope. You are pulling wrong facts out of your arse to prove your point, but those "facts" are wrong. Pretty much everything you wrote there is pulled from your arse, just like in vast majority of replies to subject you've made in this thread.

In fact, railroads are everywhere, they span from west to east and in many remote places in Siberia it is the only way to travel.

Lets see.... Yup, most of the railroads in Russia are in the western 1/4 of the country.
You admit the railroad is the only way to get to many places in Siberia, which agrees with my statement of the dearth of flights.
Oh look at that, most of Russia's population is in the west, just as I said.


(Population density map)

[Elegiac]

If most Americans wanted to live like sardines, we wouldn't have so much suburban area.

We have so much suburban area because of most people liking the opportunities and services of cities - something supported by consistently high demand for urban real estate, regardless of how much you project your personal preferences - but having restricted access to opportunities and services due to poor city planning (i.e. single-use zoning) and lack of transportation.

Again, the irony is the complaints people have about urban areas are almost entirely the result of the policies they recommend. They wouldn't be so dirty, polluted, noisy, and hostile to visitors and pedestrians if they weren't built around cars.

[Kellhound]

We have so much suburban area because of most people liking the opportunities and services of cities - something supported by consistently high demand for urban real estate, regardless of how much you project your personal preferences - but having restricted access to opportunities and services due to poor city planning (i.e. single-use zoning) and lack of transportation.

Again, the irony is the complaints people have about urban areas are almost entirely the result of the policies they recommend. They wouldn't be so dirty, polluted, noisy, and hostile to visitors and pedestrians if they weren't built around cars.

People like having access to city amenities, but massive numbers do not want to live inside the heart of a major city. Cramming even more people into one will not make it more appealing, and even if every car was removed it still would not be appealing.

There is a section of people that like the big city life, and a section that do not. Building your utopian cities will not change that.