Former first lady Michelle Obama said at a recent event that the US isn’t ready for a woman president, pointing to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ unsuccessful bid for the White House last year.
I do think there’s a debate to be had as to if were in a “better place” then if Clinton had won
If she had won, we wouldn’t be better off relative to 2015. We would have been in the same shit we were in 10 years ago with a housing crisis on the rise and COVID would have still happened and probably wouldn’t have gone too radically differently.
Wed still have increased income inequality and we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn’t help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.
Obviously, I don’t know this is how it would have gone for sure, but the democrats really haven’t given me much to believe in.
So would we have been “better off” with a dem successor compared to the 2015 status quo? No I don’t think so and I think we all knew that and it doesn’t inspire people to vote or participate in elections.
Would we have been better off to what we got? Yeah probably. But that’s stuff we didn’t completely know until hindsight kicked in. I think we all assumed he’d be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.
Now, I don’t subscribe to acceleration ist views, but there is that view point as well.
Under that ideology, we are better off compared to a Clinton or Harris win because they would have subdued the flakier radical elements in society longer.
Trump being president and his flagrant disregard for our status quo system is a massive stepping stone towards a revolution of some sort to hopefully fix the problems of our 2015 society plus the additional inflated issues by Trump.
Trump is directly responsible for Kavanaugh, Barret, and Gorsuch. That alone has been destructive already and will reap us tragic consequences for decades to come. Would Hillary have signed the ERA and gotten the right to bodily autonomy written into the law so it couldn’t be “reinterpreted” away? Maybe. But she wouldn’t have set attack dogs after it, and after trans people and immigrants.
I don’t agree with a lot of this, but I can’t reply a point by point here. The main thing I’ll say is that Clinton wouldn’t have defunded the pandemic response team before a pandemic and certainly would have set a better example wearing masks than Trump did.
The country would always have been divided about the COVID response, but Trump followed his base and furthered the divisions.
we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn’t help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.
This is a petroleum industry talking point and it is false.
I think we all added he’d be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.
He was clearly a narcissist and a fascist, and many of us could see where this was going quite clearly. I was in a room full of hundreds of people on the night he was declared the winner, and many of those people openly wept in fear of the future.
This is a petroleum industry talking point and it is false.
What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it’s the truth.
It’s better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.
What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it’s the truth.
You’re changing the goalposts. I was clearly referring to the quoted portion of your assertion that electric cars are a net negative for climate change.
This is false:
Electric Cars which net doesn’t help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.
It’s better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.
Thank you for the advice on how the US should operate. Good points that no one has ever considered.
Cities, states, and regions have been and are continuing to improve the public transit infrastructure. The problem exists primarily at the federal level, as well as cost, local zoning, eminent domain and the lawsuits that follow, and certain state and federal environmental laws that result in lengthy studies and more lawsuits.
These are all factors that have slowed down the California High-Speed Rail Project, for example. The goal is for it is to eventually connect every major city in California to high-speed rail (and Las Vegas via another high-speed rail line, Brightline West). Excluding Las Vegas, the total length of track is roughly the length of Belgium to Poland. And that’s half of one state.
The Northeast is already covered in rail. Going from city to city is easier that way, even though it’s not high speed. NYC to DC is 3.5 hours and requires no cars, door to door. This works because of density, the same reason it works in Europe and Asia. The US is very large and doesn’t have density everywhere. Building and maintaining the 4,500 km of high-speed rail track necessary to connect Los Angeles to NYC is expensive and difficult. That’s Lisbon to Moscow.
Well, first of all, you could read usernames. That would be helpful to determine what points you’re going to argue against and what the appropriate response would be.
Second, nobody is asserting that the US never considered public transport, we were only addressing the actual decision of the US in general, which IS very much focused on electric cars to the detriment of progress on much saner public transport projects. The Vegas Loop and similar projects immediately come to mind.
The laws that gets in the way of public transport projects are a result of the US’s obsession with car-centrism and capitalism. Instead of thinking of long term solutions, they’d rather clutch to a band aid solution to keep their status quo.
And discussions about public transport is not focussed solely on trains. On the contrary, the most depressing thing about the us car-centrism is the inability to do short trips without needing a car. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are pretty cheap relative to building high speed train networks or even inner city metros, yet the US even struggle with that.
The source of the problem are the people themselves who have been deluded into thinking they need to force everyone to use a car simply because they don’t want to use public transportation, which is an absurd thought process. The focus on electric cars will only continue this brainwashing, not fix it, so it is a net negative in the long run.
Tearing up all our cities and rebuilding them is way more wasteful that battery powered cars. This is not a switch you can just flip overnight. It is not something that can be done in the timeframe it would be needed.
Should we strive for those ideals with future development? Yes. And we’re seeing some of that already.
you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.
Your solution is on the scale of decades — almost certainly over 100 years. None of our infrastructure is set up for this outside of cities that most of us have no interest in living in.
We certainly need more interim projects like electric cars and green energy.
The problem is I haven’t seen much news of projects other than those types of interim projects that focus on electric cars. I mean, they spent millions of dollars on the Vegas Loop instead of on more sane public transport projects. America has a very unhealthy focus on electric cars because of their car-centric mindset and I don’t see it changing any time soon unless people start pushing back on it.
Most of us don’t want to live in cities or put our mobility in the hands of others. People who want it for everyone are primarily city folks who are used to that lifestyle. Those ideas are less popular with the people who would be most affected.
I know eventually the world will go that way and it’ll be a good thing, but I’m also glad I won’t live to see it because I have no desire whatsoever to live that way. The change will be generational. If folks try to impose it, there is going to be a lot of resistance and pushback. You have to get folks to want it.
More public transports benefits not only people who use public transports, but also people who use cars. You have the typical car-centric mindset that makes it harder for your country to progress in that area.
I know I’m certainly part of the problem. But it’s a chicken and egg problem. You have to make people want to change while the change will be inconvenient short term. I don’t know how that happens, other than very slowly over time.
Well, you could try and stop thinking that people are trying to make you use public transport and more along the line of not forcing you or anyone to use their car to go anywhere in a practical way. And imagine the improvement to traffic and safety once people who hates driving or not good at it are no longer forced to drive on the same road as you.
I do think there’s a debate to be had as to if were in a “better place” then if Clinton had won
If she had won, we wouldn’t be better off relative to 2015. We would have been in the same shit we were in 10 years ago with a housing crisis on the rise and COVID would have still happened and probably wouldn’t have gone too radically differently.
Wed still have increased income inequality and we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn’t help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.
Obviously, I don’t know this is how it would have gone for sure, but the democrats really haven’t given me much to believe in.
So would we have been “better off” with a dem successor compared to the 2015 status quo? No I don’t think so and I think we all knew that and it doesn’t inspire people to vote or participate in elections.
Would we have been better off to what we got? Yeah probably. But that’s stuff we didn’t completely know until hindsight kicked in. I think we all assumed he’d be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.
Now, I don’t subscribe to acceleration ist views, but there is that view point as well.
Under that ideology, we are better off compared to a Clinton or Harris win because they would have subdued the flakier radical elements in society longer.
Trump being president and his flagrant disregard for our status quo system is a massive stepping stone towards a revolution of some sort to hopefully fix the problems of our 2015 society plus the additional inflated issues by Trump.
Trump is directly responsible for Kavanaugh, Barret, and Gorsuch. That alone has been destructive already and will reap us tragic consequences for decades to come. Would Hillary have signed the ERA and gotten the right to bodily autonomy written into the law so it couldn’t be “reinterpreted” away? Maybe. But she wouldn’t have set attack dogs after it, and after trans people and immigrants.
I don’t agree with a lot of this, but I can’t reply a point by point here. The main thing I’ll say is that Clinton wouldn’t have defunded the pandemic response team before a pandemic and certainly would have set a better example wearing masks than Trump did.
The country would always have been divided about the COVID response, but Trump followed his base and furthered the divisions.
This is a petroleum industry talking point and it is false.
He was clearly a narcissist and a fascist, and many of us could see where this was going quite clearly. I was in a room full of hundreds of people on the night he was declared the winner, and many of those people openly wept in fear of the future.
What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it’s the truth.
It’s better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.
You’re changing the goalposts. I was clearly referring to the quoted portion of your assertion that electric cars are a net negative for climate change.
This is false:
Thank you for the advice on how the US should operate. Good points that no one has ever considered.
Cities, states, and regions have been and are continuing to improve the public transit infrastructure. The problem exists primarily at the federal level, as well as cost, local zoning, eminent domain and the lawsuits that follow, and certain state and federal environmental laws that result in lengthy studies and more lawsuits.
These are all factors that have slowed down the California High-Speed Rail Project, for example. The goal is for it is to eventually connect every major city in California to high-speed rail (and Las Vegas via another high-speed rail line, Brightline West). Excluding Las Vegas, the total length of track is roughly the length of Belgium to Poland. And that’s half of one state.
The Northeast is already covered in rail. Going from city to city is easier that way, even though it’s not high speed. NYC to DC is 3.5 hours and requires no cars, door to door. This works because of density, the same reason it works in Europe and Asia. The US is very large and doesn’t have density everywhere. Building and maintaining the 4,500 km of high-speed rail track necessary to connect Los Angeles to NYC is expensive and difficult. That’s Lisbon to Moscow.
Well, first of all, you could read usernames. That would be helpful to determine what points you’re going to argue against and what the appropriate response would be.
Second, nobody is asserting that the US never considered public transport, we were only addressing the actual decision of the US in general, which IS very much focused on electric cars to the detriment of progress on much saner public transport projects. The Vegas Loop and similar projects immediately come to mind.
The laws that gets in the way of public transport projects are a result of the US’s obsession with car-centrism and capitalism. Instead of thinking of long term solutions, they’d rather clutch to a band aid solution to keep their status quo.
And discussions about public transport is not focussed solely on trains. On the contrary, the most depressing thing about the us car-centrism is the inability to do short trips without needing a car. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are pretty cheap relative to building high speed train networks or even inner city metros, yet the US even struggle with that.
The source of the problem are the people themselves who have been deluded into thinking they need to force everyone to use a car simply because they don’t want to use public transportation, which is an absurd thought process. The focus on electric cars will only continue this brainwashing, not fix it, so it is a net negative in the long run.
Tearing up all our cities and rebuilding them is way more wasteful that battery powered cars. This is not a switch you can just flip overnight. It is not something that can be done in the timeframe it would be needed.
Should we strive for those ideals with future development? Yes. And we’re seeing some of that already.
Your solution is on the scale of decades — almost certainly over 100 years. None of our infrastructure is set up for this outside of cities that most of us have no interest in living in.
We certainly need more interim projects like electric cars and green energy.
The problem is I haven’t seen much news of projects other than those types of interim projects that focus on electric cars. I mean, they spent millions of dollars on the Vegas Loop instead of on more sane public transport projects. America has a very unhealthy focus on electric cars because of their car-centric mindset and I don’t see it changing any time soon unless people start pushing back on it.
Most of us don’t want to live in cities or put our mobility in the hands of others. People who want it for everyone are primarily city folks who are used to that lifestyle. Those ideas are less popular with the people who would be most affected.
I know eventually the world will go that way and it’ll be a good thing, but I’m also glad I won’t live to see it because I have no desire whatsoever to live that way. The change will be generational. If folks try to impose it, there is going to be a lot of resistance and pushback. You have to get folks to want it.
Most Americans live in dense cities.
Not true. Over 50% of our population lives in suburbs and small cities.
You’re correct. I was thinking “not rural.”
More public transports benefits not only people who use public transports, but also people who use cars. You have the typical car-centric mindset that makes it harder for your country to progress in that area.
I know I’m certainly part of the problem. But it’s a chicken and egg problem. You have to make people want to change while the change will be inconvenient short term. I don’t know how that happens, other than very slowly over time.
Well, you could try and stop thinking that people are trying to make you use public transport and more along the line of not forcing you or anyone to use their car to go anywhere in a practical way. And imagine the improvement to traffic and safety once people who hates driving or not good at it are no longer forced to drive on the same road as you.