| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 29 2022 00:29 Gorsameth wrote: To be fair, non-Americans have been remarking on America's lack of public transport for quite some time. Hecklers say lots of things. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22568 Posts
On June 29 2022 00:23 LegalLord wrote: To be fair, non-Americans have been remarking on America's lack of public transport for quite some time.The US is car country; that might not be desirable in the long run but it's not avoidable for the next few years. Whining about how "if only things were structurally different" doesn't really solve the problems we face right here, right now. It's fine to work to improve public transport, but gas prices are a much more immediate concern. You can't really go 'we ignored your point for years and now that it is extra relevant it doesn't count'. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On June 28 2022 20:19 Sermokala wrote: This is silly shit. Trump was the one that hammered the domestic industry before covid and during covid the industry fared much worse. Trump could have purchased oil at negative prices but didn't fill up the strategic reserve when it was needed for the industry and would have been a massive benefit for the future American people. You're insane if you think Biden has enough power to control the entire worlds oil market yet is also sleepy and senile. This is on the oil companies who are refusing to increase their production to make more profit. Don't take my word for it take theirs. I never said that he controls the entire world's oil market? I did state that he in fact can't do anything about the price in the short term. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 29 2022 00:29 Gorsameth wrote: To be fair, non-Americans have been remarking on America's lack of public transport for quite some time. You can't really go 'we ignored your point for years and now that it is extra relevant it doesn't count'. We changed the way we built cities in North America to be car centric focused since World War II and there is 80 years of infrastructure and inertia holding us back from changing. The origins of that change are car focused industry intentionally destroying street cars and creating demand for their product, but most Americans believe in the suburban utopia white picket fence and that public transport is for poor people. Mixed use development can happen in a city near you, but it will take several generations to make any impact at best. The problem with public transport in the US is that it would require cultural shift in how Americans live. Adding buses to the suburban sprawl of America will not solve any problems. No one will use them because you still need a car to exist in a suburb. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 29 2022 00:23 LegalLord wrote: The US is car country; that might not be desirable in the long run but it's not avoidable for the next few years. Whining about how "if only things were structurally different" doesn't really solve the problems we face right here, right now. It's fine to work to improve public transport, but gas prices are a much more immediate concern. Hecklers say lots of things. So you want lower gas prices, but you don't want better public transport or even admit that, as of today, its complete garbage ? Thank you mr conservative for showing the inner turmoil of a republican | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:10 Erasme wrote: So you want lower gas prices, but you don't want better public transport or even admit that, as of today, its complete garbage ? Thank you mr conservative Not what I said. Go ahead and build that better public transport if you want. It'll take years. It won't solve the problems at the pump we have today. Lord Conservative has spoken. | ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On June 29 2022 00:18 WombaT wrote: Who are the environmentalists advocating making wind a backbone of a national energy grid? Aside from the whole environmental protection thing, the other major plus point in less reliance on fossil fuels is more insulation from precisely what we’re currently seeing. It will, of course require a lot of moolah to overhaul existing infrastructure. As Ghostlyplasmid mentioned, it’s not just a case of how US public transport is powered that’s an issue, it’s that it’s non-existent in places: To take one example, the infrastructural and cultural overhaul needed would be huge. This. The problem is that the environmentalist push to transition from reliance on international fossil fuels has been vehemently opposed by the right for reasons that have nothing to do with economic rationality, science, common sense, or national security. It’s become a cultural wedge issue, where there should be cross party consensus based on the political ideologies there is a manufactured opposition funded by big polluters. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:12 LegalLord wrote: Not what I said. Go ahead and build that better public transport if you want. It'll take years. It won't solve the problems at the pump we have today. Lord Conservative has spoken. And for years conservatives have refused to fund public infrastructure. Yesterday wasn't right bc there was no need. Today is too late bc it will take years. Tomorrow ? Why bother theres no need. Thank you lord conservative for showing once again that you have no solution and refuse to try to solve the issue. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
I know this suggestion may seem quite "out there" but it is possible to do two things simultaneously: 1. Take measures to solve the short-term, acute gas price problem. 2. Take separate measures to solve the long-term public transport infrastructure problem. Seems the primary opposition to doing (2) is a straw man foe that is invented by people who fail to see the need for (1). Even the Republicans, for all their obstructionism, passed the part of the infrastructure bill that focused on roads, bridges, rail, and the like. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:32 LegalLord wrote: Evidently there's a lot more interest in blamestorming than in solving actual problems. I know this suggestion may seem quite "out there" but it is possible to do two things simultaneously: 1. Take measures to solve the short-term, acute gas price problem. 2. Take separate measures to solve the long-term public transport infrastructure problem. Seems the primary opposition to doing (2) is a straw man foe that is invented by people who fail to see the need for (1). Even the Republicans, for all their obstructionism, passed the part of the infrastructure bill that focused on roads, bridges, rail, and the like. It passed, despite republicans. Lets not rewrite history. So you do agree that overhauling the current us transportation system is much needed, and would lower the impact of the next gas crisis ? How marvelous since your previous posts were quite dismissive about that issue. Safe to say, most americans would be quite happy if their country wasnt 40years behind any develloped country on public infrastructure. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28892 Posts
Been about 27 cpl for a while now. Green party lost, but won, center party is still in government, but their support has been halved. xD. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:38 Erasme wrote: How marvelous since your previous posts were quite dismissive about that issue. Nonsense. You may have injected that context into those posts because you wanted it to be there, but I didn't say that. Still doesn't solve the immediate and far more acute concern of $5.50/gal by the way. On June 29 2022 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: In Norway the gas price last year was like 15 crowns per liter, thereabouts. ($1.5) ... Been about 27 cpl for a while now. Yikes. And that's Norway, a major exporter. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€. Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote: I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them? If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€. Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it. Because Americans live paycheck to paycheck and having to spend a small amount more on gas combined with the rising food prices and other inflation isn't possible to budget. It certainly doesn't help that most Americans drive super gas guzzlers like pick up trucks and SUVs to commute long distances, but a small increase in costs is really catastrophic for the average American. They would blame Biden and vote Republican instead of downsizing their vehicle to something with better gas mileage for sure though. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Because Americans live paycheck to paycheck and having to spend a small amount more on gas combined with the rising food prices and other inflation isn't possible to budget. It certainly doesn't help that most Americans drive super gas guzzlers like pick up trucks and SUVs to commute long distances, but a small increase in costs is really catastrophic for the average American. They would blame Biden and vote Republican instead of downsizing their vehicle to something with better gas mileage for sure though. Yes, but a cost increase of 50c/l for gas is basically viewed as some horrendous thing, while an increase of the same average monthly cost on other stuff, like electricity or food, is mostly ignored. There seems to be some huge emotional link to the gas price for some reason. Maybe also linked to the fact that people will often go way out of their way to save 5c/l at another gas station. On June 29 2022 02:00 plasmidghost wrote: I would love to see stipends from the government to help. I also don't see it happening because of how the administration did away with a ton of Covid relief measures. Also, without stopping oil companies from jacking up prices even more, all the stipends will go to them I don't think so. Because you don't have to spend your stipend on gas. If you ride the train instead, or ride a bike, or have an electric vehicle, or drive something that uses less gas, you can even pocket some money, while doing something that is good for the environment. The whole idea should be to use market forces to make people want to use less gas. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
