|
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 |
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
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. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be.
Because it’s a worst of both worlds temporary scenario. None of the systemic/cultural groundwork has been done to change infrastructure and habits.
Joe/Jane public, depending on where they’re located still need their car to commute to work, they’re just going to be out of pocket in doing so.
The economy is still geared towards endless consumption to fuel growth and that won’t change. There may be a slight reduction in fuel burning out of base necessity but I can’t see it being anything other than negligible in the wider scheme of things.
A crisis can be a good thing in exposing problems, but it’s only got a silver lining if those lessons are taken on board. 2008, if it had precipitated major reforms could have been a short term pain, long term gain kind of shock, to take one example.
As it saw superficial, largely meaningless reform, it retrospectively looks rather a lot like just pain across the board.
Rejoicing over a likely negligible and very temporary reduction in global footprint (if it even is a reduction), while the poorest in society struggle even more to pay the bills would be silly and profoundly tone deaf, which is why you don’t see much of it.
|
We can also make change to infrastructure in the us for commuting to work easily. They're called rapid transit lanes, lanes that are exclusively for bus rapid transit. Electric cars might not be fully practical for regular people but electric buses are years into practicality and we can add a lane of traffic for only these buses. They are proven to be reliable and on time and plug in literally to our current system. They can move people a lot faster with a lot less space and can run on solar when solar is most effective.
Good luck getting Houston on board.
|
I also note the language where it reserves for the state to determine if the treatments are too dangerous for minors. Which, they're just not. The framing of gender transitioning as being dangerous is just a Right-wing boogeyman. It's like saying they reserve the right for states to determine if tofu could give you epilepsy. It's patently insane. The only goal is to erase the existence of folks like you. Absolutely horrid.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On June 29 2022 22:34 Sermokala wrote:
We can also make change to infrastructure in the us for commuting to work easily. They're called rapid transit lanes, lanes that are exclusively for bus rapid transit. Electric cars might not be fully practical for regular people but electric buses are years into practicality and we can add a lane of traffic for only these buses. They are proven to be reliable and on time and plug in literally to our current system. They can move people a lot faster with a lot less space and can run on solar when solar is most effective.
Good luck getting Houston on board.
From my understanding many US cities, especially newer ones are a lot more spread out than the denser locales in Europe, much of which organically built around pre-automotive ways of getting around.
Arterial bus routes solve a fair few issues, but if you’re far enough out you nearly need a car to catch a bus. Least in some places I’ve been told about.
For me in the suburbs of Belfast there’s a direct bus into the centre that’s 5 minutes walk if even from my house. I’ve got a pick of two train stations directly on that route if I hop off. Which is rather handy as at 32 I still haven’t learned to drive.
There are times buses get wonky, as in they all come from various outer quadrants and into the centre, so crossing those routes gets tricky if you’re a good bit out from the centre. Belfast is pretty densely packed and relatively small so a 15/20 minute walk usually covers those scenarios. Indeed I’ve spent times purely getting around on foot when I’m feeling particularly energetic.
That doesn’t feel remotely similar to some places in the States. Granted the two I’ve visited, New York and Boston do seem similar enough to European cities that they could just add more services and it would have an impact out the gate.
|
On June 29 2022 13:30 Introvert wrote:
Moreover, it's rich to complain about it being somehow arbitrary when reading stuff from outside the constitution back into it is how the left tries to find so many of the "rights" they cherish in the first place. If you didn't use tests like that you'd have absolutely nothing.
We're certainly heading that way! LOL. I'm also going to note the snide use of quote marks around "rights". Don't mind "me".
Let me pull this discussion back to reality for you. We could argue about legalese and the Constitution forever. Do you agree with the inevitable consequence of Texas essentially erasing Plasmidghosts's existence as a trans person? Is that a positive outcome for you? If so, how?
|
|
|
There is an entire genre of youtube videos about how the US is infrastructure is designed around cars, and that fixing it is quite complicated. City planning is just as important as providing alternatives, the 2 need to go hand in hand. Nobody will use a train stop if it is surrounded by a square mile of parking lots and highways.
Here is one channel with several videos on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes
|
On June 29 2022 22:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote: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) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
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. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Because it’s a worst of both worlds temporary scenario. None of the systemic/cultural groundwork has been done to change infrastructure and habits. Joe/Jane public, depending on where they’re located still need their car to commute to work, they’re just going to be out of pocket in doing so. The economy is still geared towards endless consumption to fuel growth and that won’t change. There may be a slight reduction in fuel burning out of base necessity but I can’t see it being anything other than negligible in the wider scheme of things. A crisis can be a good thing in exposing problems, but it’s only got a silver lining if those lessons are taken on board. 2008, if it had precipitated major reforms could have been a short term pain, long term gain kind of shock, to take one example. As it saw superficial, largely meaningless reform, it retrospectively looks rather a lot like just pain across the board. Rejoicing over a likely negligible and very temporary reduction in global footprint (if it even is a reduction), while the poorest in society struggle even more to pay the bills would be silly and profoundly tone deaf, which is why you don’t see much of it.
because simply making life harder for people isn’t the goal, so why would anyone rejoice in it. “tone deaf” is very generous.
instead people are, have been, and will continue to tout the importance of public transit and the infrastructure overhaul that is ‘simply not a solution in the short term.’
no shit. but if the best time to plant a tree was thirty years ago, the second best time to plant a tree is right now. but it’s much easier to say that won’t help anyone right now and call it a day. thanks biden.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On June 29 2022 13:30 Introvert wrote:
That phrasing is precise, iirc it's part of a test the court had used for some decades when deciding things not explicitly in the the constitution. This is what distinguishes Roe from Heller btw, one is a right in the constitution one isn't. Moreover, it's rich to complain about it being somehow arbitrary when reading stuff from outside the constitution back into it is how the left tries to find so many of the "rights" they cherish in the first place. If you didn't use tests like that you'd have absolutely nothing. Roe or Casey certainly aren't justifiable on a plain text reading of the constitution.
Also people could actually read Dobbs. Or let's start older, maybe actually read the Heller decision or any of the scholarship since. The right of a person to "bear" arms was barely litigated because it was so universally accepted. Just like it's more and more OK to point out that Roe was a bad decision in terms of the law, it's now more and more ok (i.e. obvious) that an individual right to bear arms has always exited in this country and the 2nd amendment made it explicit.
It seems broadly a mess, but I suppose that’s what happens with a Constitution that is held as sacred as any religious artefact.
Roe in fairness was a bit of a fudge and a rather generous interpretation, but it’s stood for quite some time, the majority of Americans support some degree of abortion rights.
The specific language/paraphrases thereof of ‘deeply rooted in our nation’s history/tradition’ that I’ve seen crop up seems as arbitrarily defined as any supposedly off the reservation liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m only skimming these rulings as well, they’re rather long. That in particular somewhat juts out.
50 years almost of a ruling, on a topic that still broadly has majority support for said ruling seems to very much tick both the history and tradition boxes.
|
United States43232 Posts
On June 29 2022 18:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 15:46 Sermokala wrote:On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote: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) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
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. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Those people don't exist. They're just strawmen you see from fascists trying to paint people who believe science is real as eco terrorists. What euros need to do to break up their confusion on the gas issue is to look at the best selling cars in the us and the breakdown on car classes that are selling. Conservatives are reeing particularity hard because most of.them have a mpg under 20 and a lot have it under 15 on their trick or suv they drive on paved roads. They also commute about an hour or more a day. If you told them it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a prius or another car with reasonable mph they'd punch you in the face and call you a gay slur. Source me that happened to me. I get quadruple the mpg these guys get and they think I'm the idiot that needs a new car. A prius is an impractical car for a lot of rural people with blue collar jobs that often have to haul shit around. You can get mid-size and crossover SUVs that get 30 mpg these days. If gas is $2-$3/gallon people are still going to be happy driving whatever car they want. If gas is $6/gallon everyone except the most hardened homophobes are going to consider whether their next vehicle should be hybrid/electric.
It’s really not. Most blue collar jobs are in manufacturing, they’re not expected to bring their own tools and materials to the job site. It’s a cultural thing rather than a need. People who work in offices culturally identify with the idea of people who need trucks and so they drive one as a way of virtue signaling. It’s mainly due to advertising.
Even if you take a classic example of a job where you do need a truck to bring tools to a job site like contract landscaping or roofing they’re not all showing up in trucks. 4-8 people will show up in 1-2 quad cab trucks with extended beds, they car pooled.
Americans don’t have a special need for trucks that Europeans can’t relate to. Europe has blue collar jobs too. It’s just a defect with the American psyche.
|
rural people working blue colal jobs is why they they drive trucks. They drive trucks for the same reason it’s extremely common for people in the military to buy trucks after serving
|
|
|
On June 30 2022 02:29 JimmiC wrote:I mean for those who wanted the quiet part out loud. Show nested quote +"The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church."
"I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. This is not in the Constitution, it was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does," she told the Colorado Springs crowd on Sunday.
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/rep-lauren-boebert-calls-separation-155113394.htmlTheocracy here you go!
Theocratic Fascism here we come! I hope all the rightwingers and leftwing anti-voters are happy with the future they bought!
|
Heres hoping theres an imminent Kool-Aid party in Colorado Springs.
Hopefully Ted Haggard is on the guest list along with Lauren Boebert.
|
On June 30 2022 02:54 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 02:29 JimmiC wrote:I mean for those who wanted the quiet part out loud. "The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church."
"I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. This is not in the Constitution, it was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does," she told the Colorado Springs crowd on Sunday.
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/rep-lauren-boebert-calls-separation-155113394.htmlTheocracy here you go! Theocratic Fascism here we come! I hope all the rightwingers and leftwing anti-voters are happy with the future they bought!
This track was laid before any of us were even born, Trump's just one locomotive on it.
|
|
|
It's not fate, it's just not new. Trump was a catalyst, not an anomaly. We've been on this path for a very long time. The radical right is fighting to railroad the rest of the country on the path they want, we need to fight back just as hard to keep any of our freedoms intact.
|
|
|
On June 30 2022 00:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 18:33 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 15:46 Sermokala wrote:On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote: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) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
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. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Those people don't exist. They're just strawmen you see from fascists trying to paint people who believe science is real as eco terrorists. What euros need to do to break up their confusion on the gas issue is to look at the best selling cars in the us and the breakdown on car classes that are selling. Conservatives are reeing particularity hard because most of.them have a mpg under 20 and a lot have it under 15 on their trick or suv they drive on paved roads. They also commute about an hour or more a day. If you told them it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a prius or another car with reasonable mph they'd punch you in the face and call you a gay slur. Source me that happened to me. I get quadruple the mpg these guys get and they think I'm the idiot that needs a new car. A prius is an impractical car for a lot of rural people with blue collar jobs that often have to haul shit around. You can get mid-size and crossover SUVs that get 30 mpg these days. If gas is $2-$3/gallon people are still going to be happy driving whatever car they want. If gas is $6/gallon everyone except the most hardened homophobes are going to consider whether their next vehicle should be hybrid/electric. It’s really not. Most blue collar jobs are in manufacturing, they’re not expected to bring their own tools and materials to the job site. It’s a cultural thing rather than a need. People who work in offices culturally identify with the idea of people who need trucks and so they drive one as a way of virtue signaling. It’s mainly due to advertising. Even if you take a classic example of a job where you do need a truck to bring tools to a job site like contract landscaping or roofing they’re not all showing up in trucks. 4-8 people will show up in 1-2 quad cab trucks with extended beds, they car pooled. Americans don’t have a special need for trucks that Europeans can’t relate to. Europe has blue collar jobs too. It’s just a defect with the American psyche.
It's not just about what they do for work. Being rural/blue collar also means they are more likely to do more DIY on their homes and their homes are more likely to be situated on acres of land instead of an apartment in a city. When I lived in Florida I knew many people that owned horses or chickens or had woodworking shops in their garage or a family they wanted to take camping. I didn't even live in a rural area, I lived in a college town. Not everyone wants to try to haul lumber or horse feed or chicken coops or their family with all their camping shit in the back of a Prius. Hell, I can think of multiple times in the past couple years where my SUV helped me haul shit that a Prius couldn't. The alternative being to pay $100+ to have someone do it for me, rent a larger vehicle, or try to borrow a truck/SUV from someone. I agree it's largely a cultural thing. Nobody really needs to go camping or hunting or off-roading or mudding. There's some people that don't do any of those things and just have a truck because they think it's cool. There's also a lot of people that do do those things and you can't take a Prius mudding.
|
On June 30 2022 06:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 00:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2022 18:33 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 15:46 Sermokala wrote:On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote: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) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
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. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Those people don't exist. They're just strawmen you see from fascists trying to paint people who believe science is real as eco terrorists. What euros need to do to break up their confusion on the gas issue is to look at the best selling cars in the us and the breakdown on car classes that are selling. Conservatives are reeing particularity hard because most of.them have a mpg under 20 and a lot have it under 15 on their trick or suv they drive on paved roads. They also commute about an hour or more a day. If you told them it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a prius or another car with reasonable mph they'd punch you in the face and call you a gay slur. Source me that happened to me. I get quadruple the mpg these guys get and they think I'm the idiot that needs a new car. A prius is an impractical car for a lot of rural people with blue collar jobs that often have to haul shit around. You can get mid-size and crossover SUVs that get 30 mpg these days. If gas is $2-$3/gallon people are still going to be happy driving whatever car they want. If gas is $6/gallon everyone except the most hardened homophobes are going to consider whether their next vehicle should be hybrid/electric. It’s really not. Most blue collar jobs are in manufacturing, they’re not expected to bring their own tools and materials to the job site. It’s a cultural thing rather than a need. People who work in offices culturally identify with the idea of people who need trucks and so they drive one as a way of virtue signaling. It’s mainly due to advertising. Even if you take a classic example of a job where you do need a truck to bring tools to a job site like contract landscaping or roofing they’re not all showing up in trucks. 4-8 people will show up in 1-2 quad cab trucks with extended beds, they car pooled. Americans don’t have a special need for trucks that Europeans can’t relate to. Europe has blue collar jobs too. It’s just a defect with the American psyche. It's not just about what they do for work. Being rural/blue collar also means they are more likely to do more DIY on their homes and their homes are more likely to be situated on acres of land instead of an apartment in a city. When I lived in Florida I knew many people that owned horses or chickens or had woodworking shops in their garage or a family they wanted to take camping. I didn't even live in a rural area, I lived in a college town. Not everyone wants to try to haul lumber or horse feed or chicken coops or their family with all their camping shit in the back of a Prius. Hell, I can think of multiple times in the past couple years where my SUV helped me haul shit that a Prius couldn't. The alternative being to pay $100+ to have someone do it for me, rent a larger vehicle, or try to borrow a truck/SUV from someone. I agree it's largely a cultural thing. Nobody really needs to go camping or hunting or off-roading or mudding. There's some people that don't do any of those things and just have a truck because they think it's cool. There's also a lot of people that do do those things and you can't take a Prius mudding.
I have chickens I haul limber I have acres of land I have no need for a truck that my van can't do better. Horse feed comes sealed and you can't fit a chicken coop in a truck.
I'm glad you can admit that you want the expensive luxury vehicle because you think it's cool and not because it's practical for the people who want us to think 5 dollar gas prices are a bigger deal than a national coup or the loss of rights by justices who do not have the legitimacy of being appointed by a majority of the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
