re: Off-Topic: Governor’s Race

quote:

---

quote:
you dont think there is a need for interstate highways.


I can honestly say I don't. Are they convenient? Yes. Are they "needed?" No.

---

quote:

---

quote:
you dont think there is a need for interstate highways.


I can honestly say I don't. Are they convenient? Yes. Are they "needed?" No.

---

I've debated/argued with you on a number of occasions, and realize that our opinions are rather diametrical, BUT I honestly can't conceive of the idea that interstate highways aren't needed. Without them the country's supply chain would suffer catastrophic damage, and with our population, an automobile trip on any length would be hardly worth the effort and possible danger.
Maybe you mean that you wish that they weren't needed.

quote:

---

The interstate system was billed as a system that would eliminate traffic jams, unsafe roads, and inefficient routes. I don't know about your experience, but in my experience it has not accomplished these things.

---

It mostly has done all 3 outside of major metropolitan areas. I don’t think the brains behind the interstate system foresaw the post-war suburban boom nor the post Civil Rights Act white flight to the suburbs. They certainly should have seen the former though, and perhaps they did in certain cities.

That said, I’m actually in agreement the interstate system wasn’t entirely needed and has done harm to the country.

quote:

---

It would have been impossible to have gotten individual states to agree on, and simultaneously build roads as well made, streamlined and direct to the places most useful to be.

---

Clearly not, because this happened with the interstate system. If the public demanded it, the states would have done it.

New poll in the race. I'm thinking Ivey being below 50% like this is something to watch. She's going to play it safe while others attack her, so she's not going to be gaining a ton of new votes. Still likely to win but a runoff where she can't run and hide would certainly be interesting.

quote:

---

Im actually fine with interstates, seeing as everyone can use them and benefit from them. This is things the federal govt should be doing, organizing the states to agree to mutually beneficial projects like interstates. Though if my choice was no interstates or no federal spending, id choose the latter.

---

It doesn't, and won't, be that black-and-white regarding the feds spending money to maintain the country.
Imagine this:
A huge corporation with 50 different departments within it. If you were the CEO would you split your operating expenses to each separate department and tell them to spend their share on whatever they wanted/needed, or would you have meetings of department heads to discuss the business and then you distributed the money?

Coach, simple question: would your political views more closely resemble Mitt Romney's or Rand Paul's?

quote:

---

It doesn't, and won't, be that black-and-white regarding the feds spending money to maintain the country.
Imagine this:

---

Wasnt originally the feds intended job to "maintain" the country. It was the States job to maintain their State.

quote:

---

A huge corporation with 50 different departments within it. If you were the CEO would you split your operating expenses to each separate department and tell them to spend their share on whatever they wanted/needed, or would you have meetings of department heads to discuss the business and then you distributed the money?

---

Would be a pretty stupid corporation to have 50 different departments doing the same exact thing. Your analogy fails on many levels, namely that separate departments serve the overlying goal of the corporation. The fedgov is supposed to serve the interests of the States.

Your side has already won(not saying you are a dem/rep whatever but a supporter of overarching govt) but youll never convince me you are right. Doing so would mean I reject the original framework and ideals this country was founded on. From a practical standpoint, it fails for me as well. I get you are trying to convince me that my understanding of the situation is not as complete as yours. You are wrong. I just have a different opinion than you...which is perfectly fine on both sides. Enjoy the fairy dust money why you can.

*side not: lose the smugness. Laughyface emojis imply that my argument is absurd or something. Its not

There are lots of places it would work great. One example in particular would be LA to Vegas. That road is a shite show, and they have a ridiculous amount of accidents on that road for obvious reasons. Bullet train LA to Vegas, SLC to Vegas, Denver to Vegas etc., and then people can connect in Vegas from other cities to catch flights and boats departing the west coast. It would be wildly successful/safe, and there would be ways to make it affordable- hell I bet profits from gambling on the trains would turn a heckuva profit.

Big oil aint trying to hear all that though... they love those huge traffic jams

quote:

---

There are lots of places it would work great. One example in particular would be LA to Vegas. That road is a shite show, and they have a ridiculous amount of accidents on that road for obvious reasons. Bullet train LA to Vegas, SLC to Vegas, Denver to Vegas etc., and then people can connect in Vegas from other cities to catch flights and boats departing the west coast. It would be wildly successful/safe, and there would be ways to make it affordable- hell I bet profits from gambling on the trains would turn a heckuva profit.

Big oil aint trying to hear all that though... they love those huge traffic jams

---

Aren't they supposed to be building something like this out there right now, after 2 decades of talking about it?

quote:

---

Interstates are great, but I wish we had the ability to utilize mass transit like they do in South Korea. You can get from one end of the country to the other in approximately 3 hours for about $12.

The rail cars are nice and they provide free Wi-Fi.

Unfortunately, we're just too big of a country for a system like that to work.

---

No we aren't. A national high speed rail system that connects major travel hubs integrated with regional rail networks is doable. The latest maglev trains can cruise along at like 250-300mph. You could go from New York to Chicago on one in a couple of hours. Amtrak is shite because it's dated, slow, and shares lines with freight. The major hurdles facing any kind of proposed rail network are cost (the usual suspects in Congress would naturally lose their shite over an infrastructure plan that expensive) and death by amendment after a bunch of rural representatives get their hands on it and add 78 stops between those major transit hubs to service their districts.