What's the top issue you'd like to see Biden Admin tackle in first term? (1 Viewer)

[NoPartyMike]

Caveat, outside of Covid. Mine would be criminal justice reform, inclusive of ending the war on drugs.

 

[J-DONK]

Ending the Drug War entirely. I bet he won't do that, though.

This and cancel student loan debt.

 

[wardorican]

Looks like healthcare might be his #1 (other than covid).

 

[Xeno]

Ending the Drug War entirely. I bet he won't do that, though.

He did say during his ABC town hall that he intends on pushing for decriminalizing marijuana and treatment instead of incarceration for hard drugs. Not as flashy as saying he'll end the drug war but effectively the same.

 

[J-DONK]

Looks like healthcare might be his #1 (other than covid).

He is limited to what he can do via executive order. That's nothing more than pillow talk.

 

[wardorican]

He is limited to what he can do via executive order. That's nothing more than pillow talk.

"work with congress" doesn't equal EO...

 

[NoPartyMike]

He did say during his ABC town hall that he intends on pushing for decriminalizing marijuana and treatment instead of incarceration for hard drugs. Not as flashy as saying he'll end the drug war but effectively the same.

To add, per Politico, the House will vote on the MORE Act sometime in December, a bill to remove federal penalties on marijuana and scrap non-violent cannabis offenses. I believe it's DOA to the Senate, but should motivate the discussion for Biden's term.

 

[wardorican]

Speaking of Infrastructure....

Newly minted Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg wants US to lead world in high-speed rail

“We’ve been asked to settle for less in this country, and I just don’t know why people in other countries ought to have better train service and more investment in high-speed train service than Ame…

thehill.com

I wouldn't mind high speed rail.

Not sure what kind of jobs laying rail provides. I do know that rail technicians can make decent money.

 

[Goatman saint]

Legalize/decriminalize/end the war on drugs
Work towards single payer healthcare
Allow path to citizenship for DACA students
Reduce college debt, or at least interest rates, and make education and science/research a priority

 

[Taurus]

Speaking of Infrastructure....

Newly minted Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg wants US to lead world in high-speed rail

“We’ve been asked to settle for less in this country, and I just don’t know why people in other countries ought to have better train service and more investment in high-speed train service than Ame…

thehill.com

I wouldn't mind high speed rail.

Not sure what kind of jobs laying rail provides. I do know that rail technicians can make decent money.

Ugh.
Dammit, Pete.
America has spoken loud and clear on the subject of trains. Those words were "Eff trains."
Yes, trains are better, more efficient, faster, all those nifty things.
BUT
Trains absolutely require public transit on both ends. Your basic traveler needs to not have to drive to the station and pay for parking. He needs to get to his final destination without renting a car or being forced to Uber.
We don't have that.
America's 'last mile' public transit is for shirt. It's utterly pathetic in every city but a few.
New York; maybe Philly, Chicago and Frisco.
Sure's hell not L.A. Not Portland or Seattle or San Diego. Not Dallas, Houston, Miami, Denver, etc.
Give up on the freakin' trains and fix our rickety bridges and dams. Those things are killing people right now. Get that 3rd world crap up to snuff and we'll talk about trains, ok?

 

[Dragon]

Ugh.
Dammit, Pete.
America has spoken loud and clear on the subject of trains. Those words were "Eff trains."
Yes, trains are better, more efficient, faster, all those nifty things.
BUT
Trains absolutely require public transit on both ends. Your basic traveler needs to not have to drive to the station and pay for parking. He needs to get to his final destination without renting a car or being forced to Uber.
We don't have that.
America's 'last mile' public transit is for shirt. It's utterly pathetic in every city but a few.
New York; maybe Philly, Chicago and Frisco.
Sure's hell not L.A. Not Portland or Seattle or San Diego. Not Dallas, Houston, Miami, Denver, etc.
Give up on the freakin' trains and fix our rickety bridges and dams. Those things are killing people right now. Get that 3rd world crap up to snuff and we'll talk about trains, ok?

Long distance trains should not be compared to driving but to flying. Most major cities in Europe and even some in the US (like Denver) have Park-n-Ride lots where it is possible to safely park your car often for free while going on a trip.

 

[DaveXA]

Long distance trains should not be compared to driving but to flying. Most major cities in Europe and even some in the US (like Denver) have Park-n-Ride lots where it is possible to safely park your car often for free while going on a trip.

Do that after the local transportation problems are fixed. I realize that trains are more like flying, but people who fly usually have means, people who ride the bus or would take trains, not nearly so much.

But, we would have to do both. Which would require massive investment and it would take a decade if not 2 to see the benefits of that investment.

I love the idea of high speed rail that is widely available to the public, but I think we're a long way from seeing that happen.

 

[Taurus]

Long distance trains should not be compared to driving but to flying. Most major cities in Europe and even some in the US (like Denver) have Park-n-Ride lots where it is possible to safely park your car often for free while going on a trip.

It's about 1,100 miles from Seattle to Los Angeles. A flight costs $215 and takes 3 hours. A business traveler can board a 6am flight and attend a 10am meeting, then return that night and be home by 10pm.

A train would have to average 350mph and cost that same $215 to compete.

I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

 

[Dragon]

It's about 1,100 miles from Seattle to Los Angeles. A flight costs $215 and takes 3 hours. A business traveler can board a 6am flight and attend a 10am meeting, then return that night and be home by 10pm.

A train would have to average 350mph and cost that same $215 to compete.

I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Lots of people in Europe prefer trains to flights

No issues with lugage size or weights, the ability to get up and go for a walk and if you add the extra time spend for check-in, airport security and the transportation from the airports to the city, most medium size distances comes in about even.

I work for a company based in Hamburg but lives 60 miles north of Copenhagen. Regardless of whether I travel by train or car, it will take me 2 hours to get to Copenhagen airport. Then I have to check in one hour before my flight, and make sure to have a time buffer so I don't run late. It then takes 2 hours to get to Hamburg by plane, and then I would have to wait for my suitcase since I usually spend 3-4 days there, before taking the 45 minute ride into downtown Hamburg.

The alternative is getting into a train in Elsinore, taking a nice 1. class seat with free softdrinks, coffee and snacks. Plenty of workspace and electric outlets and free internet so I can get a lot of work done during the nice 4 hour trainride, then switch to another train which leaves 5 minutes after the one I arrived in, for the last 2 hours ride to downtown Hamburg for a total transportation time of less than 6 hours. All for less money than a monkey class ticket on a plane.

 

[Saintman2884]

Ugh.
Dammit, Pete.
America has spoken loud and clear on the subject of trains. Those words were "Eff trains."
Yes, trains are better, more efficient, faster, all those nifty things.
BUT
Trains absolutely require public transit on both ends. Your basic traveler needs to not have to drive to the station and pay for parking. He needs to get to his final destination without renting a car or being forced to Uber.
We don't have that.
America's 'last mile' public transit is for shirt. It's utterly pathetic in every city but a few.
New York; maybe Philly, Chicago and Frisco.
Sure's hell not L.A. Not Portland or Seattle or San Diego. Not Dallas, Houston, Miami, Denver, etc.
Give up on the freakin' trains and fix our rickety bridges and dams. Those things are killing people right now. Get that 3rd world crap up to snuff and we'll talk about trains, ok?

Eisenhower's interstate mass-scale highway infrastructural program begun in the 1950's as part of the Cold War was really the first big step in what would be a precipitous chain of events towards major highways, roads, bridges, and the car, oil and gas lobbies that's continued unabated for over 60+ years now. I do think if we had emphasized more towards building a more complex, interconnected mass public rail system in the 50's and 60's we would be in a better position right now but that's a very difficult, multi-nuanced series of questions that likely don't lead to easy answers.
Countries like Denmark, UK, France, Germany, or even Eastern Europe, building mass public transit systems is an economic necessity and has been since mid-19th century when constructing and building railroads were an integral, intertwining part of these particular counties' industrialization processes, especially Britain since they began industrializing about 50 years before their Continental neighbors started. Its also less of a logistical issue building a complex interconnected mass transit system when most European countries aren't that big or large, geographically.

In terms of geographical size and square mikes, UK, France, Germany, Spain aren't large,.expansive terrains compared to lets say Russia, or to a lesser extent, Italy and Italy's mass public transit system is fragmented, uneven and has been accused of lacking efficiency, expertise, and commercial rail way passengers have to wait long hours for Italian passenger trains to arrive, because they have a notorious reputation for being very, very late. Italy is probably the most fragmented European country, politically, culturally, and economically and there so many obvious signs pointing to this comparing how modern and industrialized the northern parts of the country are, like Milan, contracted to rural, agrarian central and southern regions of the peninsula where organized crime has had a ruthless stranglehold for centuries in the towns and cities, especially Sicily.

My point is this: Its very difficult, extremely costly, and the time-tables from designing, construction and finishing even a Multiphase cross-country intertwined mass transit system resembling our own Highway system would take decades and yes, Taurus its likely it won't be completed in yours or mine's lifetimes. Because this country's massive geographical size, topographical challenges, regional logistical issues plus eventual political challenges that would come to overall long-term costs, maintenance, and just how many jobs these contractors or engineers would provide that would last.

 

[Dragon]

Eisenhower's interstate mass-scale highway infrastructural program begun in the 1950's as part of the Cold War was really the first big step in what would be a precipitous chain of events towards major highways, roads, bridges, and the car, oil and gas lobbies that's continued unabated for over 60+ years now. I do think if we had emphasized more towards building a more complex, interconnected mass public rail system in the 50's and 60's we would be in a better position right now but that's a very difficult, multi-nuanced series of questions that likely don't lead to easy answers.
Countries like Denmark, UK, France, Germany, or even Eastern Europe, building mass public transit systems is an economic necessity and has been since mid-19th century when constructing and building railroads were an integral, intertwining part of these particular counties' industrialization processes, especially Britain since they began industrializing about 50 years before their Continental neighbors started. Its also less of a logistical issue building a complex interconnected mass transit system when most European countries aren't that big or large, geographically.

In terms of geographical size and square mikes, UK, France, Germany, Spain aren't large,.expansive terrains compared to lets say Russia, or to a lesser extent, Italy and Italy's mass public transit system is fragmented, uneven and has been accused of lacking efficiency, expertise, and commercial rail way passengers have to wait long hours for Italian passenger trains to arrive, because they have a notorious reputation for being very, very late. Italy is probably the most fragmented European country, politically, culturally, and economically and there so many obvious signs pointing to this comparing how modern and industrialized the northern parts of the country are, like Milan, contracted to rural, agrarian central and southern regions of the peninsula where organized crime has had a ruthless stranglehold for centuries in the towns and cities, especially Sicily.

My point is this: Its very difficult, extremely costly, and the time-tables from designing, construction and finishing even a Multiphase cross-country intertwined mass transit system resembling our own Highway system would take decades and yes, Taurus its likely it won't be completed in yours or mine's lifetimes. Because this country's massive geographical size, topographical challenges, regional logistical issues plus eventual political challenges that would come to overall long-term costs, maintenance, and just how many jobs these contractors or engineers would provide that would last.

That maybe so but it is never too late to start! Just because the US does not have a history of a very good public interstate transportation system does not mean that they can't plan to get one in the future. There are multiple very good reasons to do so, some are environmental, others because those systems can provide a safer, more pleasant and faster transportation than driving.

 

[MT15]

I think you guys criticizing this might be missing the point. It won’t replace the NY to LA circuit. But, there are lots of shorter routes where high speed rail would/could be a boon to major metro areas. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Just see what he has in mind.

 

[Dragon]

I think you guys criticizing this might be missing the point. It won’t replace the NY to LA circuit. But, there are lots of shorter routes where high speed rail would/could be a boon to major metro areas. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Just see what he has in mind.

Precisely. As my example shows - any 2-3 hour flight can easily be replaced with high speed trains with no loss of time and will offer greater comfort.

 

[Saintman2884]

That maybe so but it is never too late to start! Just because the US does not have a history of a very good public interstate transportation system does not mean that they can't plan to get one in the future. There are multiple very good reasons to do so, some are environmental, others because those systems can provide a safer, more pleasant and faster transportation than driving.
[/QUOTE
Yeah, but you see we still have to deal with those nagging little questions like overall costs, manpower hours, labor costs, multiple, multiple contracting engineer firms even to do preliminary construction projects much less designing and working on highly industrialized, mass public transit transportation system on a regional level. The highly industrialized, sophisticated infrastructure of mass public transit in the Nordic Scandinavian countries, particularly where you're from, Dragon Denmark, the geographical, geological logistics aren't or werent on the same massive, enormous scale, scope or size comparable to Russia's Eurasian heartlands or the lower 48-states Continental United States.
Even in Scandinavian countries, like Norway, which get this well-deserved reputation as being highly-designed, well-run, highly industrialized, interconnected infrastructure, it took decades to get it done right even there and in Norway it took even longer because modern Norway didnt come into existence until 1905 when it declared its independence from Sweden, and it very nearly led to a war or civil war in Sweden because the Swedish Social Democratic Party rejected any attempts by Swedish king to send in troops to crush it. Their were also international concerns that UK and Wilhelmine Germany might use Norwegian independence issue as a sort of proxy diplomatic war due to Germany supporting Sweden and British support of Norway. One of modern Norway's most celebrated Arctic explorers, actually travelled extensively all over UK during the crisis itself, successfully winning British public opinion, vital support from leading British politicians like David Lord George, major British corporations and business leaders who had strong economic, maritime ties to Norway.




Norway, in some respects, still isn't as highly industrialized in terms of overall, comparable complexity to Denmark or Sweden on a mass total scale and scope due to its remote, densely populated regions, cities and towns in northern, more extremely colder regions. Northern Norway's unique geography and rugged, mountainous, wet topography in areas around IIRC Narvik aren't the easiest, most accessible areas in Europe. Think of it as like southern France Pyrenees--inhospitable, rugged, jagged defined by its remoteness just MUCH, MUCH colder, and frigid and somewhat less populated.

FWIW, I will tell you this, Dragon, as an aside, due to Viking Age explorers, conquests, raids, later on establishing towns, cities, trading ports like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Eire, and Dublin, as well as the fact that Danish Vikings conquered and ruled large areas of northern-central England called the Danelaw from 878-934 C.E. and later Canute the Great's total conquest in 1013 of England, the British Isles for centuries had very strong cultural, political and economic ties to Scandinavia then mainland Continental Europe. Its been argued by historians that it werent for William the Conqueror's 1066 successful invasion and consolidation of England, Scotland, and Wales, its likely Anglo-Saxon England wouldve continue to evolve into a nation who's culture, politics, economy resembled Iceland or Denmark than a typical EU continental European nation like France. Even today, in areas of northern England, and Scotland, there's a large amount of still-visible Scandinavian influence, some Scots even see themselves and their country's past, cultural traditions, more Nordic-influenced.

There's a joke some Viking Age British historians like to use or throw around and it has its humor if you decontextualize it considering the events occurred over 1,100 years ago, but that England was the Old Norse Vikings first target as well as their favorite. Danish and later on Norwegian Viking raiders, conquerors, explorers like King Canute, Harold Godwinson, Ivar the Boneless really made Anglo-Saxon England a key vital, integral target if you also take into consideration they raided, displaced, conquered, later settled and established communities in like Normandy, Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, and Ukrainian Rus in Kiev.