Will Trump be Re-elected?

[Xan]

re trains, they are absolutely more cost-efficient and convenient than air travel, especially for shorter routes. Trains have minimal security, easier/quicker to get to stations and you can show up just minutes in advance, more comfortable en-route with more seat space and no restrictions on getting up and walking around. I take the train to DC all the time and I wouldn't go by air if you paid me. There are tons of mid-distance routes like this that are ripe for train travel. Air is the only way to go when you're crossing the continent, but even distances of ~1000 miles are doable by train. I'd do overnight sleeper car to Chicago in a heartbeat, you leave in the evening and show up in the AM all rested and ready to go, as opposed to having to blow much of the day prior flying in to stay at a hotel overnight. You just don't realize what a PITA air travel is until you've experienced the alternative. Get yourself a Eurail pass and check it out.

There's frequent talk (but not a whole lot else, from what I can tell) about having a triangular-ish set of high-speed rail among DFW, Houston, and San Antonio / Austin. Being intrastate, it could perhaps be free of federal interference. Seems like there would be a lot of demand for that, if it could be done well.

[jhogue]

Sophie,
This may sound a bit harsh, but were you asleep for 8 years of Obama rule by executive fiat?

1. Obama got $1 trillion for so-called infrastructure projects in his first year in office. Did he build out the existing high speed rail network (eg., the “shovel ready” Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor?) No.

2. In his acceptance speech on election night, I remember Obama claimed that now was the hour to heal the environment by renovating the power grid with environmentally friendly technology. Did that happen? Not really.

3. His signature accomplishment was passing Obamacare. To get it passed, he repeatedly assured his fellow citizens that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” How has that worked out?

So, why should anyone old enough to remember the Obama years sign up for the Green New Deal after that demonstrated record of fraud and failure?

[stuper1]

Any other Victor Davis Hanson fans here? He has a new book out called "The Case for Trump" discussing why Trump should get re-elected. I heard him interviewed on a podcast yesterday discussing the book. He seems like a thoughtful conservative. He doesn't like Trump's bombast, but he likes a lot of his policies. He lives in a farming region that could be described as low-rent (about 15 miles from me, who also lives in a low-rent area), and he seems to understand the frustrations of the lower class voters who elected Trump.

Hanson has his own podcast called The Classicist if anyone is interested.

[Kbg]

I’ve no idea about cost effectiveness between rail and air but I do believe if rail was so Advantageous there would be more of it in the US. I think a huge aspect is population density. Got me why there isn’t significant passenger rail in more densely populated areas, but where I live distances between large metro areas are measured in hundreds of miles and trains are not going to compete well against air when the distances are that large. I’ve often considered taking Amtrak to visit in laws. However, I could literally probably fly back and forth 10-12 times round trip time wise for one round trip by train. The other reason is connecting transportation networks...lack thereof.

But I do find amusement in the fact those who tend left want rail and then all you have to do is look how CA high speed rail was essentially killed by state regulators or liberal mayors for a host of environmental, constituency and plain old not in my back yard protests.

I will agree European and Japanese rail is quite nice but when you get off a train you can get elsewhere...in most of the US that is absolutely not the case.

This post isn’t pro or anti rail, just pointing out a more rural perspective on why rail hasn’t been successful (which is pretty close to why rail started dying off big time in the early 60s)

A parallel is electric cars...it appears they are going to replace gas and diesel eventually but it’s slow going because there isn’t sufficient supporting infrastructure.

[sophie]

Sophie,
This may sound a bit harsh, but were you asleep for 8 years of Obama rule by executive fiat?

1. Obama got $1 trillion for so-called infrastructure projects in his first year in office. Did he build out the existing high speed rail network (eg., the “shovel ready” Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor?) No.

2. In his acceptance speech on election night, I remember Obama claimed that now was the hour to heal the environment by renovating the power grid with environmentally friendly technology. Did that happen? Not really.

3. His signature accomplishment was passing Obamacare. To get it passed, he repeatedly assured his fellow citizens that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” How has that worked out?

So, why should anyone old enough to remember the Obama years sign up for the Green New Deal after that demonstrated record of fraud and failure?

Yes, I believe I said that these points of the Green New Deal did not originate with AOC, but in fact are long-standing goals. Obama didn't accomplish them, true, but it was for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with the worthiness of these projects.

Dualstow &KBG: yes, the land right of way and towns imposing ridiculous speed limits on trains are indeed obstacles that would have to be dealt with. For right of way, what about at least laying passenger rail tracks parallel to existing freight tracks? And for the local town issue, a simple federal law perhaps combined with better safety measures at rail/road intersections, would take care of that. note also that "half a decade" is actually a pretty short amount of time for a major public works project.

I guess I view transportation systems as a public service (e.g. like the court system or water/sewer systems) that fundamentally can't be privatized. If your position is that all transportation systems should be privatized, then that means you must be for privatizing the courts, water treatment plants, city/town sewer systems etc. Rome was successful in large part because of its road system, aqueducts and sewers. Our business can't magically operate without those things either. This is why we have a government: to set the stage for businesses to succeed.

[moda0306]

Any other Victor Davis Hanson fans here? He has a new book out called "The Case for Trump" discussing why Trump should get re-elected. I heard him interviewed on a podcast yesterday discussing the book. He seems like a thoughtful conservative. He doesn't like Trump's bombast, but he likes a lot of his policies. He lives in a farming region that could be described as low-rent (about 15 miles from me, who also lives in a low-rent area), and he seems to understand the frustrations of the lower class voters who elected Trump.

Hanson has his own podcast called The Classicist if anyone is interested.

I think I saw this guy being a Vietnam slaughter apologist on the "rag" that is Prager U. Not even sure why I watched that garbage, but I wasn't impressed.

I've also seen him discuss other issues from a conservative standpoint since then.

As much as I am fascinated by Herbert Hoover and respect the hell out of him (one of my favorite Presidents... which isn't saying much, but he's one hell of a dude), I find anyone the Hoover Institution to put out to be just a standard conservative war-mongering pile of useless and pompous analysis.

[pugchief]

the "rag" that is Prager U.

Please elaborate on why you feel that Prager U is a rag. The videos generally feature prominent speakers who use very clear logic to define their points. Is it simply because you disagree with their conservative point of view that the channel becomes a rag?

[l82start]

the "rag" that is Prager U.

Please elaborate on why you feel that Prager U is a rag. The videos generally feature prominent speakers who use very clear logic to define their points. Is it simply because you disagree with their conservative point of view that the channel becomes a rag?

i haven’t seen a lot of there videos, but everything i have seen fits that description, plain, logical explanations of the basic American governing principals and civics, a cartoon make up class education for all the people who no longer get taught this stuff in grade school.. it hardly seems controversial...

[moda0306]

the "rag" that is Prager U.

Please elaborate on why you feel that Prager U is a rag. The videos generally feature prominent speakers who use very clear logic to define their points. Is it simply because you disagree with their conservative point of view that the channel becomes a rag?

"Prominent." Wolf Blitzer is prominent. So are a dozen other commentators at CNN. So is Hillary Clinton. "Prominence" isn't a good term in such an uninformed populace.

I do disagree with their conclusions, but that's a selection bias. The reason I disagree with their conclusions is because I disagree with what they believe to be the most pertinent, important facts and how conclusions flow from those facts.

But it has more to do with being a cuck to power and hypocritical. I don't mind people being wrong... it's when they suckle at the teat of powerful institutions and serve their masters and collect their check while folks suffer immeasurably that pisses me off.

[pugchief]

the "rag" that is Prager U.

Please elaborate on why you feel that Prager U is a rag. The videos generally feature prominent speakers who use very clear logic to define their points. Is it simply because you disagree with their conservative point of view that the channel becomes a rag?

"Prominent." Wolf Blitzer is prominent. So are a dozen other commentators at CNN. So is Hillary Clinton. "Prominence" isn't a good term in such an uninformed populace.

Jeez. You don't accept anyone as a competent reference unless they are your personal short list. Whatever.

I do disagree with their conclusions, but that's a selection bias. The reason I disagree with their conclusions is because I disagree with what they believe to be the most pertinent, important facts and how conclusions flow from those facts.

In your not-so-humble opinion. This is classic lefty. There is no logic allowed; if you don't agree, you are just wrong (or racist).

But it has more to do with being a cuck to power and hypocritical. I don't mind people being wrong... it's when they suckle at the teat of powerful institutions and serve their masters and collect their check while folks suffer immeasurably that pisses me off.

I don't even understand wtf you are talking about here.

[Kbg]

Roads are for the most part clearly a public good, as are buses. as is the aviation control system so I don’t have a conceptual problem with government support of necessary rail infrastructure. I think the interstate road system is the way transportation should work...federal does interstate NOT local. Why should I pay for a rail line that benefits a single state or why should another taxpayer support the county road in front of my house? I also don’t have a problem with the feds setting standards where we are pretty sure interstate and international connectivity is required for efficiency. Now it’s no big surprise that entities are going to try their best to give themselvesan advantage on the standards...but perhaps a corrupted standard is better than no standard. The poster child for this latter point is the food fight over internet standards. If you think there is a moral issue here you do not understand anything about it. It’s purely over control and who fobs off costs and profits on who.

Ultimately my criteria is greatest public good for the least dollar but this thread is illustrative of how our public discourse operates now days. Usually the starting point is: here is my political philosophy how does this idea fit or not fit it. Therefore, good or bad. Screw the merits, irrelevant.

[sophie]

Roads are for the most part clearly a public good, as are buses. as is the aviation control system so I don’t have a conceptual problem with government support of necessary rail infrastructure. I think the interstate road system is the way transportation should work...federal does interstate NOT local. Why should I pay for a rail line that benefits a single state or why should another taxpayer support the county road in front of my house?

Fair. I neglected to emphasize that I saw a national rail system as being primarily inter-state. Local rail lines can co-exist independently.

Example: the NYC area commuter rail system. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor runs through here on its way to DC, Philadephia, Boston etc, and it is interconnected with 4 independent local rail networks covering 3 states (plus the NY subway). These commuter lines are pretty extensive and also function as inter-city rail (e.g. NYC to New Haven, Albany, Hartford, Trenton). They're also very well used with frequent service. If they suddenly stopped functioning tomorrow, the metro area would completely freeze up. I realize this isn't how it is in most metro areas....trains in other cities always look to me like a toy setup meant for show, or to give homeless people a place to pee, or for occasional use when you just kinda want to see what it's like to ride a train, as if it's an amusement park attraction. You generally don't see well-dressed people who look like they need to actually get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time taking them (ok there are exceptions like the DC & Chicago subways.) I am guessing that this is why most people (and Congress) don't see rail as a legitimate part of the transit system worthy of serious investment.

Since most of you appear to be from Texas, the analogy would be local lines in & around each city, with state-run lines between them (e.g. Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston), interconnecting with a national rail line that goes to New Orleans & east, north to (say) Oklahoma & Chicago,, and west to Los Angeles. Get the idea?

Also note: we will have to spend money on inter-city travel one way or another. The air traffic control & airport system is at or even beyond capacity. Extending that is going to be super costly too. It makes more sense to develop rail to take the load off the air travel system, because rail, once built, is far more scaleable.