Highspeed rail is B$it

[Jibartik]

https://i.imgur.com/knHS2mM.png

[Jibartik]

edit: B$hit

[robayon]

have you ever been on a high speed train

[Reiwa]

https://i.imgur.com/knHS2mM.png

Underwater mountain choochoo.

[Reiwa]

Underwater mountain choochoo.

Glasgow to London 39.94 (https://www.raileurope.com/en-us/destinations/glasgow-london-train)

[Jibartik]

have you ever been on a high speed train

haha yes I used to be like nostalgia quest (https://youtu.be/v4z_9NcIJXI?t=41)

Glasgow to London 39.94 (https://www.raileurope.com/en-us/destinations/glasgow-london-train)

🚆 Fastest journey
4hr 28m

✈️ easyJet
1h 15m
Nonstop
from $47

[Reiwa]

Oh you're changing your reasoning to time.

Ok, goalposts.

[Jibartik]

? No:

Its cheeper faster and better to fly. Thesis tands.

You just had a missunderstanding on your part thinking I was only talking about it being cheaper.

Per hour its vastly cheeper in the glasgow example anyway. So if you want to keep the goalposts where they are, it's still cheaper to fly.

The reality: We dont live in the future yet, get used to it.

[Reiwa]

? No:

Its cheeper faster and better to fly. Thesis tands.

You just had a missunderstanding on your part thinking I was only talking about it being cheaper.

Per hour its vastly cheeper in the glasgow example anyway. So if you want to keep the goalposts where they are, it's still cheaper to fly.

The reality: We dont live in the future yet, get used to it.

It is not cheaper to fly from Glasgow to London and your image macro depicts price only.

Goalposts.

[Jibartik]

It is not cheaper to fly from Glasgow to London and your image macro depicts price only.

Goalposts.

Since you'll have 3 hours less to panhandle in London than if you flew it costs less.

And anyway even if I did concede that a 5 hours train trip that is 10 dollars cheaper and therefore better, you still have 3 other examples in OP that demolish that savings.

[Reiwa]

Since you'll have 3 hours less to panhandle in London than if you flew it costs less.

🤪

[Jibartik]

:D

I love trains, anyone who does, should be disappointed about OP not argumentative!

[Reiwa]

:D

I love trains, anyone who does, should be disappointed about OP not argumentative!

Well you have it going through the English Channel and the Alps(x2).

🤪

[Jibartik]

You know what doesn't have to go through them?

[Reiwa]

You know what doesn't have to go through them?

A bird, a plane, but certainly not a locomotive.

[Reiwa]

Anyway, would the cost of riding a train go down if we just all did this?

https://i.imgur.com/tDER4R1.jpeg

[Jibartik]

https://i.imgur.com/VEdfLSH.gif

[Jibartik]

Anyway, would the cost of riding a train go down if we just all did this?

https://i.imgur.com/tDER4R1.jpeg

:D

"free standard issue food if you open your mouths as we pass the stagnant water ahead!"

[Reiwa]

https://i.imgur.com/VEdfLSH.gif

https://i.imgur.com/nCpkENm.gif

[loramin]

Highspeed rail is B$it

Japan has entered the chat.

[Jibartik]

Japan has entered the chat.

Are bullet trains expensive in Japan?
It is rarely worth buying single tickets even if you're planning to visit just 2 places. The cost of a round-trip from Tokyo to Kyoto costs 26,160 yen by Shinkansen train. This is almost the cost of a traditional 7-day Japan Rail Pass (29,110 yen).Jun 23, 2021 that will get you to your destination slower but at a much better price.

Kyoto - tokyo by air:
Jetstar
1h 25m
Nonstop
from $38

[Reiwa]

Kyoto - tokyo by air:
Jetstar
1h 25m
Nonstop
from $38

Sure but the plane will have more filthy gaijan.

[Kaveh]

Japan has entered the chat.

Jib just likes airline lobbyists fleecing the US for hundreds of billions over the decades

[nostalgiaquest]

Awww, thanks for the shout out lol. Nice to know you’re thinking of me.

Here's why high speed trains can be better than planes, in my not so humble opinion.

Let’s say you’re checking a bag. How much extra does that cost with the airline? I would bet that if you take that cheap easyjet flight, and actually book it with a checked bag, it's going to be a lot more than what they're advertising. Those cheap advertised flights are also usually only at shit times. Train has no baggage fees, weight limits, or restricted items. And with the airline there's a chance that your bag doesn't show up at the destination. It's happened to me a few times, and it's aggravating and inconvenient as fuck.

Where are the airports in relation to where you’re going, or coming from? Usually airports are anywhere from 30-60 minutes from downtown. Trains usually drop off directly in or near the downtown. So while planes might seem faster, sometimes that’s an illusion.

Taking a plane means you need to suffer through the airport experience. Gotta get there two hours early if you’ve got bags to check. Even longer now with how fucked airports are currently. Theres multiple lines you have to wait in as you go through baggage, security, and passport control. Then with whatever time you have left you wander around aimlessly, try to relax at your gate, or spend too much money on shitty food. And you have to deal with a bunch of other dipshits. Airports are full of dipshits. With a train you show up a few minutes early and walk right on the bitch.

Airplanes are also miserable. Cramped seats and recycled air. Food is terrible. No way to escape the screaming baby two seats over. Etc. Trains are much more comfortable, and have way more room to move around and stretch. The Shinkansen in Japan is a delight to ride in. You can bring your own food and booze onboard. Usually wifi on the train is free, or you have cell service the whole time. There’s nice big windows to stare out of, and if you’re lucky some cool scenery. When I went Amsterdam to Paris I looked up where the WWI western front was and made sure I noticed when we passed over it. It's just a bunch of farmland now, but still it's cool to look at.

Trains aren’t always better, but sometimes they are. Depends on a number of factors.

[Jibartik]

Jib just likes airline lobbyists fleecing the US for hundreds of billions over the decades

The $105 billion bullet train project — for which $10.3 billion has been spent so far — would be the largest single investment in state history,

California high-speed rail still in limbo - CalMatters (https://calmatters.org/politics/2022/05/california-high-speed-rail-standoff/)

You're just a commie at this point.

[Jibartik]

Depends on a number of factors.

But youll fight that theyre better though right? You wont conceed that Im right, because you want to fight?

Your best argument for train tavel is:

WALK your carryon bag from downtown to your hotel.

Or that I might be traveling 250 miles with a giant "checked" bag.

Trains are much more comfortable, and have way more room to move around and stretch

That's because they take 5-10 times longer!

Again, I love the idea of high speed rail, but the reaason we dont have it is because:

a number of factors.

Mainly being: where they DO have it its cheeper to fly so the majority of travelers (buisness) do that. Sorry they dont check bags - and they get free door to door service instead of dragging their "giant checked baggage's" down the foreign street they never been on.

[Kaveh]

California has to approve rail going through lizard habitats. That’s on them for being dumb

Eisenhower connected the country in the 1940s and 50s. You would’ve opposed that with similar nonsensical arguments

[Kaveh]

Plane tickets would be way more expensive if we didn’t bailout airlines

We did this in the financial crisis and the pandemic. Your prices aren’t a reflection of what we’re actually paying, but you’ve done well quoting lobbyists

[Jibartik]

I agree we should not bail out airlines, but we dont bail out foreign airlines..

I only linked foreign airlines.

[Kaveh]

Europeans do the same shit, it’s not reflective of what we pay to fly

Not to mention Boeing and airbus

[Jibartik]

WAKE UP CALL:

All those dream solutions are just fake shit politicians said to get you to vote for them!

Teslas have a fake space car sound in them because we live in the petroleum era, not a science fiction movie.

[nostalgiaquest]

But youll fight that theyre better though right? You wont conceed that Im right, because you want to fight?

Your best argument for train tavel is:

WALK your carryon bag from downtown to your hotel.

Or that I might be traveling 250 miles with a giant "checked" bag.



That's because they take 5-10 times longer!

Again, I love the idea of high speed rail, but the reaason we dont have it is because:



Mainly being: where they DO have it its cheeper to fly so the majority of travelers (buisness) do that. Sorry they dont check bags - and they get free door to door service instead of dragging their "giant checked baggage's" down the foreign street they never been on.

Lol you’re delusional. And It’s very obvious you don’t travel much. I’m not fighting anything. Simply stating my opinion. There are many instances where taking a train ends up being faster door to door. Plenty of business people take trains. I’ll give you that majority of business trips probably don’t need checked bags, but a lot still do. You going to fold up your nice suit and put it in your carry on? For my job I’m often bringing a checked bag of PPE like safety shoes, a hard hat, high vis gear, or arc flash clothing.

[Jibartik]

Of course there are instances where taking a train is better I said I love high speed rail you jerk.

But if you look at the vast majority of travel in areas where there are high speed rail, its business, no checked bags, and drivers available.

It's just not economically viable to solve any transportation issues.

Like, comon man, I am saying its not viable economicailly, nor is a solution for air travel, and your best argument is, some UK kids who are doing a hop over to paris to get faded for a weekend, is like the 1 instance where the train is superior in every way.

LOL i just read this:

You going to fold up your nice suit and put it in your carry on? For my job I’m often bringing a checked bag of PPE like safety shoes, a hard hat, high vis gear, or arc flash clothing.

Lol! No, you’re delusional. And It’s very obvious you don’t travel [for business] much.

👀👀👀👀 checked bag of PPE like safety shoes, a hard hat, high vis gear, or arc flash clothing

BRO do you think construction workers are traveling to the job on airplanes?! You're offering a 5 hour commutes on trains to get to work for labor jobs!?

No wonder the planet is dying if thats your experience in the labor market lol jesus christ, what do you work in DUBAI?

[Jibartik]

High speed rail is like Drone Delivery.

It's better in theory, or in the future. But right now it's just not feasible for the west. And even in places where it's a good idea it's not cheaper and that's something to consider.

Air travel may be shit and awful and suck and we should totally let it die, but we have to kill the kings that rule first.

Edit: oh yea and we should retroactively charge people 1 dollar per mile they've traveled for leisure in the last 10 years to fix climate change:

Because we've known full well during that decade that by flying you're literally at fault for destroying the planet, and yet libs just kept doing it.

[Kaveh]

If we stopped subsidizing our plane and airline industry, we’d already have trains as the costs would be prohibitively expensive for people to fly between places like Dallas and Houston

[Jibartik]

Me: bail outs are bad

Kaveh: WE HAV ETO FIGHT THE CHINESE WE HAV ETO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM RUSSIA IM SO SCARED YOURE A SIMP SIMP YOURE A SIMP!

me: Train travel is not as cheep as you think

KAVEH: LETS MAKE AIR TRAVEL MORE EXPENSIVE THEN!

SMH

[nostalgiaquest]

Of course there are instances where taking a train is better I said I love high speed rail you jerk.

But if you look at the vast majority of travel in areas where there are high speed rail, its business, no checked bags, and drivers available.

It's just not economically viable to solve any transportation issues.

Like, comon man, I am saying its not viable economicailly, nor is a solution for air travel, and your best argument is, some UK kids who are doing a hop over to paris to get faded for a weekend, is like the 1 instance where the train is superior in every way.

Again, you’re delusional. And stop with this stupid “you’re best argument is <insert nonsense hyperbole and claim I said it>“ crap. It’s disingenuous and makes you look like an idiot.

I’ve lived in areas with high speed rail for the last 10 years. The Monday morning train is majority business travelers. I know. I’ve done it multiple times. If you polled the average Japanese business man, I will guarantee the vast majority would take the Shinkansen over flying. And they do. I know, because again, I’ve done it numerous times.

For a timing example, let’s take Amsterdam to Paris, since I did it about 4 weeks ago and had to choose between train and plane.

Costs for flights and train were pretty much the same. Airlines never offer cheap flights during business travel times. Try and actually book one of these cheap flights your listing at 7am.

Thalys train from Amsterdam central to downtown Paris is 3 hours 50 minutes. Let’s call it 4. Flight time is 1 hour 20 minutes. Let’s call that 1.5. We won’t check a bag, so let’s say we get to the airport an hour and a half early. That’s 3. After landing and taxing, and waking through the airport, probably 3.5 hours. Taxi from the airport to downtown (which is where I assume most business folk are going) is 45 minutes, or more with traffic. 4 hours 15 minutes total. So the train is a bit faster. And that doesn’t take into account the difference in times it takes to get to the train station/airport, which in my case is about the same. Since the train is much more comfortable, for the many reasons I listed previously, including the fact that I had a checked bag, I chose the train. And on that train the majority of people appeared to be business’s travelers, although I’m not sure how you really can tell that - they were well dressed and spent most of the ride on their phones/laptops. And on the way home I used the extra space in my checked bag to bring back a few bottles of nice French wine. Double win!

No one’s saying trains are “a solution” to air travel. What’s that even mean? It’s a nice alternative in certain situations. Situations I don’t think you understand. I’m not saying trains are the right thing for America, but I can say that you have no idea what you’re talking about from the perspective of countries that already have high speed rail.

Anyways. Bed time my euro expat ass. I’ll leave you with this - “shut the fuck Donnie, you’re out of your element”

[nostalgiaquest]

One more since you edited your post while I was responding

“BRO do you think construction workers are traveling to the job on airplanes?! You're offering a 5 hour commutes on trains to get to work for labor jobs!?”

I’m an engineer for a company that builds high tech buildings. The project managers, design engineers, and inspectors are usually from out of country, and perform multiple site visits through the project. The actual construction contractors are all local, but when I go to site to do inspections, commissioning, or oversee projects, I also wear PPE.

You really have no clue what you’re talking about. It’s sad.

[Jibartik]

One more since you edited your post while I was responding

“BRO do you think construction workers are traveling to the job on airplanes?! You're offering a 5 hour commutes on trains to get to work for labor jobs!?”

I’m an engineer for a company that builds high tech buildings. The project managers, design engineers, and inspectors are usually from out of country, and perform multiple site visits through the project. The actual construction contractors are all local, but when I go to site to do inspections, commissioning, or oversee projects, I also wear PPE.

You really have no clue what you’re talking about. It’s sad.

Americans make more than 405 million long-distance business trips per year. This means about 1.1 million people are traveling for business every day in the U.S.

405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 millionHow many people travel for business annually?
405 million

How many for your wierd freak job where you travel on comerical airlines with a giant bag full of chemcial enginering equipment that you pefer to walk from the subway to your hotel than take a cab?

You're actually trying to tell me that you prefer taking a 17 hour train than a 2 hour flight, because you have a fucking hard hat you dont want to get wrinkled?

[Jibartik]

Not to mention there are airports every 45 minuets from each other and train stations are VASTLY more difficult to get to.

This nonsense where you say a train station is magically at your destination is stupid.

"i TOOKk A TrtaAIN to ColRADO for BUEISNESS froM WISConSON bEcAuSE i DiDNT wANT mY sUIT TO gET wRINKelD"

"I hAd To CheCK my SuIt TOO bEEcAUSE i COuLDNT tAKE thE cHANce IT wOUld GET wRINKlEd IN cARRy On"

You cant tell me you actually believe this?

FWIW I haven't checked a bag in like 10 years because I'm not a retard and if i do it's because i was traveling with my retarted kids.

Never in a million years would I think having a hard hat, a jump suit, and a pair of shoes means I cant use the caryon for a 1 day flight. SMH

[nostalgiaquest]

Americans make more than 405 million long-distance business trips per year. This means about 1.1 million people are traveling for business every day in the U.S.

But if you look at the vast majority of travel in areas where there are high speed rail, its business, no checked bags, and drivers available.

https://i.imgur.com/knHS2mM.png


I thought we were talking about countries with high speed rail. I can’t keep up with how fast you shift the goal posts.

You’ve gone full Ooloo at this point. Never go full Ooloo.

I’m guessing you have some menial desk job and have never been on a business trip.

Edit: BRO

[Danth]

Effectively all high-speeed rail service is heavily subsidized so that argument's moot.

When you're talking wheeled ground transport, you get speed or you get cost effectiveness, you don't get both. Putting those wheels on steel rails helps some, but doesn't eliminate the basic problem. Rail is absurdly good at hauling heavy loads at modest speeds. If you want to ship ten thousand tons of coal overland at thirty miles an hour, rail's unbeatable.

Train resistance, usually expressed here in the states in pounds per ton, increases with speed. Modern railroad locomotives use electric motors and have a tractive effort curve that is effectively a straight line--you go faster, you have less pull. If you want to haul a heavy passenger train at high rates of speed, you have no choice but to grossly overpower your train*. That costs money. It costs more money because safety regulations mean the equipment tends to be very heavy. Deadweight per passenger on the Northeast Corridor's "Acela" are on the order of two tons per, or roughly rivaling that of single-occupancy automobiles. If you want to run passenger trains with some semblance of efficiency, you need to run slower. To repeat: You get speed or you get cheap, you don't get both.

The same problems of course apply, to an even greater extent, to highway transport. It's why the government tried to reduce speed limits during the 70's, and part of why speeds have never reached particularly high levels. The cost is too high, both in dollars and in pollution due to increased fuel consumption.

Passenger rail has its uses, even being rather cost-inefficient. It's great for helping out with congestion in built-up cities when the air corridors are too crowded and there's little physical space for ground corridors. This seldom applies in North America due to lesser population density here than in some other regions, but that will likely change with time and continued population growth. Some air routes are already heavily congested.

----------------------------------------------

*This is why most high-speed rail uses electric locomotives rather than diesel-electrics, including all of the highest-speed lines. Either of them use electric motors, but the diesel is limited by carrying its own onboard power plant. An electric using outside transmission can be over-powered at the cost of requiring expensive infrastructure and higher route maintenance.

-----------------------------------

Short version: High speed rail has its place, but is rarely ideal in present-day North American conditions. It's frequently sold, wrongly, as a cheaper option when it seldom is, giving fuel to its detractors.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Effectively all high-speeed rail service is heavily subsidized so that argument's moot.

When you're talking wheeled ground transport, you get speed or you get cost effectiveness, you don't get both. Putting those wheels on steel rails helps some, but doesn't eliminate the basic problem. Rail is absurdly good at hauling heavy loads at modest speeds. If you want to ship ten thousand tons of coal overland at thirty miles an hour, rail's unbeatable.

Train resistance, usually expressed here in the states in pounds per ton, increases with speed. Modern railroad locomotives use electric motors and have a tractive effort curve that is effectively a straight line--you go faster, you have less pull. If you want to haul a heavy passenger train at high rates of speed, you have no choice but to grossly overpower your train*. That costs money. It costs more money because safety regulations mean the equipment tends to be very heavy. Deadweight per passenger on the Northeast Corridor's "Acela" are on the order of two tons per, or roughly rivaling that of single-occupancy automobiles. If you want to run passenger trains with some semblance of efficiency, you need to run slower. To repeat: You get speed or you get cheap, you don't get both.

The same problems of course apply, to an even greater extent, to highway transport. It's why the government tried to reduce speed limits during the 70's, and part of why speeds have never reached particularly high levels. The cost is too high, both in dollars and in pollution due to increased fuel consumption.

Passenger rail has its uses, even being rather cost-inefficient. It's great for helping out with congestion in built-up cities when the air corridors are too crowded and there's little physical space for ground corridors. This seldom applies in North America due to lesser population density here than in some other regions, but that will likely change with time and continued population growth. Some air routes are already heavily congested.

----------------------------------------------

*This is why most high-speed rail uses electric locomotives rather than diesel-electrics, including all of the highest-speed lines. Either of them use electric motors, but the diesel is limited by carrying its own onboard power plant. An electric using outside transmission can be over-powered at the cost of requiring expensive infrastructure and higher route maintenance.

-----------------------------------

Short version: High speed rail has its place, but is rarely ideal in present-day North American conditions. It's frequently sold, wrongly, as a cheaper option when it seldom is, giving fuel to its detractors.

Danth

Why passenger trains heavy? Seems like nonsense.

[Danth]

Why passenger trains heavy? Seems like nonsense.

A big part of it is safety regulations. There are significant crashworthiness laws in place, and it's usually stricter for equipment expected to run high rates of speed. Most of the equipment used by tourist railroads, for example, would be illegal in high-speed service.

I do not disagree with such regulations; I don't want to be speeding around at 120 MPH in 19th century-style wood frame coaches. It goes back to the basic point, you can either be fast or you can be cheap, but you can't be both. EDIT: Look up historic rail crashes where you had coaches telescoping into each other and you'll quickly realize why such requirements are necessary.

[Reiwa]

A big part of it is safety regulations. There are significant crashworthiness laws in place, and it's usually stricter for equipment expected to run high rates of speed. Most of the equipment used by tourist railroads, for example, would be illegal in high-speed service.

I do not disagree with such regulations; I don't want to be speeding around at 120 MPH in 19th century-style wood frame coaches. It goes back to the basic point, you can either be fast or you can be cheap, but you can't be both. EDIT: Look up historic rail crashes where you had coaches telescoping into each other and you'll quickly realize why such requirements are necessary.

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

[Danth]

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

[robayon]

Trains are cleaner and safer than planes, you wear a suit on a train but you can wear your basketball shorts and thin sweater on the plane

RyanAir/Easyjet are more comparable to a sky-bus than a normal plane. I have taken the chunnel and the eurail all over and the shinkansen, they're much nicer

Except when that guy jacked off in the sleeper car from Amsterdam to Paris, but that isn't the fault of the vehicle type and it also happens in hostels

[Reiwa]

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

[Danth]

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

[Reiwa]

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

Let's go back a sec. What makes either train itself, without cargo, heavier?

Why would a train designed to carry, as you say "several dozen passengers" weigh over double that of a train designed to carry freight by the tonnes?

I have to think you are arguing in bad faith, because you cannot actually be this stupid.

[loramin]

Kyoto - tokyo by air:
Jetstar
1h 25m
Nonstop
from $38

You're both cherry-picking and comparing apples to oranges there: fruity ;)

You can take the 新幹線 to all sorts of places a plane won't take you, and it's awesome. The Japanese are leading the world in mass transit, plus their whole society is organized around it: it's hard to appreciate trains here when you don't get to see how awesome they are for daily life in places like Japan.

But honestly, otherwise, this is a rare thread where I mostly agree with you Jib: I live in California, and the whole the high-speed rail scheme was a scam from the beginning.

[Danth]

Let's go back a sec. What makes either train itself, without cargo, heavier?

Why would a train designed to carry, as you say "several dozen passengers" weigh over double that of a train designed to carry freight by the tonnes?

I have to think you are arguing in bad faith, because you cannot actually be this stupid.

Don't believe me, why don't you look it up yourself? Yes, passenger equipment in the U.S. is absurdly heavy for what it carries due to a combination of factors. Partly it's because humans are low-density cargo, people like space, and space means weight. Partly it's crash regulations, your passenger coach has to hold together and not telescope if it comes off the rails at 120 MPH, nobody much cares if a coal hopper tears apart when it tips over at 30 MPH. It is possible to achieve some degree of weight reduction by use of composite materials and less stringent crash resistances, as done by some of the very high-speed trainsets used in other nations, but passenger equipment is always going to be very heavy for what it hauls due to the nature of the business.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Don't believe me, why don't you look it up yourself? Yes, passenger equipment in the U.S. is absurdly heavy for what it carries due to a combination of factors. Partly it's because humans are low-density cargo, people like space, and space means weight. Partly it's crash regulations, your passenger coach has to hold together and not telescope if it comes off the rails at 120 MPH, nobody much cares if a coal hopper tears apart when it tips over at 30 MPH. It is possible to achieve some degree of weight reduction by use of composite materials and less stringent crash resistances, as done by some of the very high-speed trainsets used in other nations, but passenger equipment is always going to be very heavy for what it hauls due to the nature of the business.

Danth

I'm not gonna look it up cuz you made it up, don't waste my time. Passenger trains are lighter than freight trains and that's that, mister. :p

I will pray for you to Torquemada

[Jibartik]

You're both cherry-picking and comparing apples to oranges there: fruity

No I gogled "most traveled high speed rail in japan" and that is kyoto to tokyo

Then I checked ticket price of kyoto to tokyo

and then I did "flight from Kyoto to toyko.

I picked the top result from both of those searches.

So dont assume! you know the saying: Fruity ;)

But honestly, otherwise, this is a rare thread where I mostly agree with you Jib: I live in California, and the whole the high-speed rail scheme was a scam from the beginning.

Yeah, Id love to be a type 2 civilization but we're just not there yet.

The only reasons we have goverment paid roads is because the ultra wealthy democrats that left the south after the civil war to head west during the agriboom wanted free roads because it was too costly for them to make them connect their farms and the stores themselves.

That's when the democrat party became the BIG goverment party (that it wasn't when it tried to succeed from the union during the civil war.)

Because the american system works this way, we can get those trains if like we had no GAS - and we "had to come up wth a way to get workers to work" but while we have a cheeper alternative, we wont be able to get it in the USA full stop. Especially after California proved that no amount of wealth and progressives can push that ball forward.

[Jibartik]

I thought we were talking about countries with high speed rail. I can’t keep up with how fast you shift the goal posts.

You’ve gone full Ooloo at this point. Never go full Ooloo.



Edit: BRO

You know what people mean when they say "I thought?"

Besides, you cant say taking a 5 hour train in the morning from London to Paris for business and then another 5 hour train ride on the way home beats taking a 1 hour flight for less, is better without being wrong.

I’m guessing you have some menial desk job and have never been on a business trip.

Well you're a stupid jerk to guses that but thanks for revealing you think trying to say someone who has a menial desk job is a shit person, or doesnt deserve to have an opinion compared to yours (asshole mentality)

Top ten carreers taht require travel:

Travel nurse.
Archaeologist. ...
Athletic scout. ...
Management consultant. ...
Event coordinator. ...
Flight attendant. ...
Travel agent. ...
Geoscientist.

Now: explain to me how taking a train from london to paris - is going to fufill any those jobs?

You said: trains are better because they drop you off at a central location - maybe next to your hotel.

you said, trains are better if you have to check a bag.

So your argument for trains, literally is: You can walk your bag so large you have to check it from the train station to your hotel - arguign that is somehow better than a 10-25 dollar uber ride? FOR BUISNESSS!?!?!?!?!

Like you're going to lug a bag SO BIG you cant even comprehend how you can bring it on carryon, for your job, and you're gonna drag that shit through the train station and street - because you dont want to pay for an uber?

Dude youre telling me that you think I travel less for buisness, and thats the line you're trying to sell me?

Come on man.

Another majkor problem with euro travel on train (you shoudl know this) is that the train stations are not as "perfectly placed" as you seemed to imply they were (next to my hotel)

Train stations and transfers is a HUGE issue in europe, and they are currently COMPLETELY trying to redo the entire system, becuase the current one works so poorly.

Cmon man!

I woke up at 6 1-3 days a week for 4 years, flew 500 miles, a car picked me up, and at the end of the dropped me back off at the airport, and I flew 500 miles back and had dinner at home.

The idea that you think that id rather do that on a train for 10 hours a trip because I can check a bag is laughable. Those flights were 35 minuets, and door to door 1 hour and 10. I had it down to a science (wake up get dressed go to work).

[Kaveh]

You're both cherry-picking and comparing apples to oranges there: fruity ;)

You can take the 新幹線 to all sorts of places a plane won't take you, and it's awesome. The Japanese are leading the world in mass transit, plus their whole society is organized around it: it's hard to appreciate trains here when you don't get to see how awesome they are for daily life in places like Japan.

But honestly, otherwise, this is a rare thread where I mostly agree with you Jib: I live in California, and the whole the high-speed rail scheme was a scam from the beginning.

Only a scam because cali does let you build anything if it harms a turtle or a fruitfly

The Japanese are smart, we are not. Cali, Texas, the east coast are easily population dense enough for rail to be a good idea

Doesn’t matter, stop subsidizing airlines and we’ll see what happens

[magnetaress]

I personally dislike planes. And almost all of the people on them.

I wish we used blimps. Had population limits. And we could sit at a table and have a private bunk during our voyage.

[Jibartik]

Train, PRO:

- No snakes on trains

- Cant drive train into two towers

- free bug protein bar with every ride

Doesn’t matter, stop subsidizing airlines and we’ll see what happens

Cheaper airline tickets - TSA abolished - trains still a pipedream.

[Reiwa]

You know what people mean when they say "I thought?"

Besides, you cant say taking a 5 hour train in the morning from London to Paris for business and then another 5 hour train ride on the way home beats taking a 1 hour flight for less, is better without being wrong.

Well you're a stupid jerk I already said the English Channel. :p

[Jibartik]

Well you're a stupid jerk I already said the English Channel. :p

The rich take planes to get coffee in LA and you guys are going to spend the rest of your life saying trains are better.

This is why nobody likes communists.

[robayon]

The rich being wasteful sleazebags does not make it any less efficient were it to be the option for the masses to use if the public would invest in allowing them to do so

I saw a thing today on Twitter that mentioned that Taylor Swift was the celebrity with the most egregious carbon emissions, Kylie Jenner doesn't make the top ten... not that even the number 500 on the list isn't more wasteful than the average jackass, or that any of them even compare to corporations and militaries

Trains could be a good part of offsetting that even if the cost is more than planes, as taking a plane should be FAR more expensive when weighed against the damage they do

[Reiwa]

The rich being wasteful sleazebags does not make it any less efficient were it to be the option for the masses to use if the public would invest in allowing them to do so

I saw a thing today on Twitter that mentioned that Taylor Swift was the celebrity with the most egregious carbon emissions, Kylie Jenner doesn't make the top ten... not that even the number 500 on the list isn't more wasteful than the average jackass, or that any of them even compare to corporations and militaries

Trains could be a good part of offsetting that even if the cost is more than planes, as taking a plane should be FAR more expensive when weighed against the damage they do

Celebrities are mostly traitors to humanity, hth.

Including AOC btw!

[Jibartik]

The rich being wasteful sleazebags does not make it any less efficient

No but it does prove that air travel is even more efficient in local areas you could feasibly drive, let alone take a train.

[robayon]

Celebrities are mostly traitors to humanity, namaste.Yeah I've got a love-hate relationship with them, I like popular media as much as the next doofus but I recognize hypocrisy innately

As long as we all recognize when we're compartmentalizing our appreciations of media

[Jibartik]

Well you're a stupid jerk I already said the English Channel. :p

https://i.imgur.com/smx9Er8.png

:p

Yeah I've got a love-hate relationship with them

I only hate them.

If it were up to me they would live in a pirson, and only be let out when it was time for them to dance.

[robayon]

No but it does prove that air travel is even more efficient in local areas you could feasibly drive, let alone take a train.Fair enough, but I don't think that we're really talking about making a high-speed train to every single city with more than 5,000 residents in America, the logistics say you start with the big cities and work your way down over time with localized mass transit networks of various types

I took the bus to the train quite a few times in Japan and in Europe, and there's probably a Eurail plane version in Europe especially but I know that Eurail was much more affordable because Rick Steves told me it was

[robayon]

Including AOC btw!did you say this because you assume i'm an AOC liker given that she's the furthest left politician along with bernie in a national office?

if so i've got news, she's not nearly left-enough for me. i'll compromise if she runs for president, maybe she gets elected on weird horniness alone and if that's how we get socialism in america it probably beats the alternative. i will not stop whining about capitalism even if she's president, sorry, that's not how the far left works.

[Jibartik]

Fair enough, but I don't think that we're really talking about making a high-speed train to every single city with more than 5,000 residents in America

That was the intention of the OP and what me and nostalgia quest was arguing.

His argument was that it's better than air travel, and I said no, for the vast majority of people that use air travel it's not at all, and then we were fighting over that.

My agument for why trains is also based on the efficency of air travel, as the way things work bottom line is: path of least resistance.

Drone delivery is a great example: that would be VASTLY better than in person delivery - but due to a bunch of reasons it's less convinent.

Nost made a good point about airports sucking, and if oyu have to check a bag, and are staying in a hotel downtown next to the train station that it's much more convenient than out of the way airports.

I was just trying to make it abundantly clear that for the majority of travelers, that is not true, because majority of them are doing it for work, so car travel is going to be paid for, and most business trips are just for 1 day so they wont need a giant bag, and the last thing you'd want a client or doing visiting a client is require them walking around a foreign city.

And above all, that air travel is SO efficent that even if you are just hopping across a major city, it's faster to drive to the airport and take a plane, which blows my mind, but i guess it is what it is.

And if that is more efficient, then trains just wont ever be able to make up for the service air travel provides.

[Kaveh]

Train, PRO:

- No snakes on trains

- Cant drive train into two towers

- free bug protein bar with every ride



Cheaper airline tickets - TSA abolished - trains still a pipedream.

The Japanese eat Kobe beef, not bugs

Keep dissembling with Tucker memes, doesn’t change the fact that our airlines don’t allow foreign competition, the planes are subsidized as are the carriers themselves. They can’t compete with anything precisely because the US is controlled by lobbyists

Southwest doesn’t lobby Greg Abbott to stop the rail line from Houston to Dallas because it wouldn’t be popular. Exactly the opposite

[Jibartik]

The Japanese eat Kobe beef, not bugs

Keep dissembling with Tucker memes, doesn’t change the fact that our airlines don’t allow foreign competition, the planes are subsidized as are the carriers themselves. They can’t compete with anything precisely because the US is controlled by lobbyists

Southwest doesn’t lobby Greg Abbott to stop the rail line from Houston to Dallas because it wouldn’t be popular. Exactly the opposite

Jibartik scowls at you ready to attack - you ruined your own lands.

[Reiwa]

did you say this because you assume i'm an AOC liker given that she's the furthest left politician along with bernie in a national office?

if so i've got news, she's not nearly left-enough for me. i'll compromise if she runs for president, maybe she gets elected on weird horniness alone and if that's how we get socialism in america it probably beats the alternative. i will not stop whining about capitalism even if she's president, sorry, that's not how the far left works.

no i wanted to antagonize you about the progressives again :o

[Reiwa]

Jibartik scowls at you ready to attack - you ruined your own lands.

Japanese eat a lot more fish, seaweed, and cabbage than we do.

It isn't even lucky cabbage so you can't use it for the solstice earring. :(

[robayon]

no i wanted to antagonize you about the progressives again :ofair enough

i am sometimes more defensive than others but tonight isn't one of those times, i'm most skeptical of those who are supposedly closest to me on the spectrum out of knee-jerk reflex

[Kaveh]

Jibartik scowls at you ready to attack - you ruined your own lands.

KOS or not, I con red to most of you

[robayon]

KOS or not, I con red to most of youim curious who you think to whom you con yellow, white, blue or green

edit: no i am not 100% on the grammar of this question

[Jibartik]

So what's kavah what's your argument?

That in a fair fight: trains > airplanes, every time?

Like if both had no goverment assistance, you think that trains would beat out airlines?

[Reiwa]

im curious who you think to whom you con yellow, white, blue or green

edit: no i am not 100% on the grammar of this question

We all con green to Ahura Mazda, long may he reign. :p

[robayon]

We all con green to Ahura Mazda, long may he reign. :pcan't tell if this is you doxxing me or elbowing kaveh

[Reiwa]

can't tell if this is you doxxing me or elbowing kaveh

Kaveh

[robayon]

Kavehgood because my previous references to zoroastrianism are absolutely not from a place of 'i understand this faith' but more like 'i think this esoteric thing is interesting because it was formerly common and now is not'

[Danth]

Like if both had no goverment assistance, you think that trains would beat out airlines?

If we had no government assistance we might well still mostly have dirt roads. Our highways are obviously government-maintained for the most part. Most of the major U.S. railroads, including all but a couple of the transcons, were heavily subsidized via government loans and/or land-grants*. Passenger rail, in particular, only existed in comprehensive form far into the 20th century because the ICC required the railroads to maintain the service (which usually lost money, even back into the 19th century) otherwise it would've died out even sooner than it did. The experience is the same in nearly any nation, and those nations which did not heavily subsidize their transportation networks usually suffer badly for it.

*If you want amusing reading sometime, look through archived newspaper editorials from the 1860's and 70's and you'll see opposition to railroad subsidy in much the same form as today: "It won't pay!" "It's a railroad through useless wilderness!" etc, etc. Times and technology change, people stay the same. So does the grifting. Look at the Union Pacific railroad's construction contractors and the Credit Mobilier scandal as prime example.

Danth

[Jibartik]

good because my previous references to zoroastrianism are absolutely not from a place of 'i understand this faith' but more like 'i think this esoteric thing is interesting because it was formerly common and now is not'

that one could make a comeback !

[Reiwa]

that one could make a comeback !

It's the first monotheistic religion I think?

No matter how you say the name, u right. :p

[Jibartik]

If we had no government assistance we might well still mostly have dirt roads. Our highways are obviously government-maintained for the most part. Most of the major U.S. railroads, including all but a couple of the transcons, were heavily subsidized via government loans and/or land-grants*. Passenger rail, in particular, only existed in comprehensive form far into the 20th century because the ICC required the railroads to maintain the service (which usually lost money, even back into the 19th century) otherwise it would've died out even sooner than it did. The experience is the same in nearly any nation, and those nations which did not heavily subsidize their transportation networks usually suffer badly for it.

*If you want amusing reading sometime, look through archived newspaper editorials from the 1860's and 70's and you'll see opposition to railroad subsidy in much the same form as today: "It won't pay!" "It's a railroad through useless wilderness!" etc, etc. Times and technology change, people stay the same. So does the grifting. Look at the Union Pacific railroad's construction contractors and the Credit Mobilier scandal as prime example.

Danth

ok ok yeah I agree with all of that, but kavah was saying that the only reason airplane tickets are cheep is because the goverment pays the airline industry and manufacturers, and if they didn't that trains would be better.

Obviously my answer to that question would be: nobody would or could ever build the train system without the goverment.

So yeah, let me change it to, if they each got 50 billion a year from the goverement - which would be better?

My argument still would be planes would be vastly superior.

Lets not even talk about the amount of eminent domain we'd have to just "give" the trains to be able to work.

Lets not forget what American above ground trains are like:

QsurYqoM2Tw

The arguments that like, japan does it well compared to how we would do it are completely irrelevant, because in japan they wore masks when they were sick before we even knew they ate bats in china.

Ours would be shit - as was the air travel system during the low low prices of covid:

O8br6StTj2w

So yeah in utopia, or type 2 society? Sure trains. In ours? No.

[robayon]

that one could make a comeback !Can't Get You Out of My Head

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-rare-glimpse-inside-a-zoroastrian-temple-in-new-york_n_570563d6e4b0537661888a74

[Reiwa]

ok ok yeah I agree with all of that, but kavah was saying that the only reason airplane tickets are cheep is because the goverment pays the airline industry and manufacturers, and if they didn't that trains would be better.

Obviously my answer to that question would be: nobody would or could ever build the train system without the goverment.

So yeah, let me change it to, if they each got 50 billion a year from the goverement - which would be better?

My argument still would be planes would be vastly superior.

Lets not even talk about the amount of eminent domain we'd have to just "give" the trains to be able to work.

Lets not forget what American above ground trains are like:

QsurYqoM2Tw

The arguments that like, japan does it well compared to how we would do it are completely irrelevant, because in japan they wore masks when they were sick before we even knew they ate bats in china.

Ours would be shit - as was the air travel system during the low low prices of covid:

O8br6StTj2w

So yeah in utopia, or type 2 society? Sure trains. In ours? No.

Japan has an advantage in creating public infrastructure because they're a unitary state, like the UK.

[Danth]

So yeah in utopia, or type 2 society? Sure trains. In ours? No.

You see the same issue crop up over a hundred years ago. European, especially British, railways were able to run higher rates of speed than their American counterparts and could absorb the higher maintenance and still make higher profits due to their regions' higher population densities and shorter routes. During the 1860's for example, at the tail end of the wrought iron rail era, the Midland commonly was re-tracking itself twice a decade on its heavier-trafficked routes and yet it was one of the world's most profitable corporations. That kind of expense would've been ruinous to American railroads.

Air travel has a similar concern: It's great in low-density environments with modest load requirements. It rapidly falls flat on its face when population density gets past a certain point. Give the U.S. long enough that our cities start to look more like Jakarta or Tokyo and I expect rail will warrant a more serious look.

Danth

[Jibartik]

Air travel has a similar concern: It's great in low-density environments with modest load requirements. It rapidly falls flat on its face when population density gets past a certain point. Give the U.S. long enough that our cities start to look more like Jakarta or Tokyo and I expect rail will warrant a more serious look.

Danth

So yeah, type 2 civilization sure. The US wont make that long enough road you speak of, until we're no longer a petroleum based society.

The reason china and Saudi Arabia can is because they have a lot of money right now, are authoritarian, and are building everything basically from the ground up.

And they use slaves.

But for the free world to get there, it's either impossible or we have to invent warp travel first and get invited into a federation with awesome Vulcan type teachers to guide us.

[Danth]

So yeah, type 2 civilization sure. The US wont make that long enough road you speak of, until we're no longer a petroleum based society.

Indeed. Yet another part of why I support research and development of new energy sources.

[Jibartik]

Indeed. Yet another part of why I support research and development of new energy sources.

I wonder if we'll invent fission during ww3 (and then erase the earth with it.)

[robayon]

jib do you support nuclear energy for power generation if it can be done in a safe fashion

[Jibartik]

oh hell yea ending that was one of the lefts many climate ending mistakes.

[Jibartik]

That wasn't a trap or anything?

[robayon]

it's late i'm asleep

[Jibartik]

What's your twitch?

[nostalgiaquest]

No I gogled "most traveled high speed rail in japan" and that is kyoto to tokyo

Then I checked ticket price of kyoto to tokyo

and then I did "flight from Kyoto to toyko.

I picked the top result from both of those searches.

So dont assume! you know the saying: Fruity ;)

And now for another episode of Jib has no idea what he's talking about, starrrring Jib!

Tokyo station to Kyoto Station on bullet train takes about 2.5 hours.

Flight takes 1.5 hours.

Narita Airport, which is Tokyo's major airport, is actually an hour away by...wait for it... express train! from Tokyo station. Or you can pay roughly 250 dollars each way for a Taxi. Look at a map, Narita is notoriously a pain in the ass to get to.

Kyoto has no airport. The nearest one is Osaka, which is a 30 minutes away by train.

Let' say you only spend a half hour at the airport, cuz you got it down to a science!

Flight still adds up to at least 3.5 hours, and involves two trains (or taxis) and the flight. Versus a direct 2.5 hour train.

2.5 is less than 3.5 right? Less transfers is more better right?


Besides, you cant say taking a 5 hour train in the morning from London to Paris for business and then another 5 hour train ride on the way home beats taking a 1 hour flight for less, is better without being wrong.

You're right, I can't. Because the train from London to Paris is 2 hours and 15 minutes on the Eurostar. Not 5 you disingenuous shithead. The flight is 1.5 hours. Getting from downtown London to Heathrow takes about an hour. Getting from Charles de Gualle to downtown Paris takes 30-45. Again, look at the airport locations on a map compared to the city.

downtown to downtown, 2.25 is less than 3, and involves no taxis or transfers.



Top ten carreers taht require travel:

Travel nurse.
Archaeologist. ...
Athletic scout. ...
Management consultant. ...
Event coordinator. ...
Flight attendant. ...
Travel agent. ...
Geoscientist.

Now: explain to me how taking a train from london to paris - is going to fufill any those jobs?


I dunno, what's the Archaeologist doing in Paris? I need more narrative here!

And you want me to explain why a flight attendant should take a train? CMON MAN.

you said, trains are better if you have to check a bag.

So your argument for trains, literally is: You can walk your bag so large you have to check it from the train station to your hotel - arguign that is somehow better than a 10-25 dollar uber ride? FOR BUISNESSS!?!?!?!?!

Like you're going to lug a bag SO BIG you cant even comprehend how you can bring it on carryon, for your job, and you're gonna drag that shit through the train station and street - because you dont want to pay for an uber?

Brought to you by the generation that changed the definition of literately to mean kind of.

Once again, you are delusional, and you're making up what you want to hear. I said trains "might" be the better option if you have a checked bag. For LITERALLY none of the reasons you state above. If you have a checked bag, it adds both cost and and time to your plane experience. That's it.

Are you one of those cunts that brings on a massive roller bag as a carryon that has to go sideways in the overhead and takes up half the space because they're too cunty and cheap to check it like a decent human. Kinda sounds like it.

Also, if you think Uber's in Europe cost 10-25 euro, you don't have a fuckin clue. Just yesterday I took an Uber from downtown Zurich to the Airport for a flight home after a week long business trip to oversee commissioning of critical cooling infrastructure on a data center. It was over 50 euro for a 15 kilometer taxi ride.


Train stations and transfers is a HUGE issue in europe, and they are currently COMPLETELY trying to redo the entire system, becuase the current one works so poorly.


Are they? Maybe you're right, though I haven't heard or experienced anything about this. Got a source?

Most high speed rail doesn't involve any transferring. Paris, London, Amsterdam trains, and these are the only ones i've taken so far, all start/leave from central locations in the downtown area and easily navigated, whereas the airports are at least 30 minutes way. Also, you don't think airports aren't currently working poorly as well? Heathrow is a clusterfuck on the best of days, and CDG is one of my least favorite places in the whole world.


I woke up at 6 1-3 days a week for 4 years, flew 500 miles, a car picked me up, and at the end of the dropped me back off at the airport, and I flew 500 miles back and had dinner at home.

The idea that you think that id rather do that on a train for 10 hours a trip because I can check a bag is laughable. Those flights were 35 minuets, and door to door 1 hour and 10. I had it down to a science (wake up get dressed go to work).

Most commercial airlines fly at about 500-550 miles per hour. Since this is a short flight, you probably had a smaller plane that flew even slower. But either way, your math doesn't check out.

And what you lived 10-15 minutes from the airport? and worked 10-15 minutes from the destination airport? And you were able to get through airport security in 2 minutes? And the airline company was nice enough to leave the gate open for you until the very last second? I'd like to know which airports these were!

Everything you say is disingenuous garbage. Stop lying.

Goedemorgen btw!

[Jibartik]

Not one line of that contradicts a single thing i said about trains being less efficient any any situation except MAYBE japan. (edit: see below - theyre not)

I'm not disingenuous, you just want to make very specific arguments and are being toxic.

And what you lived 10-15 minutes from the airport? and worked 10-15 minutes from the destination airport?

I dont know dude, Kim kardashian and elon musk among other celebes take 17 minuets flights in LA County you big baby.

Most high speed rail doesn't involve any transferring.

Every town does not have a direct line in europe and it has a well documented problem where you have to take a multiple hour train ride going north and south to get 20 miles to the west.

This is why EU is trying to completely re-do their entire train system.

Back to japan, have you ever taken a japanese train during rush hour? I have. A guy literally stopped me and said, "YOURE GOING TO BRING THAT BAG ON THE TRAIN?? NO!! and he bought me like 6 shots at a bar instead.

Its well known you dont bring luggage onto trains during russhour in japan. So how you gonna bring that giant work bag with you when for business you travel during rushour?

What an ahole, disingenuous? --- *goes to google your numbers

---jeszus christ dude I went to go google some numbers and just noticed this:

you gave all these breakdowns about why bullet trains were better welll you were DEAD wrong.

Bullet train ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ US$78.83 *–US$107.88 *, 2.2–3.5 hrs Japan Rail Pass
Flights ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ US$30.03 * + plus transfers 4–5 hrs (incl. transfers) Search flights

They cost TWICE as much as planes

Not to mention, all I was being "disingenuous" of was saying I googled the "most traveled train in tokyo" and thatas all I know... and youre telling me im being disingenuous, when you straight up LIED about your numbers.

The flight is 1.5 hours.

busted you liar: its 4 hours go suck an egg!

Everything you say is disingenuous garbage. Stop lying.

Youre the one that turned out to be a liar.

[Jibartik]

Most high speed rail doesn't involve any transferring. Paris, London, Amsterdam trains, and these are the only ones i've taken so far, all start/leave from central locations in the downtown area and easily navigated, whereas the airports are at least 30 minutes way.

Yea because unless you're just going to get nicked at the pub you need to go to places that are 30 minuets outside of those cities.

Again: if my job asked me to walk to and from the train station in a foreign city Id quit on the spot.

Ive literally been flown to japan for work too, and I didnt walk or take a train I was picked up in a car that had a crown on the grill i still to this day dont know what is.

Also, you don't think airports aren't currently working poorly as well? Heathrow is a clusterfuck on the best of days, and CDG is one of my least favorite places in the whole world.

Why would you ask me a question after you went on that rant about me being a disingenuous garbage liar.

[Jibartik]

Can't Get You Out of My Head

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-rare-glimpse-inside-a-zoroastrian-temple-in-new-york_n_570563d6e4b0537661888a74

came to this thread to post this but was upset by nostalgia quests toxic insults


https://i.imgur.com/SN8xT9U.png

[nostalgiaquest]

Are you really this upset or just trolling?

[Jibartik]

Are you really this upset or just trolling?

Do you find people often respond well to being called disingenuous garbage liars?

[Kaveh]

Trains are bad ass

[Jibartik]

That they are.

6lutNECOZFw

And airports suck.

But barring communist/authoritarian parties or another 50-80 years of progress, we're stuck with em.

But even then I will be taking the drone shuttle.

[nostalgiaquest]

Do you find people often respond well to being called disingenuous garbage liars?

No, but what i have found is that people get really upset when they know they're wrong about something.

I never said you were garbage. Disingenuous? Yes. Delusional? Absolutely. But I don't think you're garbage homie. Without you this forum would be boring! I may have used some meany pants words here and there, but this is P99 off topic, give your balls a tug. It's no wonder Horza likes to pick on you.

I'm just simply providing examples of when a train might be the better option that a plane. Here i'll do one more.

Bullet train ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ US$78.83 *–US$107.88 *, 2.2–3.5 hrs Japan Rail Pass
Flights ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ US$30.03 * + plus transfers 4–5 hrs (incl. transfers) Search flights

Let's add on the additional travel fees to that plane, shall we? From tokyo station to Narita airport on the Narita Express train, it costs about 3000 yen, or 30 dollars. You can do it cheaper on the local trains, but you'd have to be crazy to do that. From Osaka station to Kyoto station is 560 yen, about 5 dollars. So now that 30 dollar flight is actually 65 dollars, and takes twice the time. If your company is willing to pay for private airport pickup service, surely they're willing to pay the extra 15 bucks for the two more hours of available work time right? Not to mention the shinkansen experience is a much more enjoyable and comfortable.

Also, not once have i said you should walk from the train station to your hotel or work. You keep saying that as some sort of "gotcha!" but I'm not sure why. I take Ubers/taxis from the train station, which are usually around 5-10 minutes, versus the 30-60+ minutes it could take to taxi from the airport.

This is why I call you disingenuous.

[nostalgiaquest]

But, just to show i don't disagree with everything you say, I am also highly in favor of Nuclear power, and think the EU is dumb as fuck for phasing it out while preaching about the environment and buying oil from Russia.

[Jibartik]

I misunderstood what you said about the central location of a train station being downtown, inferring that you meant it was handy because you could just walk to downtown instead of be at an airport 30 miles outside of it.

Edit: Also I want to say I do have a boomer impression of train stations - I cant think of one that gives me the feeling of security I get at airports (especially internationally). So maybe you're a zoomer and you're more comfortable with your work saying, "take the train downtown" because them's quitting words in my day. To me that means, walk out of a pair of doors onto the street in the center of a major metropolitan city. If it's not that, then that's new to me.

That doesn't make me disingenuous and it doesn't mean everything that comes out of my mouth is garbage (which somehow means I'm not garbage but my insides are?) and that Im a liar.

Now by all means, add on whatever fee's you want to make my number a garbage disingenuous lie and you can win.

edit edit: I also have flown into japan a couple of times and the first time I got from my airplane to downtown Tokyo with no guide via train and my memories of that are nightmares. Sheer nightmares. Like just a maze of fast paced machines, moving in and out of tunnels, and people speed walking shoulder to shoulder like blood cells with no emotion. Transfers to different lines, signs everywhere with scribbles all over them. No way. It was hell on earth. And that's japan, the like mecha of trains. Im still calling bull$hit on trains > planes.

[Jibartik]

This is the train problem that air travel will always defeat it's just superior and my entire point of OP is that it costs more to take trains and it does.

https://i.imgur.com/APU5x7m.png

[Jibartik]

But, just to show i don't disagree with everything you say, I am also highly in favor of Nuclear power, and think the EU is dumb as fuck for phasing it out while preaching about the environment and buying oil from Russia.

What I dont understand if we really wanna to talk about is I dont get why do trains cost more than planes!? That's just insane to me.

Even that japanse one was outragious to me, it was like 100 dollars, but it said its cheeper if you get a rail pass, but that's 230 dollars for 7 days.. that's insane to me, like, to be like, "well im going to take this train enough that I better spend 230 this week, oh damn I didnt end up using it after all, oh well.

Like what a hell life trying to min max that would be lol no thanks, im not getting sold on trains the more this goes.

[nostalgiaquest]

Aww you deleted your post as I was responding. Ok i'll rewrite it.

I went through my previous posts and can't find anywhere that I called you garbage. But if I did, then I'm sorry.

Alls i'm sayin is, as i've stated before, there are multiple reasons why taking high speed rail over a plane if it's available. And to state that it only costs 30 bucks to fly from Tokyo to Kyoto is in fact disingenuous. It doesn't factor in travel costs to Narita, or Osaka back up to Kyoto. Please tell me you understand this?

I'm 36. Not sure which Oomer category that puts me in, but I've found major train stations to all be as safe as airports. There's armed guards, and certified taxi's lined up right outside. Maybe back in like the 80s and 90s they were crazier, I'd believe that for sure.

I'm not anti plane. I'm pro train. They're not mutually exclusive ideas. And i'm grateful to have the option to choose which one is better in different situations.

Major airports right now in Europe are all totally fucked. They laid off staff for covid, and now are slammed during the summer holiday season.
https://www.traveloffpath.com/these-european-airports-are-still-suffering-travel-chaos-and-capping-flights/

For example, last Monday I took a 7am flight from Amsterdam to Zurich. Even with online check in, and without a checked bag, it took me almost two hours just to get through the security line.

My girlfriend had a conference in Austria that she booked a flight for weeks in advance. The day before departure it was cancelled due to airport problems. Became a whole cluster fuck of a mess getting her there in time to give her presentation.

Two weeks ago Schiphol had a problem with their baggage check system and for an entire day passengers weren't allowed to check baggage. Can you imagine what a mess that caused?

https://www.businessinsider.com/schiphol-amsterdam-airport-hold-bags-klm-travel-chaos-flight-netherlands-2022-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T

These are some of many reasons I might choose to take a train rather than fly.

[Jibartik]

What I mean by secruity in airports is they are all the same.

But train stations are always different and most are basically a like hub. There's a lot of local flavor in every station I've ever been, which makes them all random.

Yeah the airline industry is collapsing - the world is coming to an end and we're in the middle of some gigantic financial reset where the ultra wealthy are going reduce the population by a big number because they believe the scientists... but thats another discussion.

As far as 1980-2015's getting around in airports was fine and international flights were always a routine.

I cant say the same for needing to transfer on a train in a country that spells its A's like a square.

[nostalgiaquest]

What I dont understand if we really wanna to talk about is I dont get why do trains cost more than planes!? That's just insane to me.

Even that japanse one was outragious to me, it was like 100 dollars, but it said its cheeper if you get a rail pass, but that's 230 dollars for 7 days.. that's insane to me, like, to be like, "well im going to take this train enough that I better spend 230 this week, oh damn I didnt end up using it after all, oh well.

Like what a hell life trying to min max that would be lol no thanks, im not getting sold on trains the more this goes.

I will agree that the Japan bullet train is crazy expensive. And to further your point if I remember correctly, that rail pass is only available with a foreign passport. It's mainly to increase tourism.

If you're basing your decision based soley on cost, then yeah take the flight. It's a matter of how much you're willing to pay for comfort, time (in some cases), and convenience. If you need to get from Tokyo to Kyoto, flying from Narita to Osaka, and all the additional time spent doing that, is probably not worth the money saved. Especially if your company is paying for it. Europe i've found the costs to be about the same, so it's up to other factors to choose.

Another example. I used to take the bullet train to Nagano all the time for skiing. I think there's a way to do it by plane, but it'd be convoluted and involve transfers. On the train I can bring my big ass ski bag and another big bag with all my gear for no additional fee. But when I went to Sapporo, it was usually cheaper to suck it up and take the plane. Also, Japan has an awesome internal shipping company called Takkyubin that can get your skis anywhere in the country in like 2-3 days.

This is one of the things Japan has done correctly. Since they built their infrastructure with trains being the main mode of travel, they go to many places planes dont. They compliment each other in a way.

Not anti plane. Pro train.

Edit - last post for me for a while. Weather is nice and I'm gonna take an edible and go paddle board on the canals!

[Jibartik]

I think overall I am just shocked that trains in general are more expensive than planes.

My original argument was that planes were faster trains were cheaper and we found out while arguing that its slower in some cases, (although for the private flyers it's still faster.) but cheeper to fly pretty much across the board (except for those fees im still not on the same page about but thats no big deal)

But it being more comfortable, maybe that's a good argument to stop the subsidies from governments for airlines, Idk what trains get but I know the modern ones are still in the 'trying to sell it to the population that its a good way to travel' phase of their lifespan, vs planes has been through that and then some and another part of the reason it's falling apart, it's just an old industry and so its got a lot of bad habbits.

Ive always thought if airport were turned into malls and the airlines took care of everything then they'd try harder - air travel is awful now and its been that way for a long time, makes me sad because when I was a lot younger it people used to dress up to fly. Now it's just a disaster, and I haven't been to europe since before covid, but the doomer in me is glad to hear it's a total fricken disaster. :o

[Jibartik]

One of the things I think I always thought about how shitty airports were was how like, no matter how shitty they treat us people just keep using them.

So maybe if we had a train system they'd try harder to convince us to fly again and we could get some legroom back.

Someone should run for president and build a train but wait no we have to elect someone who wants to do a #dark version of themselves.

[magnetaress]

Elon was like hyperloop brahs

[magnetaress]

The best way to make trains, and busses popular again is to make driving illegal, especially for illegals. Again.

[Kaveh]

What I mean by secruity in airports is they are all the same.

But train stations are always different and most are basically a like hub. There's a lot of local flavor in every station I've ever been, which makes them all random.

Yeah the airline industry is collapsing - the world is coming to an end and we're in the middle of some gigantic financial reset where the ultra wealthy are going reduce the population by a big number because they believe the scientists... but thats another discussion.

As far as 1980-2015's getting around in airports was fine and international flights were always a routine.

I cant say the same for needing to transfer on a train in a country that spells its A's like a square.

The airlines have been failing and getting bailed out forever. Heard of Panam? They were basically a monopoly at one point and still couldn’t make air travel profitable after they made an acquisition mistake

Which is the point. Your ticket price means nothing. It isn’t a reflection of cost in the same way that you driving on a “free” government maintained road isn’t reflective of its cost

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/business/dealbook/airline-bailouts-pandemic.html

$18.6 billion in 2001, ~$50 billion during Covid. $300,000 cost per job saved with the recent bailout

Pretty expensive man! In 2021, the airline/air transport industry spent $108 million on lobbying. Glad to see it’s working

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=M01

[Kaveh]

Without the federal government, we likely don’t have rail, highways, or air travel

Pick your poison. I like trains and hate airline CEOs, shrug

[Homesteaded]

The airlines have been failing and getting bailed out forever. Heard of Panam? They were basically a monopoly at one point and still couldn’t make air travel profitable after they made an acquisition mistake

Which is the point. Your ticket price means nothing. It isn’t a reflection of cost in the same way that you driving on a “free” government maintained road isn’t reflective of its cost

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/business/dealbook/airline-bailouts-pandemic.html

$18.6 billion in 2001, ~$50 billion during Covid. $300,000 cost per job saved with the recent bailout

Pretty expensive man! In 2021, the airline/air transport industry spent $108 million on lobbying. Glad to see it’s working

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=M01

Interesting stuff here…I get your point now. What makes airlines so hard to turn a profit on? My guess is safety and government regulation don’t help.

[Jibartik]

Without the federal government, we likely don’t have rail, highways, or air travel

Pick your poison. I like trains and hate airline CEOs, shrug

Yeah it’s hard to argue because it’s not like trains don’t need all that same money from the government either. Like where is America gonna put these trains? Are they just gonna buy like billions of dollars of property from people?

I bet the footprint of making and laying the track for rail across America to be efficient enough to replace air travel, would cause the climate to collapse lmao

The only reason trains are better right now is (in some situations) is because they’re brand new and they charge more.

Virgin Airlines was amazing when it was brand new it was like flying in a space casino now it’s just as much like a cattle car as any other airline.

Everything that sucks about air travel would suck about train travel.

[Jibartik]

I cant imagine that this is realistic in 50 states:

Not to mention this is already totally inefficient with people having to go all over the fricken place just to get to the next town over so Id drive every time.

https://i.imgur.com/XsQWuOC.png

(not to mention in this thought experiment I did this to the entire Oregon coast:

https://i.imgur.com/zigV0gS.png

[Danth]

I think overall I am just shocked that trains in general are more expensive than planes.

Varies region by region, ultimately a complex issue with a lot of causes. Here, stateside, a lot Amtrak routes are priced high simply because they know they can and it won't hurt what business they have all that much because most of their customers are picking it for reasons other than cost. Japanese railways, even back to the JNR days, have a history of striving less for cost-efficiency and more for optimal service and punctuality, and they do a good job of it.

A long-gone U.S. railroad, the Virginian, had a slogan that I've long appreciated: "Pay up front for the best." Quality isn't cheap. Constantly doing everything the cheapest you can gets you a race to the bottom and the flying cattle cars we all loathe.

Your railroad route map looks like a mess because so many lines have been torn out over the past seventy years. The class 1's have been abandoning all the branchline and short mileage they can since before any of us were born. They don't want passengers, they don't want LCL business, they don't even want a few loads here and there, they only want the major shippers and long hauls. At one time basically every little town in the nation was connected, and then you had another network of electric interurbans besides. It's gone.

Speed is expensive. A lot of modern turbofan-powered airliners, today, are slower at cruise than some of the turbojet-powered jets from 50 years ago. The modern jets are dramatically cleaner and more cost-effective though. Commuters and regionals have been going back to turboprops and that's slower (and cheaper) still.

Danth

[Jibartik]

America cant even build a decent road and Im going to believe we could lay a delicate spiderweb across the country?

Never gonna happen.

California was supposed to prove states could do it.

Couldn't even do that!

I'm not even certain it'd be better for the environment, what is the actual infrastructure footprint of building all this? Could it be = to air travel today for like 25 years?

We built trains in america once, because we needed them, and they were the best thing we ever invented at the time. But they just dont compare to planes unless your only concern is climate change, which we've passed the point of no return on by like decades anyway so no reason to try to fix that, because Gaia is about to for us. :o

[Danth]

Couldn't even do that!

I understand why it happens, but even so, it pisses me off at some level that Amtrak, today, usually can't match the speeds railroads were routinely running 80+ years ago when they were stuck with steam engines and heavyweight plain-bearing rolling stock.

That's not even counting the whispers and legends like the claims of the S1 hitting 130 and 140+ on the flatlands west of Crestline and doing it with a thousand-plus tons on the drawbar.

We could've done it, but we elected to go a different route. I agree it's probably the wrong time to try to change tack now. Conditions might change later on.

Danth

[Jibartik]

Conditions might change later on

After ww3 and we rebuild from the ground up!

https://i.imgur.com/OudpDiA.png

it pisses me off at some level that Amtrak, today, usually can't match the speeds railroads were routinely running 80+ years ago

I love trains, theyre so cool, but god damn an amtrak looks like shit. :p

Old amtrak was cool, pride of my model railroad fleet when I was a kid.

https://i.imgur.com/X9dByV5.png

[Danth]

After ww3 and we rebuild from the ground up!

One of the side-effects of WW2 was it allowed many cities in Europe, Japan, China, etc to re-develop their city centers and some of them did indeed use it as an opportunity to plan out things like modern transportation corridors.

Most of those F40's are being cut up for scrap these days.

[Jibartik]

One of the side-effects of WW2 was it allowed many cities in Europe, Japan

Yeah Japan completely rebuilt after ww2 and as a result was like the city of the future for like 20 years.

Now it's like a giant casio calculator, but when they finished rebuilding in the 60s-70s and that high quality lasted through the 90s, they were a becon of progress and futurist ideas.

I wonder if dubai is gonna be a giant slum in like 20 years.

Also ww2/japan brought us godzilla and giant anime mechs that destroy cities, as movies :o

[Danth]

Also...japan brought us godzilla

Another win for the airlines, you never see godzilla swatting at 747's, but in about every film he's always picking up some railway cars and using 'em as chew toys. You're much less likely to be eaten by a giant radioactive lizzard in an airplane.

[Jibartik]

Another win for the airlines, you never see godzilla swatting at 747's, but in about every film he's always picking up some railway cars and using 'em as chew toys. You're much less likely to be eaten by a giant radioactive lizzard in an airplane.

https://i.imgur.com/41soUMy.gif

https://i.imgur.com/d5UYuqS.gif

https://i.imgur.com/uZ5OhUl.png

[Danth]

I also find it slightly amusing how the competition this thread mostly relates to amounts to highspeed rail versus slow air travel. Fast air travel (the SSTs) didn't pan out--too expensive and too loud. I never got to ride Concorde, but I miss it all the same. Coolest commercial A/C ever built.

High speed rail has its own problems with noise, especially going in and out of tunnels. the Japanese have developed some really oddball-looking trainsets in an effort to mitigate the issue.

Danth

[Jimjam]

Concords were really awesome when their tyres didn’t explode into their fuel tanks!

Getting to / through the airport isn’t always a nice experience and often you spend a lot of time sat on the tarmac (sometimes longer than the flight) and then there is security on the other side too. You can’t really compare flight times to rail times cos flying has a lot more mucking about which really slows things down.

It is much better to get a learjet than fly with the oiks. Thats not exactly something everyone is lucky enough to experience often so it isn’t a massed market solution.

[Jibartik]

https://i.imgur.com/ZwKkGEV.gif

[magnetaress]

I cant imagine that this is realistic in 50 states:

Not to mention this is already totally inefficient with people having to go all over the fricken place just to get to the next town over so Id drive every time.

https://i.imgur.com/XsQWuOC.png

(not to mention in this thought experiment I did this to the entire Oregon coast:

https://i.imgur.com/zigV0gS.png

Well it makes those cities elite cities every other city off those hub is a no longer a cool city so it creates a class of ppl that can go to any city for work if they are able to live on a train and outside of a bathroom prefect for progress imho.

Also much easier to get ppl into the concentration camps when they can't hack that lifestyle.

[magnetaress]

https://i.imgur.com/ZwKkGEV.gif

She? finally went full dolezal on us? :cool: :o

[Jibartik]

Well it makes those cities elite cities every other city off those hub is a no longer a cool city so it creates a class of ppl that can go to any city for work if they are able to live on a train and outside of a bathroom prefect for progress imho.

Also much easier to get ppl into the concentration camps when they can't hack that lifestyle.

https://i.imgur.com/LyLw3Ay.png

https://i.imgur.com/uObP2z9.png

Shifting to EVs is not enough. The deeper problem is our car dependence (https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-electric-vehicles-car-dependence-1.6534893)

https://i.imgur.com/nvQ5x4n.png

https://i.imgur.com/tDER4R1.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/ba2rxlL.gif

https://i.imgur.com/qfdRxDm.png

https://i.imgur.com/s6hNNrh.png

[Tethler]

Adding on to what has been said about high speed rail in Japan, anyone living here knows that bullet trains are generally more expensive than domestic flights. From my own experience traveling on them, it's usually a difference of roughly 10-20%. Also, you need to pay extra to reserve a seat. If you don't, you might be standing in the isle throughout that 4 hour trip from South Japan to Tokyo. The only real benefit is the relaxed security vs going through an airport. The trains are also more resilient to weather and are less likely to have trips canceled during typhoon season compared to air travel.

All that said, I pretty much never use them now unless family visits and wants to ride the bullet train for the experience.

[Jimjam]

Security at an airport is crazy.

“ we don’t want you taking potentially explosive chemicals on a plane of 200 people so we’re gonna make you pour them all away down the same drain in a hall full of maybe 1000s of people”.

[magnetaress]

Really smart security theater.

I would issue jump suits with shock collars and diapers and strap ppl into their chairs with restraints.. They wouldn't be allowed to bring anything at all. Could just take it a step further and just have auto injection of Ativan via robotic needles. You're there to be transported in order to do your duty keeping the economy going. Not look good. Have fun. Or hydrate. You should have done that before your trip. Flying on a plane is a privilege. It's not a right. Not enumerated. No where does the constitution mention airplanes.

People mad about air travel security theater are really big overgrown babies.

[Jibartik]

Security at an airport is crazy.

“ we don’t want you taking potentially explosive chemicals on a plane of 200 people so we’re gonna make you pour them all away down the same drain in a hall full of maybe 1000s of people”.

This was a metaphor for how awful goverment is to me.

First goverment made it illegal to bring water across security.

Then goverment didn't do anything to stop people on the other side of security from charging $16 for a bottle of water.

This is 110% an example of why goverment sucks and everything they do is bad and dumb and hurts poor people.

[loramin]

This is 110% an example of why goverment sucks and everything they do is bad and dumb and hurts poor people.

Says Jib as he sits with his security ensured by his government's military, his bathing/drinking water government-ensured to be safe, his roads that he uses to get everywhere maintained by his government, the money he uses to buy everything secured by his government, his ... you get the idea.

But yeah, everything the government does sucks :rolleyes:

[Jibartik]

Says Jib as he sits with his security ensured by his government's military, his bathing/drinking water government-ensured to be safe, his roads that he uses to get everywhere maintained by his government, the money he uses to buy everything secured by his government, his ... you get the idea.

But yeah, everything the government does sucks :rolleyes:

All of that provides is consumerism that makes everyone nilhistic and depressed and angry and eventually it'll invent the AI that kills us all if the machines we built 200 years ago dont already.

I cant wait for all this satanist temptation to be gone and we can go back to living off of and enjoying being a part of the fat of the land.

:o

[loramin]

All of that provides is consumerism that makes everyone nilhistic and depressed and angry and eventually it'll invent the AI that kills us all if the machines we built 200 years ago dont already.

I cant wait for all this satanist temptation to be gone and we can go back to living off of and enjoying being a part of the fat of the land.

:o

Roads, drinking water, and not getting invaded = "providing consumerism" and "making everyone nihilistic"?

[Jibartik]

Well it did didn't it?

edit: not getting invaded

Im also curious if you're sponsoring the military industrial complex here...? :confused:

[Reiwa]

Roads, drinking water, and not getting invaded = "providing consumerism" and "making everyone nihilistic"?

To play for the devil, don't they only provide those things because they think it will get them more revenue from us? 🤪

[loramin]

Well it did didn't it?

edit:

Im also curious if you're sponsoring the military industrial complex here...? :confused:

I'm in favor of a strong American military, but not the military-industrial complex. They're separate things.

One can have a military, have it be managed/regulated by a well-run government, and then have said military only purchase the things it needs, using a competitive bidding process.

Or ... you can have America :( Here we don't regulate things, the corporations are really in charge, and they want to make money so ... you get the military-industrial complex (and trillions of dollars wasted on unnecessary purchases, that essentially amount to those corporations stealing from taxpayers).

[loramin]

To play for the devil, don't they only provide those things because they think it will get them more revenue from us? ��

One could argue they provide those things to avoid a revolution (either a democratic one at the ballot box, or a more fiery one if the former isn't possible). In fact, one could argue that everything the government does, it does to stay in power ... and when you set your systems up properly, that's a good thing! They're motivated to provide and care for their citizens.

The problem is our systems, and their incentives, suck ... and as a result, so does our government.

[Jibartik]

One can have a military, have it be managed/regulated

Can they? Because they aren't in practice.

Again: all of what you spoke of has resulted in misery death and destruction.

Sorry to say this is true!

[loramin]

Yeah, they can, but guess what, we dont lol!

Again: all of what you spoke of has resulted in misery death and destruction.

Sorry to say this is true!

I think you're oversimplifying. Certainly, history has shown that having a military that's too strong tends to encourage whoever is in control of said military to use it: that's true.

And to some extent the military-industrial complex has existed since long before Eisenhower invoked the term. Back in the revolutionary war, I'm sure the English cannon manufacturers (or warship-makers or whoever) tried to curry favor with the king so that he would buy their cannons/boats/whatever.

But the degree of the problem has waxed and waned. We've had periods with more military graft vs. less, and periods of peace vs. periods of a Bush as president (with Iraq #2 being the strongest example of us getting into a war we had no reason to be in, so that a bunch of rich people could get richer).

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater though: you can't say "well Bush got us into an unnecessary war, wasting hundreds of American lives and trillions of dollars of American taxpayer money ... therefore we shouldn't have a military or defend ourselves." The answer isn't to go from one extreme to another, it's to have a middle ground, propertly managed, well-run system of government.

[Reiwa]

One could argue they provide those things to avoid a revolution (either a democratic one at the ballot box, or a more fiery one if the former isn't possible).

if democratic don't win election, is time for to revolt then?

[Kaveh]

To play for the devil, don't they only provide those things because they think it will get them more revenue from us? ��

Or the government is made up of elected representatives and bureaucrats from the body politic who want to live in a decent society they share with those they represent

Sadly, corruption and incompetence get in the way of that. Malevolence though? Nah

[Reiwa]

Or the government is made up of elected representatives and bureaucrats from the body politic who want to live in a decent society they share with those they represent

Sadly, corruption and incompetence get in the way of that. Malevolence though? Nah

Oh, yes! Never ascribe to malice(etc)

[Jibartik]

lol democrats defending military we are full circle boyos!

Loramin, only thing I have to say is our geography is what kept us safe, not our military.

our military kept us fat.

live by the sword, and we will die by the sword.

Im ok with that.

huKgHfVxEnE

[loramin]

if democratic don't win election, is time for to revolt then?

Our whole system was designed to have bloodless revolutions every few years: that's the beauty of it. Our founding fathers knew we couldn't all just get along, and knew we would have revolutions: they counted on it.

But, they didn't want them to be violent, Revolutionary War-style revolutions: they wanted them to be peaceful ones. And that's exactly what happens: if the Democrats or Republicans don't "win" this election cycle, they just gear up for the next one.

Every few years control over power shifts: one side or the other takes over one branch of government or the other. The other side isn't happy, but they don't have a bloody revolution over it (well, Trump tried a little, but normally they don't).

Instead, they just try to win the next election, ie. have a blood-less revolution in their favor next time. Eventually they do, then the other side tries to fight back, and the cycle continues ... all without anyone killing anyone.

Go founding fathers! :)

[Jibartik]

Our whole system was designed to have bloodless revolutions every few years: that's the beauty of it. Our founding fathers knew we couldn't all just get along, and knew we would have revolutions: they counted on it.

Now one must ask, was the long term effects of this "idea some guys had" actually the best?

Our global empire is going bananas faster than any other global empire in history.

Sure takes a lot of faith in this system that isn't religion that it will work? Since last time it lead to a great depression, and then world wars to solve that problem, and now its headed to another great depression, and maybe world wars to solve that again?

Seems like a cycle to me.

[loramin]

lol democrats defending military we are full circle boyos!

Loramin, only thing I have to say is our geography is what kept us safe, not our military.

our military kept us fat.

Without our military Russia would just nuke us :rolleyes: The geography of some water in-between us won't change that.

Look, I don't like militaries in general, and I really don't like all the crap that comes with them here in America (eg. the military-industrial complex).

But again, going to extremes on either side (ie. throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater) is not the answer: it's not "let's have a military dictatorship" or "let's just hold hands and send the Russians good thoughts so they don't nuke us".

It should be (IMHO) "let's have a strong, well run and well-regulated military, with a strong system of civilian governance overseeing it".

[loramin]

Now one must ask, was the long term effects of this "idea some guys had" actually the best?

Our global empire is going bananas faster than any other global empire in history.

Sure takes a lot of faith in this system that isn't religion that it will work? Since last time it lead to a great depression, and then world wars to solve that problem, and now its headed to another great depression, and maybe world wars to solve that again?

Seems like a cycle to me.

Democracy is a terrible solution ... but it's still better than every other option.

The fundamental problem is, people suck. Unfortunately, we can't (yet) change that.

But if you can at least setup a system of incentives (eg. the democratic system of America) to channel that suckiness in the right ways, it sucks less :) Certainly less than dictatorships, which are really the only other viable approach.

[Jibartik]

I didn't say anything about democracy, that's a lot older than the USA.

I was talking about capitalism.

Its the same old same old with the establishment. It's addicted to consumerism, and it thinks the rest of the world is too, so it just pushes the western ideals on everyone with its overblown military industrial complex that does nothing but offence since the day you were born.

Nothing is going to work out, the end is coming, and it's coming because of consumerism.

It destroyed the planet. Full stop. No argument can change that. It may have killed us all in the end.

[loramin]

I didn't say anything about democracy, that's a lot older than the USA.

I was talking about capitalism.

Im not even gonna dignify your "we need military because the threat of musilm terrorists" which you just changed muslim terrorists to russia"

its the same old same old with the establishment. You're addicted to consumerism, and you think the rest of us are too, think about it!

Nothing is going to work out, the end is coming, and it's coming because of consumerism.

It destroyed the planet. Full stop. No argument can change that. It may have killed us all in the end.

The American system of democracy is only as old as America; what the Greeks did was certainly in the same vein, but it was not the same system (by a long shot).

But consumerism != democracy and consumerism != military. It's a separate beast ... but the main source feeding that beast is the overpowered corporations in our society.

It's corporations (which did not exist, in their modern form at least, when our founders set everything up) that are killing this planet. It's their sole focus on profit above all else that forces them to find new ways for us all to consume this planet.

[Jibartik]

It's corporations (which did not exist, in their modern form at least, when our founders set everything up) that are killing this planet. It's their sole focus on profit above all else that forces them to find new ways for us all to consume this planet.


Yeah? And what is giving them this power? (hint: the military industrial complex)

Get ready: A cold war with a generation of children who never even knew someone lived through a world war, is going to end in a world war.

And the biggest threat against us was made by decisions that our goverment made about manufacturing things cheaper so we could consume more.

[magnetaress]

Yeah? And what is giving them this power? (hint: the military industrial complex)

Get ready: A cold war with a generation of children who never even knew someone lived through a world war, is going to end in a world war.

And the biggest threat against us was made by decisions that our goverment made about manufacturing things cheaper so we could consume more.

A few generations who always had work. And food if they really wanted it. Those are going away bois!

[Jibartik]

We have to globla thermo nuclear war to make sure we have peace on earth lol

[Reiwa]

Our whole system was designed to have bloodless revolutions every few years: that's the beauty of it. Our founding fathers knew we couldn't all just get along, and knew we would have revolutions: they counted on it.

But, they didn't want them to be violent, Revolutionary War-style revolutions: they wanted them to be peaceful ones. And that's exactly what happens: if the Democrats or Republicans don't "win" this election cycle, they just gear up for the next one.

Every few years control over power shifts: one side or the other takes over one branch of government or the other. The other side isn't happy, but they don't have a bloody revolution over it (well, Trump tried a little, but normally they don't).

Instead, they just try to win the next election, ie. have a blood-less revolution in their favor next time. Eventually they do, then the other side tries to fight back, and the cycle continues ... all without anyone killing anyone.

Go founding fathers! :)

Pretty weird how they said the liberty tree needed to be watered with blood, then.

[Jibartik]

One thing that's nice, thanks to all these micro revolutions we finally got to get rid of that pesky roe v wade.

Go founding fathers! :)

[Reiwa]

Without our military Russia would just nuke us :rolleyes: The geography of some water in-between us won't change that.

Look, I don't like militaries in general, and I really don't like all the crap that comes with them here in America (eg. the military-industrial complex).

But again, going to extremes on either side (ie. throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater) is not the answer: it's not "let's have a military dictatorship" or "let's just hold hands and send the Russians good thoughts so they don't nuke us".

It should be (IMHO) "let's have a strong, well run and well-regulated military, with a strong system of civilian governance overseeing it".

What happens if the civilian oversight has been contravening to the military mission(s)?

[loramin]

Pretty weird how they said the liberty tree needed to be watered with blood, then.

You're taking that quote out of context. He was talking about Shay's Rebellion before the USA was really a thing:

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

But he's talking about how things have been; what was so amazing about the founding fathers is that they made something new.

Years after that quote Jefferson would realize that, even though he <3 's revolutions (and he really did; he was one of the most liberal/revolutionary of the founders), he didn't exactly like the bloodshed part. So, he and the rest of the gang invented a bloodless perpetual revolution system.

[Reiwa]

You're taking that quote out of context. He was talking about Shay's Rebellion before the USA was really a thing:


What about the Whiskey Rebellion (https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion)? The USA was "really a thing" by then.

Reminder that Jefferson was an anti-federalist.

[Jibartik]

We better kill another million innocent people for our security.

[Jimjam]

It's corporations (which did not exist, in their modern form at least, when our founders set everything up) that are killing this planet. It's their sole focus on profit above all else that forces them to find new ways for us all to consume this planet.

Nah, East India Company , possibly the originalest biggest baddest corp is why USA exists. GB had to choose between sugar (America) and spice (India) and due to essentially lobbying from the EIC GB decided to pour its military focus into the East, not west.

It had been said EIC encouraged France to agitate the americas (making EIC appear the safer investment than opening new world opportunities) and without the interference of France the American Revolution would never have been feasible.

So yea, corporations interfering with America since before day 0 I’m afraid.

source:
I made it up

[magnetaress]

We better kill another million innocent people for our security.

[Reiwa]

Nah, East India Company , possibly the originalest biggest baddest corp is why USA exists. GB had to choose between sugar (America) and spice (India) and due to essentially lobbying from the EIC GB decided to pour its military focus into the East, not west.

It had been said EIC encouraged France to agitate the americas (making EIC appear the safer investment than opening new world opportunities) and without the interference of France the American Revolution would never have been feasible.

So yea, corporations interfering with America since before day 0 I’m afraid.

source:
I made it up

Shareholdership arose from pirate boat contracts, non?

[magnetaress]

Glad to see Jimjam taking up the spoiler Crusade in Starkinds absence may her soul rest in peace.

[Jibartik]

Let’s not forget it’s the military industrial complex that trained Osama bin Laden an armed the Taliban to keep us secure from the Russians.

Thank God we have liberals making sure that Guantánamo Bay is never shut down…

Wtf happened. :(

[Danth]

Shareholdership arose from pirate boat contracts, non?

Insofar as I know pirate share-holding derived from the common use of divided shares in commercial sailing ship interests during the age of sail.

Danth

[loramin]

What about the Whiskey Rebellion (https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion)? The USA was "really a thing" by then.

When you invent something the world has never seen before, do you get it perfect on the first try? ;)

Nah, East India Company , possibly the originalest biggest baddest corp is why USA exists ...
source:
I made it up

:D

[Jibartik]

Yeah and without this great system we couldn’t have outlawed abortion.

And contraception soon.

In 2022.

And set up the Cold War part two this time with russsia AND china.

After our consumer driven society literally built the military for both of those world powers.

You’re right this experiment is working.

[magnetaress]

in the past 100 years ppl lived without electricity and internet we had high speed (for the time) rail tho )

[loramin]

Yeah and without this great system we couldn’t have outlawed abortion.

And contraception soon.

In 2022.

And set up the Cold War part two this time with russsia AND china.

After our consumer driven society literally built the military for both of those world powers.

You’re right this experiment is working.

Again, humans suck. There's no magic way to make them not suck. But democracy as a system makes them suck less.

Without democracy we'd be killing each other over abortion, instead of having non-violent protests, public discussions, and ultimately peaceful elections over it.

[Jibartik]

Again, humans suck. There's no magic way to make them not suck. But democracy as a system makes them suck less.

Without democracy we'd be killing each other over abortion, instead of having non-violent protests, public discussions, and ultimately peaceful elections over it.

We're not talking about democracy dude. I already told you that.

We're talking about capitailsm/consumerism/global miltary industrial complex.

Right now you are literally defining democracy as: capitailsm/consumerism/global miltary industrial complex.

Nobody here has said the word democracy except you, and me saying "I'm not talking about democracy, those exist long before America and all over the world"

[magnetaress]

Adversity makes humans better :D

[Jibartik]

Consumerism in place of it makes us worse :(

[Jibartik]

Assuming that the consumer driven society of the west is superior to the less developed cultures of the world is literally colonialism lol

[magnetaress]

Assuming that the consumer driven society of the west is superior to the less developed cultures of the world is literally colonialism lol

[loramin]

We're not talking about democracy dude. I already told you that.

We're talking about capitailsm/consumerism/global miltary industrial complex.

Right now you are literally defining democracy as: capitailsm/consumerism/global miltary industrial complex.

Nobody here has said the word democracy except you, and me saying "I'm not talking about democracy, those exist long before America and all over the world"

And how exactly are you planinng to solve "consumerism/global military industrial complex"?

[Horza]

And how exactly are you planinng to solve "consumerism/global military industrial complex"?

He's going to keep praying to Trump obviously.

[Jibartik]

And how exactly are you planinng to solve "consumerism/global military industrial complex"?

Socialism and Nationalism.

What have you been on mars with your fingers in your ears?

Thats what the left was supposed to be doing not global corperate proxy wars.

[loramin]

Socialism is an economic system, not a governmental one.

America is a capitalist (economic system) democracy (government system), whereas communist Russia was a socialist (economic) dictatorship (government).

The point is, historically humans have only really succeeded with two ways of governing ourselves: democracy or dictatorship (with some sub-options like "dictatorship by rich people", ie. oligarchy).

[Jibartik]

Jesus christ, this is a modern liberal folks.

Last thing I ever thought I'd have to do is teach a modern leftist about the benifits of democratic socialism.

You warhawk neodem corperatists didnt just throw sanders under the bus, you guys drove over him repededtly.

[Horza]

Socialism and Nationalism.

What have you been on mars with your fingers in your ears?

Thats what the left was supposed to be doing not global corperate proxy wars.

This guy ranting about uppity leftists and saying the only way to save the white race is embracing National Socialism (aka Nazism).

That you, Nirgon?

[loramin]

Jesus christ, this is a modern liberal folks.

Last thing I ever thought I'd have to do is teach a modern leftist about the benifits of democratic socialism.

You warhawk neodem corperatists didnt just throw sanders under the bus, you guys drove over him repededtly.

I'm all for democratic socialism ... I'm just saying it requires democracy as a means of achieving it: you have to elect someone like Bernie Sanders (and then a lot more "squad members" also, to actually pass the socialist legislation).

[Jibartik]

Nobody has said anything against democracies.

You and the rest of the west being a consumer whore, who loves war and the destruction of our planet is what I am talking about.

That has nothing to do with voting, democracy, or whatever the hell else you're talking about.

This fascist global consumer driven western impearliasm, is at fault for every problem on the planet today, and always will be.

Its the cause of every war. It's the cause of all the climate catasrophies, it's the cause of the pandemic, it's the cause of literally every bad thing in this world. Every evil goverment has had one thing in common - WE supported that coup for OUR consumer driven corperate interests.

China would collapse if we stopped buying products from them. Instead we would rather buy products from them and go to global war with them at the same time? That's insanity. The climate saving left is trying to convince me proxy wars and mass consumerism shipping goods all over the planet is not insanity? Give me a break.

All that and for what? Cheep Oscar Myer Balgonie for a vast minority of the planet. That's it.

[Reiwa]

I'm all for democratic socialism ... I'm just saying it requires democracy as a means of achieving it: you have to elect someone like Bernie Sanders (and then a lot more "squad members" also, to actually pass the socialist legislation).

Look into the difference between demsoc and socdem before you go seizing anything, tovarisch.

[loramin]

Jibartik:
Nobody here has said the word democracy except you, and me saying "I'm not talking about democracy, those exist long before America and all over the world"

Also Jibartik, just three posts earlier (responding to my post about democracy):

Yeah and without this great system [of Democracy] we couldn’t have outlawed abortion.

So, I mean, technically you are correct: you didn't say "the word democracy" ... but you certainly have been talking about it.

[Jibartik]

That quote of me saying democracy, is me asking you, why are you talking abotu democracy!?~!?!

I never said anything about it, except to ask you why you keep saying I did.

The second time, i was roasting you, because you kept bringing up democracy and saying it was what our great system was.

God damn man.

Read the quotes READ them.

Me asking you, "Why are you talking about democracy That has nothing to do with what I am saying!" is not me "talking about democracy"

I am specifically talking about globalist consumerism, and western capitalisms. Nothing related to democracy whatsoever. Stop trying to change the subject.

You said war keeps us secure. I said that's insane. Then suddenly you're like talking about democracy.

[loramin]

At best you're arguing that you make non-sequitur responses to my posts.

Look when Bob talks about ... whatever, and then Fred responds to Bob, the assumption is Fred is responding to whatever Bob said. That's just how normal conversation works.

[Jibartik]

This was your first post:

Says Jib as he sits with his security ensured by his government's military, his bathing/drinking water government-ensured to be safe, his roads that he uses to get everywhere maintained by his government, the money he uses to buy everything secured by his government, his ... you get the idea.

But yeah, everything the government does sucks :rolleyes

I reply that all that has done is craeted a consumer driven society full of people depressed that their consumerism has either already destroyed the planet, or is in the process of it:

All of that provides is consumerism that makes everyone nilhistic and depressed and angry and eventually it'll invent the AI that kills us all if the machines we built 200 years ago dont already.

Then you reply that all the raods and drinking water and not getting invaded doesn't do that.

Roads, drinking water, and not getting invaded = "providing consumerism" and "making everyone nihilistic"?

I said well it did didnt it? That's the earth we live on now.

Well it did didn't it?

Then you said that you you can have good military, not just the one we have.

I'm in favor of a strong American military, but not the military-industrial complex. They're separate things.

And I said, can you, because there is no such thing so far??

Can they? Because they aren't in practice.

Again: all of what you spoke of has resulted in misery death and destruction.

Sorry to say this is true!

Then you just take this WILD PIVOT to pretend like you were defending democracy, and not a massive military industrial complex that has committed an act of imperialst colonialism and attacked almost every country on the planet:

Democracy is a terrible solution ... but it's still better than every other option.

The fundamental problem is, people suck. Unfortunately, we can't (yet) change that.

But if you can at least setup a system of incentives (eg. the democratic system of America) to channel that suckiness in the right ways, it sucks less :) Certainly less than dictatorships, which are really the only other viable approach.

I dont know how many times I have to tell you

Military industrial complex cooperate globalist imperials =/= democracy

And this western system is literally killing people and destroying the planet and paying for the threats to our security.

All any of you war criminals say is, "the other guy has big weapons so we need to spend all our money on big weapons"

well if we spent it on making chips in America, we wouldn't be so afraid of Chinas chips would we? NO!

They wouldn't have stolen all our IP and we wouldn't have spent billions to help them build factories and increase their milltiary power. NOPE!

but we need CHEEP dispsobile chips WE NEED THEM we gotta have them mangia mangia mangia, buy buy buy!!!! NEED MORE MORE MORE!!!!!

Every time, its some warhawk that STARTS the threats that we're afraid of.

Happened with 9/11 we made osama and then they used osama to start 20 years of genocide in the desert.

We flood the streets with crack, so WE have incarcerate and murder everyone who is poor.

It's all caused by the "security" you think keeps us safe.

[loramin]

Then you just take this WILD PIVOT to pretend like you were defending democracy, and not a massive military industrial complex that has committed an act of imperialst colonialism and attacked almost every country on the planet:

You seem to have left out just a few posts there :rolleyes:

Look, maybe this whole forum concept is confusing you, but there can be multiple people talking at once, and some of us were definitely talking about democracy.

But if you don't want to talk about democracy, and I'm talking about democracy, there's a simple fix: don't respond to my posts. Problem solved.

[Reiwa]

Military industrial complex cooperate globalist imperials =/= democracy

= Liberal Democracy. 🌐

[Reiwa]

You seem to have left out just a few posts there :rolleyes:

Look, maybe this whole forum concept is confusing you, but there can be multiple people talking at once, and some of us were definitely talking about democracy.

But if you don't want to talk about democracy, and I'm talking about democracy, there's a simple fix: don't respond to my posts. Problem solved.

What if business owners don't surrender their property when you successfully vote for it to be yours now?

(Going back to the democratic socialism thing.)

[Jibartik]

You seem to have left out just a few posts there :rolleyes:

Look, maybe this whole forum concept is confusing you, but there can be multiple people talking at once, and some of us were definitely talking about democracy.

You asked me what my solution was to global consumerism killing the planet and I said national socialsm. Which does not mean no democracy at all.

Now you're trying to convince me that democracy was invented by the USA and that you changed the subject of the conversation.

I have 1 opinion: Consumerism/westernism/globalism/military industrial complex of the west: Is the most evil and vile thing on earth.

And you're trying to talk to me about how you think that stuff is great, and without it there would be no such thing as democracy.

[Jibartik]

But if you don't want to talk about democracy, and I'm talking about democracy, there's a simple fix: don't respond to my posts. Problem solved.

you cock munching liar:

Says Jib as he sits with his security ensured by his government's military, his bathing/drinking water government-ensured to be safe, his roads that he uses to get everywhere maintained by his government, the money he uses to buy everything secured by his government, his ... you get the idea.

But yeah, everything the government does sucks :rolleyes

[Jibartik]

you didn't say "the word democracy" ... but you certainly have been talking about it.

No, you saying that America is the first democracy and so it's 'tough to get it right.'

And me correcting you that it is not the first democracy.

Is not me talking about democracy.

[loramin]

And me correcting you that it is not the first democracy.

Is not me talking about democracy.

It's the first democracy of it's kind. As I said before:
The American system of democracy is only as old as America; what the Greeks did was certainly in the same vein, but it was not the same system (by a long shot).

[Jibartik]

Just apologize for misunderstanding someone for once in your life dude.

Dont double down and pretend like you didn't say all this shit about security, military, and that I'm a fool for not appreciating those things.

Then when i tell you I dont appreciate those things because they are killing the planet and the people that live on it, you pivot to trying to argue with me about something else that I already BELIEVE in.

[loramin]

What if business owners don't surrender their property when you successfully vote for it to be yours now?

(Going back to the democratic socialism thing.)

I mean, what happens if you don't pay your taxes? The forces of the state (eg. IRS and/or the police) come and take it.

[Reiwa]

I mean, what happens if you don't pay your taxes? The forces of the state (eg. IRS and/or the police) come and take it.

Losing a popular vote is criminal?

[Jibartik]

Now one must ask, was the long term effects of this "idea some guys had" actually the best?

Our global empire is going bananas faster than any other global empire in history.

Sure takes a lot of faith in this system that isn't religion that it will work? Since last time it lead to a great depression, and then world wars to solve that problem, and now its headed to another great depression, and maybe world wars to solve that again?

Seems like a cycle to me.

Here is where you effed up:

Democracy is a terrible solution ... but it's still better than every other option.

The fundamental problem is, people suck. Unfortunately, we can't (yet) change that.

But if you can at least setup a system of incentives (eg. the democratic system of America) to channel that suckiness in the right ways, it sucks less :) Certainly less than dictatorships, which are really the only other viable approach.

You assumed I was talking shit on democracy (when the forefathers di NOT invent it, they invented our capitalist's economy)

Not to mention, here you very clearly are arguing about having a strong industrial military complex with me, not talking about democracy:

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater though: you can't say "well Bush got us into an unnecessary war, wasting hundreds of American lives and trillions of dollars of American taxpayer money ... therefore we shouldn't have a military or defend ourselves." The answer isn't to go from one extreme to another, it's to have a middle ground, propertly managed, well-run system of government.

So how you went from defending the military industr8ial complex to me, to arguging with me about democracy makes no sense, unless you understand that YOU misunderstood the conversation we were having, and then went on to keep arguing with me.

So you have no idea what you're even arguing with me about and you just keep at it!

[Jibartik]

I CAN SAY:

Bush proved that our military, and intelligence is corrupt, and will lie to us, and start world wars that last 20 years.

We must throw the baby and the bathwater out, and start fresh.

[Reiwa]

You assumed I was talking shit on democracy (when the forefathers di NOT invent it, they invented our capitalist's economy)

Rooted in is not the same as invented by. Like how Lutherism is rooted in Christianity, but was invented by someone else.

[loramin]

Losing a popular vote is criminal?

If you break the law, you get in trouble. If a popular vote creates a law (many states allow ballot measures) ... or if your peers elect a legislator who then passes a law ... and you don't follow that law ... it's a crime.

This goes both ways: the rich helped make the Vietnam war happen, that war instituted a draft, and perfectly peaceful, law-abiding citizens who wanted nothing to do without colonial expansion were forced to fight or go to jail.

It's 100% shitty ... but again, people are going to be shitty sometimes. All (American-style) democracy does is ensure that, despite that shittiness, we don't start killing each other over it every fifty years or so.

[Jibartik]

If you break the law, you get in trouble. If a popular vote creates a law (many states allow ballot measures) ... or if your peers elect a legislator who then passes a law ... and you don't follow that law ... it's a crime.

This goes both ways: the rich helped make the Vietnam war happen, that war instituted a draft, and perfectly peaceful, law-abiding citizens who wanted nothing to do without colonial expansion were forced to fight or go to jail.

It's 100% shitty ... but again, people are going to be shitty sometimes. All (American-style) democracy does is ensure that, despite that shittiness, we don't start killing each other over it every fifty years or so.

American style democracy does not ensure that - a culture of consumers who are stupid and dont think school is valuble and watch tiktok does.

It's the culture of the people that are decaying - not our electoral system.

Capitalism.

Like I got a guy over here with a polar bear hat avatar talking about how killing people in the middle east keeps us safe.

Everything about our culture has collapsed in favor of 'perceived' security and toys, our election system is not the problem!

[loramin]

American style democracy does not ensure that - a culture of consumers who are stupid and dont think school is valuble and watch tiktok does.

It's the culture of the people that are decaying - not our electoral system.

It absolutely ensures it: just look at history. We've had one real civil war (plus some minor shit at the start) in 200+ years of history.

What other, non-modern (ie. non-American-style) democracy has that kind of track record? Not Russia, not China, not Brazil, not ...

[Reiwa]

If you break the law, you get in trouble. If a popular vote creates a law (many states allow ballot measures) ... or if your peers elect a legislator who then passes a law ... and you don't follow that law ... it's a crime.

This goes both ways: the rich helped make the Vietnam war happen, that war instituted a draft, and perfectly peaceful, law-abiding citizens who wanted nothing to do without colonial expansion were forced to fight or go to jail.

It's 100% shitty ... but again, people are going to be shitty sometimes. All (American-style) democracy does is ensure that, despite that shittiness, we don't start killing each other over it every fifty years or so.

And despite recognizing it's shitty for democratic socialists to seize the means of production, you're still all for it?

[Jibartik]

It absolutely ensures it: just look at history. We've had one real civil war (plus some minor shit at the start) in 200+ years of history.

Americans killed 1 million iraqi's because of a lie.

Americans made osama bin laden because of this lie.

Venezuela collapsed, because of this lie.

The crack epidemic exists, because of this lie.

America has the highest incarceration rate, the lowest education standards, and a growing wage gap that is comparable only to INDIA for Christ sakes.

What other, non-modern (ie. non-American-style) democracy has that kind of track record? Not Russia, not China, not Brazil, not ...

Canada. #1 in Quality of Life. #1 in Best Countries Overall. ...
Denmark. #2 in Quality of Life. #12 in Best Countries Overall. ...
Sweden. #3 in Quality of Life. ...
Norway. #4 in Quality of Life. ...
Switzerland. #5 in Quality of Life. ...
Australia. #6 in Quality of Life. ...
Netherlands. #7 in Quality of Life. ...
Finland. #8 in Quality of Life.

..
..

..

...

....
......

.....

,......

.... America.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life

Thanks western global consumerism:

https://i.imgur.com/fFT79O8.png

https://i.imgur.com/Ech3tDm.png

https://i.imgur.com/NbZq62M.png

https://i.imgur.com/JBD9337.png

AGAIN DEMOCRACY DID NOT CAUSE THIS! CONSUMERISM & WESTERN MILITARIST GLOBALISM DID

[loramin]

AGAIN DEMOCRACY DID NOT CAUSE THIS! CONSUMERISM & WESTERN MILITARIST GLOBALISM DID

You're right ... but whoever is going to fix it has two options: vote newer/better laws in (or newer/better representatives who create such laws) ... or stage a coup, take over, and use their newfound dictatorship power to fix it.

[loramin]

And despite recognizing it's shitty for democratic socialists to seize the means of production, you're still all for it?

I recognized no such thing. If I implied anything in that post, it was that the Vietnam War draft sucked.

But look, it's not about extremes. Everyone (sane) agrees that public roads are a good thing. So are public firefighters, public police, teachers, emergency rooms, etc.

Now, you can debate details, like whether those public police departments should be buying and using military goods ... but no one (sane) is saying we should eliminate all police and just let the purge begin ... not even BLM.

At the same time, no one sane would say the government should take over everything. There's a wealth of evidence showing that the government is not as good as the private sector at planning, and when it tries you wind up with the USSR and shortages on basic goods.

A healthy society has some private institutions, and some public ones ... but it has both kept in check by a well-balanced system of incentives that ensure both ultimately serve society's interest.

Our problem here in America is that those balancing systems have become unbalanced, and now our institutions often don't serve anyone except shareholders.

[Reiwa]

At the same time, no one sane would say the government should take over everything. There's a wealth of evidence showing that the government is not as good as the private sector at planning, and when it tries you wind up with the USSR and shortages on basic goods.

Now you are saying democratic socialists are not sane. :)

[Jibartik]

You're right ... but whoever is going to fix it has two options: vote newer/better laws in (or newer/better representatives who create such laws) ... or stage a coup, take over, and use their newfound dictatorship power to fix it.

I vote stage a coup.

[magnetaress]

The people in power in the United States doing this and benefitting from massive blood shed on a massive scale will not stop doing what they are doing without massive bloodshed. And horrific personal loss. The powerful in this country only care for themselves and how efficiently they can dominate the rest of you and crush your psyches into fearful obedient oblivion.

[Jibartik]

BP oil 7 trillion in profits this year.

7 trillion.

In profit.

We're getting ass raped.

[Reiwa]

BP oil 7 trillion in profits this year.

7 trillion.

In profit.

We're getting ass raped.

Looks like it's monkeypox for you then, jib. :p

[loramin]

Now you are saying democratic socialists are not sane. :)

No: again you're jumping to extremes.

Let's say total communism is a 0 and total capitalism is a 10. Communist Russia wasn't even a 0, Cuba isn't even a 0, etc. Even the most socialist countries on the planet have capitalist elements, so they'd be maybe a 2 or something.

Same thing on the other end: if America was a 10 we'd have no public roads, no police force, a fire department that shows up when your house is on fire and says "pay us half the value or you lose the whole house" (this was a thing fire departments used to do BTW), etc.

So, let's say America is maybe a 7.5 right now. The democratic socialists maybe want to take us down to like a 6.3: nothing crazy there. But anyone who wants to take us to a 0 or a 10 is crazy: it's just not happening.

[Kaveh]

BP oil 7 trillion in profits this year.

7 trillion.

In profit.

We're getting ass raped.

They increased dividend payments

[Reiwa]

Even the most socialist countries on the planet have capitalist elements, so they'd be maybe a 2 or something.

DemSoc is not SocDem and socialism is not when government, you absolute Chad. :)

[magnetaress]

We are borg. I'm all for that.

[Horza]

I vote stage a coup.

Beer hall putsch?

[Jibartik]

pBA8CZUWUR0