Author Topic: The Green New Deal  (Read 3331 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2019, 05:29:28 PM »
So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

I would suppose that those who want to get caught find it safer and easier to cross where there is no wall rather than to risk scaling it.  So I would have to agree, for those who want to get caught (women, children, those who are not physically able), walls are a good deterrent--at least until there are no other places to cross.  Then some will probably risk it.

The point is some.  Reducing the absolute numbers to a manageable amount is the goal.  Funneling those with legitimate claims to the ports of entry where they can be processed is a goal.

Quote
Of course, why are you worried about those who want to turn themselves in?  Because then you are talking about those who believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that they have a good chance of being admitted to our country legally.

Because I value the Rule of Law, which the left only values when it's convenient as an attack.  We can not have a sensible border and immigration policy if we can't control the border and immigration. 

I frankly don't think anyone that violates the law should be admitted.  That to me is a completely reasonable and independent basis for denial of access.

Quote
Those who don't think so, or have criminal intentions, won't wait.  You know, terrorists, criminals, and such.  I thought the main reason for the wall was to stop all those people, to make us all safer.  Did I miss something in the justification for the wall?  ???

Stopping those people is part of the purpose of a wall as well.  Now if we could get Democrats to stop releasing them when they are caught things would be much better.

Quote
Quote
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?

Helps if you have facts on your side.

Sure does, but it doesn't seem to stop you when they aren't.

Quote
Quote
There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released.

None of which actually addresses whether the wall will work or not.

Okay.  So you don't have an actual response?  Or you just wanted to verify that the Democratic response was in bad faith since they don't have an actual response.

It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

Quote
Then why did the Obama Administration have more deportations than any other President?  2.5 million, not including those simply turned back across the border (saving time and money).  If all those nasty Democrats want all those illegal immigrants in our country, why did they go to so much trouble to throw them out when they were in power?

I love it when you keep posting things that have been repeatedly debunked (and that I've pointed out have been debunked).  Your deporter in chief played with statistics and greatly reduced the actual deportations fro inside the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.2dc02dc41e82
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

Quote
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

Your stuck on this, aren't you?  You can't imagine that treating refugees decently isn't the same as open borders and letting everyone in.  You can't wrap your head around the concept that you don't have arrest every single illegal, keep them in cages, separate them from their children, etc. and still control the border, do you?  You seem to think that if we don't come down as hard as we can on anyone who illegally steps across the imaginary line, then we are coddling them and want them all to come.

So no, you can't show such a proposal.  In other words all you can do is deflect with nonsense cause the policy you advocate does not actually result in compliance with our laws.

But to look at your claims:

Yes I can imagine treating illegal immigrants decently.  And it is in fact different than letting everyone in.  So why are we "letting everyone in" instead of treating them decently and then deporting them.  Oh yeah, because the Democrats refuse to authorize an appropriate amount to pay for reasonable deportation proceedings, to agree to reasonable rules related to asylum and deportation proceedings and to pay for enough legal support to keep the process moving in an efficient manner.  Literally, they starve the system of funds to ensure it can not both act humanely and also comply with our laws.  Why?  Because they literally want to undermine the law.

I can rap my head around not needing to keep anyone in cages to secure the border.  Why do you refuse to support an adequate level of funding to buy those facilities?

I can rap my head around lots of ways to secure the border and/or to end illegal immigration.  Yet, you don't support funding anything that actually could control the border, deportation or really anything that would reduce incentives provided to illegal immigrants.  If you can name it, go ahead and prove me false.

Only in a fever dream are we "coming down as hard as we can" on any illegal alien.  You have have got to be kidding.  "As hard as we can" to you means releasing them into the US  (their goal) pending their court dates, where they will be granted generally free legal advice and likely years of process for claims that are largely meritless on their face.  "As hard as we can" where we don't ask about status when granted public services including healthcare, welfare and educational benefits, drivers licences and even have failed to implement effective controls on wages and working and housing.  "As hard as we can" where even previously deported and criminal aliens arrested by some states for new violations are released rather  than turned over for deportation.  Good lord, the only thing worse would be to bring John Cleese in to poke them with soft pillows while sneering about the Spanish Inquisition.

Quote
Remember--a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not a threat to our country.

I could not disagree more.  They are deliberate undermining of the rule of law that has led to corruption across the board.  It has undermined our labor laws, our sense of fairplay and our constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Corruption is incompatible with the rule of law.

Quote
They are people trying to find a better life.  We can't allow all of them in, but we don't need to punish them for just wanting a better life.

What punishment?  Are you now claiming that deportation is a punishment?  Sending someone to the country in which they are a citizen is punishment?  Then why are they not ALL entitled to come, surely your ethical argument can't prioritize one over the other, since it's not based on any real principal.

Economic desire is not currently a valid reason to immigrate.  However, there  is abosolutely nothing stopping you from convincing your fellow citizens it should be.  Where do you get off undermining the laws of your country?  Think about it twice, cause there are a heck of a lot of laws I may not want to follow if that's the new game we're playing.

Quote
Quote
I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

This is the second time you've mentioned "science" proves the wall works.  Can you show me the respected, peer-reviewed journal that has the study?  I haven't heard of it.

Only a liberal would ask for a peer reviewed study on whether walls work.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2019, 06:18:33 PM »
Quote
It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

More like fluoridation in drinking water. It is hard to prove it is effective, and some studies suggest that it is not. It has some adverse side effects, much like the wall. It is expensive to install and maintain, fluoridation seems to cost about $1/person/year - millions in annual cost. But you know, there are still some communities that don't have it, and there's a dental crisis because people are still getting cavities. It doesn't mean the people opposing it want to see more cavities.

Does it "work"? Sure, there's a reason why we put it in all over the place. But it might make more sense to give everyone a free pass to see the dentist once a year, paid for with a tax on sugar.

What do Democrats want to "do" about it? Give people applying for asylum the benefit of the doubt when they arrive. Take enough time to make sure they aren't dangerous. Let their time play out without the expense and inhumanity of putting them in jail. If they do disappear, is it really so much worse than the citizens who don't show up for their court dates, sometimes for violent offenses? We generally don't consider that the Rule of Law has been violated in those cases.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's all men, not men from the Northern Hemisphere. Not men born in the United States. All people. That's why our protections extend to non-citizens, including due process and a right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. These are the most fundamental of our Laws.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2019, 07:17:34 PM »
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's all men, not men from the Northern Hemisphere. Not men born in the United States. All people. That's why our protections extend to non-citizens, including due process and a right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. These are the most fundamental of our Laws.

Where exactly was the part about free to break laws because they're inconvenient?

Even more specifically, where is the part about gaining legal entitlements because you broke laws that were inconvenient to you?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2019, 07:26:07 AM »
I agree with TheDeamon, that's a bizarre thing to quote to me.  I've never once seen it argued that because I'd be happier with a yahct I'm entitled to just take one because you know the Constitution guarantees me a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote
What do Democrats want to "do" about it? Give people applying for asylum the benefit of the doubt when they arrive.

We already do this, even with claims that on their face are not valid.  Even after we allow advocates to coach those making the claims on exactly what phrases they have to include to be granted asylum (in other contexts, like say if someone was investigating a person for their history with the Trump administration, we'd call that suborning perjury or tampering with a witness and put them in jail).

Quote
Take enough time to make sure they aren't dangerous.

I'm glad they are "not dangerous."  6 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them are "not dangerous" the vast majority of the time.  That's not remotely a standard though to be entitled to live in this country.

Quote
Let their time play out without the expense and inhumanity of putting them in jail.

Pay for reasonable detainment center, with medical and other facilities.  Calling it jail is just propaganda.  They are not entitled to roam freely about the country.  How comfortable we choose to make the waiting area is a complete matter of discretion and it's the choice of your representatives to make it as inhumane as possible so that they can use it as a talking point.

Take the the moral responsibility for your decision to support those who will not provide the funding to make the detention centers humane.

Quote
If they do disappear, is it really so much worse than the citizens who don't show up for their court dates, sometimes for violent offenses? We generally don't consider that the Rule of Law has been violated in those cases.

Not sure what wold you live in, but you're completely wrong about what happens to citizens that fail to appear.  We absolutely take that as a violation of the rule of law, and they entail compounding consequences over time.  We don't treat it as a felony, but we do treat it as serious.

And again, failing to appear for an immigration hearing is fundamentally distinct from a citizen failing to show up for a moving violation.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2019, 11:30:30 AM »
Due process means you can't do things that some advocate - like grabbing people and just shoving them back over the line possibly with a mass court proceeding in a language they don't understand. Or signing executive orders saying we won't give you that due process if you are picked up after crossing illegally.

I'm glad we can dispense with the danger argument and focus only on the economic protectionism. I don't believe in that, as an Objectivist.

Quote
You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? - Ayn Rand

So when I'm talking about fundamental, inalienable rights, this is what I'm referring to. You're not giving out a yacht by simply allowing people to compete in the job market. I don't like the black market, which is what we have now because of our attempts to restrict market forces.

37 percent of aliens fail to appear in immigration court. Accused felons in some states abscond at 25%. Why should I be more worried about non-violent illegal aliens being "set loose" than I am about home-grown felons?

Quote
Some alternatives to detention still gave encouragement. Success stories noted a 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal inside a monitored population of 42,000.48 The same report acknowledged that as supervision was relaxed compliance fell, with the consequent evasion of removal orders equaling 55 percent in a more lightly monitored group.49 Yet wider use of methods that would mitigate absconding — including detention — trail this long-standing problem. Despite progress with smaller samples of offenders and the comparative low cost-to-benefit ratio when contrasted to detention, success across the spectrum of all non-detained aliens still proves elusive, if not impossible, for those in charge at ICE. As elusive, it turns out, as getting credible information from court reports on the same issue.

link

So it is possible to let a refugee family "roam around", and still improve drastically on failures to appear, while saving a lot of money compared to detention.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2019, 06:26:41 PM »
So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

I would suppose that those who want to get caught find it safer and easier to cross where there is no wall rather than to risk scaling it.  So I would have to agree, for those who want to get caught (women, children, those who are not physically able), walls are a good deterrent--at least until there are no other places to cross.  Then some will probably risk it.

The point is some.  Reducing the absolute numbers to a manageable amount is the goal.  Funneling those with legitimate claims to the ports of entry where they can be processed is a goal.

And where they can starve to death, get killed by Mexican criminals, or just give up and go back before they can get processed, which appears to be the Trump strategy.

Did you ever consider that, if we increased the processing capability at the ports of entry, these people wouldn't bother to trek through the desert just to give themselves up? ;)

Quote
Quote
Of course, why are you worried about those who want to turn themselves in?  Because then you are talking about those who believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that they have a good chance of being admitted to our country legally.

Because I value the Rule of Law, which the left only values when it's convenient as an attack.  We can not have a sensible border and immigration policy if we can't control the border and immigration. 

I frankly don't think anyone that violates the law should be admitted.  That to me is a completely reasonable and independent basis for denial of access.

And, of course, the Right only values the Rule of Law to attack it's opponents.  :P  Since when did a misdemeanor mean one is automatically barred from ever asking asylum in a country?  Do you think every immigrant with a traffic violation should be permanently barred from admittal?

You keep making it sound like it's some felony or federal crime to cross the border.  It's a misdemeanor, with punishments similar to a traffic violation.  You make it sound like an armed invasion or something.

And, BTW, no one is talking about not controlling the border, only how to best do it.

Quote
Quote
Those who don't think so, or have criminal intentions, won't wait.  You know, terrorists, criminals, and such.  I thought the main reason for the wall was to stop all those people, to make us all safer.  Did I miss something in the justification for the wall?  ???

Stopping those people is part of the purpose of a wall as well.  Now if we could get Democrats to stop releasing them when they are caught things would be much better.

No, it is the primary purpose of the wall, not "as well."  It isn't effective against the real criminals.  They will go under, over or through.  They have the means and the motivation.

And if Letterrip is correct about the cartels controlling the walled areas in cities, it may not be effective against those without criminal intent, either.  Really, how much more trouble is it to carry a couple of ladders when you're crossing a desert anyway?

And don't move the goalpost.  We're talking about people who give themselves up.  Sending them back across the border is precisely what we would do after processing them.  For those who want to be caught, what is so terrible about that?  ??? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?

Helps if you have facts on your side.

Sure does, but it doesn't seem to stop you when they aren't.

And it certainly doesn't stop you when you don't. :)

Quote
Quote
Quote
There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released.

None of which actually addresses whether the wall will work or not.

Okay.  So you don't have an actual response?  Or you just wanted to verify that the Democratic response was in bad faith since they don't have an actual response.

It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

The problem is your criteria.  "Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country."  Which implies that any proposal must include keeping every single illegal out, and not letting any of them being released into the country.

The answer is, of course there is no such Democratic proposal.  Because they are stupid criteria.  We don't need to ensure absolutely no one gets a step across the border.  It would be sufficient to catch them before they reach civilization.  And why not release them with tracking devices to sponsors?  Then we don't have to house and feed them, and save the jail space for actual criminals who would harm us.

We can be safe without going overboard.

Quote
Quote
Then why did the Obama Administration have more deportations than any other President?  2.5 million, not including those simply turned back across the border (saving time and money).  If all those nasty Democrats want all those illegal immigrants in our country, why did they go to so much trouble to throw them out when they were in power?

I love it when you keep posting things that have been repeatedly debunked (and that I've pointed out have been debunked).  Your deporter in chief played with statistics and greatly reduced the actual deportations fro inside the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.2dc02dc41e82
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

Thank you for correcting me.  You're right, Obama did not have more deportations than any other President, according to your site.  He had less than Clinton and Bush II (who also had much higher apprehensions).  And you're also right, he did not deport 2.5 million over his Presidency.  He sent back over the border, either through Removals (through the legal process) or Returns (just sent back over the border, saving us some money) over 5 million illegal immigrants.  Which comes out to around 98 percent of those apprehended.

So my source only gave half the number he deported.  Which makes my point even stronger: why did they throw out so many when they were in power when they don't want effective border control? ;)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

Your stuck on this, aren't you?  You can't imagine that treating refugees decently isn't the same as open borders and letting everyone in.  You can't wrap your head around the concept that you don't have arrest every single illegal, keep them in cages, separate them from their children, etc. and still control the border, do you?  You seem to think that if we don't come down as hard as we can on anyone who illegally steps across the imaginary line, then we are coddling them and want them all to come.

So no, you can't show such a proposal.  In other words all you can do is deflect with nonsense cause the policy you advocate does not actually result in compliance with our laws.

But to look at your claims:

Yes I can imagine treating illegal immigrants decently.  And it is in fact different than letting everyone in.  So why are we "letting everyone in" instead of treating them decently and then deporting them.  Oh yeah, because the Democrats refuse to authorize an appropriate amount to pay for reasonable deportation proceedings, to agree to reasonable rules related to asylum and deportation proceedings and to pay for enough legal support to keep the process moving in an efficient manner.  Literally, they starve the system of funds to ensure it can not both act humanely and also comply with our laws.  Why?  Because they literally want to undermine the law.

I can rap my head around not needing to keep anyone in cages to secure the border.  Why do you refuse to support an adequate level of funding to buy those facilities?

I can rap my head around lots of ways to secure the border and/or to end illegal immigration.  Yet, you don't support funding anything that actually could control the border, deportation or really anything that would reduce incentives provided to illegal immigrants.  If you can name it, go ahead and prove me false.

Only in a fever dream are we "coming down as hard as we can" on any illegal alien.  You have have got to be kidding.  "As hard as we can" to you means releasing them into the US  (their goal) pending their court dates, where they will be granted generally free legal advice and likely years of process for claims that are largely meritless on their face.  "As hard as we can" where we don't ask about status when granted public services including healthcare, welfare and educational benefits, drivers licences and even have failed to implement effective controls on wages and working and housing.  "As hard as we can" where even previously deported and criminal aliens arrested by some states for new violations are released rather  than turned over for deportation.  Good lord, the only thing worse would be to bring John Cleese in to poke them with soft pillows while sneering about the Spanish Inquisition.

This all depends on your definition of "reasonable."  Democrats did propose to increase funding for most of these things.  They refused to increase the number of beds because Trump is dead-set about keeping them all in jails for the entire time, rather than those who actually pose a danger.  And why, as an American, are you opposed to granting the accused adequate legal advice?  Are you afraid that, given the right help, they might actually win?

And what about the $25 billion the Democrats offered Trump for the wall and border security a year ago?  Wouldn't that have helped fund those facilities, and the courts, and all the rest?  That's not supporting anything?  Or only if it comes without strings? ;)

Quote
Quote
Remember--a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not a threat to our country.

I could not disagree more.  They are deliberate undermining of the rule of law that has led to corruption across the board.  It has undermined our labor laws, our sense of fairplay and our constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Corruption is incompatible with the rule of law.

Oh, yes, what a horrible vision!  Imagine a country where people did not keep to the speed limit, and almost everyone daily committed misdemeanors!  And didn't follow every one of our others laws about guns and pollution and such!  Can you imagine such a country!  A country full of criminals:o

These people, for the most part, are breaking the law to find jobs and live a better life.  You find this as horrible as someone taking bribes and not granting equal protection under the law (something you seem not to want to see illegal immigrants have).  You need a sense of proportion.
 
Quote
Quote
They are people trying to find a better life.  We can't allow all of them in, but we don't need to punish them for just wanting a better life.

What punishment?  Are you now claiming that deportation is a punishment?  Sending someone to the country in which they are a citizen is punishment?  Then why are they not ALL entitled to come, surely your ethical argument can't prioritize one over the other, since it's not based on any real principal.

Economic desire is not currently a valid reason to immigrate.  However, there  is absolutely nothing stopping you from convincing your fellow citizens it should be.  Where do you get off undermining the laws of your country?  Think about it twice, cause there are a heck of a lot of laws I may not want to follow if that's the new game we're playing.

Deportation is a just punishment.  Treating them all like murders and rapists just because they committed a misdemeanor is.  Separating them from their children for no good reason is.  Trying to make the process so miserable that they'd prefer to go back to poverty and violence is.  It's the not legal punishments I'm referring to; it's the extra-judiciary punishments that Trump is piling on.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

This is the second time you've mentioned "science" proves the wall works.  Can you show me the respected, peer-reviewed journal that has the study?  I haven't heard of it.

Only a liberal would ask for a peer reviewed study on whether walls work.

Only a conservative who has no idea what science really is wouldn't ask for one.  :P  So stop misusing the word.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2019, 04:04:23 PM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-speed-rail-in-the-u-s-remains-elusive-illinois-shows-why-11551713342

So this is a project started over 10 years ago, and highlights the problems with regards to High Speed Rail and trying to do it in the United States.

They spent $2 Billion on a 284 mile long corridor in the name of "High Speed Rail" and only managed "higher speed rail" their top speed went from 79MPH to a hoped for a top speed of 110 MPH, maybe, in a couple more years.

So it seems they spent about $7 Million per mile on average over the length of the involved rail line. Of course, there was minimal new right of way, most of that money went to rebuilding bridges to support higher speeds, adding fencing in some places, upgrading/removing crossings, and so on.

They did double up 24 miles of track that previously was single-track, but the freight railroads still own the ROW. Impression from WSJ is that double/additional track across the who length of the line would cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" more. So probably another near-billion dollar project, but top speed would likely still remain around 110MPH, just be subject to fewer delays due to frieght traffic in the area.

So going back to the strategic rail network encompassing some 38,800 miles of rail, and $10 Million/mile to upgrade to 110MPH rail, as per Illinois' experience, you're only looking at a $388 Billion spend on that alone. Much more reasonable price wise, but 110MPH isn't particularly viable as an air-travel alternative except for the "short-hops" between nearby airports. But it should be technically possible to achieve in 10 years, as they did it in Illinois, kind of. That initial planning started in the 1990's is besides the point, they didn't get funding for construction until Obama was president. :)

WSJ also probably nailed it with this bit:

Quote
Experts cite several reasons the U.S. trails similarly developed countries in high-speed rail. Chief among them are strong property rights, local land-use controls and the expense and benefits of extensive highway and aviation networks.

All hail personal property rights and environmental laws and conservation groups placing land-use constraints in place.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2019, 04:30:01 PM »
I wish I had time to dig into this paper

They mention about 25-30 million euro per kilometre.

Call it 50 million per mile, and that 284 mile stretch would cost $15B (although that includes variable cost from the paper, which is still the bulk of cost (at list 50%)

So I guess a handwave suggests it isn't cheaper elsewhere, they'll just tax people hard enough to build it anyway.

China spent $126 billion on high speed rail in 2015, 60 times more than the US.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2019, 05:14:26 PM »
I wish I had time to dig into this paper

They mention about 25-30 million euro per kilometre.

Call it 50 million per mile, and that 284 mile stretch would cost $15B (although that includes variable cost from the paper, which is still the bulk of cost (at list 50%)

So I guess a handwave suggests it isn't cheaper elsewhere, they'll just tax people hard enough to build it anyway.

China spent $126 billion on high speed rail in 2015, 60 times more than the US.

I recall mentioning Salt Lake City's Light Rail project is the cheapest "recent" undertaking in the US, that came in at $55 Million/mile.

As to China, no property rights to worry about, no environmental laws to be concerned about, and so on. They're not going to build a 5+ mile diversion because (reason), when they can just build right through in 2 miles.

The other side of things for China is Transportation Infrastructure: They need a LOT more of it, and they still don't have as much of it as they need.

The United States?  We have all kinds of Transportation Infrastructure, it can use more capacity in places, but on the whole, it is adequate to most needs.

If the United States was in the same Transportation situation now as it was back in say, 1950, massive spending on transportation infrastructure would be easy to justify. As it is, the cost/benefit analysis skews towards highly expensive, partly due to "external factors" that have little to do with the construction itself. And the benefits are often negligible in comparison to the cost. (Which isn't to mention other problems that often crop up, particularly when deal with public roadways specifically)

There is a meta-environmental argument to made for "transit" solutions apart from the broader "Transportation" sector, but it runs into all kinds of problems at the micro-level. Environmental NIMBY-ism is a hoot in a lot a respects because of that.

They will make a strong case for why fixed right-of-way Mass Transit needs to be built, both intra-city and inter-city. Just don't build it in their (proverbial) back yard, or in the migration  path of ____ or through "prime habitat" for ____.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2019, 06:27:03 PM »
All reasonably good points. I lived in Salt Lake, everybody whined and moaned about the light rail. Nobody was going to ride it, it was too expensive, pedestrians were going to be dismembered, the people running the transit authority are corrupt...

Meanwhile Salt Lake had a terrible air quality problem, growing highway congestion, growing population density, blessed with very wide streets that could accommodate the rail without razing buildings or exercising eminent domain, and relatively close distances between airport, university, downtown, LDS HQ, Convention center, Ballpark, Arena, Library.

I think as much as anything else we have a cultural problem with public transit, local or otherwise. Nobody seems to bat an eye at a billion dollar airport expansion, but propose a few more bus lines and let the howling begin. Why is this? Because relatively few people footing the bill will directly use the transport. Only those working downtown, students, people going to events, etc. I think other cultures are more willing to spend tax dollars on an improvement that doesn't directly benefit them.

I'm not even making a statement that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to do, I'm just pointing out that cost isn't the hurdle given the amounts other countries spend on it. It's not like the Island nation of Japan never heard of air travel.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2019, 08:03:08 PM »
I'm not even making a statement that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to do, I'm just pointing out that cost isn't the hurdle given the amounts other countries spend on it. It's not like the Island nation of Japan never heard of air travel.

But they had heard of conservation and scarcity of resources. They have to import jet fuel, or refine it from imported petrol.

Other factors include:

1) Land being at a premium, particular the kind of land needed for an airport.
2) The Urban densities needed to make rail viable, both intra and inter-city already existed in much of the country, and those urban areas were "comparatively close" to one another.
2.a) Many of those urban areas were close enough together than flying between them isn't entirely practical either, you're already in a descent pattern before your ascent had even reached "cruising altitude" which makes jetliners horribly inefficient in just about every way possible. Particularly ones large enough to handle the passenger volumes that would be involved.

And getting back to the terrain difficulties, cheaper/easier to route a double-tracked railway through some of those areas than to try to push through a 6+lane express highway(3+ lanes each way) to handle the passenger traffic between the two cities.

For comparison, although not quite an exact match. Traveling by car between Omaha, NE and Denver, CO will take you across about 530 miles or 852 kilometers.

Osaka, Japan to Sendai, Japan via Tokoyo, Japan will make your car traverse 865 kilometers.

That Osaka to Sendai route will take you through or very near to:
Osaka (2.691 Million)
Kyoto (1.475 Million)
Nagoya (2.296 Million)
Hamamatsu (797,000-ish)
Shizuoka (697,000-ish)
Mt. Fuji(tourism)
Yokohama (3.725 Million)
Tokoyo (9.23 Million)
Various other smaller communities
Sendai (1 million)

Meanwhile, Denver to Omaha takes you through various small communities which are doing good to reach 30,000 people in many cases. You might manage to find one or two in the 50K range, maybe. Lincoln, Nebraska is about the only other significant city along the route.

Denver, CO (metro population: 2.888 Million)
Lincoln, NE (284,000-ish)
Omaha, NE (metro population: 975,000-ish)

Just from this, I think I see why there isn't much interest in building High Speed Rail between Denver and Omaha, while Japan's High Speed Rail system is doing so well. Potential passenger pool of less than 4 million people is vastly dwarfed by the roughly 22 million in the major cities between Osaka and Sendai.

That and the US never really has had to deal with a "scarcity" mindset when it comes to either energy or fuel, other than a few mostly transitory events. Pair that with readily available real-estate to build super-wide highways and well...

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2019, 05:32:54 AM »

Speaking of Japan, one of the biggest problems with mass transit catching on in America is the behavior of the people or at least the fear of it. Japan is known for the politeness of their people, for the most part, and even with that there are still problems with molesters and perverts on mass transit there. How much worse do most Americans fear it will be on mass transit here? One solution the British seem to enjoy is mass super surveillance but even with all that there are still acid attacks going on left and right over there though perhaps not on mass transit though I'm not sure about that either. If you get in your car, you pretty much know the risks but whatever the dangers in driving are at least you aren't going to be molested, or raped, or have to endure funky smells or even great smelling but annoyingly strong perfumes, and then there is the swearing, loud talking, bad music leaking from headphones, manspreading, and on and on. In Houston the metro system is not good for one main reason and that is the heat while you are waiting for the bus. I'd be covered in sweat just standing out there for 20 minutes in the summer so that's a bit of a problem. Canada would seem to be better on temperature but they had some nut cut a random passengers head off and eat it on a bus and the guy who did it is already out of the loony bin after a few years treatment and presumably riding the bus again. A very rare occurrence to be sure but terrifying.

I wonder if there could eventually be a mass transit that involves staying in your car. You ride up to the mass transit train, or maybe some type of conveyor belt or other conveyance that lets you put your car on it, takes you cross country or downtown or where-ever, and then you just drive your car off from there. And sure if you don't have a car there are also the usual accommodations as well. But my thinking is a big problem with mass transit for a lot of people is just that, people.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2019, 08:05:46 AM »
Texas is on the cusp of demonstrating how to do high speed rail in the US.

Quote
The train system will cost more than $12-billion to construct. This includes the tracks, viaducts, berms, maintenance facilities, power sub stations and three passenger stations. 

It’s not some government boondoggle/slush fund like California:
Quote
Texas Central is an investor-funded company utilizing a market-led approach to financing, led by a group of primarily Texan investors. The Railroad will not seek grants from the US Government or the State of Texas, nor any operational subsidy once operation begins. The project will be financed with a blend of debt and equity.

Dallas to Houston, 240 miles, 185 MPH to start with 205 MPH expected. Construction expected to begin this year.

Quote
The Texas high-speed train will create a brand new industry in United States, right here in Texas and inject an estimated $36 billion in economic benefits over the next 25 years. This will be in the form of direct spending during construction, employee payroll and spending related to the maintenance and operation of the system.

Private funding and construction so there will be accountability, new jobs, and billions in benefits created. It’s no wonder Texas is doing better than anywhere else.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2019, 08:15:32 AM »
Houston to Dallas would be very nice. Having said all that about public transportation, if the choice is between a plane and a train obviously the train would probably be more physically comfortable with more personal space, less hassle getting on without the TSA and such, less expensive for the ticket, and not much longer to get there and for example from Houston to Dallas maybe even faster when you factor in the airport lines.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2019, 11:26:15 AM »
I wonder if there could eventually be a mass transit that involves staying in your car. You ride up to the mass transit train, or maybe some type of conveyor belt or other conveyance that lets you put your car on it, takes you cross country or downtown or where-ever, and then you just drive your car off from there. And sure if you don't have a car there are also the usual accommodations as well. But my thinking is a big problem with mass transit for a lot of people is just that, people.

Nice analysis of the difficulties of mass transit in the US.

I think as cars become driver-less it may be easier* to modify them to allow them to couple together on highways to form a "car train". I think this is a more realistic solution for the US. If the cars couple in a way to minimize drag you would get cars that could easily get 100+ miles per gallon on the highway.

*Easier than building 10,000+ miles of high speed rail to connect the country.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2019, 11:47:27 AM »
I don't think there's any value to high speed rail crossing the country, aka Nebraska. It's the high population network with a similar topology to Japan and Europe. Ne, sf Bay, TX, etc.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2019, 12:22:17 PM »
So the most obvious Canadian high-speed rail corridor is Toronto > Montreal.

If you start the network a bit before Toronto  you get the following cities:

Hamilton 693k
Toronto 5,429k
Oshawa 309k
Kingston 117k
Ottawa 690k
Montreal 3,319k

Which is 10.5 million people in about 700 km (+/- a couple 100k for smaller communities on the way).
 
Extend to Quebec City and you get:
Trois-Riviere 114k
Quebec City 705k

The route is now about 970 km and 11.3 million.

This is probably the highest density region of Canada and it's still about half that of the Osaka to Sendai population. Spurs of the route into Southern Ontario or away from the river in Quebec might pick up a few more hundred thousand but that's about it for major population centers on this side of the continent/border.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2019, 01:01:11 PM »
So the most obvious Canadian high-speed rail corridor is Toronto > Montreal.

If you start the network a bit before Toronto  you get the following cities:

Hamilton 693k
Toronto 5,429k
Oshawa 309k
Kingston 117k
Ottawa 690k
Montreal 3,319k

Which is 10.5 million people in about 700 km (+/- a couple 100k for smaller communities on the way).
 
Extend to Quebec City and you get:
Trois-Riviere 114k
Quebec City 705k

The route is now about 970 km and 11.3 million.

This is probably the highest density region of Canada and it's still about half that of the Osaka to Sendai population. Spurs of the route into Southern Ontario or away from the river in Quebec might pick up a few more hundred thousand but that's about it for major population centers on this side of the continent/border.

"In Reality" that would be a good candidate for extensions running to Buffalo, NY and another to Detroit, with follow on spurs to Chicago(281 miles, going through a couple other decent sized cities along the way), Indianapolis with stops in Toledo and Fort Wayne(about 290 miles), and another branch from Toledo extending to other points in Ohio(and possibly back over to Buffalo and other points serviced by the Acela on the eastern seaboard). Which opens up a chain running as far south as Louisville, KY and basically running up I-71(Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland) with Pittsburgh not being too far away.

But the right of way costs and other entrenched interests would make that painful for numerous reasons and likely take far longer to get a ROI than most would bother with.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 01:03:42 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2019, 01:07:43 PM »
Houston to Dallas would be very nice. Having said all that about public transportation, if the choice is between a plane and a train obviously the train would probably be more physically comfortable with more personal space, less hassle getting on without the TSA and such, less expensive for the ticket, and not much longer to get there and for example from Houston to Dallas maybe even faster when you factor in the airport lines.

Be nicer in a lot of respects if they could get the other two legs of "the triangle" built to complete it, but either leg would be about as long as the initial run.

I'd suspect that San Antonio to Dallas would be the second leg built, if it ever gets that far, but who knows, they might so Houston to SA first instead.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2019, 01:39:42 PM »
On a tangential note relative to the GND:

Just had fun talking to somebody on Facebook through a mutual friend's page who has a very dim view of capitalism.

Some highlights from the discussion:

Regarding specialization: "Lack of equipment is a capitalist construct" (that is a verbatim quote) evidently lack of equipment wouldn't be a problem in his world if it wasn't for those evil capitalists. So the next time you need a hammer and a sledge hammer is the only thing at hand, lacking the proper tool for the job is evidently the fault of capitalism.

Regarding "the market": He took exception to the idea that "a market" exists whenever there are two people present. Evidently in his world, if two people mutually agree that private property doesn't exist and choose to ignore the existence of "the market" that means no such marketplace exists. Even if they're sharing resources.

This quote was kind of fun too: "You're confusing making stuff with market based economics."  :o

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2019, 02:20:38 PM »
While everyone (or at least sarcastic SOB's like me) enjoys a good chew toy now and then, I think a quick facebook exchange is about as much of that brand of "fun" as I could tolerate. 

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2019, 04:08:38 PM »
Came across this article about capturing carbon https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47638586
the approach seems do able

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #72 on: April 03, 2019, 04:17:32 PM »
It's a reasonable tech, especially if it really can run in unmodified vehicles as they claim. I wonder what a "gallon" equivalent is to produce. It is good that it sounds cleaner burning, as my biggest problem with vehicle exhaust is the direct air pollution rather than the CO2.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2019, 04:26:13 PM »
I'm also seeing positive things about new battery technologies

For me the argument for going green is about economics.
I'm pretty sure that the nations that get their first are going to be the most prosperous.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #74 on: April 03, 2019, 04:52:16 PM »
Actually, new wind and solar installations are already cheaper than coal plants. The storage issue is the problem, coal burns all day long and never gets becalmed. Meanwhile, about bird killings:

Quote
It concluded, "Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."

Study: Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity

Odds are, if someone is complaining about birds they are more likely coming from a NIMBY point of view.

Personally I'd love a view of a wind farm, I think it is a gorgeous monument to human technical achievement. I could sit on my porch and just watch them go round and around and around and around...

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2019, 10:46:20 AM »
The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication did an interesting survey.  They found broad support for the Green New Deal.  Specifically:

92% of Democrats either Strongly Support or Somewhat Support,
88% of Independents, and
64% of Republicans.

Of course, to get that much support from Republicans required some slight-of-hand.  They did the obvious: they only described the details of the proposal.  They didn't say that it was the Democratic Green New Deal.

So there is some hope that Republicans could come up with their own version of the Green New Deal.  All they have to do is copy AOC's proposal (the survey also found that 82% of the respondents knew nothing at all about it), and give it their own name.  It would garner a majority of the party's support, and probably get enough Democratic support to pass.

Something to think about.  ;)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #76 on: April 17, 2019, 12:21:25 PM »
I don't trust results generated from online surveys of paid volunteers.  There's a huge self selection bias built in, not to mention a specific set of commonalities to be found in people who sign up to take surveys for pay.  This methodology is the result of convenience not good science.

So the actual "question" asked:

Quote
Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy.

They assert this is an accurate summary of the Green New Deal.  See anything about radical economic redistribution?  See anything direct about replacing every existing building (it's alluded to if you already know that it's in there)?  Banning air flights?  Costs? 

You do think that's an accurate summary of the Green New Deal?  It's just a pie in the sky list of supposed benefits.  Might as well just say that Congress promised everybody a genetically created unicorn or dragon of their choice.

So let's make it clear, I agree with the principals there, and I still think that the actual Green New Deal - as proposed - is complete unworkable garbage.

So there you have it "Republicans" are in "agreement" with the Green New Deal, and all their opposition is just because of who's proposing it (and not because the description fundamentally misstates what's actually in the GND as proposed).  That by the way, seems to be what they "conclude," ignoring a million and one problems with the fact that their "summary" is a farce.  And by "Republicans" they mean people who signed up on the survey site (unverified) as Republicans or as "lean Republican."  Sigh.

This is just a corruption of science.  I mean, we could just as easily write up something like this:

Quote
Some members of Congress are proposing a “New Deal for the Disadvantaged” for the U.S. They say that this New Deal is producing jobs and strengthening America’s economy by increasing incomes and real wages, giving disadvantaged workers new options and the ability to choose between opportunities,  accelerating the transition from dependence that demeans their human character to good, meaningful jobs that instill pride.  The Deal would reinvigorate impoverished communities within the next 10 years; reduce the nation's debt through elimination of costly programs that have had a history of leading to dependence and depression and forcing families to live apart; and when coupled with reforms designed to support the people who've been unfairly disadvantaged by the systematic oppression of their communities through upgrades to their educational opportunities and reductions in the unfair levels of incarceration imposed upon them, upgrade the nation’s confidence in justice for all and provide that real opportunity is more evenly distributed to all.

Give that to a bunch of paid survey monkeys and you'd probably find that a majority of Democrats "support" or "somewhat support" the Trump economy and tax policies, school vouchers, and Trumps efforts to reform our system of justice.

Is that a "fair" description of those in your view?  I'm pretty sure, if I took more than five minutes, I could make that even tighter and more on point, without any chance that I was doing any more misrepresentation than the "researchers" did on their piece. 

Quit falling for and citing to partisan nonsense research.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 12:23:55 PM by Seriati »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2019, 12:47:01 PM »
Seriati, while I have no doubt that interested parties (even in science!) can skew results and doctor the data, I also have no doubt that if you literally rebranded "the other team's plan" as "our team's plan" an enormous amount of people would suddenly rabidly support it who previously called it anathema. This is really hard to deny, IMO. Of course it depends on the topic. If it was "NRA proposes confiscation of all guns" I doubt any gun owners would get behind that, but the more esoteric (and technological) the issue, and the less any given person could even pretend to have real knowledge on the topic, the more they'll back whatever their team says is good.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2019, 01:03:35 PM »
It’s similar to the “97% of all scientists are in agreement about climate change” line. It’s an effective bit of propaganda to shut down real conversation, but quickly falls apart if you actually look what went into the making of that particular hot dog.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2019, 01:17:19 PM »
This is a terrible survey. There are no crosstables that I can see. They don't bother to delve into useful questions about the policies. It all seems designed to obfuscate rather than elicit information about what people really think.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2019, 01:58:40 PM »
Seriati, while I have no doubt that interested parties (even in science!) can skew results and doctor the data, I also have no doubt that if you literally rebranded "the other team's plan" as "our team's plan" an enormous amount of people would suddenly rabidly support it who previously called it anathema.

Fen, that is in fact the point of dog whistles, to signal to readers which team supports an idea.  I think I've railed on here repeatedly about the miseducation that's going on in America today.  The fact is a large proportion of the people on both sides don't have a reasonable or logical base for any of their beliefs or opinions.  They only jump in because of side.

We can't however just give up and assume that because the masses have not been given the tools, deliberately, to know any better, that there's truth to the idea that the principal reasons to oppose a plan are just about the team.  Arguments about what the masses are doing shouldn't enter into the picture where we can actually consider the real policies.

This survey was deliberately targeted to take advantage of the fact that most of the people in the country unfortunately don't understand the way issues they care about are connected, until someone who does explains it.  Ask yourself why they didn't mention cost (cause that is an issue people care about that would cause a negative reaction, or redistribution, or anything really on top of the list of nonsense). 

Quote
This is really hard to deny, IMO. Of course it depends on the topic. If it was "NRA proposes confiscation of all guns" I doubt any gun owners would get behind that, but the more esoteric (and technological) the issue, and the less any given person could even pretend to have real knowledge on the topic, the more they'll back whatever their team says is good.

No they wouldn't because at a fundamental level that is the exact issue they understand.  Keeping their guns.  It's not a shading to a issue that is related but not as clearly.  For example, you could easily get such support if the NRA endorsed back ground checks for all transfers of weapons.  It doesn't sound as unreasonable, even though it's very likely that there are people out there who would never connect that they couldn't loan a gun to a friend on a hunt or give a gun to relative as a gift from the statement - even though those are issues they have very strong beliefs about.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2019, 02:28:59 PM »
No they wouldn't because at a fundamental level that is the exact issue they understand.  Keeping their guns.  It's not a shading to a issue that is related but not as clearly.  For example, you could easily get such support if the NRA endorsed back ground checks for all transfers of weapons.  It doesn't sound as unreasonable, even though it's very likely that there are people out there who would never connect that they couldn't loan a gun to a friend on a hunt or give a gun to relative as a gift from the statement - even though those are issues they have very strong beliefs about.

Biggest problem with a background check on all gun transfers is it then either requires a special legal category to exist which is then rendered exempt from such checks, or it creates massive overhead for certain lines of work.

Gun shop owner doing an exchange with another gun owner? Now you have to background check yourself as well.

Are you a gunsmith who repairs or customizes firearms? Your customers now have to wait for your background check to clear before any work can begin. The list grows from there in regards to some absurd situations some laws can potentially create.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2019, 03:11:00 PM »
Not to derail the conversation, but what makes you believe that there wouldn't be a license in place that negates the need for the same person to have a background check done for each transaction?

Simply having a CPL in good standing is sufficient to purchase a firearm if I remember correctly.  (It has been years, so maybe I'm wrong on that, but I don't think so..)  Why wouldn't something as easy as that be in place for all licensed gunsmiths and firearm retailers / re-sellers?  (Like there is now...?)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2019, 03:22:41 PM »
Why should someone need a license to exercise a constitutional right?

Honestly, who do you even think is prohibited from owning a fire arm?  It does vary state by state but it is not a big list, it's mostly convicted felons, domestic abusers under a restraining order and effectively the very mentally ill. 

It's interesting that the left sees the restoration of voting rights to felons as almost on the level of a holy cause, but hasn't made any effort to restore their right to bear arms.  Are they responsible members of society capable of making good decisions or not?

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2019, 03:32:50 PM »
Quote
Why should someone need a license to exercise a constitutional right?

Why should someone need a license to drive a car. I know, I know driving isn't a constitutional right...  but still still if you don't deserve the right, say for drunk shooting or murder why can't it be taken away.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2019, 03:53:48 PM »
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that requires passing a basic firearm safety course, just like a driver's license. Is this a bad idea? It might cut down accidents, if nothing else, and might make a dent in suicides if the training included awareness of resources to help the suicidal.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2019, 03:55:09 PM »
No they wouldn't because at a fundamental level that is the exact issue they understand.  Keeping their guns.  It's not a shading to a issue that is related but not as clearly.

Uh...that's the same thing I said...

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2019, 05:05:28 PM »
Fen, yes it is, I was agreeing with you before I went on to try and recast as something more similar to what I was discussing. 

Rightleft22, you answered your own question.  If you want to understand it from my point of view, try creating a reasonable licensing requirement to exercise another right from the bill of rights, like say free speech, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

TheDrake, I don't have a problem with a safety course requirement, provided its mandate to be free, available daily in at least every town, village or county in the country, and takes no more than say 4 hours.  No discretionary concepts - at all - no pass/fail decision, no choice about who can take it, no limits on when or how often its offered.  Every single discretionary rule agreed to, to be "reasonable" has been utterly abused by activists.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2019, 06:43:06 PM »
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that requires passing a basic firearm safety course, just like a driver's license. Is this a bad idea? It might cut down accidents, if nothing else, and might make a dent in suicides if the training included awareness of resources to help the suicidal.

There is no constitutional requirement for a driver's license. You're comparing a privilege to a right.

If a suicide happens by other means, does that mean it did not happen?

The NHTSA reports that in 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. I dunno, maybe comparisons to safety while driving isn't the best way to argue this. Driving is dangerous as hell but, strangely, nobody really gets all worked up about it. It's almost as if the fact that people are dying is not important but disarming people is what's really important. Wonder why that is ... what's the advantage to the government when people can't defend themselves? Has anybody done a study on this?

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #89 on: April 18, 2019, 12:49:02 AM »
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that requires passing a basic firearm safety course, just like a driver's license. Is this a bad idea? It might cut down accidents, if nothing else, and might make a dent in suicides if the training included awareness of resources to help the suicidal.

I’d be good with this, as well as required periodic renewal.