Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
(Reposting since it was at the bottom of last page) Re: Buttigieg, transportation, climate:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-04/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-2-trillion-climate-plan
Well, you know, design in cities, especially through the 20th century, really revolved around the car. I'm trying to make sure that design for the future revolves around the human being. Sometimes that means car transportation and sometimes that means walking, biking, or public transit.
We can't expect people to move beyond personally owned vehicles if there's not a good alternative. So we've got to make sure that between ride-sharing, public transportation, and just good old fashioned walking and biking, we've got an array of options right now. The United States subsidizes driving a tremendous amount. We're more reluctant to support transit or things like trains. When I'm president, I envision making that a greater balance and supporting cities that are trying to do that, too, because if we get it right, it's also more sustainable, more healthy, and more economically friendly.
For example, when we transformed the heart of [South Bend], including calming down our traffic instead of just getting cars through it as quickly as possible, it led to growth in small business, because we have a more vibrant core in our downtown. When we change our mentality, it's amazing what possibilities can be unlocked.
That's true, but emissions standards I thought were pushed mostly through the EPA rather than Transport. Plus, it sort of makes sense to piggy back onto the state efforts from California by no longer contesting California's right to set their own emission standards.
It's one of those things where the Trump admin had a nice idea for all the wrong reasons. It seems like they wanted to set a national emission standard via the NHTSA, purely to spite California. Meanwhile, all the major vehicle manufacturers signed up to the California standards anyway, effectively giving California the de facto ability to set standards if not de jure.
Bigger questions, like a federal effort to encourage mode shift away from aviation onto trains and other major infrastructure projects would fall under the Do T's purview - but you have to get it through Congress first.
Um, no, the transportation sector is a huge component of pollution that must be addressed sooner rather than later. It's especially important because of the lifecycle of vehicles. A gas car sold today may still be on the road 20 years from now.
Dealing with transportation emissions requires a comprehensive approach that includes all of the following, and probably more that I'm not thinking of:
- Encouraging the use of mass transportation and ride sharing.
- Reducing air travel, although nothing can eliminate it entirely and we should continue to develop cleaner technology for this.
- Reorganizing our housing and lifestyles such that driving is not as necessary to get places.
- Phasing out fossil fuel vehicles in favor of battery-electric vehicles. Alternative fuels are not likely to be economically viable for much longer than we have to work with.
- Farther out, accelerating the automation of cars so that we can get human drivers out of them; this would supercharge ride-sharing as personal vehicle ownership would stop being needed.
Decades ago, there was a tremendously successful marketing and lobbying effort by the oil and auto industries to get people to value personal car ownership: the "freedom of the American lifestyle, yadda yadda". This pushed aside light rail and even mass transit. We're still dealing with the effects of it.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 15th 2020 at 3:34:50 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That first bullet point is going to be hard to sell, considering there are areas close to Atlanta that still don't have MARTA because they don't want anything that the filthy blacks use, even if it makes their lives better.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Dec 15th 2020 at 3:40:36 PM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"I'm pessimistic that the U.S. will ever achieve it, but it would be wonderful if we had some good public transportation like other countries do, so it's nice that Pete has vocally supported that.
Also, speaking for myself, I have a generally positive impression of him, and would think that he'd be a good choice for some position, in light of his educational and professional background, coupled with "deserving" a reward for his support.
Because of his intelligence background, something foreign policy related seems like a more obvious fit, but he's almost certainly underqualified for that. And while he has been an able advocate for Biden on Fox News, he doesn't have the overall background of a Press Secretary. And that would probably be considered a step down.
So, Transportation seems like a decent compromise.
With cars and climate change, it's worth noting that-to my understanding-using a power plant to charge an electric car battery is apparently more energy efficient/less environmentally destructive than a gasoline car, surprisingly.
Leviticus 19:34
Significantly. Even if the plant is powered by coal, the electric vehicle is still significantly less polluting than the equivalent gas car because coal plants convert hydrocarbons to energy far more efficiently than internal combustion engines. This is a common anti-EV myth that needs to be squashed.
Coal is of course the worst case. Many people charge their electric cars from solar panels installed on their own houses. This means that the entire carbon footprint of the vehicle is found in the manufacturing of the solar panels and the car itself. These are not trivial, but the break-even point comes after only a few years of driving: less than two in most cases. At that point your biggest source of pollution is in the tires.
There are some other minor savings: BEVs don't use oil for lubrication and don't require brake service nearly as often because they use regenerative braking. Newer battery technologies have the potential to let the pack last for millions of miles, eliminating another source of emissions in battery replacement and letting the vehicle itself last for far longer than a gas car. Fewer scrapped/crushed cars = less pollution.
For something like a diesel long-haul truck, the GHG break-even point is far below that: mere months. In fact, an electric truck can recoup its entire purchase price in fuel savings in less than two years, never mind its emissions. The main problem with these kinds of trucks is that they need huge battery packs: one Class 8 semi can use as many cells as ten to twenty sedans.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 15th 2020 at 3:52:37 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""That's true, but emissions standards I thought were pushed mostly through the EPA rather than Transport."
Responsibilities can get shuffled between departments or diffused amongst them when their specific sectors are involved.
Herbert Hoover (in)famously made the Department of Commerce much more influential that was intended when, as head of the department, he more or less hijacked any sub-departments from other Cabinet members that he could argue should be considered "commerce."
At a wild guess he’s been given transport rather than a prominent Under Secretary position (say an Under Secretary of Defence/State position) is because the key positions really need people with experience right now, and because getting Pete experience leading an entire department will service him well in the future.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI live near one of the most public transport and walking friendly cities in the US, and purposely wanted somewhere I didn't need a car. But the public transport authorities all over the country are in bad positions and making cuts because people don't want to ride right now (for good reason), and definitely don't want to ride packed together (which helps the companies with their economies of scale).
And as public-transport friendly as my city is, the infrastructure is old and horrible and needs updates sooner than later, some of which were already in the works, but if they hadn't been left to suffer...
@Fighteer: COVID has probably done more for reducing air travel than anything else could have. Even if tourism rebounds (which, as an avid traveller, I hope it will), a lot of businesses have discovered that a videoconference is far cheaper, far more time-efficient, and far more comfortable than flying several hours each way and spending two nights in a hotel in order to hold a 3hr meeting.
What could Trump have done to produce a different election outcome?
Now contra Parscale I don't think that Trump-as-crisis-manager would have won in a landslide, but I think he would have stood a good chance. And I am sure that Trump's loyal base would not have objected, when have they ever objected to any of Trump's actions?
I don’t see the point in the “If Trump acted nothing like himself and had become a different person overnight, could he have won?” thought experiments.
Thought experiments make sense when you’re talking about engaging in different tactics, but the suggestion is for Trump to fundamentally go against both his personal nature and the nature of the Republican Party. They might as well have asked “If some totally different person who happened to also be named Trump was president, could they have won?”
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I will said some stuff maybe be usefull, have trump refrain himself in covid response he maybe have one.
The polarization of trump and republican base, ugly as it is, have is inteded efect in how many people still voted for him and still think there is a fraud even when proof run of the contary, because polarizaion wans is a strong, uver loyal fanbase.
how to counter that would be vital in the future.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Arizona judge scraps election fraud lawsuit in which plaintiff was not a registered voter – "She lacks standing to challenge an election in which she did not vote and could not vote," Pinal County Superior Court Judge Kevin White ruled
You have got to be kidding me. That's just sad.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

With Pete it may be a reward, it may be giving representation to the factions he represents (younger moderates, democrats in red states, and LGBT people), it may be giving someone with skills the opportunity to grow and develop themselves, it may be any combination of the three (that’s my bet).
I believe he’s the first of Biden’s cabinet nominees to be LGBT, and even ignoring the big factional stuff it’s generally a good idea to give skilled democrats from red states a way to advance their careers, it’s not like Pete could realistically do a senate run.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran