Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That's obviously not true. We had 90% marginal rates during the 50s and 60s (the era I've always assumed Trumpers want to return to when they say "make America Great again") and 70% as recently as 1986. I assumed you knew that, but maybe not?
If that was true then you wouldn't have to lie and say she wanted to eliminate air travel. So why did you lie, then?
I haven't seen where she said she wants to eliminate air travel. All I have seen is her saying that we need to reduce our reliance on it. If you can point me to the former then I'm all ears.
I didn't lie.
So how do you propose we reduce air travel? How did that high speed rail thing work in California?
I said they should be illegal. I was well aware of the tax rates before JFK and Reagan cut rates. In both cases the cuts greatly helped revitalizing our economy.
I think a true high speed rail system on a national level could be worth investing in, but haven't seen any proposals or analysis yet. The one proposed here in CA was not even what we think of when we think high speed rail, and it was a disaster from the start. FTR, I voted against it even though I think high speed rail connecting SF and SJ to LA would be a huge benefit to the state if done properly.
And if we come up with some plan for high speed rail instead of air transportation.....what about all the other countries that will continue to use air transportation? Deal with it, her idea is not realistic.
If we somehow come up with a rail system that is faster, safer and cheaper than air for domestic transportation, I'd imagine all the other countries that are capable of replicating it will do so.
What if we as a country, follow along with me for a minute, could have *both*? Radical as it is, we maybe we could have a HSR for some things AND air travel for others? Probably just a pipe dream - IDK how Japan ever accomplished it.
You mean like most of the modern world relies on high speed trains? Replacing aircraft miles with train has long been a goal of environmentalists. It doesn't mean no planes it means less air travel where possible in favor of electric trains. So when you misrepresent that you just look foolish.
She said she wants high speed rail to not make air travel necessary. She is the foolish one.
Of course I do and that is why this is a great country. High speed rail to overtake the need for air travel is ridiculous. Should we start to talk about cow farts too?
emphasis mine
Pfft, right. Some mythical country that supports bi-modal transportation. Give me some of what your smokin' pal.
You didn't answer my question. Why post the hypothetical situation if you're not interested in discussing it?
"Reduce air travel" does not equal "eliminate air travel". I know this is difficult to understand
Keep on trying...I am done with you guys.
You literally just posted it above this post. Stopping something from being necessary doesn't mean it's eliminated entirely. If I want to go into SF I usually take BART because it's convenient and usually faster than dealing with traffic. That doesn't mean I never drive into SF even though it's not necessary to do so.
LMAO....No I didn't and you are talking about local transportation and also a car. Wow.....I don't know what else to say.
"build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."
Are you serious? Your example was BART and a car in San Francisco. LMAO
No...the false narrative that she wants to get rid of all air travel is a thing. You prove it by repeating what is basically a lie over and over and now when confronted with that...this is your reply.
Wait, what's this whole moon thing? And screaming dinosaurs, I'm not buying. That implies speech and I don't think so. Roaring, maybe, but not screaming. Just who do you think you are fooling Mister?
Everyone. I take it you do not recall the very high interest rates and high unemployment of the late 70s and early 80's.
It's pretty reasonable, actually. Many cities in America are "close" together and enabling some airport hubs would ease air traffic. I'm in Milwaukee and there are many flights to Chicago each day. Eliminate 100% of those flights to Chicago with a high speed rail would ease air traffic, air congestion, and make air travel much more reliable. Take other cities that are ~120 miles from each other where, currently, air traffic is prevalent to and from those cities. Build high speed rail into those airports instead of airplanes flying into those airports, those would ease air traffic. High speed rail to connect cities instead of air traffic connecting cities makes so much sense. Look at a map of flights on the east coast and how dense the map is. It's crazy not to build high speed rail. And, this is just Delta.
Wrong, explain to md how high speed rail will work to make air travel unnecessary. How will someone get from Maine to Alaska? North Carolina to Hawaii? Some small town in New Mexico to another small town in Florida? How do you plan to pay for it?
