@The_Suburbanist@Boenau The actual question is: Why is the government massively subsidizing a purely private benefit, to the detriment of other modes of transportation, especially other modes of transportation that are more beneficial to the overall society? (2 of 2)
@The_Suburbanist@Boenau That's not the question that underlies public policy decisions. With that logic, the government should set up stands on every street corner handing out free vanilla ice cream, because everyone has eaten ice cream at least once in their life. (1 of 2)
We discussed what Paul Basken, cyclist & journalist in Boston, calls the “congested mass of mechanization” in Boston’s bike lanes. Paul believes lanes should be reserved for cyclists not motorized vehicles, as matter of safety. Paul discussed!
https://t.co/EwYoV8DwEs
Getty Image
@SecDuffy Arguing for car-centric communities as a means of helping low-income Americans is of course absurd. Neither drivers nor their governments can afford the cost of car-centric living. But the Real World actor isn't alone: it's a bipartisan delusion to keep clinging to this fiction.
@TheDuncanator@AlexanderGlista Cars are ridiculously ableist. You have to be able to pay a huge amount of money to buy, insure, maintain and fuel one. Besides, nobody is talking about banning cars -- the discussion is merely about giving people a free choice among cheaper alternatives, including transit.
@HillinjaxG@brianstelter@JohnMoralesTV Yes it would be better if people died unafraid, and if our country could just keep yelling "burn baby burn" without a clue as to the implications.
@PeteAbe Joe was fabulous, so grateful for him. Maybe look around a bit for a replacement -- the suggested successor is a bit grating, though that's no doubt due in part to the fact that the bean-counters want a product mention between every pitch.
@thackerpd Then surely it should be easy to find an actual apples-to-apple comparison to hold up for your audience, rather than pick the announcement day in one case, and the week-later reaction day in the other case.
@thackerpd There's lots and lots of differences in political coverage, on multiple sides, and always has been. I'm just questioning the example cited here. It seems curious, and possibly indicative of motive, to attack media bias by choosing a clearly imbalanced example.