How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country

[TexasPlaya]

The Koch conglomerate profits off the automobile sector from plastics, refined products, and tires.

[iheartthed]

David Koch lives in New York, lol. Public transit is bad? He should go live in Nashville.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

None of that is new. People have always died from starvation, famine, disease and weather events.

Over 200 million people died last century from warfare.

We can fight climate change and save millions of people. The reason we aren't doing this is people like the Koch brothers.

People have always died from these things (was this a question?) but the situation is clearly getting worse and it's clearly our fault.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So anyone who does not agree with a particular position on how to deal with global warming is evil?

Anyone who works to deny it - yes is evil - most likely in motive - most definitely in effect.

[NiHao]

Originally Posted by JManc

Can't we just agree that obscenely wealthy guys like the Koch brothers, Soros, Theil, abuse their positions and manipulate the system?

Watch that false equivalence.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by mhays

In the long run, their campaign against climate science will actually kill a lot of people through famine, disease, weather, etc...possibly millions of people if you could count the uncountable. We could be making progress but aren't, and it's largely because of scum like them. So yes, evil.

And obviously a lot of misinformation on transit.

I don't know about that. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I bet a higher percentage of people died from famine, disease, and weather the farther back in the past you go. I think it's pretty clear that we have a better understanding on how to grow food, how to cure diseases, how to mitigate effects of weather, and so on.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by NiHao

Watch that false equivalence.

It'll take a whole different thread to debate exactly how false that is or isn't.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

I don't know about that. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I bet a higher percentage of people died from famine, disease, and weather the farther back in the past you go. I think it's pretty clear that we have a better understanding on how to grow food, how to cure diseases, how to mitigate effects of weather, and so on.

Of course! But we're still going to kill millions through inaction, so guys like Koch can make an extra buck.

There was crime in the past too. Should we not fight crime?

We also had war, lots of it. No big deal if it happens again?

[Crawford]

I don't want to defend the Kochs, but I don't think they're evil. They give hundreds of millions to charities and are solid civic stewards; they just have beliefs for which I (strongly and completely) disagree.

And I doubt they're doing this because they profit off the auto industry. They're worth bazillions, their investments are pretty broad, and it isn't like Nashvillians will stop driving cars because a transit measure was passed.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

We can fight climate change and save millions of people. The reason we aren't doing this is people like the Koch brothers.

People have always died from these things (was this a question?) but the situation is clearly getting worse and it's clearly our fault.

The situation is not getting worse, it has actually gotten better. Much much better. Less famine, less wars, better standard of living with billions more people on the planet all with longer lives and healthier lives.

I haven't met one person that knows how to "fight climate change" with any documented results. How would you even determine if there were results? What is normal? Modern homo sapiens have been around for, what, 50,000 years.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't want to defend the Kochs, but I don't think they're evil. They give hundreds of millions to charities and are solid civic stewards; they just have beliefs for which I (strongly and completely) disagree.

They're notorious for their corruption and meddling, paying off politicians all over the country and destroying unions in Wisconsin. They have an obvious agenda to eliminate every public benefit/service/protection and line their pockets at the expense of the common people. Their charity doesn't mean shit, every billionaire swine gives money to charity for write-offs.

They're evil, but of course, you'd sympathize with them.

[mhays]

The scientific world is nearly unanimous on one point: if we can slow certain types of pollution, we can slow climate change.

As for your other point, you're making no sense at all. Obviously it's important to deal with threats that can kill millions of people.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

The scientific world is nearly unanimous on one point: if we can slow certain types of pollution, we can slow climate change.

As for your other point, you're making no sense at all. Obviously it's important to deal with threats that can kill millions of people.

The scientific world has no solutions to "slow climate change". Again, what is the metric? What is the baseline? And how do we know that wasn't an anomaly of sorts to begin with.

How many beans or sea shells should we take from the peasants to prevent a volcano from blowing it's top?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by The North One

They're notorious for their corruption and meddling, paying off politicians all over the country and destroying unions in Wisconsin. They have an obvious agenda to eliminate every public benefit/service/protection and line their pockets at the expense of the common people. Their charity doesn't mean shit, every billionaire swine gives money to charity for write-offs.

They're evil, but of course, you'd sympathize with them.

This, my friends, is what political ideologues are famous for:

You see any humanity in my enemy, you are now the enemy. There is *no* place ever thinking outside a strict box to see anything good about anyone's views other than mine.

[The North One]

They're extremely dangerous, have caused significant damage and deserve to be vilified.

Rationalizing their behavior is pointless, their motive is money and they don't care how many people they kill or how many lives they make miserable or how shitty this country becomes.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The scientific world has no solutions to "slow climate change". Again, what is the metric? What is the baseline? And how do we know that wasn't an anomaly of sorts to begin with.

How many beans or sea shells should we take from the peasants to prevent a volcano from blowing it's top?

^^This is why their marketing works. Spew enough BS and people believe it, whether they're paid to post here or just got suckered.

Science is as unified as they get on anything short of "gravity". There are obviously variables, like we don't know how long existing pollutants will stay in the atmosphere. But the concept that we can help ourselves to some degree is agreed upon.

[Marv95]

The driverless vehicle crap is crap and isn't happening anytime soon in large numbers so it's redundant for them to use that as an excuse.

That being said transit has a stigma outside of a few areas. There's a reason why ridership has dropped even in large metros across the country and it's not just because of Uber/Lyft. It's been happening before the Koch boys got involved. When I get my license and have enough to get aride let's just say that I'll be using public transit a lot less. Unless I move to one of the top 10 cities in the country, and even then.

What works in NY, Boston or Chicago doesn't mean it'll work in Nashville or San Antonio.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Marv95

The driverless vehicle crap is crap and isn't happening anytime soon in large numbers so it's redundant for them to use that as an excuse.

That being said transit has a stigma outside of a few areas. There's a reason why ridership has dropped even in large metros across the country and it's not just because of Uber/Lyft. It's been happening before the Koch boys got involved. When I get my license and have enough to get aride let's just say that I'll be using public transit a lot less. Unless I move to one of the top 10 cities in the country, and even then.

What works in NY, Boston or Chicago doesn't mean it'll work in Nashville or San Antonio.

Why will you be using it less? The answer seems to be that you will have a better alternative and that's precisely what Uber/Lyft provide many people in those same "top 10 cities" where owning a car is too expensive and too much trouble. If, at an age where you don't yet have a license, you see owning your own car as the alternative to transit, you probably don't live in downtown NYC or Chicago or downtown Philadelphia or San Francisco like I do. If you did, you'd see why a lot of people don't want their own car but may also no longer want to ride public transit (with the unwashed homeless, uncontrolled teens, non-paying freeloaders and the just crude/rude and obnoxious). There are 2 solutions and they aren't mutually exclusive: Uber/Lyft and Zipcar or its similar outfits.

By the way, here in Silicon Valley it seems like driverless cars are coming in significant if not overwhelming numbers sooner than you think.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by The North One

They're extremely dangerous, have caused significant damage and deserve to be vilified.

Rationalizing their behavior is pointless, their motive is money and they don't care how many people they kill or how many lives they make miserable or how shitty this country becomes.

You’re the one rationalizing their behavior as money-driven. This, despite the fact that they have also consistently lobbied against their own interests, like with steel tariffs. It’s also bizarre to think that there’s a purely money-driven motive behind this particular issue; spending tens of millions to slow down an increase in transit in one city so that the long term price of oil is maybe 1 millionth of a percent higher? And if there were indeed a good “return” on such lobbying, wouldn’t we see major oil companies and others investing even more to defeat this project?

I absolutely do not agree with their ultra-libertarian worldview, but I do not doubt the sincerity of their beliefs. Their father grew up under communism and instilled in them a very strong skepticism toward the state.

It’s a cheap tactic to always try to find a hidden agenda behind all political activity. Is it so hard to believe that others have different preferences or philosophies?

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Is it so hard to believe that others have different preferences or philosophies?

For many, yes. Mind-blindness is something that autistic people suffer from on a significant level, but even "normal" people suffer it to some extent of another. As she's gotten older, my mom has increasingly become the type of person who literally can't understand that other people have different priorities and utilities and it manifests itself in the strangest ways. Not even politics, just simple things like where to eat. She has trouble conceptualizing that other people have opinions that are not the same as her own.