tommyc_37 wrote:
Can't we just fill in the Hudson River with landfill so that we can all walk to work??

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jzara wrote:
I see what you're saying, I don't disagree. All I can really do is vote for the candidate I like the most, and not participate in "strategic voting"...and hope things change someday.

Anyway, this is a pretty cool quiz that has been floating around the internet. You answer questions and it tells you which candidate you side with the most. I think a lot of people are surprised at the outcome.

http://www.isidewith.com/

I guess you're in your 20's and still idealistic. You were likely too young to really be paying attention in 2000. A lot of the 97,421 Floridians who thought just like you and voted for Nader had 8 long years to kick themselves after Gore lost the state by 537 votes, and thus the election. Debt, war, and a Supreme Court teetering into a right wing abyss could have been avoided with a little more realpolitik and a little less idealism.

I don't need a quiz to know my political leanings, but I'm sure you're correct there are many who don't even know what party stands for their beliefs. They're likely the same poor working class fools the GOP gets to vote against their own interests election after election. (see "Joe the Plumber")

vindication15 wrote:
When I was a poor college student, I had a membership with Synergy in the winter and summer months when I was back home. There was definitely flooding in the basement but they didn't close it off. People still exercised down there when the floor was damp.

I ended my membership after I kept getting sick during a summer and thought it could be because of the mold in that gym. In any case, that gym isn't worth it.

Brick Hauss or exercising at home is a much better bet...

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jzara wrote:

Voting 3rd party is only "throwing your vote away" because you believe it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe if people stopped voting based on fear and tribalism and actually voted on the issues we would have a good president instead of the "lesser of two evils." I have never voted for one of the two "old" parties. I've only voted twice before (I'm in my twenties) but both times I've gone 3rd party because I really believe in those candidates. I could care less about the GOP or the Dems and I know a lot of people feel the same way. Maybe the two-party stranglehold will end one day...

The problem is the big hill of negative outcome to climb before there's any positive outcome. Generally, voting for a 3rd party candidate get the major party candidate you actually like the least elected. GOP voters who strayed to Perot in 92 got Clinton elected, as Dems who voted for Nader got GWB elected. So you've got to get all the way to "win" before you stop hurting yourself. There's well documented cases of parties secretly supporting a 3rd party aligned with their opposite ideology to split the vote in this way.

We've got a system set up to slam 3rd parties, unlike most democracies that are parliamentary so even a small party can get a few seats and build power incrementally. Pretending it ain't so is unproductive, we've got extremely few 3rd party elected officials ANYWHERE, never mind in the top federal jobs. And most of those ever in congress or a governorship were incumbents who abandoned their major party.

The fight should be to reform the system, not to play into the hands of the major parties by tilting at windmills and splitting the vote.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jzara wrote:
Voting should not be mandatory. That goes against what it means to live in a free society.

Maybe so. But it still leaves open the question why our citizens are so apathetic and disengaged as to not feel they need to vote. People all over eastern Europe and the Middle east are thrilled to be able to cast votes that matter, after decades of being muted. Are our people too happy? Too cynical? Too lazy?

I've heard most often "both parties are the same, my vote doesn't matter". I disagree, but understand it's origin. Rather than making voting mandatory I'd change our voting system to get people engaged in issues they care about. Right now voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away. But if we had some kind of "instant runoff" system, you could vote for any party you wanted 1st, and your lesser choices after. One might vote in order:

Green Party
Marijuana Party
Pirate Party
Democratic Party

You can express support for minority parties and still cast a vote for the majority party you feel is "least bad". Under this system minor parties can build and document support, and eventually win elections.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
the different neighborhoods are different classes of bmws...

Most people think any BMW, whether it be an SUV, sedan, sports car, etc > fullt equipped Kia of any line.

That was my point. "The right decision" and "what the majority of people think" don't have to be the same.

Look, you can be perfectly happy in GV. Do most people want to live there? No. Do most people think it's a great neighborhood? No. That's all I'm saying and I don't think it's too controversial...

And not all of JC is a Kia....I would actually say something like NYC is Mercedes, Brooklyn is BMW, and the father down my hierarchy you go, the lower perceived quality there is.


with number 13 or something being a scion.

So why are you living in Jersey City and not the very affordable Inwood, which is by your definition, qualitatively better because its in Manhattan, and thus more desirable?

JaeTea wrote:
That probably won't happen.

People who cant' afford to live in Manhattan move to Queens or Brooklyn. So you'll see rent going up there.

I know some Manhattaners who would prefer homelessness over living in Jersey City.

People aren't moving here in droves.

brewster wrote:
Yes, bikes should obey the laws and adults should avoid the sidewalks if at all possible. But when circumstances force or tempt you to break those rules, you need to realize that in every encounter YOU are in the wrong! I've gone the wrong way up a street, but very defensively, realizing cross street drivers and pedestrians aren't' looking for you coming the wrong way.

It's everyone on the streets acting entitled, whether on foot or wheels, that makes it so dangerous. People will step off the sidewalk right in front of my bike, like it won't hurt like hell to get hit. I've seen guys cross the street with their backs to oncoming traffic and simply never even look to see if anyone's coming. And if you're riding in the street together, stay on one side, nothing rattles me driving like having to thread between 2 swerving bikes.

Yvonne wrote:
Here is an from San Francisco of a bike rider killing someone.
http://www.asianweek.com/2012/06/15/b ... derly-chinese-pedestrian/
The article I read in the NY Post some years ago, listed 6 deaths caused by bicyclist on NYC's streets in one year.

Yvonne wrote:
Bikes can be a viable option for transportation if people stop having children and people do not grow old developing arthritic limbs.

Yvonne wrote:
Why do people compare JC with NYC? You don't need a car in NY with subways, buses, and cabs. I know families with 3 and 4 cars in JC because jobs are only available with a car. I cannot imagine parents with children under five during winter traveling on bikes, especially with sick children. Bikes will not replace cars. There are safety guidelines for children in cars, none exists for parents transporting children with bikes because it would be dangerous, especially infants.

Yvonne wrote:
Before the city adopted bike lanes, there should have been a census of bikes, cars or any type of vehicle that uses the streets. And that census should have also included cars that exit the turnipke either going to NYC, to advoid 14C or the waterfront. The problem of traffic becomes harder when streets are closed off for parades or street repairs. Yes, I do agree there are too many cars but comments that people should bike are not realistic. Do you bike your children to school, or buy 20 bags of grocery with a bike? Suppose you are disable, or elderly or suffer for arthritis or have any number of medical conditions that requires a car for transportation, are you still suppose to use a bike? Using a bike in the rain or snow or biking over a pot hole has to be dangerous. The city adopted the bike lanes so it could claim it is a green city. Only time will tell how many accidents will happen between bikes, cars, and the walking public.

Area_Man wrote:
I will continue to ride my bike around town but I have no faith that the bike lanes will keep me any safer, or keep drivers from cutting me off.

Yvonne wrote:
Jersey City has too much traffic to safely have bike lanes. Just because JC gov't has created bike lanes doesn't mean it will be used well. Let's not forget, there will be more traffic on Grove St after the Boy's Club is converted to 468 condos! The city just amended their tax abatement, so look for more problems between cars and bikes. Unlike NYC which has wide streets, our streets are narrow.