It doesn't. What it means is cutting through a lot of big parcels whose owners have big money, so they can be big impediments. There has to be a happier medium than this between respect for individual private property ownership and the needs of the many, but we are clearly uninterested in finding it in this country.

The greater good...for who?

I mean, in an example....high speed rail from NYC to LA.

I don't know exactly which states they'd pass through, but let's just pick Iowa for shits and giggles.

Now...to keep things "high speed" that means you're NOT going to be stopping much at all between the two end points.

So, this would benefit people in CA and NY, but it gives NO benefit to people in Iowa who would have cities, farmland,all sorts of private properly they'd have to give up for the system.

Why the fuck would anyone in Iowa vote to give things up for this rail system they do not benefit from and actually gain hassle from...?

I wonder if HSR could be placed on parts of the existing interstate highway system to save costs and time.

You're going to just piss off the majority of people that currently use those to drive....those people are also known as "constituents" and can get a politician fired pronto.

Why does everything have to be profitable?

Well, if you want private industry to build it, they need incentive and "profit" is usually the driving motive historically.

Our current US railways were built by private industry.

The govt would just fuck it up and end up being massively expensive with everyone trying to get their cut of it.....especially if it were Federal.

Most roads, water, utilities...that are public...are LOCAL....city, state funded....

As the OP pointed out, the problem is political and social, not technical.

And well...that's PLENTY enough to derail any efforts in the US.

You start mass eminent domain cases taking land from people and cities and well, you're gonna easily have 50+ years alone before the majority of those are settled one way or another.

Also, unless you get long straight shots of track...you're not going to have true High Speed Rail....and part of the obsticals for that is having to stop many times in many cities, turning to go to each one of those.....and if you don't do that and don't have service to many spots along the way.....those cities and states and localities aren't going to go out of their way to help take away land just to have something go speeding by them and be of no use to them there...

And if you can't really get true High Speed rail in.....most of the US will do "so, why bother? We already have highways, cars and planes to travel long distances fast...why do through the huge expense, litigation and hassle of doing rail?

There would be little perceived ROI to the average US citizen.

I mean, why would someone in Iowa give a flying fuck if someone in NYC could ride a fast train to LA?

The US has no excuse. The only reason the US can't do it is corruption and/or incompetence.

Does it not ever occur to you that we in the US might actually LIKE/ENJOY the transportation system we have?

If we wanted all public transport....we'd get it. If we all wanted to live in extreme urban cities stacked on top of each other like rats and sharing walls....we'd do that.

We simply prefer our way of life....with individual transportation.

It also is likely part of a culture difference....that those in the EU never seem to be able to comprehends...in the US we prioritize the individual....whereas ya'll prioritize collectivism....the masses.

You prioritize the 'state'. And we prioritize the person.

And you act as if you way is the only true and "right" way to live.

Why not step back and think that some free people might want to live differently than you do....?

I also very much doubt you will find any blue haired teachers.

I see PLENTY of them, blue and other neon like hair colors on YouTube and TikTok......tons of them teaching kids and ranting far left ideals....

Which draws the AC's like flies. Thanks for playing.

Say hi to Xi for me.

"why did we continue to feed them?"
Did you forget about how the whole industrial Western world runs on oil and that alternatives didn't meaningfully exist until the last decade (and even now they're basically edge cases)?

It would that spoil your little "durr it's all them corporations fault!" oversimplification?

And when I say RUN I mean "run natively" not in a shell of a shell of a virtual machine or whatever.

Maybe try reading?
The link I posted: "...University President Fr. Dennis Dease announced Wednesday night that gifts and pledges to the campaign total $515,104,773. ..."

...their power prices are certainly coming down then, yes?

If not, then it's going to remain a niche thing like the HUNDREDS of active linux distros.

Don't get me wrong, for certain things, particularly things that have a person of high computer-literacy to maintain it, some linux is probably great.

OTOH most people and businesses want their computers to serve as tools, not necessarily their "hobby" to constantly futz with. They don't really give much of a shit how much of their meaningless daily work is hoovered up by MS.

Pesky facts.
Maybe try #followthescience?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/i...
"Just a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of migrants processed by the U.S. this year have received COVID-19 vaccinations while in federal custody, and half of them are unaccompanied children" - a few hundred k out of 1.6 million over the reported span

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
"The RIM community has (statistically significantly) lower vaccination coverage when compared to those born in the US."

(Japan) https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

https://www.thegazette.com/gov... This one tries hard to disprove it, the best they can get is "While vaccination rates appear to be low among migrants and asylum-seekers, data shows few are actually crossing the border and making their way into the United States" - in 2021, which would suggest that the tidal fucking wave of immigrants in the later Biden 'open border' phase were actually a big issue because then they very much WERE 'making their way into the US'.

Ah syntax is so hard for leftists.

Justification doesn't imply constraint, duh?

(The need for a militia is important so) the right to have guns shall not be limited.

Nothing in there implies that guns are limited to official militias, not even slightly.
If you STILL insist on your dumbass interpretation, fine: every adult male in the US is the militia, by law.:
US Code Sec 246:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So even if your ridiculous interpretation is correct, all males in the US under 45 are "the militia" so if gun ownership is 'restricted' to the militia, that's every man under 45. Satisfied?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
God it's hard to talk with retards.