Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gene Tenner on October 21, 2014 at 12:05pm

I have filled out my own questionaires and helped others do it. Candidates want to fill out as many as possible to hopefully get an organization's endorsement .... unless your views are so out-of-whack with the organization's. In that case you do not respond which would be a waste of time and alienate members. You look for better odds and just leave it up to the flip of the coin at the polling place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 21, 2014 at 12:26pm

In Quinn's time in statewide office, his words and actions have sent a message that his view on transportation is more balanced than that of many political candidates. Rauner hasn't given me any such impression so far, and I find his non-response consistent with his image as "Mr. 1%."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Bedno on October 21, 2014 at 3:57pm

Oh yeah, no surprise.  The official GOP platform considers bikes part of Agenda 21, the U.N.'s plan for world domination, to be forcefully resisted as a threat to American exceptionalism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 23, 2014 at 5:30am

As long as people are being civil and not insulting or attacking anyone, I see nothing wrong with this. Transportation policy is a very relevant topic here.

Jeff Schneider said:

Some people consider transportation policy to be important (I do), and would like to be informed about candidate's views before they vote.  I don't think it's wrong for ATA to help us to do that.  I also don't think there is any reason for CL to prohibit members from discussing transportation policy.

As for what issues are important to you and how you want to vote, that's your business and nobody else's.

Eddie C said:

Come on chainlink please stay out of the political arena. Please,it does not look good on you:(  ( Also ATA) Really?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 23, 2014 at 6:47am

Exactly. Having political representation by people who understand that everything isn't about cars is a big deal. Some candidates are rather dismal in that respect. In contrast, a few of our incumbents are exceptional in seeking balance in transportation funding and infrastructure.
 
Tom A.K. said:

Eddie C.: We have every reason to be involved in the political process. Every political issue and policy affects all involved whether you know it or not. We care about issues concerning our community. Our opinion and vote matters to us and it should for any candidate running for office. Policies they decide on will affect our communities future !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 23, 2014 at 9:36am

There's a BIG difference between discussing candidates' positions relative to our interests and aggressively saying VOTE for XXX.

There is nothing inappropriate about Active Trans asking the same set of transportation-related questions to competing candidates.  It's not so different from asking those same questions of the candidates in a debate setting.  That's a neutral approach that can give us useful information that is usually missed by the news media and in debates, so it is helpful to anyone for whom transportation priorities are an important issue in distinguishing between candidates.

If this discussion is not of interest to you, you don't have to follow it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 23, 2014 at 10:28am

Some of us have actually had positive experiences in engaging with political figures who understand our issues and actively work to get funding for bike and pedestrian projects. No, I'm not talking about unicorns. Such people do exist in our political landscape. My U.S. Rep is one of them. He is a cyclist and he wants good infrastructure like we do.

If individuals (or organizations like Active Trans) ask informed questions to get a sense of candidates' positions and degree of awareness on issues that are relevant to us, this helps us to make better informed decisions when we vote, which gives us more power in elections. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on October 23, 2014 at 10:58am

The questionnaire was pretty straight forward in my opinion. And if ATA stayed out of asking our representatives their opinions on transit matters, then what is their purpose? How else will infrastructure for all transit needs be allocated?

Eddie C said:

Come on chainlink please stay out of the political arena. Please,it does not look good on you:(  ( Also ATA) Really?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on October 25, 2014 at 11:23am

What? What is the point of the Chainlink in the first place? Isn't it a community of bicyclists? What are we supposed to do, ride our bikes around in circles in the nearest velodrome? How does that get us to work or to home or get our kids to school or fetch us groceries or get us to the rock show? Every time we set tires to a public road we are engaging in a deeply political act. Those roads didn't drop from heaven, they were built by you and I as citizens who elected governments to act in the common good. You can be sad about whatever you want, but as for me, I am overjoyed that people here care enough about the issues to discuss the political.

Eddie C said:

Im sad to see that politicking has snuck its way into" the Link,"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reboot Oxnard on October 26, 2014 at 12:00am

It appears you’re arguing that Agenda 21 is an inoffensive bit of feel-good fluff, without meaning or impact and which can safely be ignored. I disagree but even if you are right, that would argue against encoding and implementing it, not in favor of it: making pointless laws because we can is stupid.

You then proceed to other and insult anyone who opposes it. Either understanding that opponents to Agenda 21 aren’t opposed to sustainable development is beyond your capacity or you are intentionally distorting the reasons for their opposition. Unfortunate in either case.

Just as you have unfairly conflated opposition to Agenda 21 with opposition to sustainable development, you apparently can't see a difference between opposition to good planning with opposition to central planning. Based upon repeated experimentation, many justifiably argue that good planning and central planning are incongruent.

Of course you aren't offended by Agenda 21 – it was written to placate the Eloi. The trick is to understand that not everyone willingly accepts totalitarian governance, especially to the extent that it abrogates property rights and especially in defense of the highly unsustainable urban lifestyle at the expense of others. Thus, some have reason to find Agenda 21 incredulous if not destructive.

Jeff Schneider said:

I don't really get what it is about Agenda 21 that would be offensive.  And, since it's non-binding anyway, only the tinfoil hat crowd could be worried about it.

Finally, if they are AGAINST sustainable development, does that mean they are FOR unsustainable development?  Doesn't sound like good planning to me...

Andronymous said:

Oh yeah, no surprise.  The official GOP platform considers bikes part of Agenda 21, the U.N.'s plan for world domination, to be forcefully resisted as a threat to American exceptionalism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tandemonium on October 26, 2014 at 9:33am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk

Reboot Oxnard said:

It appears you’re arguing that Agenda 21 is an inoffensive bit of feel-good fluff, without meaning or impact and which can safely be ignored. I disagree but even if you are right, that would argue against encoding and implementing it, not in favor of it: making pointless laws because we can is stupid.

You then proceed to other and insult anyone who opposes it. Either understanding that opponents to Agenda 21 aren’t opposed to sustainable development is beyond your capacity or you are intentionally distorting the reasons for their opposition. Unfortunate in either case.

Just as you have unfairly conflated opposition to Agenda 21 with opposition to sustainable development, you apparently can't see a difference between opposition to good planning with opposition to central planning. Based upon repeated experimentation, many justifiably argue that good planning and central planning are incongruent.

Of course you aren't offended by Agenda 21 – it was written to placate the Eloi. The trick is to understand that not everyone willingly accepts totalitarian governance, especially to the extent that it abrogates property rights and especially in defense of the highly unsustainable urban lifestyle at the expense of others. Thus, some have reason to find Agenda 21 incredulous if not destructive.

Jeff Schneider said:

I don't really get what it is about Agenda 21 that would be offensive.  And, since it's non-binding anyway, only the tinfoil hat crowd could be worried about it.

Finally, if they are AGAINST sustainable development, does that mean they are FOR unsustainable development?  Doesn't sound like good planning to me...

Andronymous said:

Oh yeah, no surprise.  The official GOP platform considers bikes part of Agenda 21, the U.N.'s plan for world domination, to be forcefully resisted as a threat to American exceptionalism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Bedno on October 27, 2014 at 5:13am

Agenda 21 is widely accepted and supported outside our testy little backwater.  The GOP demonification of it is purely blind servitude to puppet masters' orders that it's bad for big oil, leveraging the "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" (now git before I fetch my gun) brand of American "exceptionalism"; an upside down fact-free narcissistic world where cooperation is somehow a bad thing.  Sociopathic, yes, but it's the official party position.

So bottom line, be clear, voting for republicans is voting against bikes.
(and women and minorities and atheists and gays and the poor and fiscal responsibility and personal freedom ...)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page