TxDOT puts out feelers to replace Amtrak running the daily Heartland F

[henryj]

LOL, Venture Forth. I have to agree. I am surprised no one has called you a jack___ yet. People on here are totally biased toward the Democrats for whatever reason. Amtrak has fared no better under them than any other party. Neither the Bush's nor Reagan were able to get ride of Amtrak. Carter probably did the most damage of any of them. Clinton did nothing for Amtrak. There is one person on here that 'knows everything' however. You can see his post above. If the Democrats were to get pissed off enough to impeach Barry, Biden would probably make a pretty good Pres for the interim. He at least knows how to get along with Congress and work compromises to get things done.

Both Republicans and Democrats gerrymander!

Can someone please put a stop to this ridiculous POLITICAL non-stop bashing of the RIGHT?

Honestly, if I started in 2 pages ago about how George Bush was so great for Amtrak, the thread would have been shut down and I would have been banned already.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's the political machine itself that's broken. Replacing a Hatfield with a McCoy accomplishes little in the long term. I just find it really confusing when folks bash Obama for being a socialist. How do they figure? I mean if you go by what Obama actually does he'd struggle to explain how his platform was even moderately liberal or progressive let alone socialist. Seems like there are more than enough actual mistakes and missteps to criticize without having to rant about bizarre conclusions that make no sense whatsoever.

 

[jis]

There was an actual Hatfield (Mark O. Hatfield) who was the longest serving Senator from Oregon. He was the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee twice.He was not replaced by anyone named McCoy though. :lol: After his retirement he was succeeded in the Class 2 Senate seat by Oregon's last (so far) Republican Senator Gordon Smith, who then lost his seat in 2008 to a Democrat.

I have actually met Hatfiled, whom my old Ph. D. adviser knew very well, socially once. He was a very nice, bright and articulate gentleman, gentleman to the T as they say. The unfortunate thing is, if he were politically active today he would most likely have been thrown out of the current GOP.

 

[tonys96]

Sure. Just as soon as they stop doing dumb stuff to get bashed over.

Yes. Both sides do it. Maryland is infamous for gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats.

Lets go to the videotape one more time and look at the last congressional race.

In 2012, there were nearly half a million more votes cast for Democrats than Republicans when you aggregate all of the votes nationwide. One would expect, in a functioning democracy, for the House to be very nearly split 50/50 or a slight advantage to the Democrats. However, Republicans in the House maintain a 30 seat majority.

So spare me the false equivalency and get real.

IIRC, it was almost 1.5 million votes (appx. 1.4 million) according to Bloomberg.

Also nationwide, Democratic House candidates combined to win about 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

 

[Ryan]

This source says it was fewer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post's Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That's a close election -- 48.8%-48.5% --but it's still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn't likely to flip.

That's a difference of just over 478k. I guess it's possible that the final totals changed by a million (my source was from 11/9/12, yours from 3/13).

Either way, the point stands. The House is terribly undemocratic. The Senate is no better, especially when 40 Senators can hold up the will of the majority (and that's before you get into the size disparity and realize that the 40 Senators from the 20 smallest states represent about 10% of the population).

The chances of fixing either are slim to none. Drawing districts by shortest split line would go a long way towards fixing things.

Lest I be accused of more "right bashing", I'll use Maryland as an example. We'd go from this:

To this:

Description and picture source here: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

(also, increasing the number of Representatives to make them more accountable would help - I've been over that math elsewhere here before)

 

[user 1215]

Do you not understand the structure of our political government? Of course the Senate is weighted towards smaller states. Two per state. Period. That's why there is a House - to represent by population. The small states are protected by the Senate whereas the large states are protected by the House.

Gerrymandering by both parties as well as the seniority system (taken advantage by both parties) are what is killing the political process. Senators and Representatives were not initially set up to be full time jobs. They were meant to be filled for an interim period of time then to return to their constiuency.

The fact that even today more outvoted, retired, resigned under diress politicians choose to continue to live in the Greater Washington DC area, working for lobbyists (for both parties) is the symptom of the greater problem - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Ryan]

I understand it perfectly, thanks for asking.

If the House is supposed to represent the population, why are there fewer Democrats than Republicans when more of the population voted for a Democratic representative?

 

[henryj]

I understand it perfectly, thanks for asking.

If the House is supposed to represent the population, why are there fewer Democrats than Republicans when more of the population voted for a Democratic representative?

This is turning into a Civics 101 class. The House is supposed to represent the population OF THE STATES. This is a nation of States and not a pure national democracy. The President, for example, is elected by the States electoral college. Therefore, Ryan, if the Democrats, for example, are concentrated in a few states and not spread evenly over the entire populous you get the result you are alluding too. This country was set up as a REPUBLIC, not a true Democracy. The founding Fathers were very much concerned that the 'majority' would step all over the rights of the minority.

"A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."

A democracy is, in other words, mob rule with no rights for minorities.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Say what you want about our Founding Fathers and protecting Minority rights, but the system has done a good job of protecting Wealthy White Males( our original Voters and Officials) and Corporations, not so good when it comes to the Poor,Women and Gays( although this is starting to change) and People of Color!

I totally agree with the Corrupt Lobbyist analogy and remind all that the Supremes did hand down the One Man/ One Vote Decision which is certainly not being followed by today's elected and protected officials!

 

[Ryan]

The House is supposed to represent the population OF THE STATES. This is a nation of States and not a pure national democracy.

That would be really awesome if it were true.
Lets go look at North Carolina, shall we?



Republicans won 48% of the votes and 70% of the seats. That doesn't sound very representative to me.

How about its neighbor, Virginia?



50% of the votes won Republicans 72% of the seats.

It works the other way too. Here in MD:



33% of the vote only got Republicans 13% of the seats.

I bring up the national average to make the case that while yes, both sides do it, one side is significantly worse about it, so spare me the civics lessons and the false equivalency crap, will you?

The apportionment of districts is fundamentally broken.

 

[frequentflyer]

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

 

[henryj]

LOL, thank you frequent flyer. My question also. As to Ryan's "Civics Crap", and Jim Hudson's whining about the 'poor downtrodden' this is the only country in the world set up this way and it has worked well for over 200 years, making the US the most affluent and powerful country in the world. If it seems broke at times, perhaps that was the intent of the design. A dysfunctional government is the best government. Good luck changing it.

I hope they find a third party and they run a better train for less. Forget Amtrak, they are truly dysfunctional.

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

 

[jis]

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

Depends on who the third party is.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

Depends on who the third party is.

Maybe they would bring back the original Hi-Level Coaches the Heartland Flyer started out with; I know there are some parked in Dallas near the Fairgrounds.

 

[jis]

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

Depends on who the third party is.

Maybe they would bring back the original Hi-Level Coaches the Heartland Flyer started out with; I know there are some parked in Dallas near the Fairgrounds.

That is a distinct eventual possibility given the current chosen third party in Indiana. Of course what Texas will do is an entirely different matter.

 

[user 1215]

Back to the point of the thread, would the train loose its Superliner equipment if a third party is brought in?

Depends on how tight it is.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I think if the Flyer is contracted out to another operator that Single Level Cars, or as OH said, Bi Level Equipment would be perfect for this route freeing up the Superliners to be used on Amtrak LD Routes!

 

[jis]

I think if the Flyer is contracted out to another operator that Single Level Cars, or as OH said, Bi Level Equipment would be perfect for this route freeing up the Superliners to be used on Amtrak LD Routes!

My wild a$$ guess is that if the Flyer is contracted out it will be to Iowa Pacific, which is already running on the inside track in a manner of speaking for the Tulsa service.

 

[tonys96]

This source says it was fewer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post's Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That's a close election -- 48.8%-48.5% --but it's still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn't likely to flip.

That's a difference of just over 478k. I guess it's possible that the final totals changed by a million (my source was from 11/9/12, yours from 3/13).

That is likely. The WaPo article likely did not include all of the west coast votes yet, as it was early.

 

[cirdan]

I understand it perfectly, thanks for asking.

If the House is supposed to represent the population, why are there fewer Democrats than Republicans when more of the population voted for a Democratic representative?

This is turning into a Civics 101 class. The House is supposed to represent the population OF THE STATES. This is a nation of States and not a pure national democracy. The President, for example, is elected by the States electoral college. Therefore, Ryan, if the Democrats, for example, are concentrated in a few states and not spread evenly over the entire populous you get the result you are alluding too. This country was set up as a REPUBLIC, not a true Democracy. The founding Fathers were very much concerned that the 'majority' would step all over the rights of the minority.

"A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."

A democracy is, in other words, mob rule with no rights for minorities.

This sounds to me like a gross oversimplification.

There are plenty of republics on this planet that trample on minorities with impunity. I don't see republics being good for minorities per se.

If the US system has managed to maintain a certain level of protection for minorities, that is not by virtue of it being a republic but because of certain constitutional constructs favoring that and last but not least, because it was the popular (and hence democratically expressed) desire that said minorities should not be trampled upon. The Civil Rights acts for example were no foregone conclusion but came about because a lot of people got loud.

 

[henryj]

I understand it perfectly, thanks for asking.

If the House is supposed to represent the population, why are there fewer Democrats than Republicans when more of the population voted for a Democratic representative?

This is turning into a Civics 101 class. The House is supposed to represent the population OF THE STATES. This is a nation of States and not a pure national democracy. The President, for example, is elected by the States electoral college. Therefore, Ryan, if the Democrats, for example, are concentrated in a few states and not spread evenly over the entire populous you get the result you are alluding too. This country was set up as a REPUBLIC, not a true Democracy. The founding Fathers were very much concerned that the 'majority' would step all over the rights of the minority.

"A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."

A democracy is, in other words, mob rule with no rights for minorities.

This sounds to me like a gross oversimplification.

There are plenty of republics on this planet that trample on minorities with impunity. I don't see republics being good for minorities per se.

If the US system has managed to maintain a certain level of protection for minorities, that is not by virtue of it being a republic but because of certain constitutional constructs favoring that and last but not least, because it was the popular (and hence democratically expressed) desire that said minorities should not be trampled upon. The Civil Rights acts for example were no foregone conclusion but came about because a lot of people got loud.

I believe we are misinterpreting the term 'minority' as used by our forefathers in drafting the Constitution. They knew nothing of gays, blacks, Asians, womens, Hispanics, etc., rights as they are discussed today. Minority then was referring to small states vs large states, various voting blocks of the time, and things like that. In that sense a Republic works as designed. If we are to continue discussing Civics 101 here rather than the original subject, I suggest you read or sign on to a good Civics course first. Here is one link, but there are many. http://www.citizenjoe.org/node/154 I am sorry that your education today is so lacking in the basics of understanding our political system.

I really don't give a crap whether or not you people understand our political system. None of you have the sense to do anything about it anyway, nor do you know how it can be amended.

May we now return to the subject of the Heartland Flyer as I am interested in it's future even if it doesn't serve Houston. We only have a very few trains here in Texas and this is one of them.

 

[jis]

Oh the high and mighty have now spoken ex-cathedra. Now let us please get back to Heartland Flyer, shall we?

 

[Shortline]

Had a meeting with a colleague this morning in Ardmore (saved me from going all the way to Dallas or him to OKC) and happened to see the Flyer make its stop in Ardmore. Had 4 coaches on today-that something new? Usually only noticed added equipment (extra coach and SSL) for the "Game Train"

 

[user 1215]

I sadly don't know what the consist is any more. Last I saw it, it was a P42, an F40 Cabbage, two ex-ATSF Hi-Levels with a sightseer/cafe in between.

I would be interested to know what they are running now.

 

[jis]

Aren't the ex-ATSF Hi-Levels all gone, replaced by Superliner Coaches or Coach/Cafes?