This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Pretzel · 70-79, M
didn't he try that on his last term and got his bill voted down?
we'd rather replace the bridge AFTER it collapses
we'd rather replace the bridge AFTER it collapses
SinlessOnslaught · M
@Pretzel It got voted down because Americans think improving infrastructure means replacing bridges.
SinlessOnslaught · M
@Pretzel Sorry. I came off a bit sarcastic.
Pretzel · 70-79, M
@SinlessOnslaught I didn't take it personally.
SinlessOnslaught · M
@Pretzel I'm just disappointed because everyone thinks infrastructure means laying down more concrete and asphalt and calling that improvement. But what kind of infrastructure are we really building? Not for people, not for community. No safe sidewalks, no bike paths, no trains, no green space, nothing. Just more roads designed to serve machines, not humans. We drive them to jobs scheduled by algorithms and governed by a laws enforced by machines interpreting other machines. And when those crack, we replace them with the same thing. Maybe bigger.
That's not improving infrastructure. That's creating inertia. A corporate system feeding itself. We don't build for sustainability or connection. We build to keep the corporation fat.
And then we want to take our terrible values across borders? Treat other countries like either pawns for our game or threats to exterminate? If starving a billion people and leaving many others behind means preserving our illusion of control, we sure went for it this year.
That's not improving infrastructure. That's creating inertia. A corporate system feeding itself. We don't build for sustainability or connection. We build to keep the corporation fat.
And then we want to take our terrible values across borders? Treat other countries like either pawns for our game or threats to exterminate? If starving a billion people and leaving many others behind means preserving our illusion of control, we sure went for it this year.