Doing the bare minimum research would tell you 6% of Americans live in a food desert and 14% live in "food insecurity" but you clearly have no interest in understanding the issue.
I'm not a big "check your privilege" person but you are the definition of privileged if you actually think food deserts are because people don't want to shop at Kroger.
It’s more like because they prefer to buy things like chips and soda over other options. Grocery stores then start stocking more of the former and less of the latter.
I remember before the election I read a few people on HN say Trump is the most anti-war president they have ever seen and that all the talk about him letting Israel flatten Palestine was fearmongering. Wonder how they feel now.
It's actually nine wars ended now since the war with Iran was over weeks ago. Some people, smart people, some of them the smartest people, said it couldn't be done. But now leaders of nations all over the world are calling him to say "thank you, sir" for doing what no one has been able to do in the history of the world.
I think he ran on ending "forever wars", not whether or not Israel could flatten Palestine. He would probably also argue that Iran is a 47 year forever war that he is finally ending.
He made efforts to end that already by being the first sitting president to meet with them during his first term, so I guess we'll see but Cuba is apparently next in line...
I felt more or less like this, though I don't know if I posted it on HN. Lots of things I didn't like about Trump, but I did favour the less interventionist foreign policy he promised and initially delivered.
Now I feel I was wrong and Trump is just averagely warmongering, as US presidents go.
Honest question; why did you believe that about Trump? He was, and is, a serial lier and famously inconsistent. In his first term he moved on the same conflicts he has started now, but was held back circumstances and a cabinet that wasn't 100% yes men. I never understood how anyone could see Trump as the anti-war candidate during the election.
I believed it because he didn't start the same conflicts he started now. More fool me, perhaps, but one person's "held back by circumstances" is another person's "it was all bluster anyway".
It was also consistent with a broader policy of isolationism shown during his first term. Reducing support for NATO, backing out of trade deals - all consistent with America First and not being the world's policeman, which has been the US's justification for every war in the last 80 years.
I'm not American, so probably have a different perspective on this from Americans. But also that's a reason for me to judge a US president disproportionately more on his foreign policy than on say, healthcare or which bathroom people should use.
This is where the media (or your media bubble) failed you. Trump was always this way. In his first term he significantly increased the amount of bombs dropped and number of countries bombed over previous presidents.
Trump kidnaps a sitting president of a foreign nation after months of conducting strikes in the Caribbean. This is not a war but calling him "averagely warmongering" is just wrong.
Which American president did not cause the removal of a sitting leader of a foreign nation from power? Doing it bloodlessly rather than through direct military force or by arming local terrorists absolutely does make you less warmongering than average.
Removing Maduro was absolutely the right thing to do in America's interest, and was relatively inexpensive. Millions of barrels of oil are now flowing out of Venezuela into America, and, as a side effect, other enemies like Cuba are strictly worse off too. In fact, Cuba will very likely either collapse too soon. Another 70 yo problem solved.
> Which American president did not cause the removal of a sitting leader of a foreign nation from power?
Joe Biden. Unless you'd contend that withdrawing from Afghanistan was an elaborate, self-owning plot to overthrow the US-friendly government in favor of the Taliban, which I think goes against the spirit of your question.
More on the "funding local terrorists with plausible deniability" end of things than the Trump playbook, but here's the Biden cabinet taking credit for ousting Assad:
Literally the third and fourth paragraph in that link:
> Administration officials deny that they aided Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the U.S.-designated terrorist organization that led the drive to overthrow Assad, but they insist that they facilitated the opposition’s victory, citing years of U.S. efforts to empower the opposition and weaken the Syrian government.
> U.S. policy “has led to the situation we’re in today,” State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a December 9 press briefing, the day after Assad fled the country. It “was developed during the latter stages of the Obama administration” and “has largely carried through to this day.”
An Obama-era policy, kept in place through Trump's first term and then through Biden's, ultimately resulting in local forces overthrowing a dictator that nobody liked, does not count as Biden being a warmongering regime changer. Your source even goes on to say that Biden was so dovish on Syria that senators were beginning to suspect he wanted to find a deal to keep Assad in power. What evidence do you have for funding local terrorists in Syria?
I muse on this as well but recently I'm struck that the entire conversation is something of a distraction. Everyone is focused on the current administration, what they're doing right or wrong, contrasting it with Biden, etc.
My question is - how did we even reach this point? I understand people didn't like Hillary Clinton and the way they dealt with Biden's age was abysmal when he was in office.
But I have literally never seen anyone express that they wish Clinton had won over Trump back in 2016. I find that really strange.
I won't say I never see it because I do but the reason you rarely see it is Bernie Sanders. The DNC played dirty when it came to Sanders in 2016 and it tainted Clinton's entire campaign and it really continues to taint the DNC to this day. A lot of Obama to Trump voters would've voted Sanders and progressives never forgot or forgave how the DNC treated Sanders.
But now look at all the changes happening since the composition of SCOTUS changed. It was pretty much guaranteed that would happen with a Trump win. And yet people still went for it.
I believe YC is a organization run by bad people. Like, people who actually want to do harm to you. You can peek at Garry Tan's X to get a taste of the type of things I'm talking to.
Portlanders do not think this. Survey people in Portland and you'll find they want trains as well. NIMBYs don't and NIMBYs make up the majority of people who actually have the time and wealth to go to city meetings.
If you say you support density but that support withers away at the slightest hint of nostalgia or trade off, or because some old ladies walk in the dead mall sometimes (that was the cited reason), then you don’t really support density.
NIMBYs are usually not against new stuff in their backyard, they really just don’t want to lose the historic parking structures and culturally relevant SFHs already there.
Perhaps you are harboring NIMBY views you refuse to acknowledge and you are feeling defensive? Are you holding onto the corpse of Lloyd center?
In context, when they said, “that mall is rad, I hope they block it there’s a campaign to stop the demolition” made it pretty close to unambiguous.
Why are people assuming that the kitchen coworkers are reasonable and that I am somehow making assumptions? I was there, I heard the conversation, HN replies did not. Portlanders are notorious for this sort of tradeoff-ignoring woo woo bullshit anyway, frankly it isn’t an extraordinary claim.
You can want trains while simultaneously detesting all of the conditions that make trains viable. Just like you can want to drive to work every day and also want to never be in traffic. NIMBYism has nothing to do with being averse to working downtown or tearing down a mall (a radically YIMBY position regarding dead malls).
5,000 units can also be built alongside entirely too much office space and ground floor retail, which is mixed use.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to Portland but the predominant problem is still too much office and retail space (much of it empty) and not enough residential space; every apartment I have lived in and almost every apartment building I walk by day to day has vacant ground floor retail.
reply