|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 07 2025 16:10 oBlade wrote:
Also the article you linked explains they already reunited the daughter with family members so it seems LEO knew what they were doing.
Oh well if the paramilitary police that abducted him and then drove away in his car with his child eventually reunited them, then I guess no harm was done and we should all be fine to expect this as part of our daily routine.
|
Rumor is Schumer is about to offer Republicans a deal to end the shutdown. That doesn't seem good.
|
On November 08 2025 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rumor is Schumer is about to offer Republicans a deal to end the shutdown. That doesn't seem good.
If it is the same deal they have been asking for all the time just in a better phrasing that seems fine.
|
On November 08 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rumor is Schumer is about to offer Republicans a deal to end the shutdown. That doesn't seem good. If it is the same deal they have been asking for all the time just in a better phrasing that seems fine.
Seems it went from demanding the subsidies are permanent to asking to do this again next year (for midterms).
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid out a new Democratic counterproposal for ending the government shutdown: attaching a one-year extension of soon-to-expire Affordable Care Act subsidies to a spending stopgap that would reopen agencies.
www.politico.com
Which is pretty fitting
On November 06 2025 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2025 11:52 Zambrah wrote:On November 05 2025 11:45 farvacola wrote:
The murder fanatics are outperforming the polls in most races, imagine that Its nice in the moment, but likely they're going to fuck up the next few years and it'll probably switch back over. God willing they wisen up and take as much drastic action as they can, but Im not one to put money on Democrats being wise. + Show Spoiler +Not especially optimistic with r/democrats banning posts about the Democratic nominee for NYC's mayor winning. If Mamdani puts any real effort into overcoming his opposition in government (which I expect him to do) it's going to become increasingly obvious that the actual opposition to progress in NYC is Democrats' leadership. With Democrat leadership like Schumer refusing to endorse/vote for Mamdani, it'll be increasingly obvious elsewhere too. On the subsidies, Democrats do this thing where they make something expire in hopes to exploit its expiration (and the suffering it entails) later. They also did this with the child tax credit thing, it failed, so millions of children returned to poverty and Democrats lost. This covid-induced healthcare subsidy is a weird place for people to have finally drawn their line, but I'll take it I guess.
I guess I'm curious about Micro's (and anyone else's opinion) on whether that's good enough or if that is already bad enough to be functionally capitulating?
|
It is still the same deal they've been asking for this entire time. A one year extension is still an extension on the subsidies and doesn't change their leverage for demanding it again next time.
I don't know why you think this is an L from a good-faith perspective.
|
A year buys time for Trump to keel over and get a President willing to actually negotiate.
Seems like a fine idea, worst case you have this same dance again next year.
(ps. the Republicans say no either way)
On November 08 2025 05:03 Sermokala wrote:I don't know why you think this is an L from a good-faith perspective. That's easy, he isn't.
|
From the discussion a couple pages ago, I would honestly really appreciate anyone who had the time to scratch together a real rebuttal of the Intro position.
Of all the various flavours of trumpist, the one that views him as the pro-constitution option is the one I truly have no ability to process. More than this, these people seem like some of the most corrosive, because they provide the thin veneer of sanity that enables all the others.
The magats, I can understand. They're dumb, they're angry, and Trump makes them feel like they're finally winning a game they've always lost. Fine.
The evangelicals, they're basically one-issue voters on abortion and Trump is giving them the dub. Fine.
The all-out neo-nazis, he's whistling at them like crazy, fine.
The aspiring oligarchs, they're making money hand-over-fist right now, fine.
The remaining "principled conservatives", though? I just... can't.
I simply do not understand how anyone seemingly well-educated, seemingly sincere, seemingly a defender of the constitution and the founding fathers and the rule of law.... can look at the literal hole in the White House and conclude that this is fine, because once upon a time Biden tried to cancel student loans and Obama existed. It beggars belief.
I've had this conversation several times now with people I would say I used to align with, and there is always a point where I am left speechlessly gesturing at the world in general. I have no option but to walk away, accepting that this otherwise intelligent person is either living on a different planet, or is lying to my face.
I know it's a lost cause. I know no argument could ever change the mind of someone this deep in their alternate reality, but fuck me, I am going to continue trying and I would love some well-thought out examples or resources to gesture at.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 06 2025 12:40 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2025 12:24 Introvert wrote:On November 06 2025 01:38 Billyboy wrote:On November 05 2025 11:04 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 10:44 Billyboy wrote:On November 05 2025 10:03 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 00:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 04 2025 22:51 Simberto wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. The strategy seems to be to go full-on 1984 doublethink. It is insane to watch from the outside. On November 04 2025 23:05 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. Huh? Why are you asking me about this? No, I don't like lying but people are inured to Trump's... mis-statements. Besides, dems are too busy shutting down the government and arguing about their various issues of concern to talk much about prices. It's no wonder their image is still in the toilet. We'll have to see if they improve on 2024 margins in elections tonight, if they don't... that's yikes. Maybe then they will learn something. But winning will probably hide their problems. Might even elect as AG the guy who wished his opponent's children were shot and killed, so everyone is off their rocker atm On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. The hope is that at some point the not stupid Republicans will go "Holy shit it is an embarrassment and absolutely terrible for our country that we have a compulsive lying, dumb, narcissistic, nepo baby who openly takes bribes leading out party, this is bad thing." Hell you do not even need to vote Dem, you could just join the Republicans and against Trump and try to pry your party out of the stupidest era. I can not understand how you Americans treat politics like team sports and support your parties guy no matter how clearly incompetent he is. It is also incredibly stupid that what is "winning" to people seems to be beating the other party and not making the country better. Your country is on the fast track to becoming a shit hole and you are there cheering for it because you get to beat the dems. It is so painful to watch. Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do on the whole think Republican policy positions are better for the country than Democrat ones. You have no idea what I say to people on "my side" since there aren't any of them here. It is interesting how you and many other posters continue to think this is just about making sure "my team" wins, as if I couldn't have good reasons for preferring it. You'd hope that people who spend hours upon hours lecturing GH on being a team player might grasp this but I guess it's too complicated. + Show Spoiler +On November 05 2025 02:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. I mean, trying might help? In a more generalised sense. Many people want their ‘team’ to win, of course. If one is losing though, so long as the game is played in the right spirit, as it were that goes a distance. Outside these particular walls, sure it might be different. Within them, I would wager that getting Republicans to go ‘GOP’ bad isn’t a particular aspiration. It would be conservatives having their own red lines, and acting accordingly. Something like that anyway, some self-regulation. I mean I must have made similar posts on this theme at least 10 times prior. So expanding much is a bit redundant. You can collectively do that, and have a slightly more civil wider discourse, or not. Wider conservatism can’t have civil discourse with those who disagree with that creed if it reflexively defends everything the God King does, even the stuff that contravenes their ostensible principles. The natural conclusion becomes that conservatives don’t care about stated principles when it suits, so why should I care when they’re invoked against something I want? Or indeed just want to be ruled by a belligerent Orange King (us Norn Irish can understand the appeal) It’s not necessarily about building bridges across the aisle, it’s that self-policing exists internally. The wider left aren’t exactly great at the former either. But they do tend to criticise their own more. As I said recently, I don't see the need to spent so much time trashing Trump around here for a few reasons. First, there's no one to actually have a discussion with. Yes, tariffs are bad. Glad we agree! Now what? Second, I recall having this conversation every so often, including with you. But then I watch people support murder in public, or voting for a man who fantasized about wanting his opponents children shot, and I realize there isn't really that much to discuss. The pushback on those posts is incredibly limited. You've given me crap before for not criticizing Trump more and then when someone is gunned down in the street you shrugged. The level of self-debasement I'd have to put myself through to appeal to such people is not worth it. And finally, as I said above, I still think that yes, Democrats are worse on basically every metric imaginable. Why I would focus on orange man bad to appease a bunch of murder fanatics who believe all their opponents are closet fascists is going to have to be explained. I actually do get it, I like in a 95% conservative place, but still most of them think Trump is a moron. My point, which I stated already, is not that you vote Dem. But you should be like, we need to get this moron off the top of our ticket and stop running our country. I can't believe that you honestly think a guy who doesn't understand percentages is the right guy to broker trade deals. Especially when it is clear that he is making them based on who sucks up the most. I can barely believe you want tariffs, since no fiscal conservative I have ever met thought they were a good idea before Trump started talking about them. But that aside, this guy is the one who is going to use them properly to make America stronger? The reason the Ontario ad pissed him off so much was because it is true and many Republicans love Reagan. That was a conservative government who made them as well. Like I get you want something done about immigration, and something dramatic. But do you know how much this is costing? And how much it is actually working? Are you even getting more out than in? You are going to trust this guy to tell you real information? When he just flat lies about inflation (I mean everything always), but what he says about how the immigration is going is true? Like are you really that gullible? You can not trust any of the information this government spews, it is all to make them look good and they don't even bother hiding it and you cheer them for tricking you. It's lunacy. If a Dem accepted a multi hundred million dollar plane from a foreign government would you be OK with it? Of course not because you know that there are strings attached and those strings are not in Americas interest, they are in the other country who gave the bribe. But Trump taking them is good? He is taking tons! Maybe you think bailing out Argentina is a good deal after you gift wrapped them all of China Soy bean sales, for reasons. But I can't imagine you think doing it again and then buying a whole shit ton of their cattle to fuck your own farmers was good? Are you a protectionist with tariffs or what? So many were for Trump because he would not tart wars, was a man of peace. How is that working out? What is going on with Venezuela? WTF is that costing? No where near any sort of ROI on the tiny couple of drug boats they sunk. Hows that blanced budget coming? What I'm getting at, and there is way more examples, is that Trump is a populist liar. He has told you he is a conservative and you believed it. He is clearly not one, and only interested in attention and wealth for himself. He is comically stupid, and the lies are not remotely smart and change by the week. The ask isn't that you vote Dem, or become a socialist. It is that you be a conservative, hold those values and hold your own party accountable. Not be a useful idiot for the MAGA ideocracy because they wear your jersey. That is actually exactly the same thing that was asked of GH. Stop pretending that Maduro is actually fighting capitalists from his billion dollar palace. Start actually trying to make the Dem party better. Hasn't "primary the bad dems" been said to him 1000 times. There is no irony, just logical consistency. You might not be used to that given that what Trump tells you is good changes by the week. edit: Also to your comment to wombat. How often were people called fascists before Trump? Could it not be possible (even likely) that people do not think that conservatives are fascists, but rather they the think Trump and his group are fascists? Have you even bothered to read what a fascist is and does? It is Trump, he hits like almost every point. + Show Spoiler +1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible”
leader who never admits mistakes.
2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
4. White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat.
Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority
group leaders.
7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective
collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
8. Rampant sexism.
9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
11. Religion and government are intertwined.
12. Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
Well I didn't vote for him so I did my part to "get him off the ticket" if that's what you want. Again, you have no idea what is said elsewhere. I have repeatedly said the tariffs are bad, I think they are actually his biggest mistake so far. They a counter-productive at home and they make rallying our allies against adversaries that much more difficult. I wouldn't even tarriff the Europeans! There are other ways of getting them to pay for their own defense. What's happening with immigration is the natural counter reaction. You have to have rules, and Biden spent four years ignoring them, and now enforcing them is going to hurt. It's always a tough question of how strictly to you start enforcing rules once a pattern of breaking them has emerged. and now some people who previously wouldn't have been deported now will be. probably should have considered that when dems spent years denying there was even anything wrong. Of course Trump shouldn't accept the plane. I don't mind helping Argentina. Trump's foreign policy has been his best aspect so far (tariffs excluded). Dem weak FP as usual is awful. You seem to be attributing to me a lot of positions I have never offered about Trump? Like again, no Trump doesn't care about a balanced budget, but if dems got their way they'd blow everything out as their projected tax revenue never lived up to expectations, and it would be used to support tons of government growth that I fundamentally disagree with. Again, and I know you have a special hatred for GH, but you have to realize I am thinking in similar terms. Yes, Trump sucks. Yes, I wish it were a different Republican. No, banging on about it here does nothing. Which leads to... On November 05 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2025 10:03 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 00:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 04 2025 22:51 Simberto wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. The strategy seems to be to go full-on 1984 doublethink. It is insane to watch from the outside. On November 04 2025 23:05 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. Huh? Why are you asking me about this? No, I don't like lying but people are inured to Trump's... mis-statements. Besides, dems are too busy shutting down the government and arguing about their various issues of concern to talk much about prices. It's no wonder their image is still in the toilet. We'll have to see if they improve on 2024 margins in elections tonight, if they don't... that's yikes. Maybe then they will learn something. But winning will probably hide their problems. Might even elect as AG the guy who wished his opponent's children were shot and killed, so everyone is off their rocker atm On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. The hope is that at some point the not stupid Republicans will go "Holy shit it is an embarrassment and absolutely terrible for our country that we have a compulsive lying, dumb, narcissistic, nepo baby who openly takes bribes leading out party, this is bad thing." Hell you do not even need to vote Dem, you could just join the Republicans and against Trump and try to pry your party out of the stupidest era. I can not understand how you Americans treat politics like team sports and support your parties guy no matter how clearly incompetent he is. It is also incredibly stupid that what is "winning" to people seems to be beating the other party and not making the country better. Your country is on the fast track to becoming a shit hole and you are there cheering for it because you get to beat the dems. It is so painful to watch. Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do on the whole think Republican policy positions are better for the country than Democrat ones. You have no idea what I say to people on "my side" since there aren't any of them here. It is interesting how you and many other posters continue to think this is just about making sure "my team" wins, as if I couldn't have good reasons for preferring it. You'd hope that people who spend hours upon hours lecturing GH on being a team player might grasp this but I guess it's too complicated. On November 05 2025 02:42 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. I mean, trying might help? In a more generalised sense. Many people want their ‘team’ to win, of course. If one is losing though, so long as the game is played in the right spirit, as it were that goes a distance. Outside these particular walls, sure it might be different. Within them, I would wager that getting Republicans to go ‘GOP’ bad isn’t a particular aspiration. It would be conservatives having their own red lines, and acting accordingly. Something like that anyway, some self-regulation. I mean I must have made similar posts on this theme at least 10 times prior. So expanding much is a bit redundant. You can collectively do that, and have a slightly more civil wider discourse, or not. Wider conservatism can’t have civil discourse with those who disagree with that creed if it reflexively defends everything the God King does, even the stuff that contravenes their ostensible principles. The natural conclusion becomes that conservatives don’t care about stated principles when it suits, so why should I care when they’re invoked against something I want? Or indeed just want to be ruled by a belligerent Orange King (us Norn Irish can understand the appeal) It’s not necessarily about building bridges across the aisle, it’s that self-policing exists internally. The wider left aren’t exactly great at the former either. But they do tend to criticise their own more. As I said recently, I don't see the need to spent so much time trashing Trump around here for a few reasons. First, there's no one to actually have a discussion with. Yes, tariffs are bad. Glad we agree! Now what? Second, I recall having this conversation every so often, including with you. But then I watch people support murder in public, or voting for a man who fantasized about wanting his opponents children shot, and I realize there isn't really that much to discuss. The pushback on those posts is incredibly limited. You've given me crap before for not criticizing Trump more and then when someone is gunned down in the street you shrugged. The level of self-debasement I'd have to put myself through to appeal to such people is not worth it. And finally, as I said above, I still think that yes, Democrats are worse on basically every metric imaginable. Why I would focus on orange man bad to appease a bunch of murder fanatics who believe all their opponents are closet fascists is going to have to be explained. So what? Why does any of that matter? Trump being a complete disgrace of a President can co-exist with those criticisms of other actors. One can also be a conservative while not supporting Trump, it’s emminently possible, indeed I’d argue that Trump is that divorced from general conservative principles that it should be the default. You’re supposed to have principles. Me not giving much of a shit that Charlie Kirk got shot shouldn’t upset the applecart too much. But your cohort evidently doesn’t, so who cares? It’s a battle now, and next time it swings the other way your lot is fucked. Nobody is going to care about catering to the desires of decent conservatives if they’ve spent a cumulative 8 years sucking Donald Trump off and hand waving everything. You used to say that I should criticize Trump more because it would show that I was being serious and arguing in good faith (paraphrase). Why I am supposed to assume good faith on the part of people who support all the things I mentioned above. Why am I supposed to assume good faith on your part when you are more harsh on me for not criticizing Trump than you are yourself in criticizing those on the left who expound awful views? Is that not what you requested of me? Are you getting the point yet? In a thread where the median opinion is that Donald Trump is a fascist who will try to serve a third term as president I'm supposed to take the same or more time criticizing him instead of that nutty belief itself. It's a silly thing to ask for from the one conservative in the thread. I have criticized him a lot over the years, all it got was demands that I do it more. meanwhile, people here have lost their minds. I am not attributing you those positions, those are Trumps position and given that Trump has a very obvious policy of loyalty over competency, whatever he says becomes the Republican position. My point on immigration was not that you shouldn't want something done, it is that you have no idea if it is actually working, or how much it is costing because you have a liar in chief feeding you (obviously) wrong shit on everything. If he was an actual businessman, actually trying to improve the country he would be tracking true information so that he could make the best decisions. This is not happening on anything. It is just all about making both sides mad so he can get the most attention. I'm glad you think he should not accept a bribe. Do you think there should be consequences for doing it? If not, then why wouldn't he and all future presidents (even ones from the bad guys) do the same thing? Why is helping Argentina good when they are taking business directly from American farmers? What benefit does it have for America? Why is that good and USAID to starving people is bad? What exactly do you like? Our countries economic policy is now to find new markets that are not the US, to sell and buy. We are not the only ones. I mean there are things he has done that I agree with, but those are the ones that go against his message and often are flip flopped multiple times in the process. Has the government actually shrunk under Trump? The budget sure has not. The revenue taken in sure has. It is more annoyance that hatred, a guy who claims for years and berates everyone for not being like him and then can't even make the one day effort to go to the biggest protest in US history. Which even if it is not going to do anything would be the greatest source of recruiting likeminded, frustrated people for his "activism" ever. It is also how he supports horrible fake socialists like Madruo because of the branding. Which is what the Republicans are becoming, you are supporting them because they say they are conservatives, but they are not. They do what benefits themselves personally and then pretend it is conservatism or to fight the dems. It is also extremely short sighted, because what Trump is doing in destroying your rules and norms is absolutely going to be taken advantage of by the other side. The people are going to demand it. Who is going to be standing at the end is anyones guess but it is not going to be good for the American people no matter if its American Putin or Maduro that is left standing. Did you bother reading the 16 point of fascism? Trump and his MAGA group hit the first first 14 and point 15,16 do not seem that far off. Sorry for third post in a row but did not want to combine any of these. I won't rehash it all now but I have said before that I think our system is more resilient to the type of threat Trump brings to the system than the one the Democrats bring. Trump pushes boundaries, but so do Dems. But dems also have the entire apparatus of the state on their side that makes governing for a Republican so much more difficult. The democrat party has had an on-again off-again relationship with the Constitution since at least Woodrow Wilson. No reason to think their newfound commitment to it is at all sincere.
|
On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away.
A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food.
If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness.
It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world.
|
On November 08 2025 06:02 Belisarius wrote:From the discussion a couple pages ago, I would honestly really appreciate anyone who had the time to scratch together a real rebuttal of the Intro position. Of all the various flavours of trumpist, the one that views him as the pro-constitution option is the one I truly have no ability to process. More than this, these people seem like some of the most corrosive, because they provide the thin veneer of sanity that enables all the others. The magats, I can understand. They're dumb, they're angry, and Trump makes them feel like they're finally winning a game they've always lost. Fine. The evangelicals, they're basically one-issue voters on abortion and Trump is giving them the dub. Fine. The all-out neo-nazis, he's whistling at them like crazy, fine. The aspiring oligarchs, they're making money hand-over-fist right now, fine. The remaining "principled conservatives", though? I just... can't. I simply do not understand how anyone seemingly well-educated, seemingly sincere, seemingly a defender of the constitution and the founding fathers and the rule of law.... can look at the literal hole in the White House and conclude that this is fine, because once upon a time Biden tried to cancel student loans and Obama existed. It beggars belief. I've had this conversation several times now with people I would say I used to align with, and there is always a point where I am left speechlessly gesturing at the world in general. I have no option but to walk away, accepting that this otherwise intelligent person is either living on a different planet, or is lying to my face. I know it's a lost cause. I know no argument could ever change the mind of someone this deep in their alternate reality, but fuck me, I am going to continue trying and I would love some well-thought out examples or resources to gesture at. + Show Spoiler +On November 06 2025 12:40 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2025 12:24 Introvert wrote:On November 06 2025 01:38 Billyboy wrote:On November 05 2025 11:04 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 10:44 Billyboy wrote:On November 05 2025 10:03 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 00:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 04 2025 22:51 Simberto wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. The strategy seems to be to go full-on 1984 doublethink. It is insane to watch from the outside. On November 04 2025 23:05 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. Huh? Why are you asking me about this? No, I don't like lying but people are inured to Trump's... mis-statements. Besides, dems are too busy shutting down the government and arguing about their various issues of concern to talk much about prices. It's no wonder their image is still in the toilet. We'll have to see if they improve on 2024 margins in elections tonight, if they don't... that's yikes. Maybe then they will learn something. But winning will probably hide their problems. Might even elect as AG the guy who wished his opponent's children were shot and killed, so everyone is off their rocker atm On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. The hope is that at some point the not stupid Republicans will go "Holy shit it is an embarrassment and absolutely terrible for our country that we have a compulsive lying, dumb, narcissistic, nepo baby who openly takes bribes leading out party, this is bad thing." Hell you do not even need to vote Dem, you could just join the Republicans and against Trump and try to pry your party out of the stupidest era. I can not understand how you Americans treat politics like team sports and support your parties guy no matter how clearly incompetent he is. It is also incredibly stupid that what is "winning" to people seems to be beating the other party and not making the country better. Your country is on the fast track to becoming a shit hole and you are there cheering for it because you get to beat the dems. It is so painful to watch. Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do on the whole think Republican policy positions are better for the country than Democrat ones. You have no idea what I say to people on "my side" since there aren't any of them here. It is interesting how you and many other posters continue to think this is just about making sure "my team" wins, as if I couldn't have good reasons for preferring it. You'd hope that people who spend hours upon hours lecturing GH on being a team player might grasp this but I guess it's too complicated. + Show Spoiler +On November 05 2025 02:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. I mean, trying might help? In a more generalised sense. Many people want their ‘team’ to win, of course. If one is losing though, so long as the game is played in the right spirit, as it were that goes a distance. Outside these particular walls, sure it might be different. Within them, I would wager that getting Republicans to go ‘GOP’ bad isn’t a particular aspiration. It would be conservatives having their own red lines, and acting accordingly. Something like that anyway, some self-regulation. I mean I must have made similar posts on this theme at least 10 times prior. So expanding much is a bit redundant. You can collectively do that, and have a slightly more civil wider discourse, or not. Wider conservatism can’t have civil discourse with those who disagree with that creed if it reflexively defends everything the God King does, even the stuff that contravenes their ostensible principles. The natural conclusion becomes that conservatives don’t care about stated principles when it suits, so why should I care when they’re invoked against something I want? Or indeed just want to be ruled by a belligerent Orange King (us Norn Irish can understand the appeal) It’s not necessarily about building bridges across the aisle, it’s that self-policing exists internally. The wider left aren’t exactly great at the former either. But they do tend to criticise their own more. As I said recently, I don't see the need to spent so much time trashing Trump around here for a few reasons. First, there's no one to actually have a discussion with. Yes, tariffs are bad. Glad we agree! Now what? Second, I recall having this conversation every so often, including with you. But then I watch people support murder in public, or voting for a man who fantasized about wanting his opponents children shot, and I realize there isn't really that much to discuss. The pushback on those posts is incredibly limited. You've given me crap before for not criticizing Trump more and then when someone is gunned down in the street you shrugged. The level of self-debasement I'd have to put myself through to appeal to such people is not worth it. And finally, as I said above, I still think that yes, Democrats are worse on basically every metric imaginable. Why I would focus on orange man bad to appease a bunch of murder fanatics who believe all their opponents are closet fascists is going to have to be explained. I actually do get it, I like in a 95% conservative place, but still most of them think Trump is a moron. My point, which I stated already, is not that you vote Dem. But you should be like, we need to get this moron off the top of our ticket and stop running our country. I can't believe that you honestly think a guy who doesn't understand percentages is the right guy to broker trade deals. Especially when it is clear that he is making them based on who sucks up the most. I can barely believe you want tariffs, since no fiscal conservative I have ever met thought they were a good idea before Trump started talking about them. But that aside, this guy is the one who is going to use them properly to make America stronger? The reason the Ontario ad pissed him off so much was because it is true and many Republicans love Reagan. That was a conservative government who made them as well. Like I get you want something done about immigration, and something dramatic. But do you know how much this is costing? And how much it is actually working? Are you even getting more out than in? You are going to trust this guy to tell you real information? When he just flat lies about inflation (I mean everything always), but what he says about how the immigration is going is true? Like are you really that gullible? You can not trust any of the information this government spews, it is all to make them look good and they don't even bother hiding it and you cheer them for tricking you. It's lunacy. If a Dem accepted a multi hundred million dollar plane from a foreign government would you be OK with it? Of course not because you know that there are strings attached and those strings are not in Americas interest, they are in the other country who gave the bribe. But Trump taking them is good? He is taking tons! Maybe you think bailing out Argentina is a good deal after you gift wrapped them all of China Soy bean sales, for reasons. But I can't imagine you think doing it again and then buying a whole shit ton of their cattle to fuck your own farmers was good? Are you a protectionist with tariffs or what? So many were for Trump because he would not tart wars, was a man of peace. How is that working out? What is going on with Venezuela? WTF is that costing? No where near any sort of ROI on the tiny couple of drug boats they sunk. Hows that blanced budget coming? What I'm getting at, and there is way more examples, is that Trump is a populist liar. He has told you he is a conservative and you believed it. He is clearly not one, and only interested in attention and wealth for himself. He is comically stupid, and the lies are not remotely smart and change by the week. The ask isn't that you vote Dem, or become a socialist. It is that you be a conservative, hold those values and hold your own party accountable. Not be a useful idiot for the MAGA ideocracy because they wear your jersey. That is actually exactly the same thing that was asked of GH. Stop pretending that Maduro is actually fighting capitalists from his billion dollar palace. Start actually trying to make the Dem party better. Hasn't "primary the bad dems" been said to him 1000 times. There is no irony, just logical consistency. You might not be used to that given that what Trump tells you is good changes by the week. edit: Also to your comment to wombat. How often were people called fascists before Trump? Could it not be possible (even likely) that people do not think that conservatives are fascists, but rather they the think Trump and his group are fascists? Have you even bothered to read what a fascist is and does? It is Trump, he hits like almost every point. + Show Spoiler +1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible”
leader who never admits mistakes.
2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
4. White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat.
Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority
group leaders.
7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective
collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
8. Rampant sexism.
9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
11. Religion and government are intertwined.
12. Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
Well I didn't vote for him so I did my part to "get him off the ticket" if that's what you want. Again, you have no idea what is said elsewhere. I have repeatedly said the tariffs are bad, I think they are actually his biggest mistake so far. They a counter-productive at home and they make rallying our allies against adversaries that much more difficult. I wouldn't even tarriff the Europeans! There are other ways of getting them to pay for their own defense. What's happening with immigration is the natural counter reaction. You have to have rules, and Biden spent four years ignoring them, and now enforcing them is going to hurt. It's always a tough question of how strictly to you start enforcing rules once a pattern of breaking them has emerged. and now some people who previously wouldn't have been deported now will be. probably should have considered that when dems spent years denying there was even anything wrong. Of course Trump shouldn't accept the plane. I don't mind helping Argentina. Trump's foreign policy has been his best aspect so far (tariffs excluded). Dem weak FP as usual is awful. You seem to be attributing to me a lot of positions I have never offered about Trump? Like again, no Trump doesn't care about a balanced budget, but if dems got their way they'd blow everything out as their projected tax revenue never lived up to expectations, and it would be used to support tons of government growth that I fundamentally disagree with. Again, and I know you have a special hatred for GH, but you have to realize I am thinking in similar terms. Yes, Trump sucks. Yes, I wish it were a different Republican. No, banging on about it here does nothing. Which leads to... On November 05 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2025 10:03 Introvert wrote:On November 05 2025 00:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 04 2025 22:51 Simberto wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. The strategy seems to be to go full-on 1984 doublethink. It is insane to watch from the outside. On November 04 2025 23:05 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2025 22:28 Billyboy wrote:@introvert “We have no inflation,” President Donald Trump said in his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday evening. “Our groceries are down.” You OK with him just blatantly lying? And do you think Republicans will not notice that prices are up because Trump said so? What a crazy world. Huh? Why are you asking me about this? No, I don't like lying but people are inured to Trump's... mis-statements. Besides, dems are too busy shutting down the government and arguing about their various issues of concern to talk much about prices. It's no wonder their image is still in the toilet. We'll have to see if they improve on 2024 margins in elections tonight, if they don't... that's yikes. Maybe then they will learn something. But winning will probably hide their problems. Might even elect as AG the guy who wished his opponent's children were shot and killed, so everyone is off their rocker atm On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. The hope is that at some point the not stupid Republicans will go "Holy shit it is an embarrassment and absolutely terrible for our country that we have a compulsive lying, dumb, narcissistic, nepo baby who openly takes bribes leading out party, this is bad thing." Hell you do not even need to vote Dem, you could just join the Republicans and against Trump and try to pry your party out of the stupidest era. I can not understand how you Americans treat politics like team sports and support your parties guy no matter how clearly incompetent he is. It is also incredibly stupid that what is "winning" to people seems to be beating the other party and not making the country better. Your country is on the fast track to becoming a shit hole and you are there cheering for it because you get to beat the dems. It is so painful to watch. Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do on the whole think Republican policy positions are better for the country than Democrat ones. You have no idea what I say to people on "my side" since there aren't any of them here. It is interesting how you and many other posters continue to think this is just about making sure "my team" wins, as if I couldn't have good reasons for preferring it. You'd hope that people who spend hours upon hours lecturing GH on being a team player might grasp this but I guess it's too complicated. On November 05 2025 02:42 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2025 23:44 Introvert wrote:
Breaking news: conservative thinks Democrats a worse party than Republicans. More at 11. What people want is endless "Republican bad" to the point where they tie themselves into logical knots repeatedly. Thr shutdown is just the latest example. The only "acceptable" answer is that it's the GOP's fault even though it only happened because of senate Democrats. There is nothing I could even say at this point that would be accepted. I mean, trying might help? In a more generalised sense. Many people want their ‘team’ to win, of course. If one is losing though, so long as the game is played in the right spirit, as it were that goes a distance. Outside these particular walls, sure it might be different. Within them, I would wager that getting Republicans to go ‘GOP’ bad isn’t a particular aspiration. It would be conservatives having their own red lines, and acting accordingly. Something like that anyway, some self-regulation. I mean I must have made similar posts on this theme at least 10 times prior. So expanding much is a bit redundant. You can collectively do that, and have a slightly more civil wider discourse, or not. Wider conservatism can’t have civil discourse with those who disagree with that creed if it reflexively defends everything the God King does, even the stuff that contravenes their ostensible principles. The natural conclusion becomes that conservatives don’t care about stated principles when it suits, so why should I care when they’re invoked against something I want? Or indeed just want to be ruled by a belligerent Orange King (us Norn Irish can understand the appeal) It’s not necessarily about building bridges across the aisle, it’s that self-policing exists internally. The wider left aren’t exactly great at the former either. But they do tend to criticise their own more. As I said recently, I don't see the need to spent so much time trashing Trump around here for a few reasons. First, there's no one to actually have a discussion with. Yes, tariffs are bad. Glad we agree! Now what? Second, I recall having this conversation every so often, including with you. But then I watch people support murder in public, or voting for a man who fantasized about wanting his opponents children shot, and I realize there isn't really that much to discuss. The pushback on those posts is incredibly limited. You've given me crap before for not criticizing Trump more and then when someone is gunned down in the street you shrugged. The level of self-debasement I'd have to put myself through to appeal to such people is not worth it. And finally, as I said above, I still think that yes, Democrats are worse on basically every metric imaginable. Why I would focus on orange man bad to appease a bunch of murder fanatics who believe all their opponents are closet fascists is going to have to be explained. So what? Why does any of that matter? Trump being a complete disgrace of a President can co-exist with those criticisms of other actors. One can also be a conservative while not supporting Trump, it’s emminently possible, indeed I’d argue that Trump is that divorced from general conservative principles that it should be the default. You’re supposed to have principles. Me not giving much of a shit that Charlie Kirk got shot shouldn’t upset the applecart too much. But your cohort evidently doesn’t, so who cares? It’s a battle now, and next time it swings the other way your lot is fucked. Nobody is going to care about catering to the desires of decent conservatives if they’ve spent a cumulative 8 years sucking Donald Trump off and hand waving everything. You used to say that I should criticize Trump more because it would show that I was being serious and arguing in good faith (paraphrase). Why I am supposed to assume good faith on the part of people who support all the things I mentioned above. Why am I supposed to assume good faith on your part when you are more harsh on me for not criticizing Trump than you are yourself in criticizing those on the left who expound awful views? Is that not what you requested of me? Are you getting the point yet? In a thread where the median opinion is that Donald Trump is a fascist who will try to serve a third term as president I'm supposed to take the same or more time criticizing him instead of that nutty belief itself. It's a silly thing to ask for from the one conservative in the thread. I have criticized him a lot over the years, all it got was demands that I do it more. meanwhile, people here have lost their minds. I am not attributing you those positions, those are Trumps position and given that Trump has a very obvious policy of loyalty over competency, whatever he says becomes the Republican position. My point on immigration was not that you shouldn't want something done, it is that you have no idea if it is actually working, or how much it is costing because you have a liar in chief feeding you (obviously) wrong shit on everything. If he was an actual businessman, actually trying to improve the country he would be tracking true information so that he could make the best decisions. This is not happening on anything. It is just all about making both sides mad so he can get the most attention. I'm glad you think he should not accept a bribe. Do you think there should be consequences for doing it? If not, then why wouldn't he and all future presidents (even ones from the bad guys) do the same thing? Why is helping Argentina good when they are taking business directly from American farmers? What benefit does it have for America? Why is that good and USAID to starving people is bad? What exactly do you like? Our countries economic policy is now to find new markets that are not the US, to sell and buy. We are not the only ones. I mean there are things he has done that I agree with, but those are the ones that go against his message and often are flip flopped multiple times in the process. Has the government actually shrunk under Trump? The budget sure has not. The revenue taken in sure has. It is more annoyance that hatred, a guy who claims for years and berates everyone for not being like him and then can't even make the one day effort to go to the biggest protest in US history. Which even if it is not going to do anything would be the greatest source of recruiting likeminded, frustrated people for his "activism" ever. It is also how he supports horrible fake socialists like Madruo because of the branding. Which is what the Republicans are becoming, you are supporting them because they say they are conservatives, but they are not. They do what benefits themselves personally and then pretend it is conservatism or to fight the dems. It is also extremely short sighted, because what Trump is doing in destroying your rules and norms is absolutely going to be taken advantage of by the other side. The people are going to demand it. Who is going to be standing at the end is anyones guess but it is not going to be good for the American people no matter if its American Putin or Maduro that is left standing. Did you bother reading the 16 point of fascism? Trump and his MAGA group hit the first first 14 and point 15,16 do not seem that far off. Sorry for third post in a row but did not want to combine any of these. I won't rehash it all now but I have said before that I think our system is more resilient to the type of threat Trump brings to the system than the one the Democrats bring. Trump pushes boundaries, but so do Dems. But dems also have the entire apparatus of the state on their side that makes governing for a Republican so much more difficult. The democrat party has had an on-again off-again relationship with the Constitution since at least Woodrow Wilson. No reason to think their newfound commitment to it is at all sincere.
I’m not sure how much there was to rebut there. I have quite a bit of family in the self-described “principled conservative” category, and in my experience they tend to operate as grievance camels – they are, at all times, hoovering up reasons to be indignant at the left, and storing them for defensive deployment when their moral superiority is questioned. There was something about the order of disbursal of bailout funds to GM that Obama did? Paid the unions first or something? I don’t remember the details, but I do know that for years afterward, any time a Republican was accused of any type of unlawfulness I’d start hearing about the GM bailout or w/e.
I should add a couple caveats – first, that “principled conservatives” hold no monopoly on that sort of behavior. Liberals under Trump I used “kids in cages” in much the same way. Second, despite this all the family I’m thinking of still found the clarity of mind to recognize that everything Trump is doing is not only clearly dangerous and illegal, but a much higher order of dangerous and illegal than any of the stuff they were holding against Clinton or Obama or Biden.
With that said: Intro’s comment there is pretty typical of a grievance camel. The criticism of the right is acknowledged, but only obliquely, and without rebuttal we’re straight into the Grievance List. Of course, the grievance list is much too long to actually be recounted in full – they probably don’t even remember most of it – but all those particles of grievance sediment over time into a single solid sense of self-righteousness in one’s faction. Maybe Trump is forming a national paramilitary which answers only to him and eagerly violates any civil rights-related restrictions on their conduct. Maybe he is claiming plenary authority over basically all matters of government and openly demanding malicious prosecutions of political opposition. But remember all those times you were convinced the Democrats were the physical embodiment of evil? No, no, we’re definitely still the Good Guys.
Like, what’s there to say to that? If you could drag each item on the Grievance List back into short-term memory maybe you could go line-by-line and either rebut the grievance or at least establish the magnitude is minuscule compared to, say, widespread detention of green card holders for weeks or months with no legal basis at all. But you can’t, and it would be time-prohibitive even if you could. Otherwise you’re basically left with “maybe Trump is evil, but not as evil as this other really evil thing I’ve imagined in my head” and we’re kinda at an impasse, no?
|
On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food. If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness. It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world.
How large are the biggest "food deserts" in NYC? it seems the definition of "food desert" is so tight that its kinda BS.
https://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=food-deserts-local-global-crisis
An estimated 750,000 New York City residents live in food deserts, where the nearest grocery or supermarket is more than five blocks away
I think the threat of a state run grocery stores is a great political move.
Ontario, Canada's Auto Insurance industry was a major scam in the late 80s and early 90s. NDP Labour Party Premier Bob Rae threatened government run auto insurance and in a matter of weeks Ontario's auto insurance industry was amazing. He never did implement government run auto insurance. Threats can work .... even on a massive scale. For this to work the leader must have the "table image" of someone willing to make a big, hard, left-wing move when necessary.
|
On November 08 2025 08:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food. If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness. It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world. How large are the biggest "food deserts" in NYC? it seems the definition of "food desert" is so tight that its kinda BS. https://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=food-deserts-local-global-crisisShow nested quote +An estimated 750,000 New York City residents live in food deserts, where the nearest grocery or supermarket is more than five blocks away I think the threat of a state run grocery stores is a great political move. Ontario, Canada's Auto Insurance industry was a major scam in the late 80s and early 90s. NDP Labour Party Premier Bob Rae threatened government run auto insurance and in a matter of weeks Ontario's auto insurance industry was amazing. He never did implement government run auto insurance. Threats can work .... even on a massive scale. For this to work the leader must have the "table image" of someone willing to make a big, hard, left-wing move when necessary.
So I read a NYC block is 80m x 274m. Thus 5 blocks is 400m-1370m. Longer than 1.5km is a long distance for basic food shopping if you want it walk able. I usually go to the second closest store which is 550m, thus longer than 5 blocks. Seems a strange unit of measurement.
|
how many people are 1.5km from a grocery store? 500m is fine. Anyhow, you're going to have to then find many open spaces to put government grocery stores. you'll need to create a supply chain etc. What a mess.
The best thing to do is threaten to do it. Lots of posturing and finger wagging. Get stores to bend on the highest-priced, highest-quality items. Then, Call it a day.
Trying to implement it fully will be a logistical nightmare. You do have to make it really appear you're going to do it though.
Mamdani will need Ronald Reagan level acting skills to scare the grocery industry. I think he can pull it off.
|
United States24753 Posts
Republicans have just strongly rejected the softened Democratic offer for a one-year extension to the health care tax credits in exchange for what republicans are asking for. Not, "that doesn't quite work," but rather an implied, "Wait, you think we're going to give you anything other than a promise that we can renege on later? Nope."
Democrats really have no choice, it seems. Either dig in, or never have power again. The GOP is making that abundantly clear.
|
On November 08 2025 09:49 micronesia wrote:
Republicans have just strongly rejected the softened Democratic offer for a one-year extension to the health care tax credits in exchange for what republicans are asking for. Not, "that doesn't quite work," but rather an implied, "Wait, you think we're going to give you anything other than a promise that we can renege on later? Nope."
Democrats really have no choice, it seems. Either dig in, or never have power again. The GOP is making that abundantly clear.
I'm not sure if this past week's blue wave of election wins is related to MAGA/Trump/Republicans sabotaging the government and screwing over the American people, but if Congressional Democrats believe that that link exists, then they should feel further validated that they're doing the right thing and actually being perceived by the majority of people as doing the right thing by standing up to Congressional Republicans.
|
On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food.
It's New York City. You can walk to food. Bread is the staple food of the entire Western hemisphere. No need to pathologize it.
If you're walking, you're burning calories of the "nutritionally unsatisfying" pizza slice that you chose to eat instead of cooking for yourself even though it's cheaper because it takes more time and you're poor and don't know how to cook and eat healthy even if given money and access to supermarkets which you don't shop at.
You're living in a poor area then you're saving money on rent. You don't have a car then you're saying money on that. You want to save even more money, don't spend money on the expensive burritos or pizza slices. Use the savings to take widely available public transportation 2-3km to a supermarket. If people don't do this out of choice it has yet to rise to the level of being the government's problem. This is not a starving people issue. The name food desert is extraordinarily misleading.
Also, I live in a work desert: I have to commute 15km to work!
On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness.
It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world.
Most supermarkets do have produce which is why the category of supermarket exists and is called that instead of convenience store.
|
On November 08 2025 13:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food. It's New York City. You can walk to food. Bread is the staple food of the entire Western hemisphere. No need to pathologize it. If you're walking, you're burning calories of the "nutritionally unsatisfying" pizza slice that you chose to eat instead of cooking for yourself even though it's cheaper because it takes more time and you're poor and don't know how to cook and eat healthy even if given money and access to supermarkets which you don't shop at. You're living in a poor area then you're saving money on rent. You don't have a car then you're saying money on that. You want to save even more money, don't spend money on the expensive burritos or pizza slices. Use the savings to take widely available public transportation 2-3km to a supermarket. If people don't do this out of choice it has yet to rise to the level of being the government's problem. This is not a starving people issue. The name food desert is extraordinarily misleading. Also, I live in a work desert: I have to commute 15km to work! Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness.
It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world. Most supermarkets do have produce which is why the category of supermarket exists and is called that instead of convenience store.
If you're living in a food desert, you're also commuting a fair amount of time to get to work. It all adds up to significant barriers to eating healthily with the obvious outcome of a sicker population. This leads to weaker growth and lower productivity, while making your healthcare more expensive.
You're probably not incorrect in pointing out that even if fresh produce was available, the majority of people in these areas would not be buying it anyway. People are set in their ways and it's unlikely that this initiative will have a strong short term impact. However, without access, you are simply ensuring this outcome will never change.
Making sure everyone has fresh food available near their homes should be seen as an investment. You have systemically shut these people out of healthy food options, it can only get better from here.
|
On November 08 2025 13:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food. It's New York City. You can walk to food. Bread is the staple food of the entire Western hemisphere. No need to pathologize it. If you're walking, you're burning calories of the "nutritionally unsatisfying" pizza slice that you chose to eat instead of cooking for yourself even though it's cheaper because it takes more time and you're poor and don't know how to cook and eat healthy even if given money and access to supermarkets which you don't shop at. You're living in a poor area then you're saving money on rent. You don't have a car then you're saying money on that. You want to save even more money, don't spend money on the expensive burritos or pizza slices. Use the savings to take widely available public transportation 2-3km to a supermarket. If people don't do this out of choice it has yet to rise to the level of being the government's problem. This is not a starving people issue. The name food desert is extraordinarily misleading. Also, I live in a work desert: I have to commute 15km to work! Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness.
It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world. Most supermarkets do have produce which is why the category of supermarket exists and is called that instead of convenience store.
Bit different, but I agree American commute times are insane too, and another thing you should try to address! 15km doesn't sound too bad, but I hear 2-hour commutes are not uncommon and that is effing nuts. If it's truly a choice, because you decided you want to live in a different city: fine. If you actually wanted to live nearer to your work but the salary they pay doesn't allow you to afford the rent, that's a serious problem.
*Checks Mamdani's program...* 
|
On November 08 2025 18:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 13:52 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On November 08 2025 01:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:On November 07 2025 17:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
The "State run grocery stores idea" by Mamdani is for food deserts.
Food deserts is where the "Market" has failed and food is only sold at scalping prices, because ordinary supermarkets have closed down.
When banks fail, they get "state run bailouts".
When industrial corporations fail, they get "state run investments" (Intel)
When oilcompanies have mishaps with tankers leaking, they get "State run cleanups"
When owners of NPPs need a safe forever storage for their FUBAR fuel rods, they get a "State run storage".
When big time landowners (R) aka "Farmers" have the slightest of bubus , they get "additional state run buying programms to stabilize prices" - even from Trump, who created the china-bubu by needless tariff war.
When people get a subsidy on food to pay normal prices that usually are sufficient to make 2nd gen owners of enterprises like the Walton Jrs. earn more than GOD - it's of course
> EXTREMIST-ISLAMO-FACIST-MARXISM <
But seeing a horse shaped shadow, I don't assume it's from a zebra, so I just assume that a state-run grocery store just threatens the scalping. And if it works .. the food prices and monopolies might be looked into nation wide.
A "food desert" in NYC is a place that's over half a mile (800 meters) from a supermarket. In the city. No matter how many Chipotles and bakeries and $2 pizza joints are around you. It's purely about supermarkets which people aren't starving in NYC from a lack of. I don't know who is out of food at 1000 meters that would be the pinnacle of nutrition at 500 meters. People live in food deserts because they're also places where housing is cheaper. If they have a car, 800 meters doesn't matter. If they don't have a car, they are also saving on that and can easily use public transportation in a city. Yet despite giving people money for food if they spend the money at bodegas instead of supermarkets such that a supermarket won't stay open, at a certain point you have to accept their habits are based on convenience and they're not going to use the government supermarket either. Hard to stay healthy if the food options around you are chipotle, bakeries and pizza. In the end, this costs everyone else because a sicker society makes for more expensive healthcare across the board. Now that I have moved back to Spain, I hadn't realised just quite how bad it was. In Spanish cities it's normal to have greengrocers on almost every block (there's two on my block). You can get really cheap veg that is perfectly ripe for very little money. The greengrocer around the corner from me puts up 2kg bags of almost but not quite overripe veg for 1 euro -- it's actually really good but you gotta cook it straight away. A lot of the time these guys talk, it’s a huge self report imo. Imagine living in an environment where you’re dependant on Chipotle (expensive, fast food), bakeries (nutritionally unsatisfying beyond calories), and $2 pizza joints (again, nutritionally unsatisfying) for your nearby walkable solutions of obtaining food. It's New York City. You can walk to food. Bread is the staple food of the entire Western hemisphere. No need to pathologize it. If you're walking, you're burning calories of the "nutritionally unsatisfying" pizza slice that you chose to eat instead of cooking for yourself even though it's cheaper because it takes more time and you're poor and don't know how to cook and eat healthy even if given money and access to supermarkets which you don't shop at. You're living in a poor area then you're saving money on rent. You don't have a car then you're saying money on that. You want to save even more money, don't spend money on the expensive burritos or pizza slices. Use the savings to take widely available public transportation 2-3km to a supermarket. If people don't do this out of choice it has yet to rise to the level of being the government's problem. This is not a starving people issue. The name food desert is extraordinarily misleading. Also, I live in a work desert: I have to commute 15km to work! On November 08 2025 06:21 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
If we expand to supermarkets, what are these supermarkets providing? Do they have a fresh deli or produce section? Because a lot of these American supermarkets in these food deserts do not have either. Which again, you have nutritionally unsatisfying food options that immensely calories and sodium dense but don’t have a lick of freshness.
It’s a food desert for a reason, these environments would be considered shitholes for the majority of the world. Most supermarkets do have produce which is why the category of supermarket exists and is called that instead of convenience store. Bit different, but I agree American commute times are insane too, and another thing you should try to address! 15km doesn't sound too bad, but I hear 2-hour commutes are not uncommon and that is effing nuts. If it's truly a choice, because you decided you want to live in a different city: fine. If you actually wanted to live nearer to your work but the salary they pay doesn't allow you to afford the rent, that's a serious problem. *Checks Mamdani's program...* It probably doesn't help that typical American suburbs are a lot lower density then in Europe, which leads to more area needed to house similar populations and therefor longer drives.
Also less mixed zoning which leads to shopping area's being further away from homes.
|
Has anyone ever pressed Trump on his claims about prices going 500-1000% down? He keeps saying that nonsense. I wonder if our local Trump fans feel a little embarrassed. ;-)
|
You’re not going to burn the calories you consume eating two slices of cheap fat laden pizza walking a mile to the store. By design, pizza and breads are not satiating foods for the amount of calories they provide. Sure, breads are staple foods but Europeans that actually eat healthy, as an example of a bread eating region, supplement bread with not more bread but whole foods that are nutritionally dense and satiating to the appetite.
A lot of supermarkets in actual food deserts do have a significantly atrophied fresh produce and whole foods section. Maybe New York City is different due to demographics/density, I don’t live there, but it is not uncommon for supermarkets in poorer areas to be like nothing but 95% packaged food products. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy that poor people in areas with no quick access to fresh produce are conditioned to eat much cheaper processed meals, which in turn produces a never ending cycle of poor people always having way worse health outcomes and always having bad eating habits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
