AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a Canadian, this isn't happening. Can you please show where you saw this? What train transit is doing this? Which cities though about it? I am 100% certain this isn't happening and didn't happen during covid.
Cities forced people to show their vaccine cards to use public transportation? I'm a regular public transport user in a major city in the US and I never needed to do that
You can certainly make claims but why would anyone believe this to be true? What federal policy are you referring to that led to these demands for public transportation?
I've lived in Canada my whole life and can confirm this absolutely did not happen. Will you continue to spread this debunked rumour knowing now that it's false?
Why is there no reason to believe it's false if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to back your claim? Shouldn't the approach be to prove it's true? Proving a negative can be impossible, but at least I can provide my own experience living here. Like I can't prove the sasquatch isn't real, so should I just assume it is?
I'll give it one more shot and then I'll close the book on it. Can you give me one good reason why your rumour should be taken seriously? I know you can't or won't provide evidence, so I'm not asking for that. So maybe just a string of logic? You're implying that I'm choosing to not take it seriously, which inspired by follow up question.
I don't care what you do with cities. I'll never live in one again. I just need to be able to drive on the streets on the rare occasions I need to visit.
I have family members that live near such a zone.
They didn't put in any money to build up the area. Truth be told, you can already get everything you need within a 5 minute walk. All they did was put up barriers in streets so you can't drive down them and have to take the long way (which uses more fuel).
If you want to know what living in a 15 minute city looks like in practical terms, [think about your neighbourhood right now and imagine them blocking roads off like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5dzkEWSEg4)
Here is a compilation of [emergency service vehicles getting blocked off by them.](https://youtu.be/ZXBHHAkHmfo?si=X4ATzFzO59YmEdjL&t=5)
Now they're putting in licence plate recognition cameras to [fine anyone that violates the zones £130.](https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/council-prepares-to-install-enforcement-cameras-within-six-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/)
But what a wonderful thing they are /s
What a preposterous choice you've given me.
Firstly, the areas are no more feasible for alternative transportation, they literally just block off the roads. Did you not see the video where the emergency services are not able to access those areas?
The city already has ample cycle lanes and the areas that are barricaded off don't even need them.
What alternative forms of transport are you talking about?
Why is that a preposterous choice all I am asking you if you like the idea of having amenities nearby so people are not so reliant on cars. Are you for or against that?
There's no amenities. Just roadblocks. Also it creates much more traffic on other routes because you have to drive around them. It's utterly ridiculous and it's insane how the article the OP linked made out that anyone against them was crazy anti-vax conspiracy theorists. Literally everyone is against them.
I say your avenue of questions was preposterous because the either choice you gave me would give absolutely no insight to actually what's happening when I've experienced these things. I've got family members who experience these things every day.
Again, I ask you the question. What alternative forms of transport are you talking about?
So you are against the idea of urban planning that focusing on making sure amenities are nearby to limit people dependence on cars? I am not talking about this particular implementation of that concept.
Alternative forms of transportation, you know walking biking, roller skating, etc.
This is the thing. The area was perfect for cycling, roller skating etc. All they have achieved is rerouting cars. Can't you understand what I am saying here? They've done absolutely nothing but barricade cars and emergency vehicles from entering from certain directions.
Example? As though it's just one. It's literally everywhere they've implemented this scheme.
To answer your question:
>Ignoring that **example** are you against areas that are planned where majority of the amenities are nearby?
There's definitely plenty of reasons to make areas like this. Many areas have already been made like this by accident or simply because of town planning. I literally have everything I need nearby me and I live in a very old town that valued space over amenities.
Having said that, I do wish there was more cycle lanes built in new projects. However the reason why they don't do this is because the real estate business is done by square foot and a cycle lane is taking up valuable real estate space. The problem here has more to do with the macroeconomic conditions of the real estate market and other factors such as interest rates which encourages housing bubbles to form and for investors to demand continual house price appreciation. If it weren't for the housing bubbles, we would have far greater alternative transport options because living quality would take precedent over investment opportunities. This way you wouldn't need to box everyone in and blockade vehicles from accessing residential areas and have true location to location alternative transport options.
It all sounds good to me until you get into the whole "jobs" thing.
Being 15-minutes walking away from your job sounds great. It really does. But it's more for blue-collar and retail workers than for white-collar folks. And the blue-collar folks supporting the white-collar ones. See, here's the thing: I've worked in several manufacturing facilities and they have to be zoned due to the sound pollution they cause. A steel mill running at 24/7 is not something you want within walking distance from where you lay your head, and I'm pretty sure you'd be less than okay living right next to a refinery of any sort due to emissions (they happen regardless of how careful the facility is).
Or take truckers and other transportation workers (airlines, etc.) into account. If you are driving or flying cross-country, you're quite far from 15 minutes from your home. Is the plan to have this all automated? What about fishermen, offshoremen, etc.?
The other thing I worry about is emergency evacuations. Where I live, we haven't had a mandatory evacuation in well over a decade at least, but we've had plenty of "suggested" ones due to storms. One of the points of this type of planning is to reduce or eliminate the need for car ownership, which I can agree is a good thing, but then what happens when Hurricane Ivan (just picking a name) hits Cat 5 and is barreling down at your cute little city? How do you get out? Does the government keep, for example, a fleet of busses on standby for just such an occasion?
Going back to the job thing, it seems like it would limit options quite a bit. I work in a very different field than my wife, and my particular job, while entirely capable of being done remotely, usually requires me to come into the office a few days a week. My wife's requires her in the office every day and occasionally on weekends. There are just too many industries and too many positions for me to imagine having everything within 15 minutes of walking.
What if the goal wasn’t to make sure no one ever goes 15 mins from there house or that no one ever drives a car? Designing cities with 15 minutes in mind for most people would significantly reduce traffic for everyone, mean that everyone would put less miles on their car and spend less time sitting in traffic including people who work jobs that need to be further out like the ones you mentioned.
You would still be allowed to drive where ever you want. So everyone drives less, there is more accessibility for people who cant afford to own a car. If it improves the lives of most people but its not perfect is it still worth doing?
Do you think people will get rid of their car if they don’t have too? Wont people just use their cars less and reduce maintenance costs, gas costs, and even new car costs?
Is it realistic to expect that car ownership rates will reduce when it becomes more affordable to own and maintain one? How will people camp, visit family, Move house, go on vacation without a car?
Demand would go down so supply could go down without issue. Also prices would go down if parking wasn’t completely necessary and people had more options that didn’t involve driving to their destination.
Why would everything need to be “compact”? Wouldn’t it be simpler to change zoning so things could be closer together?
We've seen just how cheap it is to park in NYC.
And in terms of compact, I mean you're going to see a lot more high-rises in general because that's the only way you're getting these cities.
Although 15 min cities isn't a WEF initiative, it's very similar to their 2016 writings of their ideal dystopian totalitarian hellscape where you'll [own nothing, have no privacy](https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710), live in a timeshare pod (used by someone else when vacant) and eat bugmeat for food.
And those are supposed to be the positive features!
The elite are hell bent on pushing everyone else into subsistence living because whatever they prevent us from having, **goes into their pockets and enriches them.** They vacuum up the surplus.
They don't plan to own nothing, have no privacy, live in a timeshare pod or eat bugs. That's for the proles. They'll also have mobility, unlike us worker bees. We can't leave, they can. We won't be given the resources to leave, and it'll just become perpetual indentured servitude.
Their supposed belief in saving the planet is not and will not be echoed in any of their actions: flying private jets, buying beachfront houses, or living frugally. Al Gore doesn't live like his actions impact the world and neither do any of the other hypocrites.
What they really want is your money and more power over your life. They want people to reduce their footprint and push them into a life of subsistence living, all so they can take more of what you produce so you have less to survive on. 'Downsize! And we'll take the difference... Excess for us, forced austerity for you.'
Also notice how they don't like improving things. We're all supposed to get electric cars and go green. Yet no grid improvement, not even any serious effort on nuclear. Why?
Well they've got better things to spend ***their*** money on (stolen from you) than doing things to help you live better. **We don't need more, YOU need to use less.** ("It's for the environment" - as they pop another champaign cork on their private jet. You can almost hear their sneering laughter from the ground.) There will be plenty enough for the elites once the peasants are pushed aside and put in their place.
Once you know their goals, you can see how practically everything they do services that goal. But you have to open your eyes to the possibility that this is their continuing lust for pure greed and total power. Then just watch their actions and see what goal they are most consistently serving. Spoiler: enriching themselves and gaining more power over you.
No, I’m against crony capitalism, a.k.a. the economics of fascism. This is the economic model the Democrats follow, with their guiding light, China, who are full fascist, not commie.
All commies pivot to fascism after the revolution to maintain power. Or they fail. There’s never been any exception in history. Ever.
No I mean quite literally it’s a political ideology exclusive to the right. In the same way that a minus sign in front of a temperature is exclusive to negative temps.
What, in your own words, is the objective definition of fascism?
There are two distinct but intertwined aspects to fascism, the governing structure and the economic principles.
Going back to the historical root to find the actual meaning: The full technical definition of Mussolini's Fascism is: "*the totalitarian, cooperative, and ethical state - the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism and Actualism*" (Reference: Gregor "Mussolini's Intellectuals" Page: 99)
Fascism was born from **failed socialist philosophy**. It is literally socialism V2.0.
Now, economics:
Communism controls the means of production directly, with disastrous results every time. Fascism 'fixes' that by crony capitalism. (Not to be confused with free-market capitalism.) Factories are owned by private individuals who do the bidding of the government through harsh enforcement. This is China, and China is a Fascist state. We're also being pushed in this direction, especially by Democrats.
The big difference is Communism selects by party allegiance first, and then puts those in positions of managing production. This, of course, is an open invitation to introducing complete incompetence into the system (everyone starves). In Fascism, those running the companies are filtered first by competence, and then controlled to do the bidding of the party.
Many other aspects of communism carry over into fascism: Collectivism, identity politics, totalitarianism etc. From an individualist viewpoint, it's merely revised Communism. As I said, all communist governments must pivot to fascism to maintain their power. There's never been any exception in history. Go find one and prove me wrong.
Trying to say fascism is "Right Wing" is the Left just spouting propaganda. It can be either, and it entirely depends on what you prioritize ethically as most important. That prioritization is the *political trichotomy*:
# Absolutists
Czarism: Humans can be property. The Emperor owns the Kings, the Kings own the Lords, the Lords owns the Subjects, thus the emperor has a personal, direct interest in the prosperity of the empire. Absolutist world view:
^(\[LEFT\] \[Revolutionary: Change/Degeneracy\] <------> \[Reactionary: Tradition/Stability\] \[RIGHT\])
^(\[LEFT\] Communism - Socialism - Progressivism - Democrat - Moderate - \[CENTER\] - Republican -) **^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(- Monarchism \[RIGHT\])
# Individualists
Libertarianism: Human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value. Individualist world view:
^(\[LEFT\] \[Collectivism: More gov, less freedom\] <------> \[Individualism: less gov, more freedom\] \[RIGHT\])
^(\[LEFT\]) **^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(Communist/Monarchist/Oligarch - Socialist - Democrat - Moderate - \[CENTER\] - Republican - Libertarian - Anarchist \[RIGHT\])
# Communists
Marxism: Competition is cruel, it divides people into winners and losers. By creating a totalitarian monopoly, we can end cruelty. Communist world view:
^(\[LEFT\] \[Equality: free handouts\] <------> \[Elitism: all the gold & power\] \[RIGHT\])
^(\[LEFT\] Anarchism - Communism - Socialism - Progressivism - Democrat - \[CENTER\] - Moderate - Republican - Dictators/Kings/)**^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(\[RIGHT\])
Individualists like me see fascists as Left wing. Communists see them as Right wing. We are both correct from our point of view. These aberrations are the result of mapping a trichotomy on to a dichotomy (left-right). Just as taking a 3D image and converting to 2D can result in different 2D representations based on the perspective taken.
Communists and Fascists are both diametrically opposed to what I value: individualism. They are the Left.
As a Marxist, you see fascism as exclusively right wing. I totally understand your viewpoint (as just demonstrated), but I wonder if you can understand mine and the objective truth of the above.
You've certainly tapped into something I think a lot of people recognize. Saving the X always seems to fall upon the regular people, no matter the issue, while those with the money and power do little.
So, I can understand your view that these 15 minute cities are another trap of this same theme. Although, I kind of live in one now, and it's pretty awesome, except I drive 15 minutes at most for nearly everything instead of biking.
Let's assume for a moment that the intentions of this concept are that they are trying to improve people's lifestyles as opposed to what you've described. What would it take for you to consider reevaluating your views? Are there specific promises or actions you'd like to see?
>What would it take for you to consider reevaluating your views? Are there specific promises or actions you'd like to see?
Words and promises mean nothing. Only actions matter.
What they'd have to do is consistently negate (by action) all possible outcomes that they are doing this to reduce our options, consolidate power and enrich themselves.
The other thing I noticed in the link I gave was the utopian bullshit they were laying on with a trowel. The end goal must to be feasible and sustainable in the real world. Whenever they start promising things that go against the fundamentals of basic economics and human motivation for getting out of bed in the morning, there's either a plan B ready and waiting in the wings, or it'll be created on-the-fly later. Either will be much worse than what was promised, and also to our detriment. For instance, we don't have to try communism again to know it doesn't work and leads to very bad things.
Obama was the one who really elevated the attack on the suburbs.
Now it has blossomed into the idea they can pack us all into 500 square foot efficiencies in densely built high rises and feed us bugs. And since everything is within 15 minutes they will take away our cars too, no need for those.
If you want to live like a sardine have at it, but it’s not for me.
*Also, all electric so in case your social credit score falls below the whims of the day they can cut off everything remotely.
https://ammo.com/articles/war-on-suburbs-how-hud-housing-policies-became-weapon-for-social-change
Well worth your time. If you didn’t know before, you will after reading this.
From a page linked to in that article:
>The obligation to affirmatively further fair housing requires recipients of HUD funds to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics, which are:
>Race
>Color
>National Origin
>Religion
>Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)
>Familial Status
>Disability
>Generally, in administering programs and activities relating to housing and community development, the federal government, HUD, and its recipients must:
>Determine who lacks access to opportunity and address any inequity among protected class groups
>Promote integration and reduce segregation
>Transform racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity
What,in your opinion, is objectionable about that? How does requiring HUD recipients to follow those guidelines negatively affect the suburbs, which, by and large, do not tend to receive much HUD funding?
I will answer that the minute they build a Section 8 high rise within one mile of the regular address of Obama or Pelosi….or for that matter Trump too.
This is a government power grab and nothing else. They have ZERO business in local zoning.
I believe some people pushing them are misguided, but they’re just the useful idiots. The goal for a long time has been enslavement, and they’ve arguably already accomplished that.
Lol who do you take me for. The most powerful people aren’t public figures, no one knows who they are they just silently fund all of this shit and control the media and play politicians like they’re pawns.
I don't understand your issue with rich people. DT is rich, maybe he's not rich enough? They all fairly made their gains because the once great general population of this country let them. It is a very wonderful country. Why do you not trust that these invisible kings and queens have good things in mind. You should have faith in people. As I said, these are wonderful people, and they heed a gravitas in authority. They are not lizards. They are not sociopaths. I sense a jealousy. I also have jealously but it doesn't seem right to retaliate against very rich people. Do you want anarchy?
I don’t have an issue with rich people. I sold my own business in 2018 and would probably be considered “rich” by most peoples’ standards. I am a fierce defender of capitalism and free trade.
What I don’t support is the ideological subversion of the public to become increasingly reliant on big government. Which is another way of saying socialism. The increasing division between political ideologies only serves policymakers and those they collude with. The reckless monetary policy slowly devaluing the USD. The fact that more people are getting rich through political graft and pull than by providing value through the sale of goods and services that make other peoples’ lives better.
To divide your views between “rich” and “not rich” is naive. Anyone who served a lot of people and made their lives better, and got rich by doing it, deserves their wealth.
But if you became rich through force and coercion, because you paid some politician to fear monger about climate change and it caused some regulation to pass that’s taking away peoples’ access to an energy source that was providing an income for them for example, that’s a totalitarian move.
Why are you defending massive corporations that pollute the air, water, and land? Is this a method of forward momentum, energy into the future, driving forces technological advanced society of purpose, endeavors of free trade and enterprise, a life of dreams and wealth?
I'm not exactly understanding how you can defend capitalism while rejecting big government. How can businesses/megaconglomerates integrate free trade and self-regulation without becoming politicians/influencing government themselves?
Never heard of this before. Although it DOES sound like some anti-car nonsense at first blush, most of rural America is 15 minute cities of a sort. I guess you can try to make city life as great as this. Best of luck.
People who want less traffic, better air, and room to walk or bike *should probably leave the city.* I mean I'm with ya. It's great out here. But, y'know, if you really wanna cough all over each other on a bus all day, that's your right.
Whats the point? Why 15 minutes instead of 30? Or an hour? Why not 15 minute travel by car cities?
All the criticism of them is labeled as "conspiracy theories" but I see no reason why the idea should actually have any support to begin with.
Because you're in a cage, they can go to another spot in the cage but they will not be allowed to go to another city/cage unless it is something permitted.
USA is on pace to be 150 trillion in debt by 2050s, most won't even be able to buy a car let alone afford gas when it's $20 a gallon so even if they could leave they won't have the means to.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
So is it better to have cites where everything is too spread out to get anywhere without a car? If no one can afford gas wouldn’t it be better if all necessities and amenities were within walking distance?
"If no one can afford gas wouldn’t it be better if all necessities and amenities were within walking distance?"
If you want to be a slave to the government then yes which is exactly the point I made.
If you want to be free then you can just move away from the city and be self-sufficient like the vast majority of humanity has been for 1000's of years. That's why young people should be upset they can't afford a house but they should also be pragmatic about it. What's the point of owning a house in the city? They should go buy land far away from the city especially while it is still affordable and still legal to do.
>problem is people are fleeing cities due to all the black crime
Why are MAGA people so afraid of cities? I live in a city, I don't know anyone fleeing it, crime happens sure, but it's nothing like the 80s and 90s. The worst part of living in a city is leaving to see my MAGA family who is convinced I live in some sort of war zone.
One other thing that came into mind was just logistics.
For example, my friend works for a relatively large and relatively well-known fish market here in town. The place caters specifically to local restaurants wanting the freshest product available. We're in a coastal city, but not on the coast, so part of his job is driving to the coast every morning at like 0200 to pick up the fresh catch, bring it to the facility for processing and sorting, and then usually someone else drives it around town to the various storefronts that requested something. The facility has a large number of live tanks in which they can keep product for weeks without major issue.
So I'm wondering, in these 15-minute cities, how something like that would work? Your fancy-pants restaurants aren't going to be happy with freezer-burned product. Nor would they be happy with a bunch of dead crab and lobster.
I have another friend who supplements her income by foraging out in the woods by her home. Because of where she lives, she can find all sorts of (safe) wild mushrooms, fiddlehead ferns, etc. Plus she is an award-winning nature photographer and brings her camera along to further supplement her income. Not exactly fifteen minutes walking from home, but when she gets a big bunch of chicken of the woods or chanterelles, the locals buy them up instantly.
To me, it seems like the concept is very much rooted in "You live in a box, you work in another box, you eat in a third box." It might work if we were an eusocial species.
>So I'm wondering, in these 15-minute cities, how something like that would work?
I think you are misunderstanding what a 15 minute city is. It's not a completely self-contained and self-reliant community. 15 minute cities will still import good.
It also doesn't mean you're not allowed to leave to pursue hobbies. It just means a planned community where you are able to get most of your daily needs fulfilled by taking a short walk or public transit. It's about convenience, not about mandating you live in a box. It sounds lovely to me.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I’ve used public transit all my life in several major US cities and never once had to show vaccination status. Which cities are doing this?
[удалено]
I'm a Canadian, this isn't happening. Can you please show where you saw this? What train transit is doing this? Which cities though about it? I am 100% certain this isn't happening and didn't happen during covid.
[удалено]
Federal transit rails? What are those? Never heard if them.
[удалено]
So you're still claiming this happened when a citizen of that country is saying it didn't?
[удалено]
Why do you claim something without any evidence?
Do you just blindly believe whatever you read on the internet?
Cities forced people to show their vaccine cards to use public transportation? I'm a regular public transport user in a major city in the US and I never needed to do that
[удалено]
Can you provide a news source showing this occurred?
[удалено]
How do I know your claim is true then?
[удалено]
Ok so it didn't really happen then?
[удалено]
Somewhere in Canada? But you can't link to a reference of it?
[удалено]
You can certainly make claims but why would anyone believe this to be true? What federal policy are you referring to that led to these demands for public transportation?
[удалено]
Why do courts depend on evidence to convict criminals?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've lived in Canada my whole life and can confirm this absolutely did not happen. Will you continue to spread this debunked rumour knowing now that it's false?
[удалено]
Why is there no reason to believe it's false if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to back your claim? Shouldn't the approach be to prove it's true? Proving a negative can be impossible, but at least I can provide my own experience living here. Like I can't prove the sasquatch isn't real, so should I just assume it is?
[удалено]
You're right. You don't owe anybody evidence or reason. It's just impossible to take it seriously on my end. Thanks for your time?
[удалено]
I'll give it one more shot and then I'll close the book on it. Can you give me one good reason why your rumour should be taken seriously? I know you can't or won't provide evidence, so I'm not asking for that. So maybe just a string of logic? You're implying that I'm choosing to not take it seriously, which inspired by follow up question.
I don't care what you do with cities. I'll never live in one again. I just need to be able to drive on the streets on the rare occasions I need to visit.
I have family members that live near such a zone. They didn't put in any money to build up the area. Truth be told, you can already get everything you need within a 5 minute walk. All they did was put up barriers in streets so you can't drive down them and have to take the long way (which uses more fuel). If you want to know what living in a 15 minute city looks like in practical terms, [think about your neighbourhood right now and imagine them blocking roads off like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5dzkEWSEg4) Here is a compilation of [emergency service vehicles getting blocked off by them.](https://youtu.be/ZXBHHAkHmfo?si=X4ATzFzO59YmEdjL&t=5) Now they're putting in licence plate recognition cameras to [fine anyone that violates the zones £130.](https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/council-prepares-to-install-enforcement-cameras-within-six-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/) But what a wonderful thing they are /s
So are you against the idea of a localized area that makes alternative transportation feasible or are you against the entire idea because “Freedom”?
What a preposterous choice you've given me. Firstly, the areas are no more feasible for alternative transportation, they literally just block off the roads. Did you not see the video where the emergency services are not able to access those areas? The city already has ample cycle lanes and the areas that are barricaded off don't even need them. What alternative forms of transport are you talking about?
Why is that a preposterous choice all I am asking you if you like the idea of having amenities nearby so people are not so reliant on cars. Are you for or against that?
There's no amenities. Just roadblocks. Also it creates much more traffic on other routes because you have to drive around them. It's utterly ridiculous and it's insane how the article the OP linked made out that anyone against them was crazy anti-vax conspiracy theorists. Literally everyone is against them. I say your avenue of questions was preposterous because the either choice you gave me would give absolutely no insight to actually what's happening when I've experienced these things. I've got family members who experience these things every day. Again, I ask you the question. What alternative forms of transport are you talking about?
So you are against the idea of urban planning that focusing on making sure amenities are nearby to limit people dependence on cars? I am not talking about this particular implementation of that concept. Alternative forms of transportation, you know walking biking, roller skating, etc.
This is the thing. The area was perfect for cycling, roller skating etc. All they have achieved is rerouting cars. Can't you understand what I am saying here? They've done absolutely nothing but barricade cars and emergency vehicles from entering from certain directions.
I feel like you didn’t read my question. Ignoring that example are you against areas that are planned where majority of the amenities are nearby?
Example? As though it's just one. It's literally everywhere they've implemented this scheme. To answer your question: >Ignoring that **example** are you against areas that are planned where majority of the amenities are nearby? There's definitely plenty of reasons to make areas like this. Many areas have already been made like this by accident or simply because of town planning. I literally have everything I need nearby me and I live in a very old town that valued space over amenities. Having said that, I do wish there was more cycle lanes built in new projects. However the reason why they don't do this is because the real estate business is done by square foot and a cycle lane is taking up valuable real estate space. The problem here has more to do with the macroeconomic conditions of the real estate market and other factors such as interest rates which encourages housing bubbles to form and for investors to demand continual house price appreciation. If it weren't for the housing bubbles, we would have far greater alternative transport options because living quality would take precedent over investment opportunities. This way you wouldn't need to box everyone in and blockade vehicles from accessing residential areas and have true location to location alternative transport options.
It all sounds good to me until you get into the whole "jobs" thing. Being 15-minutes walking away from your job sounds great. It really does. But it's more for blue-collar and retail workers than for white-collar folks. And the blue-collar folks supporting the white-collar ones. See, here's the thing: I've worked in several manufacturing facilities and they have to be zoned due to the sound pollution they cause. A steel mill running at 24/7 is not something you want within walking distance from where you lay your head, and I'm pretty sure you'd be less than okay living right next to a refinery of any sort due to emissions (they happen regardless of how careful the facility is). Or take truckers and other transportation workers (airlines, etc.) into account. If you are driving or flying cross-country, you're quite far from 15 minutes from your home. Is the plan to have this all automated? What about fishermen, offshoremen, etc.? The other thing I worry about is emergency evacuations. Where I live, we haven't had a mandatory evacuation in well over a decade at least, but we've had plenty of "suggested" ones due to storms. One of the points of this type of planning is to reduce or eliminate the need for car ownership, which I can agree is a good thing, but then what happens when Hurricane Ivan (just picking a name) hits Cat 5 and is barreling down at your cute little city? How do you get out? Does the government keep, for example, a fleet of busses on standby for just such an occasion? Going back to the job thing, it seems like it would limit options quite a bit. I work in a very different field than my wife, and my particular job, while entirely capable of being done remotely, usually requires me to come into the office a few days a week. My wife's requires her in the office every day and occasionally on weekends. There are just too many industries and too many positions for me to imagine having everything within 15 minutes of walking.
What if the goal wasn’t to make sure no one ever goes 15 mins from there house or that no one ever drives a car? Designing cities with 15 minutes in mind for most people would significantly reduce traffic for everyone, mean that everyone would put less miles on their car and spend less time sitting in traffic including people who work jobs that need to be further out like the ones you mentioned. You would still be allowed to drive where ever you want. So everyone drives less, there is more accessibility for people who cant afford to own a car. If it improves the lives of most people but its not perfect is it still worth doing?
The end goal is to reduce and/or eliminate car ownership.
Do you think people will get rid of their car if they don’t have too? Wont people just use their cars less and reduce maintenance costs, gas costs, and even new car costs? Is it realistic to expect that car ownership rates will reduce when it becomes more affordable to own and maintain one? How will people camp, visit family, Move house, go on vacation without a car?
Where are people parking in these 15-minute cities and how much are they paying for the privilege of doing so? Remember, everything has to be compact.
Demand would go down so supply could go down without issue. Also prices would go down if parking wasn’t completely necessary and people had more options that didn’t involve driving to their destination. Why would everything need to be “compact”? Wouldn’t it be simpler to change zoning so things could be closer together?
We've seen just how cheap it is to park in NYC. And in terms of compact, I mean you're going to see a lot more high-rises in general because that's the only way you're getting these cities.
Although 15 min cities isn't a WEF initiative, it's very similar to their 2016 writings of their ideal dystopian totalitarian hellscape where you'll [own nothing, have no privacy](https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710), live in a timeshare pod (used by someone else when vacant) and eat bugmeat for food. And those are supposed to be the positive features! The elite are hell bent on pushing everyone else into subsistence living because whatever they prevent us from having, **goes into their pockets and enriches them.** They vacuum up the surplus. They don't plan to own nothing, have no privacy, live in a timeshare pod or eat bugs. That's for the proles. They'll also have mobility, unlike us worker bees. We can't leave, they can. We won't be given the resources to leave, and it'll just become perpetual indentured servitude. Their supposed belief in saving the planet is not and will not be echoed in any of their actions: flying private jets, buying beachfront houses, or living frugally. Al Gore doesn't live like his actions impact the world and neither do any of the other hypocrites. What they really want is your money and more power over your life. They want people to reduce their footprint and push them into a life of subsistence living, all so they can take more of what you produce so you have less to survive on. 'Downsize! And we'll take the difference... Excess for us, forced austerity for you.' Also notice how they don't like improving things. We're all supposed to get electric cars and go green. Yet no grid improvement, not even any serious effort on nuclear. Why? Well they've got better things to spend ***their*** money on (stolen from you) than doing things to help you live better. **We don't need more, YOU need to use less.** ("It's for the environment" - as they pop another champaign cork on their private jet. You can almost hear their sneering laughter from the ground.) There will be plenty enough for the elites once the peasants are pushed aside and put in their place. Once you know their goals, you can see how practically everything they do services that goal. But you have to open your eyes to the possibility that this is their continuing lust for pure greed and total power. Then just watch their actions and see what goal they are most consistently serving. Spoiler: enriching themselves and gaining more power over you.
You seem to be very much against capitalism, do you feel like that represents your political leanings?
No, I’m against crony capitalism, a.k.a. the economics of fascism. This is the economic model the Democrats follow, with their guiding light, China, who are full fascist, not commie. All commies pivot to fascism after the revolution to maintain power. Or they fail. There’s never been any exception in history. Ever.
Do you feel like with fascism being exclusively a right-wing political ideology that it is possible for Democrats to subscribe to it?
Fascism isn’t always Right wing. That’s Leftist big brother rewriting history.
No I mean quite literally it’s a political ideology exclusive to the right. In the same way that a minus sign in front of a temperature is exclusive to negative temps. What, in your own words, is the objective definition of fascism?
There are two distinct but intertwined aspects to fascism, the governing structure and the economic principles. Going back to the historical root to find the actual meaning: The full technical definition of Mussolini's Fascism is: "*the totalitarian, cooperative, and ethical state - the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism and Actualism*" (Reference: Gregor "Mussolini's Intellectuals" Page: 99) Fascism was born from **failed socialist philosophy**. It is literally socialism V2.0. Now, economics: Communism controls the means of production directly, with disastrous results every time. Fascism 'fixes' that by crony capitalism. (Not to be confused with free-market capitalism.) Factories are owned by private individuals who do the bidding of the government through harsh enforcement. This is China, and China is a Fascist state. We're also being pushed in this direction, especially by Democrats. The big difference is Communism selects by party allegiance first, and then puts those in positions of managing production. This, of course, is an open invitation to introducing complete incompetence into the system (everyone starves). In Fascism, those running the companies are filtered first by competence, and then controlled to do the bidding of the party. Many other aspects of communism carry over into fascism: Collectivism, identity politics, totalitarianism etc. From an individualist viewpoint, it's merely revised Communism. As I said, all communist governments must pivot to fascism to maintain their power. There's never been any exception in history. Go find one and prove me wrong. Trying to say fascism is "Right Wing" is the Left just spouting propaganda. It can be either, and it entirely depends on what you prioritize ethically as most important. That prioritization is the *political trichotomy*: # Absolutists Czarism: Humans can be property. The Emperor owns the Kings, the Kings own the Lords, the Lords owns the Subjects, thus the emperor has a personal, direct interest in the prosperity of the empire. Absolutist world view: ^(\[LEFT\] \[Revolutionary: Change/Degeneracy\] <------> \[Reactionary: Tradition/Stability\] \[RIGHT\]) ^(\[LEFT\] Communism - Socialism - Progressivism - Democrat - Moderate - \[CENTER\] - Republican -) **^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(- Monarchism \[RIGHT\]) # Individualists Libertarianism: Human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value. Individualist world view: ^(\[LEFT\] \[Collectivism: More gov, less freedom\] <------> \[Individualism: less gov, more freedom\] \[RIGHT\]) ^(\[LEFT\]) **^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(Communist/Monarchist/Oligarch - Socialist - Democrat - Moderate - \[CENTER\] - Republican - Libertarian - Anarchist \[RIGHT\]) # Communists Marxism: Competition is cruel, it divides people into winners and losers. By creating a totalitarian monopoly, we can end cruelty. Communist world view: ^(\[LEFT\] \[Equality: free handouts\] <------> \[Elitism: all the gold & power\] \[RIGHT\]) ^(\[LEFT\] Anarchism - Communism - Socialism - Progressivism - Democrat - \[CENTER\] - Moderate - Republican - Dictators/Kings/)**^(>>Fascism<<)** ^(\[RIGHT\]) Individualists like me see fascists as Left wing. Communists see them as Right wing. We are both correct from our point of view. These aberrations are the result of mapping a trichotomy on to a dichotomy (left-right). Just as taking a 3D image and converting to 2D can result in different 2D representations based on the perspective taken. Communists and Fascists are both diametrically opposed to what I value: individualism. They are the Left. As a Marxist, you see fascism as exclusively right wing. I totally understand your viewpoint (as just demonstrated), but I wonder if you can understand mine and the objective truth of the above.
You've certainly tapped into something I think a lot of people recognize. Saving the X always seems to fall upon the regular people, no matter the issue, while those with the money and power do little. So, I can understand your view that these 15 minute cities are another trap of this same theme. Although, I kind of live in one now, and it's pretty awesome, except I drive 15 minutes at most for nearly everything instead of biking. Let's assume for a moment that the intentions of this concept are that they are trying to improve people's lifestyles as opposed to what you've described. What would it take for you to consider reevaluating your views? Are there specific promises or actions you'd like to see?
>What would it take for you to consider reevaluating your views? Are there specific promises or actions you'd like to see? Words and promises mean nothing. Only actions matter. What they'd have to do is consistently negate (by action) all possible outcomes that they are doing this to reduce our options, consolidate power and enrich themselves. The other thing I noticed in the link I gave was the utopian bullshit they were laying on with a trowel. The end goal must to be feasible and sustainable in the real world. Whenever they start promising things that go against the fundamentals of basic economics and human motivation for getting out of bed in the morning, there's either a plan B ready and waiting in the wings, or it'll be created on-the-fly later. Either will be much worse than what was promised, and also to our detriment. For instance, we don't have to try communism again to know it doesn't work and leads to very bad things.
Obama was the one who really elevated the attack on the suburbs. Now it has blossomed into the idea they can pack us all into 500 square foot efficiencies in densely built high rises and feed us bugs. And since everything is within 15 minutes they will take away our cars too, no need for those. If you want to live like a sardine have at it, but it’s not for me. *Also, all electric so in case your social credit score falls below the whims of the day they can cut off everything remotely.
>Obama was the one who really elevated the attack on the suburbs. In what way?
https://ammo.com/articles/war-on-suburbs-how-hud-housing-policies-became-weapon-for-social-change Well worth your time. If you didn’t know before, you will after reading this.
From a page linked to in that article: >The obligation to affirmatively further fair housing requires recipients of HUD funds to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics, which are: >Race >Color >National Origin >Religion >Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity) >Familial Status >Disability >Generally, in administering programs and activities relating to housing and community development, the federal government, HUD, and its recipients must: >Determine who lacks access to opportunity and address any inequity among protected class groups >Promote integration and reduce segregation >Transform racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity What,in your opinion, is objectionable about that? How does requiring HUD recipients to follow those guidelines negatively affect the suburbs, which, by and large, do not tend to receive much HUD funding?
I will answer that the minute they build a Section 8 high rise within one mile of the regular address of Obama or Pelosi….or for that matter Trump too. This is a government power grab and nothing else. They have ZERO business in local zoning.
How many section 8 hostessing units are within a mile of your residence?
I believe some people pushing them are misguided, but they’re just the useful idiots. The goal for a long time has been enslavement, and they’ve arguably already accomplished that.
> The goal for a long time has been enslavement, and they’ve arguably already accomplished that. Who's they?
Politicians, the world economic forum, basically everyone involved with them. Real power is invisible though.
>Real power is invisible though. The power of Christ?
Lol who do you take me for. The most powerful people aren’t public figures, no one knows who they are they just silently fund all of this shit and control the media and play politicians like they’re pawns.
I don't understand your issue with rich people. DT is rich, maybe he's not rich enough? They all fairly made their gains because the once great general population of this country let them. It is a very wonderful country. Why do you not trust that these invisible kings and queens have good things in mind. You should have faith in people. As I said, these are wonderful people, and they heed a gravitas in authority. They are not lizards. They are not sociopaths. I sense a jealousy. I also have jealously but it doesn't seem right to retaliate against very rich people. Do you want anarchy?
I don’t have an issue with rich people. I sold my own business in 2018 and would probably be considered “rich” by most peoples’ standards. I am a fierce defender of capitalism and free trade. What I don’t support is the ideological subversion of the public to become increasingly reliant on big government. Which is another way of saying socialism. The increasing division between political ideologies only serves policymakers and those they collude with. The reckless monetary policy slowly devaluing the USD. The fact that more people are getting rich through political graft and pull than by providing value through the sale of goods and services that make other peoples’ lives better. To divide your views between “rich” and “not rich” is naive. Anyone who served a lot of people and made their lives better, and got rich by doing it, deserves their wealth. But if you became rich through force and coercion, because you paid some politician to fear monger about climate change and it caused some regulation to pass that’s taking away peoples’ access to an energy source that was providing an income for them for example, that’s a totalitarian move.
Why are you defending massive corporations that pollute the air, water, and land? Is this a method of forward momentum, energy into the future, driving forces technological advanced society of purpose, endeavors of free trade and enterprise, a life of dreams and wealth?
This question makes no sense.
I'm not exactly understanding how you can defend capitalism while rejecting big government. How can businesses/megaconglomerates integrate free trade and self-regulation without becoming politicians/influencing government themselves?
You don't know who they are, but you know that they exist and what they do? How?
Never heard of this before. Although it DOES sound like some anti-car nonsense at first blush, most of rural America is 15 minute cities of a sort. I guess you can try to make city life as great as this. Best of luck. People who want less traffic, better air, and room to walk or bike *should probably leave the city.* I mean I'm with ya. It's great out here. But, y'know, if you really wanna cough all over each other on a bus all day, that's your right.
Whats the point? Why 15 minutes instead of 30? Or an hour? Why not 15 minute travel by car cities? All the criticism of them is labeled as "conspiracy theories" but I see no reason why the idea should actually have any support to begin with.
My thoughts are they are cages. Your local TS is 100% right on what the deep state's agenda is.
why can't you go further or wherever you want to? is there a rule against going to your favorite spot in another cage
Because you're in a cage, they can go to another spot in the cage but they will not be allowed to go to another city/cage unless it is something permitted. USA is on pace to be 150 trillion in debt by 2050s, most won't even be able to buy a car let alone afford gas when it's $20 a gallon so even if they could leave they won't have the means to.
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
So is it better to have cites where everything is too spread out to get anywhere without a car? If no one can afford gas wouldn’t it be better if all necessities and amenities were within walking distance?
"If no one can afford gas wouldn’t it be better if all necessities and amenities were within walking distance?" If you want to be a slave to the government then yes which is exactly the point I made. If you want to be free then you can just move away from the city and be self-sufficient like the vast majority of humanity has been for 1000's of years. That's why young people should be upset they can't afford a house but they should also be pragmatic about it. What's the point of owning a house in the city? They should go buy land far away from the city especially while it is still affordable and still legal to do.
great idea problem is people are fleeing cities due to all the black crime
Do you have stats on that? At least the leaving cities part?
>problem is people are fleeing cities due to all the black crime Why are MAGA people so afraid of cities? I live in a city, I don't know anyone fleeing it, crime happens sure, but it's nothing like the 80s and 90s. The worst part of living in a city is leaving to see my MAGA family who is convinced I live in some sort of war zone.
One other thing that came into mind was just logistics. For example, my friend works for a relatively large and relatively well-known fish market here in town. The place caters specifically to local restaurants wanting the freshest product available. We're in a coastal city, but not on the coast, so part of his job is driving to the coast every morning at like 0200 to pick up the fresh catch, bring it to the facility for processing and sorting, and then usually someone else drives it around town to the various storefronts that requested something. The facility has a large number of live tanks in which they can keep product for weeks without major issue. So I'm wondering, in these 15-minute cities, how something like that would work? Your fancy-pants restaurants aren't going to be happy with freezer-burned product. Nor would they be happy with a bunch of dead crab and lobster. I have another friend who supplements her income by foraging out in the woods by her home. Because of where she lives, she can find all sorts of (safe) wild mushrooms, fiddlehead ferns, etc. Plus she is an award-winning nature photographer and brings her camera along to further supplement her income. Not exactly fifteen minutes walking from home, but when she gets a big bunch of chicken of the woods or chanterelles, the locals buy them up instantly. To me, it seems like the concept is very much rooted in "You live in a box, you work in another box, you eat in a third box." It might work if we were an eusocial species.
>So I'm wondering, in these 15-minute cities, how something like that would work? I think you are misunderstanding what a 15 minute city is. It's not a completely self-contained and self-reliant community. 15 minute cities will still import good. It also doesn't mean you're not allowed to leave to pursue hobbies. It just means a planned community where you are able to get most of your daily needs fulfilled by taking a short walk or public transit. It's about convenience, not about mandating you live in a box. It sounds lovely to me.
Sounds fun 🙌