Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?

As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.

The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.

Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein's replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?

US is by far it’s largest customer

That's true and there's also more to it.

The US is China's largest single trading partner but China has many many trading partners.

May nations now trade or at least negotiate in blocks. Both ASEAN and the UE, as blocks, do more trade with China than the US does. When it comes to individual nations the US isn't as far ahead as it might seem. Russia, Vietnam and Taiwan together trade more with China than the US does, despite having a combined GDP that's a tiny fraction of the US.

The key issue is that China has been working really hard to make itself less dependent on the US. They still have a way to go but they're much less vulnerable than they were a few years ago.

You might not be the target audience. I'm not currently the target audience either.

My wife and I are really into cooking. We have a whole bookshelf of cookbooks, a metrowire rack full of "kitchen stuff" and we use it daily.

There was definitely a time when this book would have been perfect. This book seems to cover a lot of stuff that's obvious to me now but wasn't always.

If you're food plan is a bulk package of Ramen, any help on how to make it not the same as every other day is culinary gold.

No.

It's actually worse than that. Very few borders are straight lines. We have to approximate the border when calculating land area.

I agree. So we should all rally around a candidate who actually has a chance to beat Trump rather than blindly following some guy who's comfortable handing over the White House as long as he, "tried his best."

It's true. Hamas is posting rookie numbers. They've got to up their death count by around 10x before they can be in Israel's league.

It's a fluff piece. They briefly describe some of the circumstances but don't explore any reasons behind them.

The one conjecture they do make, "some supermarket leaders may perceive low-income urban areas — particularly those inhabited by people of color— as higher-risk due to concerns about crime, vandalism or social instability" is contradicted later in the article. They cite 2 cases where supermarkets opened stores in these neighborhoods and operated them (one of them for 5 years). They would have had no need to guess. They had the balance sheets, income statements and cashflow statements so they would have known the answers down to all these questions down to the penny.

That said, the answer is fairly obvious. Companies want money. Companies close stores when those stores aren't making them enough money. As the article states, these companies regularly open stores in poor neighborhoods, they just close them quickly. That strongly suggests that they think they might be able to make money and when they try the are unable to figure out how.

It's also possible for someone to be a shitty person and a shitty author. There are tons of discussions on just how badly written HP is and that would be true even if she suddenly stopped being a horrible person.

Various sites estimate her net wealth between $1.5 and $2 million.

While that you can argue if that makes her rich, it definitely makes her a millionaire and she's certainly not broke.

What happens if he violates the conditions of the bond and the bail is in danger of being seized by the court?

Could Foster Bail Bonds LLC legally send a ~~bounty hunter~~ "bail recovery agent" after him? Would they?

If they're in it for the ratings I can't imagine better footage than having Duane Chapman kick in the door of a former president. OTOH if they go that route they'd be signing up for one hell of a wild ride with no way off. They either become the most famous bail bond company ever or they get completely crushed and the owners go to jail or worse.

The core problem, which causes that shortage, is that we have conflicting views on what housing is for.

On one hand, we want housing to be a right. On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.

Those are conflicting goals. We need to pick one and be ready to sacrifice the other.

If you want your house to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation. The only way for that to happen is if housing keeps getting more expensive on a real money basis. That's a fancy way of saying that housing will be a bigger and bigger chunk of income.

Every single policy that reduces the cost of housing also degrades its effectiveness as an investment. If people can get housing any time they want, they have no incentive to pay somebody a bunch of money to someone hoping to fund their retirement by downsizing.

Your suggesting to legalize more housing will destroy the ability of homeowners to make a profit off their homes. Even though I stand to earn huge amounts of money from the appreciation of my own house I would support that, but I'm afraid I'm in the minority. The US has a 65.9% home ownership rate and for most people their home is their single biggest asset. If we address the housing shortage those people will all see their single biggest investment asset drop in value.

there is a record number of vacant homes at the moment.

We're currently close to the record for all time lowest vacancy rates. We're at 6.3%. The highest (over the past 70 years) was in 2009, at 11.1%. It got down as far as 5% a few times. I downloaded the raw data and it says the average is 7.28%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N

There's a popular image of a bunch of Scrooge McDucks sitting on giant inventories of housing but the evidence doesn't support that. Someone saying, "I saw a bunch of empty houses." is exactly as logical an argument as a climate denier saying, "It's been cold all week." That's just an anecdote.

The data is very clear on the matter. We don't have enough housing.