The GOP is Going Extinct in California (San Francisco, Commerce: moving to, retirement)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by SacTown11

I irony is, Latino's in other states are flocking to the GOP. Personally, I don't care. California will only have themselves to blame for continuing to elect the Union pandering stooges and I'll be long gone before they are "forced" to raise all taxes and fees to continue to pay for "vital" programs and SALARIES. Suck it California! This Independent is fleeing your insanity!

Yet another post from someone who thinks they can just move away from the problems. It isn't all that different in other states or in the US as a whole.

The financial problems faced in the US are also apparent in most other so-called "developed" countries. We'll see how developed we all are after we default or hyper-inflate away our debts.

[RCCCB]

Problem in CA is people wanting to vote themselves the treasury.

[SacTown11]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Yet another post from someone who thinks they can just move away from the problems. It isn't all that different in other states or in the US as a whole.

The financial problems faced in the US are also apparent in most other so-called "developed" countries. We'll see how developed we all are after we default or hyper-inflate away our debts.

Actually it is different, other states have a two-party system. California is a one party dictatorship, I'll pass - it is unAmerican.

Colorado is also the only state in the Union with a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Strike two California.

Strike three would be that only Illinois is in worse financial shape than California and the pain is going to come sooner than anyone thinks. It may even be too late for austerity.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by SacTown11

Actually it is different, other states have a two-party system. California is a one party dictatorship, I'll pass - it is unAmerican.

Colorado is also the only state in the Union with a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Strike two California.

Strike three would be that only Illinois is in worse financial shape than California and the pain is going to come sooner than anyone thinks. It may even be too late for austerity.

You make it sound that the California voters want a "dictatorship" rather than chose morons just because they are dissatisfied with "normal" legislators and leaders. I've used the analogy of asking for the hospital janitor to perform brain surgery because the patient is angry with the doctor! The Republican party in California continually opts for narrow-minded ideology that goes over great in states like Texas and Oklahoma but is rightly rejected by intelligent people. Do you know that the voters in Oklahoma in their extraordinary wisdom past an amendment that "Sharia Law" is banned in their state? With less than 1% Islamic population the hysteric Republicans of Oklahoma are afraid that Muslims are about to take over their judicial system. And the examples of GOP idiocy in Texas are just too many to list.

A reasonable person has to pause and really consider if they would ever support a Republican candidate since just identifying as a Republican suggests that there is something seriously lacking in the smarts department.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by californio sur

You make it sound that the California voters want a "dictatorship" rather than chose morons just because they are dissatisfied with "normal" legislators and leaders. I've used the analogy of asking for the hospital janitor to perform brain surgery because the patient is angry with the doctor! The Republican party in California continually opts for narrow-minded ideology that goes over great in states like Texas and Oklahoma but is rightly rejected by intelligent people. Do you know that the voters in Oklahoma in their extraordinary wisdom past an amendment that "Sharia Law" is banned in their state? With less than 1% Islamic population the hysteric Republicans of Oklahoma are afraid that Muslims are about to take over their judicial system. And the examples of GOP idiocy in Texas are just too many to list.

A reasonable person has to pause and really consider if they would ever support a Republican candidate since just identifying as a Republican suggests that there is something seriously lacking in the smarts department.

A reasonable person has to correctly portray and understand why certain thing take place and leave sensationalism aside.

Oklahoma did not pass an amendment to ban Sharia Law in the state. Oklahoma voters passed an amendment to ensure that Sharia Law could not be considered as a defense against violation of U.S. law by the courts which is absolutely as it should be. It was in response to a court finding in New Jersey regarding a marriage and involving the spousal rape of a 17-year old forced into marriage to a man she'd never met before.

I guess you enlightened "liberals" are in favor of public stonings, the lopping off of hands, total subjugation of women, etc. Good to know come the next elections! I don't know about you but I wouldn't support a party that approves of child molestation and other horrors no matter which one it was.

[.highnlite]

Sactown, it is fairly impossible to address your points. You appear to have made them up. As an example you stated:

I don't understand is how Democrats of today pretend Lincoln was not a Republican.

You have never heard or read about a Democrat pretending Lincoln was not a Republican. As long as you make stuff up, there is no point in attempting to give you a little learning. But, making stuff up does put you right in the Teabagger mainstream.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I agree with you on this point.

However, when those Southern Bible Belters were members of the Democratic party, the press didn't chastize them like they do Republicans. The Bible Belters are not the only wing of the party, as the press makes them out to be.

The big reason is that homosexuality had not some out of the closet yet. Before gay rights and abortion, the American public, whether religious or not, had little issue with the so-called Judeo-Christian values of the time. In fact, religion was generally looked on as a positive thing rather than a negative discriminatory thing as it is now. You can blame Moral Majority leaders of the 1980s such as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson for over-politicizing religion and turning it into the huge wedge that it is today.

I have a feeling that if religion was completely out of the picture, many people who are now die-hard Democrats because of social issues (young people) would become Republicans.

[.highnlite]

The basic difference between many Democrats and many Republicans is why they are there.
Liberal is based on hope
Conservatism is based on fear.

Now, this is not something I made up, it is a well recognized psychological difference. Conservatives, and Conservative movements all have two things in common, a strong leader to identify with, and a bogeyman, it could be commies, or socialists, or enviros or Mexicans, muslims, in history it could be the Jews, or the French, or the British, etc. It doesn't really matter, whatever is selected as the bogeyman serves the same function. The strong leader rallies the conservatives against the bogeyman and gains control of them in that fashion.

Liberals on the other hand do not require strong leaders, (which drives conservatives crazy, sure that liberals require strong leaders they cycle through names, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, etc, completely oblivious that liberal do not operate hierarchically as conservatives do)

Liberals tend toward global thinking, now, don't confuse that with globalism, not at all the same thing. Liberals do not create hierarchies in their thinking, they create coequality, that too differs from Conservatives.

Whether one is a liberal or a conservative depends on how their brain is wired, global and hope, or hierarchical and fear.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

The basic difference between many Democrats and many Republicans is why they are there.
Liberal is based on hope
Conservatism is based on fear.

Now, this is not something I made up, it is a well recognized psychological difference. Conservatives, and Conservative movements all have two things in common, a strong leader to identify with, and a bogeyman, it could be commies, or socialists, or enviros or Mexicans, muslims, in history it could be the Jews, or the French, or the British, etc. It doesn't really matter, whatever is selected as the bogeyman serves the same function. The strong leader rallies the conservatives against the bogeyman and gains control of them in that fashion.

Liberals on the other hand do not require strong leaders, (which drives conservatives crazy, sure that liberals require strong leaders they cycle through names, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, etc, completely oblivious that liberal do not operate hierarchically as conservatives do)

Liberals tend toward global thinking, now, don't confuse that with globalism, not at all the same thing. Liberals do not create hierarchies in their thinking, they create coequality, that too differs from Conservatives.

Whether one is a liberal or a conservative depends on how their brain is wired, global and hope, or hierarch and fear.

I think you have the meaning of the two turned around. I prefer not to lump any one group into one huge name, as many of us are conservative in some things and liberal in others. That being said, your idea of what the conservatives stand for is so far off base it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I have seen a heck of a lot of liberals try to put the fear on God into people, hoping to get their support.

Nita
Nita

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bchris02

The big reason is that homosexuality had not some out of the closet yet. Before gay rights and abortion, the American public, whether religious or not, had little issue with the so-called Judeo-Christian values of the time. In fact, religion was generally looked on as a positive thing rather than a negative discriminatory thing as it is now. You can blame Moral Majority leaders of the 1980s such as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson for over-politicizing religion and turning it into the huge wedge that it is today.

I have a feeling that if religion was completely out of the picture, many people who are now die-hard Democrats because of social issues (young people) would become Republicans.

Abortion wasn't identified as a "Republican issue" until the '80s.
Bobby and Ted Kennedy were pro-lifers (abortion was not yet an issue in JFK's presidency but based on the views of his brothers it's safe to assume he didn't favor legal abortion) while Goldwater was pro-choice (and for years the only US Senator sympathetic to gay concerns). Roe v. Wade caused both Reagan and Teddy to flip-flop on abortion, but Goldwater, Gerald Ford, etc. remained pro-choice until the end of their lives.
The California Beilenson Act which legalized abortion, although written by a Dem State Senator, had bipartisan support (in that far more functional '60s Legislature). Laws legalizing abortion in other US states were not passed nor opposed along party lines. To this day there are Dems in not only the South and Texas (where you'd expect that to be the case) but the Midwest and PA who are pro-lifers, and there are Republicans. mostly in the Northeast who are pro-choice. (Although many of those pro-life Dems got voted out of office this year, there are still a few) Winning GOP candidates for statewide office in CA are usually pro-choice (although Pete Wilson did a flip-flop on abortion in his second term due to his failed pursuit at the '96 GOP nomination).