Liberals in wildfire country (accuse, health care system, insurance, election)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know any "liberal elites" who said anything like this.
What we all have to think about is climate change and how and where it makes sense to rebuild. This has certainly been an issue in my area after Sandy. We all have to accept the new normal if we live near water.
"I don't know any "liberal elites" who said anything like this."
A very common post.
Becaue I do NOT know about it, it does NOT exist".
You may have lived out of state for a while before moving back, but your post above shows how clueless you are re how some people feel about the fiscal effect, and nanny state effect that progressives have had on California, and why that pi**es those people off. And I say that as a 5th generation Bay Area native who will be buried there, whose roots in the Bay Area go back to before 1848, can easily afford to live there, but who will never move back (unless many things change that will only change with a systemic implosion that probably won't happen within my lifetime) because I want as few of my dollars as possible to go to wastrel taxing entities whose policies and agendas I vehemently disagree with. In general, I find people I encounter who are more conservative to be a lot happier than the people I encounter who are progressives, even though I think it is a lot easier for progressives to be happier re fewer qualms about other people's money being spent.
I have found the exact opposite to be true: it is the conservatives who are bitter and angry, like you. I know very well that there are people who leave the state because they can't afford it. I don't like that, and I think we need to be finding solutions to that. You are right that I lived out of state for a while (5 years) and that I have been so happy to have moved back to CA. But I know I am lucky; lots of people can't afford to move back to the Bay Area. To me, it is worth it because of the people, the attitudes, the community, the weather, the landscape and nature around us - lots of reasons. I am not clueless about how bitter some people feel about the "nanny state." You can look at the world that way if you want. But I don't look at it that way. I am comfortable being a liberal in CA, and I have many, many friends who feel the same. But hey, you feel differently, and that's OK.
As a Louisiana resident I recall how so many liberals and Democrats mocked us and Texas during Hurricane Harvey saying why we would live on the Gulf coast, etc and that Houston shoudln't be rebuilt, and that New Orleans shouldn't have been rebuilt after Katrina (even though New Orleans and Houston are actually Blue cities located in Red states. NOLA in fact is a very liberal island). The liberal elites also have said the same about the Midwest after tornadoes.
So what about the liberals and why do they live in California where there are wildfires almost every year, and expect the rest of us to bail them out? And their recreational marijuana crops too? Or do they believe that even though there have always been wildfires in California, the ones now are due to global warming? No doubt FEMA will give the liberal elites all the money they need while they did almost nothing to help Louisiana after last year's floods and are acting very incompetnetly now in Texas.
This is so many kinds of wrong, I don't know where to start.
1. Hurricane Harvey was quite recently, I'd love if you could post two examples of liberals mocking the tragedy? I'm quite certain that you're recalling your imagination, not what actually happened. I don't know any liberal elites who mock tragedies, irrespective of who they affect. That is counter to liberal ideology.
2. The areas getting hit by the fires are are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. You said that we mocked liberal areas like Houston and New Orleans, so why aren't we mocking the rural conservative areas being hit by the fires?
The Socialist Left and the DNC always want more and none of them offer solutions......
Californian Libs make the whole state look bad. I know there is many Conservatives in California and the tide may change soon for these so call Public Servants.
I've seen a few people here suggest that coastal cities prone to hurricanes should not be rebuilt, but most of them have been conservatives.
If you really believe that the entire state of California is liberal, you need to get out more. There are some deeply conservative areas in that state, just as there are in New York.
Furthermore, if you believe that the aftermath of Harvey is being handled poorly in Texas, why are you blaming liberals? We don't control anything these days. Take it up with the esteemed Mr. Trump, and thank God you don't live in Puerto Rico.
Yes, thank you. I also distinctly remember those posts such as "why should my taxes pay for people live on the coast when they will just have another storm?"
And I could be wrong, but I have no idea which posts Dems and liberals wrote mocking the coastal dwellers.
It was basically an excuse for yet another grievance thread.
1) anyone saying what you mention in the first paragraph is an idiot. I know no one like that in real life. In fact, the people I know are completely the opposite, wanting to help. The company I work for has donated millions to FL and TX (one of our executives put in hundred of thousands of his own money). I'm in the Bay Area.
2) California is not a monolith. There is great diversity in regions between people. The rural areas, such as where these fires are hiting, are more conservative and Republican than the cities.
Anyone wishing ill on someone else because of politics is being stupid. Don't fall for the same pitfalls.
#1 is spot on.
#2 is factually inaccurate. Napa County voted 39,199 for Hillary Clinton vs. 17,411 for Donald Trump. Sonoma County voted 160,435 for Hillary Clinton vs. 51,408 for Donald Trump. The deadliest and most destructive fires are in these two counties. That should not change any sympathies for the victims and those impacted--the same as it should not when hurricanes hit Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
#1 is spot on.
#2 is factually inaccurate. Napa County voted 39,199 for Hillary Clinton vs. 17,411 for Donald Trump. Sonoma County voted 160,435 for Hillary Clinton vs. 51,408 for Donald Trump. The deadliest and most destructive fires are in these two counties. That should not change any sympathies for the victims and those impacted--the same as it should not when hurricanes hit Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
You are not looking that the fine detail. And are ignoring the words that I wrote. I wrote, very specifically: "The rural areas, such as where these fires are hiting, are more conservative and Republican than the cities."
They are. Trump got twice the amount of % of votes in Sonoma county than he did in SF. He didn't come close to winning at the county level, but it is clear as day that there are MORE Republican voters there than in SF.
The majority of the voters live in the cities/towns, and when you leave these areas and look at the rural areas of these counties (where the fires are hitting very directly), you find that the voting changes dramatically. This is not a major surprise (rural areas have generally always been more conservative/Republican).
As well, there are many fires burning in other areas of the state, and many are in Republican-majority areas. Do people realize that when they wish "ill on the dirty libs" they many not actually be wishing ill on "libs"?
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 10-18-2017 at 02:08 PM..
You are not looking that the fine detail. And are ignoring the words that I wrote. I wrote, very specifically: "The rural areas, such as where these fires are hiting, are more conservative and Republican than the cities."
They are. Trump got twice the amount of % of votes in Sonoma county than he did in SF. He didn't come close to winning at the county level, but is clear as day that there are MORE Republican voters there than in SF.
The majority of the voters live in the cities/towns, and when you leave these areas and look at the rural areas (where the fires are hitting very directly) of these counties, you find that the voting changes dramatically. This is not a major surprise.
As well, there are many fires burning in other areas of the state, and many are in Republican-majority areas. Do people realize that when they wish "ill on the dirty libs" they are really not wishing ill on "libs"?
Trump probably received more voted than the Dem's want to admit and there is several sources that California had large scale voter fraud by Dem. Control voting Faculties.
Who is going to help California after they secede?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Always Remember!
