Where to meet relatively conservative people? (Galt: real estate market, to rent, townhouse)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Is this still really the case?

More so than it has been since before WW2.

[WizardOfRadical]

Orange County probably comes about as close as Napa County, but generally speaking the bay area is a much more wealthy region on a whole.

It's rare to see working class areas unless you are in the east bay flats, and middle class neighborhoods are pretty much non existent. Probably around a million people in the bay have been priced into the central valley if you include everything from Vacaville to Patterson.

You won't find any nice middle class areas like Claremont or Upland where you can get a nice home for 400-600k. With a 70-90 minute train ride into the heart of Downtown LA.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

Orange County probably comes about as close as Napa County, but generally speaking the bay area is a much more wealthy region on a whole.

It's rare to see working class areas unless you are in the east bay flats, and middle class neighborhoods are pretty much non existent. Probably around a million people in the bay have been priced into the central valley if you include everything from Vacaville to Patterson.

You won't find any nice middle class areas like Claremont or Upland where you can get a nice home for 400-600k. With a 70-90 minute train ride into the heart of Downtown LA.

Plenty of middle class, semi-affordable cities, particularly in the South-East Bay. Fremont, union city, parts of hayward. On the peninsula there's daly city, south san francisco, redwood city. To say that the whole bay area is as wealthy as palo-alto or even berkeley is ridiculous. Wealth is concentrated in certain areas here like anywhere else.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by vanitycase

I just moved to San Francisco for a new job, and I am interested in meeting the kind of people I'd consider moderate-conservate or progressive-conservative. I don't know exactly what "label" to give it but I mostly mean relatively buttoned up folks who are all for social justice and the like, but frown on America-bashing and tight hipster jeans. People who like whiskey and cigars, because hello, that's me right here.

I can always walk into a whiskey bar but I'm not the kind of person who can walk up and make friends with any stranger in the bar. So tl;dr new city, need friends, help out if you can please. Thanks!

In San Francisco? You have pretty much always been out of luck. Indeed, I suspect the reason the Soviet Union held on as long as it did was because their consulate on Green Street was getting a false impression of the real America!

But feel free to email me and a few other patriots left, even when we have been exiled to Sacramento.

Once upon a time, the state was not that bad, and the San Jose area in particular was not so bad. Well into the 1980's, the state was still predominantly Republican. The Commiecrat Left was back then offset by a Patriot Right. This Patriot Right consisted of:
--military personnel and their families
--aerospace and defense workers and their families
--computer hardware workers and their families

What happened? A great Irony Of The Cold War. US victory and Soviet defeat meant all of the aforementioned industries, and their voters, folded up in California.

Meanwhile more lefty sectors of the state grew, such as:
--media
--entertainment and arts
--computer software (as opposed to hardware, it was not linked to defense or manufacturing)

Another Irony Of The Cold War was "Teh Ghey" voters, who tend to be Left, often far Left.

San Francisco, believe it or not, was once a military base town. The Presidio, Hunter's Point and Treasure Island Naval Shipyards, Fort Mason, Fort Funston and all that. Even neighboring Marin and Oakland had military facilities. All of which are now closed, and all those personnel, base workers, and their families scattered.

During WW2, then Korea, then Vietnam, Homosexual servicemen were dishonorably discharged, shipped backed to Fort Mason or Hunter's Point, later flown back to SFO, and dropped off. Disgraced from their families given the times, they settled in, you guessed it, San Francisco, which was large enough to fade into the woodwork, but small enough for a critical mass of them to take political control. Which, by the late 1970's, they did.

The Right that remains in California? It is a Leftover Right, really.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Gee, why don't you ask Meg Whitman? She seems to like it here.

Anyway, they're needed as a reason for Republican national candidates to visit the state as a source for political donations, because they know they can't pull the state to the GOP as a source of votes. You can thank Pete Wilson for that.

Actually, you can thank the Wall Street Journal greedheads and the Bushyrovies for that, who were so desiring of cheaper gardeners and maids that they deluded themselves into believing that the GOP could win a Hispandering contest.


Pete Wilson was the last Republican leader who actually understood how California worked--fiscally prudent, but socially understanding that California was pro-abortion six years before Roe v. Wade, and will remain a pro-abortion place until the end of time.


Of course, the GOP establishment greedheads and Hispandering immigration romantic fools did not listen to him, and they got what they deserved.

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by silverkris

That actually doesn't speak very well about conservatives if that's your definition above.

Folks, we live in a civil society, a "we society" not a "me society". Funny, liberals are often derided for being self-indulgent and selfish - but you've just defined conservatives as people who are small minded and care little except about themselves.

And believe it or not, so-called liberal areas like California and the West Coast in general, returns a lot of tax revenues to the State that goes to so-called Red States like Alabama and Mississippi which takes in more than they put into the pot. So who's paying for whom then?

It is an undisputed fact that Conservatives are more generous when it comes to charitable donations. Seeking a pat on the back for "returning a lot of tax revenues..." or for redistributing other people's money is really nothing to be proud of.

Conservatives don't need adulation for charitable giving. That's why liberals are always demeaning the wealthy, because they have no idea the kind of money that they donate to a myriad of worthy causes that benefit unknown numbers of other people.

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So your argument is because you are in the majority you are allowed to be mildly rude and demeaning of others, interesting.

Maybe the lack of responses in the Idaho forum compared to California is directly related to the populations of each state.

Not to mention that there didn't seem to be any derogatory comments made, or that would have been made known by the poster!

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less

Libertarians ARE conservative. They hate the poor, who are disproportionately minorities.

Yes, because everyone knows the riches people in America are libertarians.

No one HATES the poor. That is absurd.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

Actually, you can thank the Wall Street Journal greedheads and the Bushyrovies for that, who were so desiring of cheaper gardeners and maids that they deluded themselves into believing that the GOP could win a Hispandering contest.


Pete Wilson was the last Republican leader who actually understood how California worked--fiscally prudent, but socially understanding that California was pro-abortion six years before Roe v. Wade, and will remain a pro-abortion place until the end of time.


Of course, the GOP establishment greedheads and Hispandering immigration romantic fools did not listen to him, and they got what they deserved.

Actually, you can thank Governor Pete Wilson for helping to ensure that California has become a solid, Democratic leaning state for the last 20+ years --- by stoking the embers of Hispano-phobia for short term political gain when he panicked in his reelection campaign. He ultimately won reelection battle but lost the long term war.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Actually, you can thank Governor Pete Wilson for helping to ensure that California has become a solid, Democratic leaning state for the last 20+ years --- by stoking the embers of Hispano-phobia for short term political gain when he panicked in his reelection campaign. He ultimately won reelection battle but lost the long term war.

Because two out of three of those eventually amnestied voters wouldn't have voted Democrat, or even hard left Demunist Commiecrat, anyway.

News flash: The GOP *doesn't* win welfare pandering / government giveaway contests.

Of course, the GOP should encourage the "talented third" of Mexican Americans to vote for them, like the "talented tenth" of African Americans. As a matter of fact, Wilson TRIPLED his share of the African American vote on that issue.

But best for the Left and their media apparatchiks not to acknowledge the simple reality that a good way to help the underclass is to *not import more of them*.

Seriously, never mind the Leftist Commiecrats, who just want a larger and larger lumpenproletariat, for the usual treasonous reasons. The disconnect between the GOP Establishment elites and the rank-and-file on the immigration issue has been stark, and has been a problem lurking for more than two decades now.

Then Governor Wilson was actually shunned and blackballed by the Wall Street Journal / Bushyrovie elites, and the Dole-Kemp elites before them, on this issue. But "The Donald" is too large a presence for the GOP elite to try that anymore. Heck, the illegal alien problem, and the abuse of many categories of *legal* immigration for that matter, are too large a problem for the GOP elite to try that anymore either.