Do You Support All Of The Bay Areas Liberalism? (Sacramento: sale, hotels)

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by Motion

San Francisco and the Bay Area in general are well known for it's liberal environment. But are there some liberal things about the area that you disagree with?

As a lifelong Bay Area resident, I have a very strong opinion about politics here. People coming to this forum lose credibility with me when they can't even create a thread that involves basic grammar.

"Bay Areas"= indicates multiple locations

"Bay Area's"= indicates possessive properties

If you have some other specific questions regarding political or social views here, please feel free to ask away. Many of us choose to live here. Many people choose to move away from the Bay Area for the exact reason you posted...being a "liberal environment"


An apostrophe would've given your post more credibility. As previously mentioned, I have a very strong opinion about Bay Area (and California) political views.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by sav858

The point is that he had political motivations behind the shooting. Stop trying to dismiss this assassination attempt. Anyone who tries to assassinate a political figure is crazy to an extent no matter what, just because James Hogdkinson isn't a schizo doesn't mean he is of sound mind either. He acted like a lunatic before the shooting.

Their is a big difference between a rational actor and an irrational one.

Based on your definition everyone who attempts murder is crazy. "Mentally ill" has a real legal definition, not just "well they committed a crime and only a crazy person would commit a crime; therefor, they are crazy"

[sav858]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Their is a big difference between a rational actor and an irrational one.

Based on your definition everyone who attempts murder is crazy. "Mentally ill" has a real legal definition, not just "well they committed a crime and only a crazy person would commit a crime; therefor, they are crazy"

Well neither one of these gunmen were "rational" so not sure why you even brought that up.

No that's not what I said at all. I wasn't talking about murder in general but attempting to assassinate a political figure, which is what I specifically said, because there is a difference.

So because the man who shot Gifford's was declared mentally ill that doesn't count? Even though something, likely politically related, triggered him? He was found competent to stand trial too.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Sorry, could you re-write your first sentence? It's hard to follow; looks like it was edited too many times, and something got cut out. I agree that getting less extreme city councils in some cities would be a good thing.

Sorry to better phrase it, in the Bay Area, If a city council majority does not support strong lefty or nanny state policies and votes it down; the candidate selection process, or municipal version of electorial college, would run them out by the next election and replace them with a majority that will support it and vote yes so that the measure will pass when it's brought back on the table again and even if that doesn't happen such council members will be made very uncomfortable staying within the council chambers that he or she would not likely want to run again for the next term. This is what exactly happened in a number of Bay Area cities particularly Milpitas during the last three years. Nowadays its also nearly impossible to vote in a non democrat city council member in the Bay Area. Essentially there is a strong sign in most every city in the Bay Area is you must be pro left nanny city supporter to run or remain a council member. So there are no more non liberal cities left in the Bay Area. And Even If a liberal nanny state measure was defeated by a council vote once expect it to be passed by the much more lefty council majority in the next term. So that no where in the Bay Area is safe from the great nanny state.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Oh, really? Did you see how segments of the other half of the population reacted to the first Obama election? You missed the "get your guns for Obama's race war" posts on this website, and worse, which I won't quote. Hysteria reigned for 8 years, and alarmingly, it was armed hysteria.

Yawn. Please. What "hysteria"? And please post even one time there was even a disturbance caused let alone nationally organized riots.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

Unoriginal thought you borrowed from elsewhere. Also, do you really think half the population is mentally ill simply for disagrreing with you?

I think someone is projecting on the "normal relationships are impossible" thing....

What I mean is that normal relationships with progs are impossible because they tend to approach life through their highly politicized viewpoint and operate on a hair-trigger of taking offense at things that normal people don't.

[BurnInTheMil]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Yawn. Please. What "hysteria"? And please post even one time there was even a disturbance caused let alone nationally organized riots.

^^^This

There were none

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Sorry to better phrase it, in the Bay Area, If a city council majority does not support strong lefty or nanny state policies and votes it down; the candidate selection process, or municipal version of electorial college, would run them out by the next election and replace them with a majority that will support it and vote yes so that the measure will pass when it's brought back on the table again and even if that doesn't happen such council members will be made very uncomfortable staying within the council chambers that he or she would not likely want to run again for the next term. This is what exactly happened in a number of Bay Area cities particularly Milpitas during the last three years. Nowadays its also nearly impossible to vote in a non democrat city council member in the Bay Area. Essentially there is a strong sign in most every city in the Bay Area is you must be pro left nanny city supporter to run or remain a council member. So there are no more non liberal cities left in the Bay Area. And Even If a liberal nanny state measure was defeated by a council vote once expect it to be passed by the much more lefty council majority in the next term. So that no where in the Bay Area is safe from the great nanny state.

That's way too simplistic and broadbrush view of local politics. They might be largely Democratic, but within that umbrella there are a lot of views and positions when it comes to local matters.

One major division or commonly observed dichotomy is "pro-development" vs. "preservationist", particularly at the municipal level. You have those who are in favor of redeveloping a piece of real estate (often commercial), to say a mixed residential/commerical, or all commercial, vs. those who oppose it and cite potential for increased traffic and congestion, for example.

That's really no different than many municipalities all over the country.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Crap like bag rules, eco nazis looking at what you do or do not place into the recycling bin, support for trans surgery / hormones at ever younger ages (often initiated from a school setting initially), turning key arterial roadways into anti car meccas, and so on. None of this has anything to do with empowering labor, etc.

Then move to Sacramento because except for bag laws I've not been aware of any of your other issues. And what's interesting is, my step-son and his wife and son live in SF and they are just about the most apolitical people you've ever met but they don't seem to be all bent out of shape by "liberal politics", somehow they manage to live their lives without ever getting involved in it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Sorry to better phrase it, in the Bay Area, If a city council majority does not support strong lefty or nanny state policies and votes it down; the candidate selection process, or municipal version of electorial college, would run them out by the next election and replace them with a majority that will support it and vote yes so that the measure will pass when it's brought back on the table again and even if that doesn't happen such council members will be made very uncomfortable staying within the council chambers that he or she would not likely want to run again for the next term. This is what exactly happened in a number of Bay Area cities particularly Milpitas during the last three years. Nowadays its also nearly impossible to vote in a non democrat city council member in the Bay Area. Essentially there is a strong sign in most every city in the Bay Area is you must be pro left nanny city supporter to run or remain a council member. So there are no more non liberal cities left in the Bay Area. And Even If a liberal nanny state measure was defeated by a council vote once expect it to be passed by the much more lefty council majority in the next term. So that no where in the Bay Area is safe from the great nanny state.

then why sit back and whine about it? Get out and get involved in local politics, that's where an individual can really make a difference if they are noisy enough.