Conservative Relocating (areas, dating, dates)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

I see your point. Tom Hayden represented Santa Monica\ Beverly Hills\ Malibu\ West Hollywood followed by Sheila Kuehl; both were far left Dems but so is the current state senator. What is surprising is that even parts of the San Fernando valley and southern Ventura county are in the 23rd district yet they produce some of the most liberal representatives in California. With the exception of Ventura county the district is very wealthy and very leftist. Only further proving the point that wealthy people can be quite liberal but Fox News calls them "Barbara Streisand libs" only interested radical anti-America politics

They say the same thing regarding SF and Marin , e.g. Boxer representing Marin followed by Woolsey.

Pelosi and Speier are definitely in the mainstream liberal wing of the Dems, however, and so was Lantos.

Going back to the topic of conservatives: I mentioned that Conservatives Abroad often has events in Santa Monica but I know of no events anywhere in the Bay Area. The British Consulate would probably be the place to check.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by user_id

Evolution is not a "fact", its a scientific theory and as a result can be completely wrong. Nothing in science is certain, so yes you should say that they are possibly correct.

Science masquerading as religion is just as bad as religious bigotry.

I like your thoughts but fossils don't lie

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by californio sur

You are exactly right and many Republicans angrily cite Governor Wilson as the reason the GOP is so impotent in California. What's interesting is that then governor Bush of Texas warned Wilson not to play the Prop 187 hand because it would alienate Latino voters, a group that is culturally conservative and a natural for the Republican party.

I like the idea that California has had more Republican and Democratic governors over the past 50 yrs. But those Republicans, like Reagan, were pragmatists who did not let ideology influence their governing. Those governors would never be accepted by Republicans today which is really sad and the very reason the GOP is so weak in California as well as the entire West Coast\ Northeast U.S.\ Great Lakes states, etc.

Yep - whether you agree/disagree with Bush's policies, he was pretty astute about not alienating the Latino voters (he actually got a lot of support from them in TX). And a look at Reagan's record as governor and president shows a much more pragmatic public official than his image suggests. As governor he signed a very liberal law permitting abortion, for example. He also signed in tax hikes as governor and as President. With respect to military intervention, he was also a lot more wary of sending in troops (certainly not like Bush I and II).

[user_id]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Why don't you cite any source for your opinions? It would really help.

It is difficult to find information about just LA county, but nationally the wealthy (even just the top 1/3 of the income scale) lean republican:

Even more on income and voting - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by californio sur

Attached is the voting map for 2008. Do you see anything that would support your statement that Santa Monica is more conservative?

Yes, just look at it. In fact all the wealthy areas are lighter blue or light red.

Santa Monica is not uniformly wealthy though, the median household income is just $70k. Even if every wealthy person voted republican it would not be enough to shift the area into republican territory.

Originally Posted by californio sur

tell me again that Santa Monica is more conservative or that Asians are conservative.

The fact that Asians are more conservative than any other races is supported by the article you posted.

But looking at the 2008 election is a poor sample to began with, even some of my long term republican family members voted for Obama. Their vote did not represent any shift in political beliefs, rather that the McCain/Palin team was bad.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TVC15

I like your thoughts but fossils don't lie

A fossil is just a fossil, it does not in itself prove anything. Anybody that thinks evolution is a "fact" does not understand science. In a sense its understandable that people would turn science in a sort of religion, obviously most people have some sort of need for such things.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by user_id

A fossil is just a fossil, it does not in itself prove anything. Anybody that thinks evolution is a "fact" does not understand science. In a sense its understandable that people would turn science in a sort of religion, obviously most people have some sort of need for such things.

Fossils are proof of a timeline that differs from man created religions of how we came into existence. I did not say that it is proof of evolution.

We don't need fossils to know that evolution occurred and is continuously occurring!

And I do understand science very well.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TVC15

Fossils are proof of a timeline that differs from man created religions of how we came into existence.

There is no religion that spells out a detailed history of the earth, so no there is no difference here.

Originally Posted by TVC15

We don't need fossils to know that evolution occurred and is continuously occurring!

The issue here is want is meant by "know". The post I responded to pretended as if scientific theories were "facts", something we know with certainty. There is no certainty in science, as a result doubting evolution from a scientific point of view should be perfectly acceptable. Its odd that liberals often turn science into a sort of religion that they use against religious conservatives.

Also, just in case you were not aware fossil to not come with dates on them. The dating techniques rely on a number of other scientific theories all of which could be mistaken.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by user_id

It is difficult to find information about just LA county, but nationally the wealthy (even just the top 1/3 of the income scale) lean republican:

Even more on income and voting - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com


Yes, just look at it. In fact all the wealthy areas are lighter blue or light red.

Santa Monica is not uniformly wealthy though, the median household income is just $70k. Even if every wealthy person voted republican it would not be enough to shift the area into republican territory.


The fact that Asians are more conservative than any other races is supported by the article you posted.

But looking at the 2008 election is a poor sample to began with, even some of my long term republican family members voted for Obama. Their vote did not represent any shift in political beliefs, rather that the McCain/Palin team was bad.

How you can arrive at your earlier conclusion that Asian are conservative is beyond me? Now you tweet it to say Asian are more conservative than other ethnic groups. Nice cop-out. Just because Asians voted for Obama by 67% isn't any kind of victory for Republicans. Two-thirds seems sizable to me.

And what light red sections of LA metro are wealthy regions? Sorry but you do not know Los Angeles because the uber-wealthy live from Malibu to Beverly Hills and all those areas in between. And that region is not pink but rather deep blue. Good try but you again fail in convince anyone that Republicans have a chance in LA county besides the desert [where the least amount of people live]. Out in the sticks is where Republicans live.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by californio sur

How you can arrive at your earlier conclusion that Asian are conservative is beyond me

I have already spelled this out of you, but apparently your reading comprehension is really poor. I never stated that "Asians are conservative", rather I said "wealthy Asian are conservative". Can you please actually keep track of what is being stated? Don't bother responding if you can't.

Originally Posted by californio sur

And what light red sections of LA metro are wealthy regions? Sorry but you do not know Los Angeles because the uber-wealthy live from Malibu to Beverly Hills and all those areas in between.

The "uber-wealthy" live all over the place and there are far too few of them to change the statistics in any meaningful matter. But the areas that tend to be wealthier lean more republican than others that are poor. A

Originally Posted by californio sur

fail in convince anyone that Republicans have a chance in LA county besides the desert...

Reading comprehension problem again. I never once stated this.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by user_id

I have already spelled this out of you, but apparently your reading comprehension is really poor. I never stated that "Asians are conservative", rather I said "wealthy Asian are conservative". Can you please actually keep track of what is being stated? Don't bother responding if you can't.


The "uber-wealthy" live all over the place and there are far too few of them to change the statistics in any meaningful matter. But the areas that tend to be wealthier lean more republican than others that are poor. A


Reading comprehension problem again. I never once stated this.

You are ridiculous and as opinionated as they come. Failing to support anything you claim, you continue with your idiot statement. Must be a lonely life being Republican in California, huh?