Suetonius saidThe report of the death of liberalism in San Francisco is greatly exaggerated. The city remains governed by a clique of very radical supervisors. (Aided by a spineless mayor who takes a stand on almost nothing, because taking a stand on almost any issue is bound to offend some faction in the city.) Despite that the average home price is probably over $1 million, over half the voters in the city are renters, protected by rent control, and they always vote for the radical supervisorial candidates. Even the overly well paid young techies who are renters, tend to vote for the radicals. Like in the rest of the world, people often do not vote according to their economic best interests. The city government is run by a machine (Quelle surprise!) which is self-perpetuating. The Democratic Party Central Committee endorses candidates, is controlled by the radicals, and the vast majority of voters vote for whomever the Central Committee endorses for local office. Thus even if the populace becomes slightly less liberal, the government will continue to keep its radical policies.
roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
Sharkira saidroadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
In general some competition between parties is a good thing. But when the population is heavily skewed towards one end of the political spectrum, how is that going to happen? And yes, San Francisco and other cities are heavily liberal, but how do you make Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma less conservative? And those are one-party states as well.
The real problem here---and it is a problem---is that people have been literally sorting themselves out geographically for decades. Sort of the way an ethnic enclave of immigrants becomes large (like Detroit's Arabs)---the fact that there is a cluster of like-minded people draws others to come and live near them. So conservatives have been leaving blue areas for decades now, and liberals have moved to progressive areas, and this is the result.
The United States are starting to look more like the Balkans. And it's going to get worse.
freedomisntfree said
Agree.
And in your opinion, the result will be?
Sharkira saidfreedomisntfree said
Agree.
And in your opinion, the result will be?
I honestly don't know. But it could be ugly. Over on RedState and freerepublic, they're already so confident that there will be another Civil War that they just call it CW2 and everyone knows what they mean.
I think there are some who are perversely eager for it, but I don't see it having a good outcome for either side.
roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
waccamatt saidNo its not absurd, it is true. The democrats through their monopoly control of city government have helped make these older northern cities increasingly unattractive for business and industry to invest and expand. It is during democratic monopoly rule that cities like Detroit and Buffalo suffered the worst decline and disinvestment. These older cities need a different political party or parties to run their city governments and bring in fresh new ideas. This could also help ease the feelings of distrust between central city, first ring suburbs versus the outer ring, more conservative suburbs and exurbs.roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
Those issues have to do with people moving to warmer climates and industries moving out of the United States for cheap foreign labor. To blame that on Democratic mayors and city councils is absurd.
GAMRican saidSan Francisco will continue to be a primordial birthing place for Liberal ideas which become Liberal movements which change the world to be better for people...
...So, if and when you come to The City, to our One San Francisco, come with an open heart, an open mind, an open spirit, and don't forget to wear a flower in your hair.
CFL_Oakland saidIt makes all the sense in the world. You have failed to comprehend what I was trying to bring across about bringing new ideas to urban governance. Having one political party in monopoly control is not healthy for any community or county. The political affiliation does have an impact on a city's economic success. Detroit and Buffalo are good examples of two older cities bankrupted and brought down by the democratic party and their endless pandering to corrupt labor unions and the unmotivated urban poor. They were both two very tough cities for business and this is the result after 50 years of this bullshit. If you want San Francisco to be like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Baltimore than you are very naïve. You mentioned Washington DC as an urban success story, not so fast bunky. Washington still has very serious problems with urban blight, violent crime, lousy schools, aging infrastructure and it is still a glorified holding tank for much of that region's poor despite its high cost of living. The incompetent urban democrats did similar severe damage to Washington that they did to many other older northern cities. Stop defending the democratic party and face the proven fact that their monopoly rule has been very catastrophic for many of these cities. New York along with Los Angeles have been mostly purple swing cities that is why they have been successful. Now that they have fallen into the claws of the urban democrats, we shall see how long their success stories will last and by the looks of things, their urban success stories might have come to an abrupt end. If you have any common sense, you would happily prefer that San Francisco become more like Columbus, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma City.roadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
This doesn't make any sense. Sure, many sad cities had solidly Democratic leadership, but so do highly successful cities like New York, San Francisco, Washington, Minneapolis, Seattle, and others. The party affiliation of a city's leadership has absolutely no relationship to its economic success.
I for one have zero interest in seeing San Francisco ever look like Jacksonville or Oklahoma City.
roadbikeRob saidIf you have any common sense, you would happily prefer that San Francisco become more like Columbus, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma City.
blkapollo saidA different party running things wouldn't really change much in those cities, since their problem is the loss of industry. When auto and steel collapsed, so did a lot of cities and even small towns. Look at Pittsburgh's suburbs, they are full of small towns that have decayed because of steel factories closing.
eb925guy saidThere was nothing offensive about what I said so get off of it. He was making some pretty over the top comments about what I said largely because he failed to comprehend what I was putting across here and also he must be a sycophant to the democratic party. The democrats can do no wrong in his book. He is very horribly wrong on that one. San Francisco could see the same problems as older northern cities have experienced if it becomes too hostile towards business or taxes things too much. It is an urban success story now but things could change for the worse if city governance doesn't change some of its attitudes and philosophies.roadbikeRob saidIf you have any common sense, you would happily prefer that San Francisco become more like Columbus, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma City.
Can you ever post without some offensive statement towards someone with a differing opinion?
Also, I wonder who really understands the politics and working of San Francisco best, someone from the bay area or someone from Buffalo? San Francisco is NOT seeing problems like the other cities you've mentioned, it's thriving, building and the problems it faces is how to balance supply and demand to ensure that many people are not priced out of the market here while maintaining the progressive thinking that often leads the nation.
eb925guy saidroadbikeRob saidIf you have any common sense, you would happily prefer that San Francisco become more like Columbus, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma City.
Can you ever post without some offensive statement towards someone with a differing opinion?
Also, I wonder who really understands the politics and working of San Francisco best, someone from the bay area or someone from Buffalo? San Francisco is NOT seeing problems like the other cities you've mentioned, it's thriving, building and the problems it faces is how to balance supply and demand to ensure that many people are not priced out of the market here while maintaining the progressive thinking that often leads the nation.
waccamatt saidroadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
Those issues have to do with people moving to warmer climates and industries moving out of the United States for cheap foreign labor. To blame that on Democratic mayors and city councils is absurd.
PolitiNerd saidwaccamatt saidroadbikeRob saidProbably it is time for a different political party to rule the City and County of San Francisco. Having one political party monopoly rule for a long period of time is definitely not healthy for any city, suburb, or county. Just look at older, eastern cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo those cities have been under monopoly rule of the democratic party and where did it get them, severe population decline, financial problems, and rampant urban decay. San Francisco needs to have competing and different ideas for local governance not just more of the shopworn nonsense of the current ruling party in city hall.
Those issues have to do with people moving to warmer climates and industries moving out of the United States for cheap foreign labor. To blame that on Democratic mayors and city councils is absurd.
Yeah, cheap labor because the Socialists make everything more expensive because they tax everyone for everything.
So it's not absurd to blame the Democrats for that.
Copyright © 2006-2016 Family Powered Networks. All rights reserved
