San Fran Conservatives

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 9:03 PM GMT
    Is this article true? I always saw myself living on the West coast one day icon_cry.gif

    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/san_franciscos_rightward_turn_why_it_may_no_longer_be_americas_iconic_liberal_city/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 1:04 AM GMT
    ^^^^
    Stereotype much SouthBeach?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    AnOriginal said^^^^
    Stereotype much SouthBeach?


    Nope. I'm there several times a month and see it firsthand.


    And how do you even know their political affiliations -- it's probably hard to read about politics or even vote when you're starving.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 3:33 PM GMT
    I wouldn't take anything in Salon, which was founded by a bunch of disaffected writers who'd been fired from the SF Examiner, too seriously. It's one of the most extreme leftist sites, as this article bewailing its perceived loss of political hegemony shows. Whatever happened to that wonderful diversity everyone's always crowing about?

    Having lived in SF for 25 years, and experiencing firsthand the decline of that once beautiful city as a result of its permissive social programs, I can personally vouch for what SoBe says. In fact, I'll be up there visiting friends again this weekend, as I regularly do, but no thanks, "I wouldn't want to live there."
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 20, 2015 4:30 PM GMT
    Stupidest question of the month
    VVVVVVVV


    AnOriginal saidIs this article true?

    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/san_franciscos_rightward_turn_why_it_may_no_longer_be_americas_iconic_liberal_city/



  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 20, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    "An influx of rich people, and an exodus of poor and middle class....[could turn SF less liberal, more conservative]."

    Rich people equating to conservative? Looks at one of the most liberal cities, and also the city with the most billionaires on earth, NYC, and scratches his head.

    So the premise of this article is wrong, or all of a sudden NYC is either poor/middle class, or conservative? Because you can't be wealthy and liberal according to the article. I don't get it. Even when NYC votes in a "Republican," it's really in name only. A NYC Republican is more liberal than a Bible Belt Democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 10:57 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said"An influx of rich people, and an exodus of poor and middle class....[could turn SF less liberal, more conservative]."

    Rich people equating to conservative? Looks at one of the most liberal cities, and also the city with the most billionaires on earth, NYC, and scratches his head.

    So the premise of this article is wrong, or all of a sudden NYC is either poor/middle class, or conservative? Because you can't be wealthy and liberal according to the article. I don't get it. Even when NYC votes in a "Republican," it's really in name only. A NYC Republican is more liberal than a Bible Belt Democrat.


    That's what you get when a bunch of fired reporters band together and start their own "rebel" rag. These guys would be lucky to land jobs hawking the "Village Voice," but then they'd probably lose those too for too much loafing on the job.

    SF's always had a wide disparity between the world-class rich and their underlings and "service providers," which includes JDs and MDs. Look to its founding as the hub of the Gold Rush, and to its later growth into a world trade center, nicely positioned to handle people and goods from everywhere. For all its talk about "community" and "the charitable City of St. Francis," SF has been, and with the influx of wealthy hi-tech magnates and stock-optionees will continue to be, polarized. And, its limited geographical size will always mean housing will be almost prohibitively expensive there.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 20, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    ^^I'd just like to add onto a point you made.

    I find it almost laughable when people lump doctors and lawyers into the class of the "rich." Yes, MOST doctors and lawyers do very well. And yes, some doctors and lawyers do exceptionally well. But exceptionally well for a doctor or lawyer, at the top of their field after decades of practice tends to be about 2M a year for lawyers and 4M a year for doctors. Taxes take almost half of that, then you have to add on malpractice insurance premiums--mandatory even if you don't make or rarely make errors, and have never had an issue or claim.

    So really that's 100K a month net for lawyers and 200K a month for doctors. That's very nice, but what I think lots of people don't realize is that the price of things at the top echelon grows exponentionaly, not linearly. Rent can easily cost 20K a month in the "low" end of luxury condos and homes.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to start a haves/have nots war. But I am trying to say that there is a distinct difference between the truly rich (who I prefer to call wealthy) and the "working rich" (which includes doctors, lawyers and anyone else who needs to make--admittedly nice--money to keep living as they do).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 1:16 AM GMT
    Doesn't that beat all, with the influx of tech workers who are apolitical the remaining population who is politically active is making it appear to be more conservative than it traditionally has been.

    Maybe for the OP's sake the rest of the population can find time to engage in politics to show bring it back to the near center/left.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 1:32 AM GMT
    MGINSD and SouthBeach1500,

    I want to know, how did the social programs that helped feed "lice infested progressives camping in the city parks in San Francisco." cause the "...decline of that once beautiful city"?
    #100%Serious
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 21, 2015 4:53 PM GMT
    Just because a city gets very wealthy doesn't necessarily mean it is conservative. Look at Los Angeles, Boston, and Fort Lauderdale these three cities are wealthy and expensive but they are still liberal bastions in as much the same way as New York City and San Francisco.


    San Francisco become conservative, yeah right. When donkeys fly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 4:56 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said^^I'd just like to add onto a point you made.

    I find it almost laughable when people lump doctors and lawyers into the class of the "rich." Yes, MOST doctors and lawyers do very well. And yes, some doctors and lawyers do exceptionally well. But exceptionally well for a doctor or lawyer, at the top of their field after decades of practice tends to be about 2M a year for lawyers and 4M a year for doctors. Taxes take almost half of that, then you have to add on malpractice insurance premiums--mandatory even if you don't make or rarely make errors, and have never had an issue or claim.

    So really that's 100K a month net for lawyers and 200K a month for doctors. That's very nice, but what I think lots of people don't realize is that the price of things at the top echelon grows exponentionaly, not linearly. Rent can easily cost 20K a month in the "low" end of luxury condos and homes.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to start a haves/have nots war. But I am trying to say that there is a distinct difference between the truly rich (who I prefer to call wealthy) and the "working rich" (which includes doctors, lawyers and anyone else who needs to make--admittedly nice--money to keep living as they do).


    Very well stated and exactly my point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 5:02 PM GMT
    ^^^^
    Avoiding tough questions just like your party...

    MGINSD and SouthBeach1500,

    I want to know, how did the social programs that helped feed "lice infested progressives camping in the city parks in San Francisco." cause the "...decline of that once beautiful city"?
    #100%Serious
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 5:32 PM GMT
    I want to know, how did the social programs that helped feed "lice infested progressives camping in the city parks in San Francisco." cause the "...decline of that once beautiful city"? #100%Serious

    I lived in SF from '78 thru '03, so have direct personal knowledge of the following. Moreover, I did not own a car while I lived there, so by walking and using public transit, I saw these problems even more directly than most other people might. I also lived in a variety of 'hoods: Cow Hollow, Noe Valley, Russian Hill, and the Inner Mission, at 16th & Valencia to be exact, in the belly of the beast.

    The problem began in the '60s w/ Haight-Ashbury as the cool place to be. But, it was cool on other peoples' dimes, as "60 Minutes" then reported: thousands of "freaks" and hippies were coming there to live on welfare. The states tried to stop the practice by imposing residency requirements, but in a typically feel-good, reality-ignoring decision, the Warren Ct. struck those down as an unconstitutional violation of the "right to travel." (Thompson v. Shapiro.) Like its earlier rewriting of the VI Amendment's right to counsel, the Warren Ct. found a right to not just free travel, but to taxpayer-funded travel.

    By the late '70s, the problem of street people had mushroomed. Instead of arresting the bums for urinating. defecating, and having sex in public - and yes, the "gay community" was heavily involved in that last one and, by its usual silly extension of one to all, quickly took the side of the bums - the local authorities, under then-Mayor Diann Feinstein, looked the other way, as social permissives charged ahead with their "outreach" and giveaway programs. As is usual in SF, many of these were just "in-your-face" tactics designed to harass the cops, and much of the food given away was in fact inedible and contributed to another rising problem: the influx of crows and enormous rise in the pigeon population of SF. Efforts to control those of course brought on the ire of PETA and other enviro-wacko groups, so now you had nothing being done about three major and increasing problems in the city.

    By the mid-'80s, the problem was pandemic. Many people, including me, could not walk to work w/o being aggressively panhandled, bu which I mean suffering a stinking derelict standing in your way until you either evaded him - or her; "equal pay for all," after all! - or gave him some of that "spare change" they demanded. Stepping over pools of vomit, urine, and feces, avoiding lurching loons with the glare of evil in their eyes - these were what many SFers faced several times a day, as evidenced in the press, TV, and radio reports of the time. There was no retreat; SF's new public library quickly became a de facto shelter, where the bums' odor and bad behavior made the intended uses of that beautiful facility impossible. Still, nothing was done except to cave in to the left's demand for "more services," which inevitably only increased the numbers of those who, however justified, demanded "more." Sound familiar, open borders advocates? It should, even if you continue to ignore the lesson.

    The problem persists. "The 'homeless,'" as they're euphemistically called - the terms I used above are Verboten in SF - continue to camp out everywhere, infesting Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, and every other once beautiful venue in town; sleeping, barfing, and defecating on the sidewalks in every neighborhood but the wealthiest, such as parts of Pacific Hts., Russian and Telegraph Hills, and putting on their daily masques of abject poverty. They were responsible for at least three's fires in abandoned churches they took over and squatted in while I lived in SF, one in my own neighborhood which damaged both adjoining houses. Of course any other city would have evicted them at once, but with SF's strong rent control laws, tenants' rights bar and renters' lobby - and judges who quail before it come election time - that never happens. These wolves in sheeps clothing, itinerant indolents in the image of indigents, and their enablers - Democrats all; the GOP has less than 20% registration in SF - were and remain directly responsible for that city's decline. Accept those facts or not as you will, but they are true and I challenge anyone to deny them.

    PS - Pardon my inexcusable delay, to which you predictably responded w/ your usual nonsense. Some of us DO have lives away from RJ, you know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 5:55 PM GMT
    SF has always been unique in that it's typical, liberal,artistic,urban types tend to be trust fund kids. Rich kids slumming it is a bit different then the typical starving artist type. In that way SF predicted the new liberal Democrat who is rich and drives a Tesla. The richest congress people are now democrats not republicans .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 6:16 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidSF has always been unique in that it's typical, liberal,artistic,urban types tend to be trust fund kids. Rich kids slumming it is a bit different then the typical starving artist type. In that way SF predicted the new liberal Democrat who is rich and drives a Tesla. The richest congress people are now democrats not republicans .


    Very perceptive, Alpha, and 100% correct. Look behind the facades of many of those exciting new Silicon Valley startups, and you'll find Dad, Mom, or the Grandparents' money.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 21, 2015 6:51 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    What you had to say was very interesting, even if I disagree with the editorializing of the Warren Court. icon_cool.gif

    I was reminded of my experiences in downtown Miami. Downtown Miami is like a bombed out, post-apocalyptic land of the dead. And by dead I mean homeless who aggressively panhandle business workers going to and from their jobs, and during lunch hour.

    I'm fairly tolerant of everyone, especially the homeless. However, even I found myself exasperated when the SAME person would ask me for money as I exited a store, and I'd just donated to him going into the store.

    The reason I mention this is because Miami is not known as a liberal bastion. South Beach? Certainly. Miami? Not so fast. So I'm wondering to what extent the "liberal" policies brought and countenance the homeless of San Francisco, and to what extent was it inevitable because SF, like Miami, is simply warm and beautiful. Warmth and a temperate climate year round become a paramount concern when you're sleeping on grates some nights.

    In short, both San Fran and Miami have huge homelessness problems insofar that they're a magnet for the nation's homeless. I don't think Miami shares a similar legislative/policy history, so how much work were the purported policies doing and how much was it an inevitable consequence of living in a beautiful city?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    [Gratuitous] swipes at the legacy of Eisenhower's self-described "biggest mistake" of his life notwithstanding, I do believe climate has a lot to do w/ it, thus the similar problems in LA and SD. BUT, SF is unique in giving bums the benefit of the doubt, and then some, which only aggravates the problem beyond the levels you see elsewhere in CA, if not Miami, but of that city I don't have much knowledge. (Although, I remember from a visit to MiBeach in the '80s that it's main gay drag was pretty trashy in parts.) The sanctimony in SF was so stifling it eventually led me to move to SD - and I've been MUCH happier here ever since.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 21, 2015 8:47 PM GMT
    All I can say is, there but for the grace of God go I. Homelessness is one of those real problems that is almost invariably beyond a quick fix.

    South Park did a satirical episode about homelessness a few seasons back, and their "big answer" at the end was to ship all the homeless to California because, as Cartman sang, "California....is nice to the homeless!"

    It breaks my heart seeing homeless people. Not just their physical suffering, which I do not intend to diminish, but because of the indignities I know they suffer. Sigh.

    sick-southpark-homeless-guy.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 21, 2015 9:37 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidI want to know, how did the social programs that helped feed "lice infested progressives camping in the city parks in San Francisco." cause the "...decline of that once beautiful city"? #100%Serious

    I lived in SF from '78 thru '03, so have direct personal knowledge of the following. Moreover, I did not own a car while I lived there, so by walking and using public transit, I saw these problems even more directly than most other people might. I also lived in a variety of 'hoods: Cow Hollow, Noe Valley, Russian Hill, and the Inner Mission, at 16th & Valencia to be exact, in the belly of the beast.

    The problem began in the '60s w/ Haight-Ashbury as the cool place to be. But, it was cool on other peoples' dimes, as "60 Minutes" then reported: thousands of "freaks" and hippies were coming there to live on welfare. The states tried to stop the practice by imposing residency requirements, but in a typically feel-good, reality-ignoring decision, the Warren Ct. struck those down as an unconstitutional violation of the "right to travel." (Thompson v. Shapiro.) Like its earlier rewriting of the VI Amendment's right to counsel, the Warren Ct. found a right to not just free travel, but to taxpayer-funded travel.

    By the late '70s, the problem of street people had mushroomed. Instead of arresting the bums for urinating. defecating, and having sex in public - and
    yes, the "gay community" was heavily involved in that last one and, by its
    usual silly extension of one to all, quickly took the side of the bums - the local
    authorities, under then-Mayor Diann Feinstein, looked the other way, as social
    permissives charged ahead with their "outreach" and giveaway programs.
    As is usual in SF, many of these were just "in-your-face" tactics designed to
    harass the cops, and much of the food given away was in fact inedible and
    contributed to another rising problem: the influx of crows and enormous rise
    in the pigeon population of SF. Efforts to control those of course brought on
    the ire of PETA and other enviro-wacko groups, so now you had nothing
    being done about three major and increasing problems in the city.





    By the mid-'80s, the problem was pandemic. Many people, including me, could not walk to work w/o being aggressively panhandled, bu which I mean
    suffering a stinking derelict standing in your way until you either evaded him -
    or her; "equal pay for all," after all! - or gave him some of that "spare change"
    they demanded. Stepping over pools of vomit, urine, and feces, avoiding
    lurching loons with the glare of evil in their eyes - these were what many
    faced several times a day, as evidenced in the press, TV, and radio reports of
    the time. There was no retreat; SF's new public library quickly became a
    de facto shelter, where the bums' odor
    and bad behavior made the intended uses of that beautiful facility impossible.
    Still, nothing was done except to cave in to the left's demand for "more
    services," which inevitably only increased the numbers of those who, however
    justified, demanded "more." Sound familiar, open borders advocates? It
    should, even if you continue to ignore the lesson.


















    The problem persists. "The 'homeless,'" as they're euphemistically called - the terms I used above are Verboten in SF - continue to camp out everywhere, infesting Golden Gate Park, the
    Presidio, and every other once beautiful venue in town; sleeping, barfing, and
    defecating on the sidewalks in every neighborhood but the wealthiest, such
    as parts of Pacific Hts., Russian and Telegraph Hills, and putting on their daily
    masques of abject poverty. They were responsible for at least three's fires in
    abandoned churches they took over and squatted in while I lived in SF, one in
    my own neighborhood which damaged both adjoining houses. Of course any
    other city would have evicted them at once, but with SF's strong rent control
    laws, tenants' rights bar and renters' lobby - and judges who quail before it
    come election time - that never happens. These wolves in sheeps clothing,
    itinerant indolents in the image of indigents, and their enablers - Democrats
    all; the GOP has less than 20% registration in SF - were and remain directly
    responsible for that city's decline. Accept those facts or not as you will, but
    they are true and I challenge anyone to deny them.
















    PS - Pardon my inexcusable delay, to which you predictably responded w/
    your usual nonsense. Some of us DO have lives away from RJ, you know.
    As usual, the same political party that laid ruin to the older northern cities with their high taxes, pandering to corrupt organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor has gone too far in San Francisco, ruining that city with all their horrendously failed policies. I am more than sure that Oakland has suffered similar problems thanks to the corrupt, incompetent democratic party due to its nagging urban ills.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    The level of idiocy in this thread is remarkable even by RJ's rather low standards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2015 2:25 AM GMT
    SouthBeach1500 and that obese of a mess need to shut it. I didn't go to my classes today and I can post whenever the hell I want to.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 22, 2015 12:04 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said
    roadbikeRob said
    As usual, the same political party that laid ruin to the older northern cities with their high taxes, pandering to corrupt organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor has gone too far in San Francisco, ruining that city with all their horrendously failed policies. I am more than sure that Oakland has suffered similar problems thanks to the corrupt, incompetent democratic party due to its nagging urban ills.



    RE: Robb, Oakland is just as bad in terms of poverty, a huge gap between the rich and the poor, very high rents, although it is very diverse for those moving out west who wish to experience this.

    Once you move further inland into Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, the suburbs become more conservative, such as Orinda, Piedmont, Moraga, Concord, Walnut Creek, and Clayton.

    Clayton, is about 20% LDS (Mormon) and very conservative and very wealthy. It is in the shadow of Mt. Diablo with absolutely no crime. It is a dream place to live if you're into mountain biking on Mt. Diablo or road biking nearby.

    Clayton, clearly, can join the list of demographically similar yuppie places that
    are increasingly rare in California, such as Thousand Oaks, California (Ventura Co.), Truckee, and Mammoth Lakes. And in neighborhing states,
    places such as Scottsdale north of Shea Boulevard.


    http://ci.clayton.ca.us/


    Canyon, California, has a colorful history in the Oakland hills. Google this city and find out about it's anti-establishment past.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon,_California

    I lived in the east bay for about four months and loved that area, except, the institutions are definitely corrupt, i.e. streets are not paved, horrible medical care, etc.

    Note, Traditional American Values, from Clayton's web site - Totally the opposite of Oakland, 30 miles to the west! -

    Clayton is a safe residential community of around 11,093 people. It is a town which values civic partnership with business leaders, community leaders, and our neighbors. Claytonians turn out in high numbers to celebrate the annual family-friendly festivities such as the Art and Wine Festival, our homespun 4th of July Parade, the Oktoberfest celebration, and our ever popular Concerts in The Grove summer series on select Saturdays and Thursdays in our beautiful Downtown Park.

    In Clayton, everyone is family. And families are most important. Clayton is simply a great place to live, work and play for people who cherish small-town living and traditional American values.

    In this community, crime is low and police are respected. High-quality public and private schools are plentiful. Trails for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists meander through the City connecting one with another. Clayton has been listed three times running as one of CNN’s Money Magazines “Top 100 Places to Live in the Nation” for small cities.
    I bet that Oakland just like San Francisco is under a powerful democratic monopoly rule which has only worsened its problems. The NFL Oakland Raiders are almost at the end of their ropes trying to replace the decrepit, outdated stadium with a new state of the art NFL facility closer to downtown. But the incompetent democratic city fathers just want to keep pandering to the unmotivated urban poor in Oakland's deadly south side slums and ghettos rather than allowing that otherwise beautiful city to fulfill its potential as a successful major city.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    Thank you to those who posted about the article.

    1/3
    Apparently being brutally honest with SouthBeach1500 gets your forums deleted. Let’s try this again. I have problems with comments he made in this thread and when he asked if my abhorrence to him was due to political differences I said, “^^It does have to do with politics^^”

    I recently found out Carissa committed suicide. This beautiful 28 year old suffered from major depressive disorder, and left her daughter behind. Her funeral was today (April 22, 2015). She was also adopted as a baby into an American family.

    photo image_zpszdgpdzd2.jpg”/></a></div></body></html>
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    2/3
    Here are some of the comments I have a problem with and it’s not just you:

    southbeach1500 said


    Oh don't worry, you'll find plenty of lice infested progressives camping in the city parks in San Francisco. Still a liberal paradise.

    MGINSD said
    Having lived in SF for 25 years, and experiencing firsthand the decline of that once beautiful city as a result of its permissive social programs, I can personally vouch for what SoBe says. In fact, I'll be up there visiting friends again this weekend, as I regularly do, but no thanks, "I wouldn't want to live there."