Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 29, 2014 - 01:33pm PT
|
I'm pretty hard-line liberal, but unfortunately the sh#t that the politicians from the big cities try to push onto the rural areas not only makes little sense in small towns, but costs a lot of money which small towns do not have!
There appears to be very little balance, and certainly no real-world experience when a lot of the laws are put into place here.
My hunch is that a Republican in Californa would look like a democrat in any other state. . .
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 01:38pm PT
|
You're largely correct in the Central Valley, but not in Coastal California. Here in the California heartland, we have "Valleycrats" and "Valleycans," both of which tend to be much more centrist than their coastal counterparts. In contrast, coastal Republicans are far to the right of, say, Ronald Reagan, and costal Democrats are far to the left of Jerry Brown. It's a truly sad state of affairs.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
|
I voted for Arnold in the recall election. I usually vote third party.
Gerrymandering and/or districts heavily skewered to the right or left are terrible. They should try to make districts competitive and get more centrist people, who do a better job representing everybody instead of the ideologues we all too often get.
The only other thing that causes as much of a problem for democracy is the huge amounts of money to win elections / buy politicians.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
It's a common perception in rural communities that the 'big cities' impose expensive policies on them, but the overwhelming reality is that rural communities, on average, consume far more tax revenues then the put into the coffers. In this sense, many rural lifestyles in the US are highly subsidized.
This tax data is likely available by county for California.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
The sort of political regionalism within California that you guys are referring to is largely an irrelevant curiosity. CA is run as a one party state from Sacramento. Period. Case closed. It is a banana republic on steroids.
I don't really see any meaningful change in this direction until or unless there is the sort of general decay and collapse we've seen elsewhere in the nation that have pursued a similar political course in the recent past. Detroit and Chicago immediately come to mind, but there are numerous other examples. All are usually urban areas presided over by Democrat Party politics--- little Petri dishes of baby boomer socialism, party patronage, public employee unions, and counterculture values; maintained by high spending ,high taxation, and tight control by a political/bureaucratic/media elite.
CA is run in much the same way but with a few twists ---such as fresh imports of new and highly government-dependent Democrat voters-- and an economic base that is more broad based and diverse; at least for now. These factors may delay CA's day of reckoning in this regard.
Remember, if there is a long term severe drought , such as has occurred in the climactic past---all of these standard formulas will change very rapidly and CA will be in a brand new ball game.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
|
Why would anyone vote for a Republican? is this a trick question?
|
|
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 29, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
|
Tvash
It's a common perception in rural communities that the 'big cities' impose expensive policies on them, but the overwhelming reality is that rural communities, on average, consume far more tax revenues then the put into the coffers. In this sense, many rural lifestyles in the US are highly subsidized.
I think these are 2 separate issues, especially since rural communities tend to have much lower average salaries than people in the cities, for example
Median household income, 2008-2012:
Inyo county (where Bishop is located): $45,000
California: $61,400
Marin County: $90,962
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_income
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
|
One of the most mature dissections of American democracy going on today is in China.
In 1957 they had only ONE law! Now they they have 267 laws.
They are not so easily condoning to the "one person, one vote". They laugh at how easily the vote of the poverty stricken can be bought. And how the rich rule the roost.
I wish we could figure that out..
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
|
But we are going to get a hi-speed train. This will make less air-pollution. The new cap and trade agreement is going to kick in soon, adding tons of $$$$ to the Hi-speed train. Jerry Brown is a brilliant, governor who has saved our state. And finally fairness for all, Drivers license on demand, free health care, free child care, and tighter more safer gun controls.
And I don't wish to forget... no more of those pesky plastic bags, unless your getting a sixpack, or some apples in the produce section.
And only 3 Democrats have been charged with crimes.
;>)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:19pm PT
|
Income is a factor, but roads, water projects, education, etc cost what they cost, and tax revenues in/out is a relatively simple equation. On average in the US, cities subsidize rural areas - 7:1, but that's from a NYT article from several years ago. Numbers vary by county/state, obviously.
Ward's analysis is crap, of course. Liberalism is precisely what attracts the best and the brightest - and the investment $$$ that follow them. The Silicon Valley and SF, which pays a lot of rural bills in CA, probably require no introduction there.
Proportional representation also guarantees that heavily populated urban centers will have the most sway in state politics - as they should, democratically speaking.
And speaking of drought (I'm so glad you brought that up) - what is the least resource (power/water/sewage/embodied housing energy/GHG emissions producting) intensive population per capita in the US?
A Manhattanite. By far.
Urban density is the way forward for a more sustainable world.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:21pm PT
|
no more of those pesky plastic bags
California is number 1
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:23pm PT
|
Bottom line is that no matter where they are located in the state, their first priority is to be re-elected, which requires appealing to their constituents. Urban voters are going to be out of touch with rural issues & needs, but that won't stop them from imposing them on them anyway....and vice versa.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
|
I do live in California, and I would vote republican if they supported the following issues:
 campaign finance transparency
privacy/surveillance policy oversight and transparency to balance law enforcement needs with citizen rights to privacy
gun control with strict registration/training/wait-times for purchase intended for hunting (recognizing that the power of our military far exceeds the capacity of individual gun-owners to resist. This fantasy scenario behind the 2nd ammendment only propagates the availability of militarized weaponry for criminals, which is now prompting local police forces to seek militarized weaponry as part of a violent and wasteful arms race that benefits only the manufacturers of these weapons)
universal nationalized health insurance with opt-out for private policies
legal abortions
legal gay marriage
legal taxed drugs (I don't drink or use drugs, but I want corporations to compete rather than criminal gangs making border travel a scary affair)
legal regulated taxed prostitution (to reduce the demand that creates a market for human trafficking)
reduced military spending, reduced involvement in other countries
national education standards and standardized testing for each grade through high school
government investment in basic research that is passed over by short-term corporate investors
farm subsidy reform to promote healthy food, agricultural diversity, decreased dependence on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
alternative to oil-based fuels, and killing biofuel unless it uses trash cellulose. Don't want biofuel demand depleting land resources and competing with food demand
Hmm... given the Republican target marketing of the masses of less educated christian or "conservative" families and individualists on social and "freedom" issues, to gain block support for the minority position of rich individuals and businesses who provide the money for the targeted marketing... this scenario means I'm unlikely to see the republicans support the things I care about.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
|
All that would be required would be to upend the entire RNC platform like the huge, prehistoric iceberg it is.
But, hey, it's all about grocery bags, isn't it? Or whatever the pet sideshow-de-jour is that moves the juicy voting middle's spotlight awaaaay from that iceberg.
|
|
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 29, 2014 - 02:41pm PT
|
Anyone know what the #1 black market item is. . . anyone????
Cigarettes. Legalizing something doesn't automatically get rid of the illegal activities associated with it.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
|
Agreed that legalization doesn't get rid of illegal alternatives. For some (maybe most?) people, price is the primary consideration. If an illegal alternative is cheaper, they will take it. But if you have a choice between a legal regulated pot with "organic" label on it, or a cheaper one from some dude in an alley that smells like jet fuel, which would you take? It would put a dent in the illegal market.
It is a valid question how much of a dent it would make, compared to the people who are newly introduced to the item that is now legal, and who are new potential customers for the illegal version of the item.
No way to answer this without collecting real data and developing a math model to evaluate it.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 02:54pm PT
|
I'd vote for Pedro
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
|
"Christ!"
--Piton Pete
Let this fockin' thread die...
I just threw my sample ballot away when I sorted through last week's mail.
If I lived in a perpetual state of darkness, would I still be tempted to sin? This is a much more interesting topic, bud...and just as dumb a question.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 04:01pm PT
|
I quickly skimmed the voter info pamphlet that gives a run-down on california initiatives... holy sneakiness batman! Just looking at Prop 2, which claims to increase money for future emergency funds and bond pay-down, by my simple first-glance reading of actual proposed statute wording, it cuts the present reserves IN HALF!!!!
We have 3% going to these special accounts now (but capped at some dollar amount), and the proposal is to make that 1.5% (unsure whether there are any caps). Further, there are several pages of obfuscated written out wording for math functions to describe the transfer of funds, and my paranoid nature makes me believe this is intended to hide the misappropriation of these funds.
Just reading the proposed statute wording, it looks like it's intended to buy short-term money for various California programs, robbing from the future. I have not done the calculations to affirm this. It is possible all the details are necessary to cut out loopholes that would steal the money, but it seems to be creating them.
The disgusting part is that we can't rely on the pamphlet PROs or CONs, statements in support or rebuttal, at all. Can only rely on the wording of the proposed statute, and there's no way to identify who has the integrity to tell it like it is and let the voters make informed decisions. That sucks. A democracy must be underpinned with easy access to accurate information and analysis to enable informed voting. Many voters give up because it's too difficult to figure out the truth, or even identify where are the gray areas subject to interpretation.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
During the campaign for San Diegos replacement mayor the winner complained that it was dirty politics to call him a Republican (he is a Republican). We have almost eliminated the Republican problem in California.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!