San Fransisco is Collapsing while Nero (Newsome) fiddles.

I haven't been on the board in a bit (traveling, work, family visiting, off-season, hurricane, etc) and I haven't been on this particular forum in ages. I clicked on it just because of the Republican debate tomorrow night and was curious where some of my Republican friends stood on the primary election cycle.

I appreciated this thread though. These are topics I care greatly about. Not because I live in California actually. More just because I care about drug abuse, homelessness, mental illness etc. As I've mentioned in the past, I have spent a great many years on boards of non-profits that tried to tackle these very issues.

I am glad to hear Stu's report on San Francisco. I believe him (as I would any of you) when he shares his experience there. And glad to hear it as I also love that city. It has been a few years since I have been there but look forward to going back as it is such a cheap flight from San Diego. I also know we tend to see things through the prism of our experiences/beliefs so others may have a different outlook on the city right now.

It is an interesting time for me personally. I am a classical liberal. I am certainly a social liberal. And my social liberalism outweighs many of my other beliefs when I vote.

But, I also hate what I have seen happen in so many large cities (red and blue ones). The homeless problem is out of control and I could not agree more with Chuck and Bigsky above that 80+% of it is not related to housing prices. Some is. But there are really good programs for them. If you are clean....there are a myriad of programs to help you get on your feet. End of story. And if someone says differently they are either just ignorant of what exists or lying. Granted, I cannot speak for every city....but in California, there is tons of help. If you are clean.

I also hate the laws on theft. And I believe they will change soon. I also believe you will see more and more liberal cities bring back a much stronger police presence. It is already happening in Los Angeles. You will see it elsewhere. It is obvious that the pendulum swung too far after the BLM stuff and I think you are seeing people in liberal cities admitting that now.

I live in San Diego which is a much more moderate city politically. We often have a Republican (albeit moderate) Mayor. But even when we have a Democratic Mayor they always tend to be more moderate. This is a city that leans left but that is incredibly practical. And even though it is a "big city" people vote primarily for their "Small town". People who live in Ocean Beach are as passionate about that city as any other small town in America. And vote that way.
I like to call it a liberal city with a brain.
We lost the Chargers because the people simply refused to pay for a stadium for a billionaire. Several times. We voted on it and simply refused.

They have done ok with the homeless issue here. They have cleaned up many many areas and they never allow any area to become a "Tent city" for very long. They have moved them out of almost all touristy areas basically. Which is fine. It is better than other large cities. But it is cosmetic imo. If you know where to look you will find streets and streets of them.
Yes, some of that is policy. There are plenty of social services here that feed, etc. A lot of is weather. If I was homeless, I would live here as well. Some of that is charity. They go where people fund them.
Most of it is $ and drugs. Fentanyl is EVERYWHERE. And it is dirt cheap. We are close to the border where it is even cheaper.

Sorry for the long post.....but it is just something I care a lot about.

I have someone very close to me. I will leave out more details. But very close. His story/experience is a great example of the problem.

Three months ago he was living by himself in a 4 bedroom home about 5 minutes from me. He was making $500,000 a year. He had over a million in the bank. He's in his 30's. He's struggled with drugs off and on his whole life. He has a great support system in family and friends. He started using again about two years ago. No one noticed at first. He kept on working and making money. He wasn't using the worst stuff....but bad enough.
He put a huge amount of his money in the crypto market. And when it crashed he lost a lot. And he turned back to the worst stuff (Heroin). And then his business slowly started to fall apart as he began not showing up as much. And soon he lost all of his customers and all of his income. When his money ran out he found Fentanyl. It is cheaper and far stronger. Yes, even than Heroin.
That is the part that people missed during all of the hysteria about dying if you touched it (you won't). It is multiple times stronger than heroin and FAR cheaper. That is why it is everywhere right now.
His life unraveled and he lost everything. His car. His business. His house.

I spent two weeks cleaning his place. I cannot describe what I saw. Moved his stuff in storage. While he was comatose on a mattress. And finally moved him into a detox. He lasted 3 days before he left. I've driven him to two more. He's too depressed at what he's lost to be sober. He has no desire. And if he doesn't want it all of our wanting is in vain.
It is horrifying to watch it happen.

He has now joined the thousands of others on the streets. The tools and way out is there. But he would rather be high. He's depressed and has trauma he's never properly dealt with and no politics will change that.

Last week he was arrested. He did what most do which is turn to crime to pay for their habit. They can't work. No one would hire them and frankly they couldn't last 8 hours. So crime it is.
He was arrested for two felonies and a few misdemeanors.
We celebrated. Best thing that could have ever happened to him. He may not want to go to detox but now he would be forced to be clean. And once sober....maybe we could reason with him again.

And then 72 hours later they released him. Back to the streets. Back to the dirt cheap, mind-altering, emotion numbing drugs. A pill is cheaper than a craft beer. Literally. You can go numb for hours for a measly $10.

His story is like thousands of others. Housing is not his issue. He's had that. Jobs are not the issue.

Our courts and jails are simply overrun right now and him getting caught with Fake ID's and drug paraphernalia is nothing to them. The mental wards of the past have simply been replaced by the jails and prisons of today.
Good.
If they want to clean up the streets don't put a bandaid on the problem by moving them out of the tourist areas.

Change the Drug Laws. This is simply my opinion but Meth, Heroin and Fentanyl should be in their own class. Jail the hell out of them. (It is insane to me that ecstasy, mushrooms and LSD are Schedule 1 drugs and Fentanyl is a Schedule 2 drug. That is preposterous. Ask Stu....he just got back from a Dead concert....haha).

Make the possession and distribution of that new level of narcotic an even more severe crime.

Drug test every arrest. If they have one of those immediately send them to Drug Court, deny bail and make it a 12 month sentence. Their friends and family will love you for it.

Make crime a crime again. And make it hurt enough where the pain of the sentence is greater than the benefit of the crime.

And none of what I am saying above is as a Trumper or Republican who is distanced from it all and has no heart. I am saying it because I do. Because my heart breaks for every single one of those people on the street.
Drug court would be the best thing to happen to most of them. It is a forced detox that includes therapy, etc. It won't fix it all but it would help.

That is what I am actively doing in my own city. I am a liberal at my core and will continue to vote that way. AND I will fight for all I have said above. And I will continue to petition, write, vote and champion the fact that a liberal can be both.

Again, sorry for how long that was. I think I posted that mostly for me. It's been a very long and hard few months. Likely going to be a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Again, sorry for how long that was. I think I posted that mostly for me. It's been a very long and hard few months. Likely going to be a lot more.

---

Appreciate the post. I'm not the best person in the world. But I'm good listener (reader).

A good friend of mine was talking to his cousin (more like a brother to him) and asked how his wife and he were doing. He said things were awesome and proceeded to tell him of his big business plans and so forth. Financial success was guaranteed. My friend knew he was an addict and had disappeared basically so he inquired where he lived so he could stop and visit some.

Finally he told him he and his wife lived in a pup tent under a bridge in Louisville. No car, scrounging for money, and thought he was “cooking with gas”

The man is a good sort and was relatively successful prior to a few years ago.

“Ask Stu....he just got back from a Dead concert....haha)” I admit to some feelings of being left out here.

Puma’s friend’s story and kingcat’s friend’s story are all too usual. The drug issue. The mental health issue stretches back forever and the end of asylums meant the beginning of mental health crisis. I have a close friend whose brother has been missing since the 1970s. All that time the occasional popup arrest & then back disappearing under the overpass.

Those are the “storage units for humans” candidates. Send social services to the storage units once a week

20% maybe just find it cheaper to live in a cam Er and crap in the weeds. They need to be absolutely dissuaded and criminalized.

Third group needs both clean and sober housing seen as a better alternative to getting rousted every 3 days and social services to help now and a path later. A temp Housing situation with an address and contact info for the job applications.

The current situation can continue into anarchy , but obviously should not.

Puma, I'm very sorry for your situation, and his, but I think that is an outstanding post that goes right to the heart of things.

Here's the thing that, as a Libertarian/Conservative, I have almost never been able to get my more liberal friends to understand: Wanting to practice tough love does not mean I do not care about people. It means I want to do what it takes to really help people, even if that is to be hard on them.

Would anyone let their child in their home behave the way we allow the homeless to behave? Your friend? No, if we cared about them like we do our kids we would forcibly place them in rehab and get them clean and then work to try to make them productive, adjusted members of society.

We would do that for our child when they are a minor and we have that power, but we wont' do that for your friend. No for him we just put him back out there. We throw money at social services he cannot and will not take advantage of b/c he's an addict, but we do nothing as a society to take real action.

The solution is simple enough: we need to have the legal power to arrest people like him, take him before a judge and have him judged a harm to himself and others and placed by force of law in a rehab facility and ordered to stay there until clean, then on probation, etc. To basically compel him to join society in some fashion.

That would be the compassionate answer. that's why you celebrated at his arrest. That's why we are failing and have this problem, b/c the arrest meant nothing.

that arrest needs results at the end of it, and the solution is sobriety.

We caused this problem in part when we shut down our mental hospitals. I'm not suggesting we go back to the awful ones, but yes we need those in this society. There are those who are simply mentally ill, and those who cannot be kept from addiction without bars and fences.

We spend far more than enough to build and operate those facilities at a very well run, proper level of care. The total number of people we need to house is actually very small comparatively. LA I think is like 7,000 homeless. That's a tiny number of people for a city that size. We can provide whose who need rehab and long term mental care well within the budgets of what we are currently spending on these programs. these programs just have no teeth and are to scattered. Or at least close enough that we are all willing to write that check to solve this problem.

Then we need to deal with the crime. That as you said is also pretty simple. I would argue that we not only build the faciliites needed to do the job, but more important we stop sentencing people to TIME served, but to ACTS achieved.

For example, a recurring thief doesn't care about being sentenced to 30 days or 1 year of jail. Sentence him to a facility where he will stay until he gets his GED and can find gainful employment. That's his sentence. Get an education or work at the facility shop making license plates.

the current Leftist approach, which is NOT the same as being a liberal btw, not even close, is absurd. it's basically anarchy, presumably based on the belief that everyone who steals something is a misunderstood victim of society. They aren't. They are addicts, they are criminals, but the only people misunderstanding them are the LEftists.

It's time for traditional liberals, like puma and many here, and traditional conservatives, and Libertarians, to all stand up against this insanity. There is little disagreement at this point among all three groups that we need to fix this problem. Maybe it's bc of your compassion for the homeless who are suffering, maybe it's b/c you don't want to step over them or be accosted by them, and for most people it's actually both, but we all agree.

The solutions are simple and straightforward, but they are "tough love". They aren't polite. They wont' "feel" compassionate when we start. It doesn't feel compassionate to take your drug addicted child and force them into rehab either, but it's what a good parent would do if their child had become that lost.

We need to be parents. The grown ups in the room. Grown ups, parents, have to make tough decisions that are what's best for children in the long run. It's painful, it hurts as a parent to do it, but you do what is best for the child.

This is that situation. If we really care about doing what is right for people like puma's friend, it would be to accept that as an addict there is no reasoning with him, nor does he have any reason of his own. The only humane option is to use the force of the state to get him clean and sober and then try to help him rebuild a life.

I really am sorry Puma, but I couldn't agree more with your view on this problem or the solution to it. Given our disparate political ideologies I think that says a lot about where this nation can come together on this issue.

Oh, and I agree 100% on the criminalization of these drugs. This goes to issues like the border (where I am not anti-immigrration at all but where we need to get control over the process and away from the Mexican drug cartels), and absolutely to the classification of these drugs.

It will also get worse, not better, as they come up with more potent and cheaper drugs.

We need the hippies to come back and lead those who do not want to conform. In many cases it’s a similar movement except the hippie generation was still in touch with the common sense of their mothers and fathers, even in somewhat drug inspired, social rebellion.

The last few generations know little to nothing about survival outside of the societal norm. It’s not that they feel hopeless imo.
It’s that they just survive by waiting on their ship to roll in..just any day.

The Lotto generation. How to help them does not have a perfect answer. The worlds population has exploded to the point such problems are forever magnified and destined to increase.

That is a good observation. In the old days the people needing a miracle ticket wanted to buy a ticket. Now they want it gifted.

We went to communes where everyone had to work hard to succeed and they fell apart. We left every social convention and family and home and went off in search. Those that survived and succeeded found something within, not without. Independence meant self sufficiency, self direction, choosing and deciding and making it happen.

The kindness of strangers was welcome and appreciated, but those who depended on it failed, just as the speaker in the play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

That is a good observation. In the old days the people needing a miracle ticket wanted to buy a ticket. Now they want it gifted.

We went to communes where everyone had to work hard to succeed and they fell apart. We left every social convention and family and home and went off in search. Those that survived and succeeded found something within, not without. Independence meant self sufficiency, self direction, choosing and deciding and making it happen.

The kindness of strangers was welcome and appreciated, but those who depended on it failed, just as the speaker in the play.

---

Yes. I am a firm believer in this as well.

The American Community has gone by the wayside in many ways and this youngest generation is a product of that. Their connection is all digital which is a facade. And it has led to a massive increase in mental health issues.

Drugs are not the problem. They are their solution. And until they deal with the problem they will continue to turn to the wrong solutions.

There is a wonderful book on this called, "Bowling Alone". It talks about the different ways people have been a part of community over the decades. Bowling Leagues. Moose Lodges. Neighborhoods. Churches.

Now, for most, those are now non-existent.

I used to always say we had a "Front Porch" society and now we have a back porch society. I am guilty of it as well. We spend all of our time on our back patio surrounded by bamboo that we planted for privacy. Heck, people can get their food and groceries delivered without ever having any face to face contact.

Community is dead for most. And that's a problem. I'm thankful for this one.

Agree as well puma.

I tell people that humanity is constructing a society in which humans can not live and function. We are genetically wired for social behavior, for certain emotions and needs and social structures like family. Humans have been this way since our inception and we are now building a world that is too fast, too disconnected, too intense, and too isolating for us to be happy or healthy.

We are engineering our own dystopian future. It isn't coming from some outside force like a controlling tyrannical state, we're doing it to ourselves.

I liken it actually to addiction. Addictions prey on our genetics, and our human frailties. The world we are building also caters to those same kinds of frailties and tendencies. It tears down the defense mechanisms we need, the support networks of friends and family, the socialization and the social contract that binds us.

Look at these criminals. They are operating outside the social contract, without respect for others, without empathy and with no desire to have any. We have always had some number of such people in the world, but that number here in the US is increasing dramatically. They grow up playing games where it is sport to shoot innocent people and cops, in a world with little contact with mature social structures, and then they go out and behave exactly as we might expect.

I often think of what life was like when I was a child. so much slower, so much more connected. It had it's downsides, b/c those same social networks also enforced behaviors like being straight, or whatever, but now we have an absence of those networks and it isn't working well at all.

I don't really care for the world humanity is building for itself, and neither does anyone else, though some don't realize it b/c esp. those who are younger have nothing with which to compare.

San Francisco commissioner resigns in scathing letter to Mayor Breed after exposing city's squalid conditions
The ex-land use commissioner said rampant drug use and business closures could destroy city

Linkage

Mission district restaurant closing after 14 years: https://www.foxnews.com/media/crime-...e-run-business

There's just too much evidence here, from too many people who otherwise are very vested in San Francisco and thus should have if anything a bias to underreport issues.

It's bad, it's getting worse, getting worse fast, and it's completely due to California's and San Francisco's policy agendas. Effectively decriminalizing lots of small theft and crime has, with absolutely ZERO surprises for anyone thinking logically, led to a BIG increase in crime. Uh, duh. Was this news to anyone? Apparently news to a lot of people who supported it, including politicians in cities in CA now saying it's a huge mistake. Well, yeah.

You cannot let people steal with no penalty, put up with rampant drug use, and then expect your streets to be safe. Does that really need to be spelled out to people?

Quote:

---

You cannot let people steal with no penalty, put up with rampant drug use, and then expect your streets to be safe. Does that really need to be spelled out to people?

---

But, but, but is it equitable behavior toward the poor, downtrodden, crazy people. It allows them to have things that they need to survive and feel equal to others in that society. Not fair to those street people to lock them up and force them to live without their preferred drugs and right to poop on the floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

You cannot let people steal with no penalty, put up with rampant drug use, and then expect your streets to be safe. Does that really need to be spelled out to people?

---

It doesn't.

I know it is easy to just buy into a narrative that liberals and even liberal politicians have put these policies in place that have led to this. That is partially true but not in the way many think.

Specific to SF....right now it is a Federal Judge that has caused so much of this. Newsom (no E....just fyi) has been fighting this cause for over a year now. He knows the homeless encampments are a black eye on the city of SF. Again, SOME of his/their policies in the past are to blame.
But, the Mayor of SF and Newsom began cleaning those up and a Federal Judge last December banned them from doing so. Newsom called the Judge's ruling, "preposterous and inhumane".
He/they are actively trying to undo the damage that it has caused the city (and again, yes, some of that is their own policies but at least they are recognizing that).
But they can't defy a Federal Judges order that says they cannot do it.

https://gazette.com/news/wex/gavin-n...066b73127.html

Puma,

First, I'm not in any way directing that at "liberals". I am careful to distinguish between "liberals", and what I call "Leftists", who are extreme ideologues who don't listen to reason or consider the facts. The same is also true on the Right, between conservatives and whatever name you want to give to the zealots on that side.

As for the case law, yes, I'm well aware, and in fact it goes back a ways, to 2018 and Martin v. Boise. That was a ruling by the 9th Circuit that basically said that it was cruel and unusual punishment to demand an end to "camping" (moving the homeless on) if they do not have enough beds to accept those displaced from that space in some kind of government or whatever facility.

No coincidence from that time we see a rise in this problem.

I will note that there is not yet conflicting case law on this, as many cities outside the 9th have just gone along with this ruling without challenging it in other districts. that also means SCOTUS has not been called upon to rule on it b/c so far no one is appealing it or generating the conflicting case law that generally would motivate them to rule on the matter.

In fact the ruling was only by the three judge panel, not the full bench.

So it's not REALLY the law of the land at this point, though yes it obviously ties the hands of cities in the 9th.

I will however somewhat disagree that this is not the fault of "liberal" policies, and in this case also liberal judges. I think it's safe to say this is very much the fault of liberal policies and judges, going back not just to Martin but way back to the 1980s and various groups like the ACLU suing in ways that yes were at times needed, but also done without any alternatives put in place to deal with drug abusers, the mentally ill, etc.

These homeless people didn't represent themselves. Those groups who file these lawsuits and lobby on behalf of their "rights" are funded by various leftist groups including George Soros. The fact they win in court with liberal judges who are also sympathetic to these causes doesn't absolve the liberal ideology of all blame in this debacle.

Further, it is not just the restrictions on acting on the homeless that are at fault here, but a number of other liberal, not Leftist, policies that have largely sprung from California:

- Proposition 47, passed in 2014 with broad liberal support. While not eliminating prosecutions under $950 in value, it made such crimes misdemeanors, and was the first step towards what, with Soros style DAs, has become a decriminalization of theft, largely retail.

- Reinforcing negative stereotypes of law enforcement. Long a liberal mantra, the basic lack of respect for law enforcement and now the lack of funding for law enforcement, is directly correlated with not just rising crime but even rising homelessness as of course drug use is largely now ignored.

- Liberalization of drug laws and unwillingness to prosecute and sentence. This is one I know you feel personally, so I include this with all due respect. I can now walk places in Lexington and see homeless people shoot up, and cops drive by and do nothing. There might as well not be any on the books.


That's just a quick survey of a few parts of what you and I both know is leading to a vast problem that has little to do with rising home costs and a TON to do with drug use, mental illness, and inability of the government to properly enforce basic laws of our social contract.

At the end of the day our nation is allowing a very small number of people, both homeless and criminal, to drag down the vast majority. It needs to stop, and it will take enough "liberals" turning away from some of their ideology and voting for the people who will nominate and approve the judges and pursue the issues in the courts so we can take control back from these few individuals who clearly need the rule of law enforced upon them.

Your friend needs to be brought before a judge, ruled a danger to himself and others, and placed forcibly in rehab. I think you'll agree with that. He should remain there until he is absolutely clean and sober, and has shown an ability to start rebuilding his life, and more generically, shown he can be a contributing member of society and comply with our social contract.

That doesn't mean he should be in jail, or treated horribly, but if we really care about these people, as "liberals" certainly claim to do (and Leftists claim it at the top of their lungs), then join with those who want to be good parents and practice the tough love needed to actually help them.

These Soros funded groups suing to allow homeless drug addicts to remain on the streets are not helping anyone. They are harming these people at a shocking level, all while applauding themselves for protecting their "rights". They have a right to be strung out victims of routine crime, commit crimes to survive, and be wards of the drug cartels? That's a right now in America?

No, if we really care we need tough love. We need the politicians and judges willing to write and enforce the laws to allow us to arrest these people, have them committed to the appropriate facility, and try to help them for real. Help them become human beings again, instead of drug addled animals.

Liberalism, as borne of the 1960s, is a great ideal, and a very lousy policy plan if you really care about poverty or homelessness. It has done nothing but rip apart families, doom more people to generational poverty than ever, and in its current incarnation effectively allow those people to become drug addicted petty thieves praying on the majority of Americans.

It's time to care about them so much it actually hurts, the same way it hurts a parent to spank the child they love. Time to embrace law enforcement again, embrace requiring people to live up to a basic standard of behavior, and embrace doing what it takes to make those changes happen.

I have many liberal friends, more than conservatives probably, but I think it's time for them to find some commonality on these issues with those of us who are so often accused of having no compassion.

I think I have more compassion when I want the heroin addict arrested and drug by force to rehab than the person who thinks he has a right to sit at the street corner and shoot up.

In short, Come to the Dark Side. We Have Cookies! :)

Ha. Oh, I definitely agree that it’s due to liberal and leftist policies over the years.

I’m just trying to point out a fact that probably doesn’t get mentioned a lot. Newsom is fighting the ruling and called it awful.
He wants to remove these encampments as much as anyone.
Call him what you want but he’s a decent politician. And he knows the tide on this has turned.
That is a good thing imo. Once more cities start to see it as a loser politically they won’t be so “gracious” to homeless people and crime.
Several Ca cities have already elected more moderate mayors for this very reason.

I agree there puma. Newsome and others have realized this has blown up in their political faces. Read a piece on a local official, may have even been San Diego but can't remember, saying he supported Prop 47, etc. and saying he was wrong. Some of that may be an awakening, a lot of it realizing this will cost votes.

I think this crime/homeless situation and the reaction I've by many who consider themselves liberal (articles and interviews out of Portland, Seattle, Cali, etc.) prove the maxim:

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I agree there puma. Newsome and others have realized this has blown up in their political faces. Read a piece on a local official, may have even been San Diego but can't remember, saying he supported Prop 47, etc. and saying he was wrong. Some of that may be an awakening, a lot of it realizing this will cost votes.

I think this crime/homeless situation and the reaction I've by many who consider themselves liberal (articles and interviews out of Portland, Seattle, Cali, etc.) prove the maxim:

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

---

To me, this is what is crazy about the current Presidential election and direction of the Republican party (from my POV).

I am a liberal Democrat for several reasons. None of which will change if I am mugged. But, I care more about a handful of issues than I do others. I think (know) there are many others like me.
And it is baffling to me that the Republican party is now the party that overturned Roe v Wade. That is just political suicide in so many ways.
Take the Presidential election. I will never, ever vote for any candidate that is opposed to Roe v Wade. Ever. Never. Under any circumstances. And imo, there are millions like me.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand why Trump decided to take that issue on. And I will never understand why Desantis has made it a large part of his platform.

They will simply never win the vote of so many moderate voters because of that single issue alone. And it earns them ZERO votes. Because the people who are passionate about that topic were very likely voting for them anyways.
And they spent a year or two telling everyone that would listen they would never overturn it. And then they did.

And now, I know so many people that feel gay marriage is next. And it doesn't really matter whether it is....they feel like it is. And that matters.

It cost them in 2022 and it will cost them again in 2024 imo.

Yes....the crime and homelessness issues are loser topics for Democrats. And hopefully more and more of them make the shift that Newsom has made.
But, the Republicans will not win many votes of independents based on those two issues simply because there are others that I believe are as important or more important to them.

Mayorly? Maybe. But likely not Nationally.

I think the Senate map favors Republicans this go around but only slightly. The House will be a true toss up. And I think the Presidency will go Democratic if Trump is the nominee.

But my point is that I think Republicans could have easily swept all 3 if they had not championed against Roe the way they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

To me, this is what is crazy about the current Presidential election and direction of the Republican party (from my POV).

I am a liberal Democrat for several reasons. None of which will change if I am mugged. But, I care more about a handful of issues than I do others. I think (know) there are many others like me.
And it is baffling to me that the Republican party is now the party that overturned Roe v Wade. That is just political suicide in so many ways.
Take the Presidential election. I will never, ever vote for any candidate that is opposed to Roe v Wade. Ever. Never. Under any circumstances. And imo, there are millions like me.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand why Trump decided to take that issue on. And I will never understand why Desantis has made it a large part of his platform.

They will simply never win the vote of so many moderate voters because of that single issue alone. And it earns them ZERO votes. Because the people who are passionate about that topic were very likely voting for them anyways.
And they spent a year or two telling everyone that would listen they would never overturn it. And then they did.

And now, I know so many people that feel gay marriage is next. And it doesn't really matter whether it is....they feel like it is. And that matters.

It cost them in 2022 and it will cost them again in 2024 imo.

Yes....the crime and homelessness issues are loser topics for Democrats. And hopefully more and more of them make the shift that Newsom has made.
But, the Republicans will not win many votes of independents based on those two issues simply because there are others that I believe are as important or more important to them.

Mayorly? Maybe. But likely not Nationally.

I think the Senate map favors Republicans this go around but only slightly. The House will be a true toss up. And I think the Presidency will go Democratic if Trump is the nominee.

But my point is that I think Republicans could have easily swept all 3 if they had not championed against Roe the way they did.

---

I disagree in that I don't think it was about Roe v Wade. They lost IMO, because many took the no exception stance, no so much Roe v Wade. Just my 2 cents...

But, I'll say this. I'm as pro-life as it gets. But being 100% pro-life is killing babies. Because, as you pointed to, it is political suicide, and will never pass in most states. Compromise is the only solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat

I disagree in that I don't think it was about Roe v Wade. They lost IMO, because many took the no exception stance, no so much Roe v Wade. Just my 2 cents...

But, I'll say this. I'm as pro-life as it gets. But being 100% pro-life is killing babies. Because, as you pointed to, it is political suicide, and will never pass in most states. Compromise is the only solution.

---

That is why Haley is so scary to Dems. She is pro-life but at least speaks about it in a moderate way. She would pull some of those independent voters in swing states needed to win.

With all of the noise, it is easy to forget that about 1 million voters in 3 states will decide the election. That's it. Not either base. Not the crowds. A tiny fraction of the country.

Trump (if he's not in prison) will ensure that huge numbers from both sides will come out and vote (which would be the other way Republicans could win....low turnout). So it really just comes down to a few states and a handful of independents. And we will hear a TON about these issues when the national debates begin next year.

And sorry to jump back and forth between topics but I wanted to mention one more thought on the retail crime aspect. This isn't a California issue. This is happening everywhere. In fact, in California, retail crime is actually down this year (again, not something you will hear on the news or Tik Tok).

Yes, prosecutors absolutely need to get harsher and charge these peeps and put them away. I spoke about that several posts ago.
But, this notion that these more recent viral "flash mob" crimes are because of the California law about $950 or less being a misdemeanor, etc is hogwash.

First, what is being stolen in most of these videos is WAY more than $950. This has nothing to do with that.
Second, the amount doesn't matter if it is a group of people. That is a felony no matter what as it's considered an organized crime.
These videos simply go viral because people film them and post them.
But they are happening everywhere. And will continue to.

These are very organized and the items are then turned into a warehouse where they are sold. People doing it are not keeping the items (in most cases). They are recruited and paid cash to go do it.
It's just a very sad reality of where people are and the kinds of things they are willing to do. It's quick cash for people. And they are convinced that it doesn't matter because "insurance will pay for what is stolen".

My wife and I run a logistics company and we are at the front lines of this. We have had two trucks hijacked in the past 6 months. And that has never happened to us in the years we've been doing this. Criminals are getting very very good at what they do.
And those didn't happen in California. They happened in Florida.

In one case, the guy held the container hostage and we had to negotiate with him for over a week and pay him thousands to get the product back (long story why we didn't involve the authorities....but it was cheaper just to pay them off).

In the other case, it was similar to what I mentioned above. The container was driven across country to a warehouse in California (where the truck was supposed to drive anyways). And the CHP raided the warehouse before we were contacted for a ransom (which we would have been). The warehouse was completely full of containers that had been stolen. Millions of dollars in product. Ours was worth over $100K (pistachios for crying out loud) and worthless because the seal had been broken on the truck...and because it was a food item it cannot be sold.

This is just the new age of crime. Very organized. Very thought out. Very profitable.

I could go on and on in the trucking world. I'm sure Trucker could tell some stories as well. But these criminals will put a LOT of companies out of business. And who gets hurt the most? The mom and pop truck drivers. They are often the ones who's insurance gets hit to pay for the product. And there is an ugly world of "fake brokers" out there who are using drivers for the crime without them ever knowing it. And they never get paid. Ugly, ugly stuff.

Similar to KentuckyWildcat, I am a Pro Lifer and have been for more than 50 years, and had to live with the federal law surrounding the Roe v Wade case. When the recent decision to remove the national ruling in favor of Roe v Wade was made and to place decision to allow or not allow abortion on a state by state basis, I truly felt like that was the proper decision and is the one that should have been made 49 years earlier.

I had not let the SCOTUS decision in 1973 be the overriding issue that led me to vote for one presidential candidate or the other, and it will not be the one guiding issue that decides on where my vote goes. If it were that important to me and I lived in a state that allowed abortions, especially late term abortion, then I would move to a state that had lawmakers more to my liking.

Even though laws affecting abortion are very important to me, I can offer a list of other things that affect everyone in the country regardless of their state of residence, and those issues will decide where my vote goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

allow or not allow abortion on a state by state basis

If it were that important to me and I lived in a state that allowed abortions, especially late term abortion, then I would move to a state that had lawmakers more to my liking

---

Exactly this for me. Let the states handle most issues. Gives the voters more power and influence at a local level. It also gives you freedom to move as you desire. I would like to see a federal ban on late term abortions. To me, this is how it how it should work. Let federal govt be the guardrails, and give states freedom to work within those guardrails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is why Haley is so scary to Dems.

---

My favorite of the bunch!

I have often found (and not saying this of anyone here) that people are all about state's rights when it agrees with their opinions/belief and all about a federal law when it doesn't.
Burgum did a great job pointing out this hypocrisy in the debate. To no avail as Desantis and others kept calling for a Federal ban on late term abortions in spite of it.

I also find it a fascinating dilemma for Republicans who are constantly touting personal freedom. And constantly telling the government to stay out of their business, home and personal life.
And yet, when it is something they care about....are all about the government (whether it be state or federal) staying very involved in other people's lives and telling them what to do or not do.

"Don't tell me I can't use a plastic straw but do tell her she must carry full term and give birth".
"Don't tell me I can't have an AK-47 but do tell the gays they can't get married".
"Don't tell me I can't drive a Hummer but do tell them they can't have conversion medicine."

And none of that even speaks of the hypocrisy of the droves of politicians who are against something publicly (like abortion) but have paid for that very thing privately when it benefitted them.

No one party has the market on freedom. We all simply use it when it mirrors our personal beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I have often found (and not saying this of anyone here) that people are all about state's rights when it agrees with their opinions/belief and all about a federal law when it doesn't.
Burgum did a great job pointing out this hypocrisy in the debate. To no avail as Desantis and others kept calling for a Federal ban on late term abortions in spite of it.

I also find it a fascinating dilemma for Republicans who are constantly touting personal freedom. And constantly telling the government to stay out of their business, home and personal life.
And yet, when it is something they care about....are all about the government (whether it be state or federal) staying very involved in other people's lives and telling them what to do or not do.

"Don't tell me I can't use a plastic straw but do tell her she must carry full term and give birth".
"Don't tell me I can't have an AK-47 but do tell the gays they can't get married".
"Don't tell me I can't drive a Hummer but do tell them they can't have conversion medicine."

And none of that even speaks of the hypocrisy of the droves of politicians who are against something publicly (like abortion) but have paid for that very thing privately when it benefitted them.

No one party has the market on freedom. We all simply use it when it mirrors our personal beliefs.

---

Not me, I'm consistent :)

For me, I want less government at the top. More at the state and local levels. It just better reflects the people living there. If those people don't like it, they can move. If they do, then good for them.

My guard rail example again. And this is just a quick example I have not thought through. Federal govt should say, every state has to allow citizens to own firearms. Let the states determine what kind. If Illinois, says single shot rifles only, I don't have a problem with that. But I also wouldn't be moving there.

California bill decriminalizing personal use of psychedelics, magic mushrooms heads to Newsom's desk
Gov. Gavin Newsom has until October to sign the decriminalization of psychedelics into law

The pro-psychedelic measure would also require the California Health and Human Services Agency to study the therapeutic use of psychedelics and submit a report to the Legislature with recommendations, the bill says.

California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher strongly opposed the bill by arguing that legalizing psychedelics will worsen the crime and homelessness ravaging the Golden State.

"Crime and homelessness are out of control in California. If Democrats don’t think this will make things worse, they’re hallucinating - no mushrooms needed," Gallagher said

Democrat State Assemblyman Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, argued that veterans and first responders struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction "deserve access to these promising plant medicines."

Wiener argued that psychedelics are not addictive and that the U.S. needs to stop criminalizing people who use them.

"We know these substances are not addictive, and they show tremendous promise in treating many of the most intractable conditions driving our nation’s mental health crisis," Wiener said in a news release. "It’s time to stop criminalizing people who use psychedelics for healing or personal well-being."

Linkiage

Not San Francisco but Berkeley just across the Bay and north of Oakland

https://youtu.be/Lv89eQqZ_6Q?feature=shared

This guys channel shows a good bit of the retail urban decay in the Bay Area

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I have often found (and not saying this of anyone here) that people are all about state's rights when it agrees with their opinions/belief and all about a federal law when it doesn't.
Burgum did a great job pointing out this hypocrisy in the debate. To no avail as Desantis and others kept calling for a Federal ban on late term abortions in spite of it.

I also find it a fascinating dilemma for Republicans who are constantly touting personal freedom. And constantly telling the government to stay out of their business, home and personal life.
And yet, when it is something they care about....are all about the government (whether it be state or federal) staying very involved in other people's lives and telling them what to do or not do.

"Don't tell me I can't use a plastic straw but do tell her she must carry full term and give birth".
"Don't tell me I can't have an AK-47 but do tell the gays they can't get married".
"Don't tell me I can't drive a Hummer but do tell them they can't have conversion medicine."

And none of that even speaks of the hypocrisy of the droves of politicians who are against something publicly (like abortion) but have paid for that very thing privately when it benefitted them.

No one party has the market on freedom. We all simply use it when it mirrors our personal beliefs.

---

It's a bit extreme to compare plastic straws to abortion.

I can't put voters in the same boxes as politicians. It is crazy to vote for a politician based on a particular position taken. And most people don't. Even in deeply "conservative" Alabama I know no one who fits your description of a conservative. Most don't care what people do in their personal lives. Churches breaking up over gay or gender issues are suffering declining attendance. Gays have significant exposure in state Republican politics. Even Conservative Fox News has three or four openly gay contributors and several more still in the closet. Generalizations about people are tearing the country apart. I frequently work at my polling place. It is surprising what you hear. Many people want to talk about how they are voting or why. It is surprising the thought processes most people use. It's not what you see on TV. As far as generalizations about race and politics, there are a lot of black conservative Republicans in my neighborhood.

When you look at polling data on an individual issue basis there is little correlation between Voters' position on issues and the candidate or party leading in the polls. If I vote Republican, I get Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. If I vote Democrat I get California's own Kamela Harris and AOC. None of them is competent. None match my views on the issues. But one way or another I have to vote and either way I get a lot of baggage.

[QUOTE=MickintheHam;842270]

When you look at polling data on an individual issue basis there is little correlation between Voters' position on issues and the candidate or party leading in the polls. If I vote Republican, I get Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. If I vote Democrat I get California's own Kamela Harris and AOC. None of them is competent. None match my views on the issues. But one way or another I have to vote and either way I get a lot of baggage.[/QUOTe

I vote republican because I am not a
Communist.

San Fran Mayor Breed, appears to be making a good, positive choice for the doppers and for the city.

Democrat San Francisco mayor announces plan to require drug testing, treatment to receive homeless services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

San Fran Mayor Breed, appears to be making a good, positive choice for the doppers and for the city.

Democrat San Francisco mayor announces plan to require drug testing, treatment to receive homeless services.

---

This IMO is step one.

Step two is to arrest and commit those who are strung out addicts to a rehab facility. They are a danger to themselves and others.

That two pronged approach, help for those who want it, and intolerance of those who won't do what it takes to get it, that's the answer to this problem.

Which, of course, is exactly how we used to do things.

San Fran Sicko by Michael Shellenberger is a book about the breakdown of order in traditionally Democrat controlled big cities.

Hope he debates Cali's head sicko in their race for King of the realm on national TV