Try being from the "land of fruits and nuts." Lots and lots of FReepers have "the same bigotry" for all Californians. Even though the majority of the "fruits and nuts" they are referring to in this Golden state that both sides of my mom's family helped pioneer more than 150 years ago ... were born and raised outside of California.
Almost all of the fruits and nuts I know personally and well, as well as fruits and nuts I know of or know lightly, came here from the South , the Midwest, and the Eastern Seaboard.
Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are invaders from the East and the Mid West.
I bet a million bucks that a whole lotta native New Yorkers have the same contempt for the lu-lu liberals that invaded and ruined their home, as we native Californians have for the Midwesterners and Easterners who have overrun California to become the latest fruits and nuts.
So cry me a river, Democratic-Republican, about "bigotry" the nation has against various regions and stereotypes. It ain't nothin' compared to the bigotry against Californians.
I am personally bigoted against fake "Republicans" who think more and bigger government is "our" friend, and I don't give a good doodly squat whether they come from NYC, Canada, Cuba, California, Hawaii, Alaska, or Gary Indiana.
Trump is a bad risk and I'm bigoted against bad risks.
So cry me a river, Democratic-Republican, about "bigotry" the nation has against various regions and stereotypes. It ain't nothin' compared to the bigotry against Californians.
Well first of all, I'm not crying about anything. I didn't say that and I don't think I even implied it. I did however say, that this thread ( and several others ) have showed me something. That something is that the obvious and sensible contempt for liberal values in any city or state is actually being spelled out here in English as contempt for New Yorkers, and not even NYC or Manhattan or Albany, but New York period. Clearly a bunch of children, but also a lot of Cruz lemmings who should know better than to walk off a cliff.
As far as you and your diatribe, I imagine you're young and take everything personally. When I think of California values I don't think of SF or LA decadence. I think of easy living, surfing and Venice Beach and valley suburbs and desert towns. But I imagine everyone has their own view from where they have visited and vacationed. But I honestly don't use the "state" name ever when referring to "city" values. So your venting is aimed at the wrong person.
The USA is being redesigned into ... cities ... and leftover land to be kept vacant ... The socialists are doing this on purpose, have been since 1965, and it approximates feudal estates in class division and people control. So I know full well how to discuss these things, and "California values" would never occur to me as an insult. I guess Cruz is your guy hence your need to fight today seeing how he stepped into a sh!storm by a stupid choice of words, and if you really think about it you should be mad at him not me, because he used the equivalent of "California values" when mentioning "New York values". It was vague and non-specific. The interesting part is watching the meltdown here of his supporters flinging out ridiculous and even worse insults.
What is everybody gonna do if he caves in now?
Trump is a bad risk and I'm bigoted against bad risks.
Risk? The risk is running a candidate who is likely to do the same or worse than Dole or McCain or Romney. Hillary and the (D)ummies have a 250 electoral vote head start and need only 20 to win out of the twelve swing states. Absorb that fact before you do anything else.
Now let me ask you something. Where does your preferred candidate, whoever that might be, win in those twelve states? Can you even identify those states? If not, you are not paying attention to what may be the last relatively fair election you will ever see. It will not take much more naturalization of invaders to take 20 more votes off the table. And when they finally turn Texas the country is effectively Europe.
Risk? Risk is running a candidate that the people in those twelve states will not vote for. Do you hear them clamoring for a Constitutional Conservative and/or an Evangelical? Risk? Risk is running who we want on the Supreme Court as a candidate in an electorate who wants something else.
Risk is walking into a casino and putting the whole wad on black or red. But that is practically a 50/50 bet ( minus greens ) and our electoral situation is far far from it due to their headstart. Are you feeling lucky?
People here and all over the place are coming to terms with this. The luxury of picking a boutique candidate probably vanished after 1988. It is no longer 1988. The enemy is going for total victory here, elections which don't matter and are decided before the candidates even declare. They almost have their victory. The candidate this time had better win. The alternative is death for the USA. The Supreme Court appointments alone are critical, but another amnesty and further invasion is annihilation.