My question to the floor is whether there are enough true conservitives in the state to ever eleact a social conservitive? If there is not why in Ron's name do you stay there?
I've always been amazed that more and more people insist on living in the same place as if there are no other decent places to live in this fair land.
Let the socialists have it and when they all tax themselves into oblivion then they will have exposed the falicy of their ideology. Just think - if 30% of California's population is true social conservitive, if you guys moved to any other state (or states) what a revolution could take place there. I make the same charge to the conservitive in New England - let em have it. Move to N.Y. and we'll try to redeem that (maybe the combined conservitives in the 6 New England states could bring enough votes to turn that state around).
Let's pile every socialist Dem we can into New England and then turn the whole lot of them over to Canada.
By the same token, let the socilist take over Cal and make it after their image. Let THEM carry the burden of all those illegals and pay through the nose for all their social dreams. Let them achive zero population growth through abortion and homosexual unions - and in the process become a haven for the lib/socialist in the rest of the nation. California will act as a tremendus magnet purifying the rest of the country. And no matter whether their population sees a net increase or not, when it comes time to elect a prez ar vote in the house they will be JUST ONE extremely liberal state (oaky, 7 actually because the giving New England to Canada schtick is unrealistic :D)
So, who's with me? All conservitives out of New England and California, all the liberals INTO those areas. Then we'll see who's ideas actually work.
Seriously, if McClintok does lose on Tuesday, why don't you guys try to knock of Boxer with him if he's so electable? Ron knows we need every GOP Senator we can get.
"My question to the floor is whether there are enough true conservitives in the state to ever eleact a social conservitive? If there is not why in Ron's name do you stay there?" Brilliant question. I call it the California Paradox. In a recent conversation with a friend of mine on this very topic and my desire to move, I said, "I won't mortgage my soul for fair weather." I find it odd that this "Free State Project" received such a semi-warm reception here and the very thought of Conservatives leaving the "Golden State" is met with questioning glances. Years ago, I suggested something similiar to a constantly complaining Black friend of mine..."Why don't enough of you get together with U-Haul's, move to Mississippi and take over?"
What I believe is at the very base of some of the "Slash and Burn" rhetoric of some Tom supporters is their belief that since Tom can't win, a Cruz victory is better than an Ahrnold victory because a Cruz victory, they believe, will result in a Uniting of Republicans and we'll "Take California Back" from what they see, quite correctly, as a Cruz led Democratic-Socialist One-Party State. Of course, this would defeat the one real quick way to make California an Anti-Abortion State...Just populate it with Catholics, you know, Mexicans.
They may be correct. But my vote is far too valuable to waste to acheive an outcome, that, by their own admission will bring ruin to this Great State.
Ahrnold has stated he will Repeal the Car Tax, Tax Indian Gaming, Work to eliminate the bill providing Driver Licenses for Illegals, and just today has stated he will demand a renegotiation of the "Sweetheart" contracts with the State's Public Employee Unions (I'd love a State Worker Strike right not...just call me "Scabby"). And, from what I've read from people that know him, he seems a reasonably kind and generous man.
That's quite enough for me.