"All of that sounds very familiar, doesn't it?"
#1 | Posted by Corky"

Sounds like California.

"Pls don't try to grok the thread article
#3 | Posted by Corky"

The state became too big and chaotic: Yes for California, so much so the state wants to break into several states as the interests are so unaligned

The influence of money and private interests corrupted public institutions: Yep. This is why everything is fake and gay and controlled by big tech or the entertainment industry in the state

And social and economic inequalities became so stark that citizens lost faith in the system altogether and gradually fell into the arms of tyrants and demagogues: 100% Cali as the poverty rates and income inequality are on pace with African nations and the homeless problem is out of control

So, if you want to say this is 'America' when it described 100% Democrat controlled California so much better, you are not be intellectually honest. Also, I think you would have a hard time applying this description to places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, or Florida.

Hmm...your 'worst states' sure seem to attract a lot of people like AZ, TX, TN, and IN while your 'liberal utopia states like NY, CA, and IL seem to lose population every census.

More than that, CA is the poster child of a state that was made great due to past policies (mainly GOP) that are slowly being pissed away by the Liberals that mistakenly believe they were the ones that built the state. It is typical of the rich kid syndrome - wealth is squandered within 3 generations. That tech sector was mainly due to Stanford getting government military grants to work advanced radar systems which spawned the hardware tech revolution. These did not spring up because they loved trans-kids. These sprung up due to actual businesses using the vast infrastructure that had been constructed in the state - including an education system that was best in the nation and now is close to last after 20+ years of liberal control.

"Ever heard of Prop 13?
Now really, go piss off
#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead"

It is the only thing that has prevented the state from falling off a cliff through over taxation.

By any objective quality of life measurement, California was WAY BETTER in the year 2000 than it is in the year 2024 - this after multiple decades of Democrat only rule.

The crime is way worse, the schools are way worse (paying way more for worse results at every level from K-12 to the U of California campuses), there are way less emergency rooms available, homelessness is way worse, poverty level (adjusted for cost of living) is way worse, drug overdoses and mental disorders are way worse, income inequality is way worse, the infrastructure from airports to highways is way worse, and out of state migration is way worse.

This is what 2 decades plus of Democrats controlling the state gets you - it is the rich kid blowing their inheritance on hookers and coke.

"#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead"

I know - facts hurt your fi-fi's. Sorry, but everything I wrote is true - and I doubt you even live in California.

"even in the 80's, it was a great place. Still is, really, unless one reads the news thinking it should only have the problems that much smaller states do.
#26 | Posted by Corky"

Is CA better today in quality of life than it was in the year 2000? If so, by what metric?

"Boazboy proved he didn't understand the question.
#49 | Posted by eberly"

It is not a lack of understanding, it is that they have no facts to stand on so they spew nonsense.

It is an undeniable fact that quality of life has decreased in CA from year 2000 to year 2024 after 2 decades+ of absolute Democrat control of EVERY level of government in the state.

If you want another comparison - is San Francisco (the front runner of CA statewide policies) better in 2024 than it was in 2000 by any actual metric?

"You just described a time period where CA's economic output supported the entire rest of the moocher nation.
#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly"

Nice deflection - but again, did the quality of life increase with 2+ decades of total Democrat control of the state?

"LA has, via their gas regulations, minimized the schittt-brown ring that used to be around the city. That has to have a statewide effect.
#55 | Posted by Danforth"

The problems with air quality were largely already solved by 2000. You are reaching back to the late 1980's if you are talking huge LA smog issues.

But at least you gave it a shot.

I have to ask the board, do any of you actually find Hans to be a contributing poster? I am considering blocking him at this point. Like I said, he seemed creepily obsessed with me and I don't want to feed into his mental illness. Actually, yes, I will block him.

"FFS, go ahead and give us your cherry-picked list, don't make us guess. Exactly what are you counting, and what aren't you counting?
#61 | Posted by Danforth"

I was pretty clear above:
1. crime is way worse
2. the schools are way worse (paying way more for worse results at every level from K-12 to the U of California campuses)
3. less emergency rooms available,
4. homelessness is way worse,
5. poverty level (adjusted for cost of living) is way worse,
6. drug overdoses and mental disorders are way worse,
7. income inequality is way worse,
8. the infrastructure from airports to highways is way worse
9. out of state migration is way worse

But, the already clean air did get cleaner, so you have that.

"Does your current alias seem to want to blank out opinions it has an issue with?
#62 | Posted by LampLighter"

I have been willing to engage with anyone stating any actual opinion or argument. I am not willing to engage with askholes or people like Hans posting for the sake of posting alone - that is obsessive and creepy.

"The labor market has been quite strong.
#71 | Posted by LampLighter"

In Q4 of 2000 California unemployment rate was 4.0%. As of this last September, it was 5.3%, a full 32.5% higher than in year 2000.

But, please try again.

"It's the continued introduction of cutting-edge technology which has prevented the problem from naturally worsening. And yes, the air quality is better in 2024 than it was in 2000. Or at least is was as of last January.
#72 | Posted by Danforth"

It is improving nationwide - but CA still ranks #48 in the nation in terms of air quality.

"Then why does there seem to be so much Republican opposition to laws that would help to increase the quality of the air that Americans breathe?
#85 | Posted by LampLighter"

Ever hear of diminishing returns? Learn the phrase and you will understand why throwing billions of dollars and chasing away jobs to make already clean air even clear makes no sense at this point - just like the CA special fuel blends. If it was still 1985, you would have a point. In 2000 or 2024, you sound uninformed.

"#87 | Posted by LampLighter"

You have already been answered on this point askhole. If you want to continue to engage, ask a new question that has not already been answered or make your own point.

"So, is California's air "already clean" as your current alias seems to assert?
#89 | Posted by LampLighter"

I will indulge you this one time.

We will use LA as the proxy for this:

In year 2000, LA had a total of 10 "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days", in 2023, it was 3. So, your increase in non "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days" went from 355 days to 362 days, an increase of 2%. In 1988, the "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days" was 145. So, the increase from 1988 to 2000 was 220 to 355 days, a 61% increase. As stated, by year 2000, the smog and air quality issue in CA was largely solved. This is the very definition of diminishing returns.

Further, there have been no stage 2 SMOG alerts since 1988 and no stage 1 SMOG alerts since 2003.

"#92 | Posted by REDIAL"

I am the only person that has brought any actual data to this entire discussion (which is par for the course). As you cannot dispute any of the data, you want to attack me instead. Just admit defeat and go home.

"Yeah, what else is your current alias selling?
#94 | Posted by LampLighter"

I presented actual data on the debate in #91, #81 and in #76 for starters. None of it has been refuted - instead, your side resorts to personal attacks because it is unable to counter the actual data.

So, I don't need to 'sell' anything. Just posting actual data alone is enough to completely destroy your Democrat talking points.

By the way, I still so none on your side has been able to respond to my original challenge on what is better in CA in 2024 compared to 2000 for actual quality of life issues.

"#95 | Posted by eberly"

Liberals argue like children or autistics.

"How does that apparent cheering of your current alias contrast with it's prior #81 comment?"

It doesn't. My point then, and now, is that US air quality issues have already been addressed and corrected by the year 2000. With coal burning gone in favor of natural gas for electrical generation and more efficient vehicles nationwide, our air is already way better than what was previously set as the standard for 'clean air'. That is why LA no longer has level 2 of level 1 SMOG alerts. At this point, you are spending billions of dollars to make clean air even cleaner - it is diminishing returns. For CA, especially LA area, they are uniquely terrible vs. the rest of the nation in air quality but even their air quality has been at an acceptable level since 2000.

"So, it seems that your current alias is cherry-picking data for Los Angeles to try to justify its comment about the whole of California?
#99 | Posted by LampLighter"

I am using LA because anywhere else in CA, say Humboldt County, is because the air quality is already so good there that you cannot even find data to make statistically meaning points. For Humboldt County, they had 0 smog days in year 2000 and 0 smog days in 2023. Only LA, with its uniquely awful smog problems from the 1980's has meaningful data - and that data, used as a proxy, already proves my point.

Your problem seems to be with logic in this case.

"@#102 ... Lamp can't argue ---- ...
A comment said without no substantiation whatsoever.
#104 | Posted by LampLighter"

I think your posts in this thread are exhibit A for substantiation of the claim.

"LA is still in California, right?
#106 | Posted by eberly"

If I were a liberal cherry-picking data, I would have used Humboldt County's 0 smog days in 2000 vs. 0 smog days in 2000 to show that there has been no improvement. But, because I am honest with data, I used the most representative sample I could find for the state - and yet, they still whine because the actual data flies in the face of the arguments they try to make.

"Why the apparent backtracking from that?
#108 | Posted by LampLighter"

Already asked and answered in #103. Read it more slowly this time, maybe it would help your comprehension.

"Merely BEING in california is quality of life.
One of the reason we have so many homeless is because it's so damn nice out.
#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly"

Do Liberals come pre-installed with a logic filter or is it the fact that you are NPCs incapable to deviating from pre-programmed talking points that makes you incapable of debate?

The question, and it is a simple one, is California quality of life better now than it was in the year 2000 after 2+ decades or exclusively liberal rule? If so, by what measure?

"Trump's cult is taught to bark at the word CALIFORNIA the same as they're trained to chant lock her up.
#112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly"

It is more the fact that people have actually lived in CA for more than 20 years and have seen the steady fall in quality of life - especially in areas with deep liberal concentrations - can use logic to put 2+2 together. For GOP areas like Orange County have been okay as well as the 'ultra-liberal' enclaves like Marin County where they actively fight implementation of the liberal agenda in their own community while forcing it on everyone else - such as tolerance for illegals or section 8 housing in Marin County. Sorta like the Martha's Vineyard of California. "Immigrants for thee but not for me"

"Your current alias admits that it uses LA as "a proxy" for all of California?
#115 | Posted by LampLighter"

Yes, as already explained on why - perhaps read it again more slowly or have a grown up read it to you. If I wanted to cherry-pick, I would have used Humboldt County. I gave you the single best data point for your side and it simply does not back your argument so now you are banging the table in frustration.

Again, this has been asked and answered already.

Pick a new question or make an original point. You are becoming very boring.

"More high paying jobs? More productive economy? Cleaner air?
#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly"

Cleaner air has already been debunked. As for 'more productive economy' - that is not a quality of life measurement. If you want to trace back 'more productive economy' with 1.) lower unemployment 2.) lower poverty levels 3.) lower rate of homelessness 4.) lower rates of mental health problems 5.) decrease in wealth inequality then you have a point. So, is it linked with any of those?

So, which of these metrics has the 'more productive economy' enabled?

"So, your current alias admits that LA is not the proxy for all of California that it had asserted.
What other back-tracking does it want to do?
#118 | Posted by LampLighter"

It is the BEST PROXY to support YOUR ARGUMENT that is available - and yet, it still does not support your argument. So, I ask you, by what measure and degree of improvement do you have for overall air quality improvement in the state of California from 2000 to 2024? I wait for your link for actual data.

"I don't have an argument here.
#122 | Posted by LampLighter"

That has been clear from the start. Post actual data in your next post or don't expect a reply.

"#124 | Posted by LampLighter"

And we are done here. I gave you more chances than I should have.