They should admit they have lost the White House this time around to themselves. It is unlikely Trump will win, but even if he does by some fluke, they need to distance themselves from him. At this point they should spend all their time, money and effort on winning as many of the down ticket elections as possible. The country will need them those senators and representatives to put the brakes on Hillary's plans and should the nut job Trump win, they need to keep him in check too although the Democrats will likely have that covered.

Basically the Republicans need to ignore him and let him do his own thing while they work on the important work. They need to deflect attention away from Trump and towards the more sane part of the party. They need to lay plans for 2020 and hope they will be around by then.

Actually, in all fairness, I was listening to NPR a couple of days ago and they were talking about this very issue. During this piece, they had a sound bite from a woman that was a black woman who was disgusted with what was happening in her community and said something like- "If these people were killed by the cops, there would be hundreds of people out here mad as hell, but when black people kill black people, everybody keeps their moth shut." I am paraphrasing as I'm remembering a radio broadcast, but she was pretty frustrated by the inner city code of anti "snitching" and could see the hypocrisy of "Black Lives Matter".

The main points that I that I found encouraging was 1) people within the black community can see through the political hype and sensationalism, and 2) NPR actually aired this opinion as it contradicts their usual inner city black victim narrative.

People are angry because the sources of unbiased information have been slowly and insidiously removed from our access.  Everything is spun.  We know this, and it makes us feel helpless and thus angry.

How would you feel if you knew that all your cockpit instruments were slightly if not very inaccurate?  You would be forced to fly differently, but all your decisions and actions would be guesses, and the only truth you'd have would be what you could actually see.  Same with our media and politics.  People look around, see what they see, and it doesn't square with what the media is feeding us.

Recipe for anger.

The thing is, often the stuff these guys are all angry about are abstract to me and I only know of such things as Hillary's emails, or Benghazi, or uranium production, or whatever, is because some media outlet told me of them. I am entirely dependent on some outside source to tell me these things because I don't have any first hand knowledge. How true any of this information entirely depends on how much I trust that source of information. I can't just look around and see these things, somebody has to tell me.

The anger is largely manufactured. They tell you a thing, they tell you they are very angry, they tell you perpetrators of this thing are villainous scum, they tell you that you should be angry too and so people get angry. It's great for ratings and the purveyors of anger get paid handsomely. It is a lot of theatrics and drama and these people make a nice living off of acting angry to make you angry.

I wish I could get right leaning news and opinions without the ranting theatrics, without the name calling and from people that weren't such obvious sell outs to the almighty dollar.   

Your eyes are brown.

He is exaggerating, but he is not that far from the truth. The left is dissatisfied with America and where it has been. They speak of "transformation" all the damn time. When you hear their ideas for this transformation, you realize they don't want America to be... well, America at all. They would much prefer a humble, socialist European state.

Given enough time and success at the transformation I'm sure there would be a movement to change the name of our country to something less offensive, more inclusive and representative of the indigenous peoples of North... uh... well insert the happiest naive word you can think of here. Or maybe just the United States of Namaste.

I'm only half joking. If you listen to the origins of most of the Left's ideas, meaning San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc and you close you're eyes and concentrate on this kind of thinking, this idea of "transforming" the country and even renaming it once the transformation is closer to completion, is much more clear.

The reason the right wing is so nasty and angry is people on the right like the country we are and have been. They like it a lot. They don't want "transformation" and ultimately, the Left is winning and the Right is losing. Frustration is bound to set in.

The big problem the Left doesn't fully comprehend is, if the Right is truly forced up on the ropes with threat of extinction too soon, the Right is well armed and it will be a blood bath. They will likely wait a generation or two until their control of the media and the education system is successful in indoctrinating 80%+ of the young people to the "correct" way of thinking, the courts they control have open the way to implement all their great new ideas and their laws, taxation and regulations wear the Right down to the point they are very weak.

Make no mistake, the Left intends to bury the Right. They are hopeful they can do it with "proper" education and not force.

When did being a liberal equate to being such a bad thing?  I thought political discourse was a good thing, or is groupthink really the way to go?

About the time when the left wing realized that they controlled the media, the schools, academia  and much of the courts. They then realized that if they made a "movement" or a "cause" out of something they could effect real change. Then they were "educated" or came to the conclusion that everything was better in Europe and the socialist ways they do things is superior to our provincial, back waters ways and set abut changing that.

Once the left did this, the reaction from the right was, "You're either with us, or agin' us!" Black or white, no shades of gray. They laid out hard, inflexible "principles" and "core values" that must be adhered to or... your agin' us. The right wing has been boxed into just AM talk radio, the internet and Fox News. From these places they provide plenty of slogans and derogatory phrases to attack the enemy with. They get repeated again and again.

These media outlets proclaimed "liberal" a dirty word and it has stuck amongst the right wing faithful.

I'll tell a story of the little town of Alameda, CA because it is very much related to this thread. Alameda, CA is actually a island surrounded by water in the San Francisco Bay. It is right next to Oakland, CA and only about 100-150' of water separate the two cities.

I lived for over 20 years in Oakland and always admired Alameda and wanted to live there, but the housing costs were too high for me to afford a house there. During the 1990s, Oakland was suffering about 250-300 homicides a year, a great many of them in East Oakland that is just across the water from Alameda. During this time Alameda was averaging about 0-1 homicide per year.

Alameda was like Mayberry, an idilic American town with an old fashion down town, clean safe streets, little to no crime and kids could ride their bikes anywhere, even at night. Not much happened in Alameda, just people lived their lives while across the water, Oakland was on fire with gunfire every night.

How did they manage this little oasis in the Bay?

To get to Alameda, you have to either cross one of four bridges, or go through one tunnel that goes under the water. The bridge that goes to Bayfair Island (island only in name) is so remote that most people don't even know where it is or how to get there, so that just leaves three bridges and a tunnel that directly link Alameda to one of the worst parts of Oakland.

Well, the Alameda police force, that was tasked with keeping the town safe and secure and keep property values up, used profiling to do so. They used to patrol all around those bridges and that tunnel and if they somebody drive though their that they didn't know, or looked suspicious, they found a reason to pull them over. That means a lot of black people got pulled over.

There were and are black people living on the island, so it was a tricky balance Im sure. I knew a guy who was black that rented an apartment over there in these times and he told me that he had been pulled over many times. It was a hassle, but they were always polite and eventually recognized him. My friend understood why they did it and was OK with it because he enjoyed the oasis as well. It was a pain he said though when his black friends and family came to visit and I think he eventually moved off the island.

Eventually the Naval Air Station there closed and business on the island plummeted. Much of the Navy housing turned to rent controlled apartments. The demographics changed and with it the policing policies. Much of Alameda is still a nice place to live, but Mayberry is gone now. The crime is up, but nowhere near Oakland. The police still have a reputation even if is not the case anymore, so it helps keep the crime out I guess.

Bottom line is, profiling works to keep crime down and the police use it. The profiles they use are born from experience on the street, not some inbred racism. Proof is, cops of all colors use the same profiles. Just the way it is. This does not excuse the cops from shooting, or killing people that aren't threat, or even in custody. 

Sorry, Dave. But that's bullshit. In one instance, the target at the range is a piece of paper, or a piece of metal. Period.  In the other, the target is real human beings of a different religion.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, show me where the Israelis commit unprovoked and random violence against Palestinians. Please, show me. The "real, inevitable" danger is not inevitable, and is dictated by the terrorists in their midst.  Those terrorists may likely be the fathers and mothers who send their kids to these indoctrination "schools," which, by the way, we American citizens probably fund through "humanitarian aid."

See, you're making the mistake of thinking the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is all about religion. It's not. It's about land, control of land, living conditions and prosperity. They use religion to justify and their actions and to inspire them to continue, but it's not about religion at all. The Palestinians want their property back and they are willing to fight with whatever they have for 1000 years if need be. It's what happens to a people when they have nothing, nowhere to go and nothing to lose.

The irony is, Hitler's "Final Solution" that the Jews ran from, is likely the solution they will come to with the Palestinians. The Palestinians will never stop fighting for their property back, they will never stop getting support from outsiders and they will never be satisfied with crumbs and scraps for Israel. This will go on for 1000 years unless the Israelis get fed up and burn them from the land. I see no good solutions at this point and neither does anybody else.

It's foolish to not understand the Palestinian position and only see the Israeli side of it.