It’s interesting to see the GOP attempting to cope with a house divided. For as far back as I can recall the GOP has been the unified party and the Democrats have been the ones dealing with factional strife and internal sniping. Usually explained by saying the Democratic Party is one big tent with room for all ; -)

On the whole I think I preferred it when the GOP (outwardly at least) appeared to be a monolithic entity. And I kind of miss the Democratic Party that once was – today for all intents it’s pretty much just a coalition of Liberals & Progressives – it was a lot more fun when there were dozens of splinter factions raising a ruckus within the Party.

“In These Dark Times for Conservatism, We Count on Your Help”
by Jonah Goldberg
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
April 27, 2016
http://www.nationalreview...tive-cause

You call it division, we call it cleaning house. The grass was greener in the orthodox pastures.

“How to Save the Republican Party”
By David Frum
THE ATLANTIC
04-28-2016
http://www.theatlantic.co...picks=true

“The big internal conservative struggle of 2017 will be the fight to write the narrative of how Trump emerged and why he lost. Anti-Trump conservatives will want to say that Trump lost because he wasn’t a “true conservative.” But 2016 to date is proposing that “true conservatives” constitute only a pitiful minority of the Republican Party, never mind the country as a whole. Why should any practical politician care about them ever again? To regain respect after their humiliation by Trump and the pro-Trump talkers on radio and TV, those who regard themselves as “true conservatives” will have to mount a show of force. “Maybe we can’t win on our own … but you can’t win without us.” And that means contributing—and being seen to contribute—to a Trump defeat.”

gunsngold wrote:

You call it division, we call it cleaning house. The grass was greener in the orthodox pastures.

Puritanism is never progressive and anger alone is not a winning stategy for governing.

Jamiel Shaw,has become an acquaintance of Mr. Trump over the last year and his son was murdered by an illegal immigrant, he is like many trump supporters.
Stories like this let the world know that conservatism is not Nazism, it is a reactionary response to a violent invasion. In Americas case that invasion is by illegals and other cultures that are seeing the indigenous population as an impediment to their potential welfare. Now they are finding out that them good ole boys don't remove to easy. Blaming trump supporters is exactly like blaming victims for defending themselves.


Anger is what the liberal left have as they vent their frustration towards the orthodox way of life. Which is simply a way to blame their failures on someone else. Times couldn't be brighter for the republican guard.

[Edited by gunsngold (4/29/2016 7:16:08 AM)]

Is the goldbug for or against the Trumpus? I'm making the mistake of trying to follow his logic, and now I'm lost.

I am against genocide through massive immigration. I will vote for Trump, but will be looking to replace him with a more level head when the time comes. Level being Newt Gingrich or Pat Roberts, possibly David Duke.

Only because Ron Paul isn't running. Free markets without manipulation of the comex/libor/exchange rates etc....

I do appreciate Trumps nationalistic fervor, shows he cares more for Americans, than for the global citizen. Put America first.

[Edited by gunsngold (4/29/2016 9:37:00 AM)]

there's not enough ranch in the world to make that word salad palatable.

So. . .you are voting for this year's racist bully because last year's racist bully isn't currently running. Got it.

Bridgier wrote:

there's not enough ranch in the world to make that word salad palatable.

You just won the internet for the day.

gunsngold wrote:

Jamiel Shaw,has become an acquaintance of Mr. Trump over the last year and his son was murdered by an illegal immigrant, he is like many trump supporters.
Stories like this let the world know that conservatism is not Nazism, it is a reactionary response to a violent invasion. In Americas case that invasion is by illegals and other cultures that are seeing the indigenous population as an impediment to their potential welfare. Now they are finding out that them good ole boys don't remove to easy. Blaming trump supporters is exactly like blaming victims for defending themselves.


Anger is what the liberal left have as they vent their frustration towards the orthodox way of life. Which is simply a way to blame their failures on someone else. Times couldn't be brighter for the republican guard.

[Edited by gunsngold (4/29/2016 7:16:08 AM)]

I wish we could ask Sitting Bull, Chief Joesph, or Two Moons to comment on this thought. I have a hunch they might disagree with you.

Sadly, Trump will more than likely get elected. I truly believe the only person worse than trump for president would be Hilary. Good job democrats, giving the GOP another slice of victory pie.

Stephen -

Of the states that Obama won in 2012, which do you think Trump will win in 2016?

Well I'd say California and Florida are both good bets for Trump. Florida flip flops, and in the time I spent in California I did not hear many positive things about Clinton.

Best visual ever was yesterdays masked, Mexican flag-waving, brick throwing mob hanging a banner that said....

"STOP HATE!"

stephen wrote:

Well I'd say California and Florida are both good bets for Trump. Florida flip flops, and in the time I spent in California I did not hear many positive things about Clinton.

In the general election, there is 0% chance Trump will carry California. It is true blue. It won't matter though, because it all comes down to a handful of other states due to the electoral college.

>>"STOP HATE!"

: -) A worthy goal. As always the trick lies with the means used to achieve the goal.

Kind of reminds me the quote about B?n Tre that made the rounds back in the late 60s: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it. . . .”

In the general election, there is 0% chance Trump will carry California. It is true blue. It won't matter though, because it all comes down to a handful of other states due to the electoral college.

It is true that California is typically a blue state, but there is a strong republican streak. I think you will be surprised by how many people will vote for the lesser of two evils and go trump.

stephen wrote:

It is true that California is typically a blue state, but there is a strong republican streak. I think you will be surprised by how many people will vote for the lesser of two evils and go trump.

I don't see that happening, in that particular state. But who knows. I guess we will see.

I agree with Stephen. People underestimate how much support Trump has with Mexican Americans. They don't want their cousins moving north to take their jobs.

Most legal Mexican Americans that I have met, dislike the illegal immigrants because they went through the proper channels, where as illegals did not. A few years ago Arizona I think it was bussed a whole bunch of illegals to California, and quite a few busses got sent back because they were refused by the locals.

Further California has strict laws prohibiting illegal immigrants from working in companies, so no desirable jobs would be taken either way.

http://www.gallup.com/pol...anics.aspx

And then there was that foreign policy speech the Trumpet gave that contradicted itself every time it wasn't not making sense. And he read it from a teleprompter so somebody actually wrote it.

Yikes.

Good discussion. Bringing it on home, there are plenty of native Americans who disavow their drunk, meth head, wife beating cousins, yet progressives tend to lump them all together.

The reality is, we are all different, and lumping groups together is just silly.

A few years ago Arizona I think it was bussed a whole bunch of illegals to California, and quite a few busses got sent back because they were refused by the locals.

I honestly don't know where to start with this. The children in question were not 'illegals', they were children who, by law, required a hearing to determine if they should receive asylum or not. After that determination, then I guess you could call them 'illegals'.

I'd love sometime for the shoe to be on the other foot of the nice white christians in California that rioted until the buses went back. Give them an actual hard choice, and then sneer at them for making it.

I honestly don't know where to start with this. The children in question were not 'illegals', they were children who, by law, required a hearing to determine if they should receive asylum or not. After that determination, then I guess you could call them 'illegals'.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/0...transfers/

Yes they were children. Who illegally crossed the border, they did not have American citizenship nor did they have a visa. They were here illegally. The "riot" you speak of was a shouting match between protesters and counter protesters.

Awesome. I read that ENTIRE article, and it gives ZERO context as to WHY the border was flooded with children, or the particular legal loophole that had a bearing on their immigration status.