Vote for a president of USA. 2016 election.

[ElHorsto]

Trump is considered one of 10 biggest danger to world's economy by The Economist magazine.
https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk


April 2016

• China experiences a hard landing
• Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria precede a new "cold war"
• Currency volatility culminates in an emerging markets corporate debt crisis
• Beset by external and internal pressures, the EU begins to fracture
• "Grexit" is followed by a euro zone break-up
• Donald Trump wins the US presidential election
• The rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilises the global economy
• The UK votes to leave the EU
• Chinese expansionism prompts a clash of arms in the South China Sea
• A collapse in investment in the oil sector prompts a future oil price shock

They forgot North Korea and Iran. Else this list of scapegoats is pretty much complete.

[Angela]

Hillary Clinton has been an extremely polarizing figure in American politics for decades. Her recent and obvious misuse of security documents and blatant lies about it just reinforce already existing attitudes toward her. I'm going to have a severe crisis of conscience if I wind up having to vote for her.

[LeBrok]

The problem is that he doesn't explain why he thinks Hilary will destroy the whole world. I am not following the campaign closely, but I still don't understand what's terribly wrong about Hilary Clinton, apart from the known corruption charges (inevitable in top politicians, so I don't think other candidates would fare any better).

Exactly. We can assume that Clinton economic policy will be a continuation of Obama's. As we know, US economy is doing quite good, actually one of the best of established and big economies in the world. Clinton might be a good bet for everyone wanting to maintain status quo and is afraid of uncertainty of Trum presidency. Keeping status quo till there is a better choice in 4 years.

[Angela]

A group of about fifty protestors tried to close down a main road to a Trump event. These kinds of attempts to shut down free speech just enrage his followers all the more and the organizers run the very real risk of making him even more popular. I'm starting to get really pissed off myself. His supporters also have the right to go to his rallies.

There were also a few thousand people marching on the Trump Tower in Manhattan. They didn't have a permit but were marching down the middle of the street, blocking traffic. When the police tried to get them out of the street and onto the sidewalks, they rushed the police. They've also been rushing the barricades around Trump Tower. From what I can see, the police are being very cautious and finely treading the line between the right to protest versus the rights of other citizens. However, when these professional protestors start throwing things or attacking the police they should be hauled off to jail.

[Twilight]

A group of about fifty protestors tried to close down a main road to a Trump event. These kinds of attempts to shut down free speech just enrage his followers all the more and the organizers run the very real risk of making him even more popular. I'm starting to get really pissed off myself. His supporters also have the right to go to his rallies.

There were also a few thousand people marching on the Trump Tower in Manhattan. They didn't have a permit but were marching down the middle of the street, blocking traffic. When the police tried to get them out of the street and onto the sidewalks, they rushed the police. They've also been rushing the barricades around Trump Tower. From what I can see, the police are being very cautious and finely treading the line between the right to protest versus the rights of other citizens. However, when these professional protestors start throwing things or attacking the police they should be hauled off to jail.

As much as I love free speech, I can't help but notice how divided the news system is. One set of news groups say that Trump is kicking out the entire Mexican people out of America and the KKK spam calls people. The other side says that Trump is just kicking out only illegal immigrants. One side of Bernie says he's a socialist yet the other says that he wants to create a greener America.

So yes, a lot of confusion and fingerpointing.

[Fire Haired14]

There were also a few thousand people marching on the Trump Tower in Manhattan. ....From what I can see, the police are being very cautious and finely treading the line between the right to protest versus the rights of other citizens. However, when these professional protestors start throwing things or attacking the police they should be hauled off to jail.

I wonder if America's obsession with freedom-fighters, democracy, and the people is responsible. We see injustice where there is none and have temper-tantrum when ever someone dis agrees with our protests, and wrongly view them as evil authoritarian figures. I think this could be why idiot protesters recently have been, swearing at Police officers, pushing against police officers, and destroying their cities.

Do you think these type of pointless and violent protests have been more popular in recent years than in the past? IMO, American children need to learn to respect authority more than their parents do. This is especially a problem for Black and Hispanic kids.

You'll hear 50%+ of Black teenagers cry about Ferguson, then the next day with their pants hanging down, dis respecting their teachers and shoot other Black teenagers. It's sick. Our country can't continue to treat the cry baby protesters and thugs as victims.

[DuPidh]

Immigration was last on the concerns of voters yesterday. Only 8-10% of voters in each state cited it as their primary issue. What is driving this phenomenon is concern over the economy and a belief that most professional politicians have let them down. Immigration only factors in as part of the concern over jobs by blue collar workers who believe that Mexicans and Central Americans are taking their jobs and if not, driving down wages.

Trump voters have watched way too much tv, and obviously don't read very much. They think that being able to make money in real estate and running a reality show about business means that you know how to fix the economy in the face of global headwinds. It ain't necessarily so. They also are a very trusting bunch. At least with politicians you have their past actions as a guide. At this point I have no idea what Trump really believes.

One thing that African-Americans believe and fear, although it has not been part of the campaign rhetoric, is that some of this Trump vote is from people who also resent that a disproportionate share of the people on welfare are African-Americans, welfare that is subsidized, they believe, by their hard earned dollars. I do think that is probably part of the subtext. Crime rates in African-American ghettos also is a factor, and things like the "Black Lives Matter" movement. To Bicicleur's point, those "taboos" have not been broken. No one has introduced that into the discussion.

The Ohio returns are interesting. In the state where they really know him, and his lack of millionaires willing to fund his campaign wasn't a factor, Kasich has won over Trump by more than 15 points. On the all important question of the economy he trumped Trump by way more than that. He also beat him on honesty, which is important to me, at least. He's a very decent guy, Kasich. I'd be more than happy to vote for him, but if things are looking good for Trump, and Cruz looks like he's the only one who could knock him out, I'd hold my nose and vote for him too.

Does that mean I think he has a path? Not really. Even if campaign money were to start to flow to him now, it's too late.

Your writings about DNA, or history or science in these forums are enjoyable, full of substance which I have enjoyed reading. Your political writings however lack objectivity. They resemble the writings of school teacher who is aware that her writings might be read by the superiors and should be in line with social engineering policy that has been in play for many years. (short: Politically correct)
But you know Trump is rising not because idiots are his supporters, but because he is on the side of the truth. Is Trump going to win? Possibly. Clinton has no strengths to overwhelm Trump. She could not beat Obama who was easily beatable at that time, why is she now going to shock the world by decimating Trump!

[Maleth]

Clinton has no strengths to overwhelm Trump. She could not beat Obama who was easily beatable at that time, why is she now going to shock the world by decimating Trump!

Never underestimate a woman's strength. So if Obama was easily beatable at the time, how come both John McCain and later Joe Biden missed beating him in the General Elections? Just trying to understand the logic.

[bicicleur]

we know the rhetoric Trump uses to get the Repblican nomination, it is in full swing
I wonder what rhetoric he will use against Clinton
he might sing a completely different tune

[Angela]

I wonder if America's obsession with freedom-fighters, democracy, and the people is responsible. We see injustice where there is none and have temper-tantrum when ever someone dis agrees with our protests, and wrongly view them as evil authoritarian figures. I think this could be why idiot protesters recently have been, swearing at Police officers, pushing against police officers, and destroying their cities.

Do you think these type of pointless and violent protests have been more popular in recent years than in the past? IMO, American children need to learn to respect authority more than their parents do. This is especially a problem for Black and Hispanic kids.

You'll hear 50%+ of Black teenagers cry about Ferguson, then the next day with their pants hanging down, dis respecting their teachers and shoot other Black teenagers. It's sick. Our country can't continue to treat the cry baby protesters and thugs as victims.

Being an American isn't about being a member of a certain ethnic or racial or religious group. It's about a shared commitment to a certain set of ideals, ideals embodied in a certain history and in certain founding documents, the most important of which are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Democracy and concern for the rights of all the people are part of the fabric of those documents. From my perspective, therefore, if you're not "obsessed" with those things you're not an American at all.

From that same perspective, there are two competing sets of rights at these rallies, both of which have to be accommodated imo. One is the right to publicly espouse political ideas which some people may find objectionable. The other is the right of the people who find it objectionable to protest that political speech. However, if they don't have a permit or cause disruption it's against the law and they can be arrested and prosecuted. Whether they are or not is a judgment call best left to local law enforcement. At any rate, the protestors should be prepared for the consequences. Indeed, usually they are prepared for arrest, and in fact seek it out so they can get publicity for their cause, which is why sometimes it's best to not arrest the protestors for minor infractions. You also don't want to exacerbate any existing tensions and help make the situation worse. Any violence against people or property is never permissible, however, imo, and has to result in arrest or things can rapidly get out of hand.

There's absolutely no comparison between what's going on right now and the mass protests that went on during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Era. The Civil Rights protests weren't about stopping segregationists from speaking; they were about protesting the unequal treatment of black Americans through Jim Crow laws, among other things. Those non-violent, often prayerful protests were met with water cannons, attack dogs, the burning to death of little children in black churches, the assassination of Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King and others. These horrors and the sight of grown white men and women cursing at and spitting in the faces of little black girls in their starched dresses trying to go to an integrated school so horrified the general American public that it lead to the enactment of various civil rights laws.

The Vietnam protests were different; they did at times turn violent and ugly. It was a terrible time in American history. The left turned not just against the Vietnam War, or Lyndon Johnson, or the right in general, they even hounded returning vets and people like Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat, and by all accounts a decent man. Bill Ayres, a man whom the right claims was a friend of Obama's was part of a group that set bombs and killed people. That kind of behavior actually led to the election of Richard Nixon. That's what I'm afraid will happen with Trump.

The kinds of protests that took place after the Rodney King affair, Ferguson, and Baltimore aren't examples of non-violent civil disobedience; they're mindless, senseless riots where people are destroying their own communities out of misdirected rage. In my personal opinion Martin Luther King would be horrified to see it if he were still alive.

It's not, btw, that I think racism no longer exists in this society, because I know it does. For one thing, black men are treated differently by law enforcement. There's no denying it as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes it's racist cops, and they do exist. Sometimes it's not even intentional, but just because black people are disproportionately poorer. If your family can afford to hire a really good attorney, get you out on bail, send you to a therapist, get you a community service job while you're waiting for your trial and show up in force at trial to show support, you're going to get a better outcome than if you're some ghetto black kid who has to rely on public defenders and has to spend the whole time in prison. There are also people who although they don't say it will deny a job or an apartment to someone because that person is black. It's just that the dysfunction in poor black communities also stems from drug abuse, broken families, the incredibly high illegitimacy rate in poor black communities, the learned dependence on public assistance, the lack of role models etc. Until those issues are addressed there's never going to be any improvement.

Well, now I'll get off my soapbox, but you did ask. :)

@Dupidh,
My belief that all human beings should be treated fairly and equally before the law has nothing at all to do with any desire on my part to hew to a particular ideological line. Those beliefs come partly from my own natural sense of justice and compassion, I think, but also from both my training at home and my religious education. You've heard of Christianity I take it?

[Fire Haired14]

@Angela,

Thanks for the helpful response. I understand worrying about bad authority and rights of citizens a very most important value of America. I whole-heartily support that. I guess it's impossible to bring an end to abusive cops and cry-baby protesters, so there'll always be unnecessary conflict at protests. It can be reduced though. The protesters, in violent protests in the 1960s, were definitely more justified than the ones going on now. The 1960s I think was good for America, because it ended some ridiculousness and brought in extreme liberalism. We need to see extreme conservationism and extreme liberalism, to know what the balance is. IMO, in the near future, a balance that takes out bads of both extreme will become popular.

Anyways off subject: What do you think is the solution to the cycle of poverty and no fathers and crime in African Americans. I know that sounds bad, I'm not saying African Americans are a train-reck, just this is an issue and what to know your opinion.

[Angela]

@Maleth,

I think one of the main reasons that Clinton didn't beat Obama for the Democratic Party nomination is simply that she's not black and he is. African-Americans are a big chunk of the Democratic Party vote, and there's no way that they were going to vote for her, no matter how much of an increase in spending for social programs she promised or how many times Bill tried to remind them of all they, the Clintons, had done for them in the past. She's also a terrible candidate. Bill Clinton has the "common touch" and can seem sincere even when he's lying through his teeth or has just said two contradictory things in one sentence. She's totally different. She seems as phony as a two dollar bill.

In terms of the general election, it was more of the same. All the blacks, all the minorities, in fact, voted for President Obama, along with all liberal whites and even centrist whites who sincerely hoped, I think, that his election would heal the remaining racial divides.

Just generally, there aren't enough "non-liberal" white votes to win the presidency. The Republicans have to get all the disparate wings of their party together, plus get more than their share of the independents, and hopefully poach some of the Latino vote. George Bush was able to do that; he got more than 30% of the Latino vote, based largely on his record as Governor of Texas and the fact that he didn't threaten to deport people who had been here for decades. McCain and Romney couldn't do it. They couldn't get virtually any of the Latino vote, but perhaps more importantly the "right" wing of the Republican Party thought they were too "centrist", and some of them stayed home. Some Evangelicals also stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. They called it ideological purity; I called it shooting yourself in the foot. :) Added to that I just don't think either Romney or McCain really "took it" to the Democrats in those campaigns. Romney could have shredded President Obama in some of those debates, but he didn't do it. I don't know if it's just not his nature or he was afraid to do it for fear of being called a racist. This is what has happened; if you criticize the politics of a black man then you're a racist. Then there's the fact that supposedly a lot of Americans resented Romney for being so rich. Of course, they don't resent Trump for being rich, in fact richer, and having also led a charmed life and gotten a lot of help from his father. I guess the difference is that if you talk like an out of work truck driver who's had too much to drink it's all ok.

@Fire-Haired,

I think it's pretty clear that throwing money at the problem in the form of give away programs doesn't work. I don't know if you know about Jack Kemp. He was a Republican politician who advocated setting up "enterprise zones" in minority communities.

The self-respect that comes from a decently paid job would definitely help, as would the fact that you can support a family on those kinds of jobs instead of having to deal drugs or steal.

Welfare laws should stop penalizing poor families of any race if a man and woman live together with their children. Some changes have been made, I think, but I believe it's still the case that a woman can get more money for herself and her two children if the man's income, small as it is, isn't included because he isn't living in the home.

Minority parents should be given the option of getting vouchers and using them to put their children in charter schools or the better performing Catholic schools instead of forcing them to stay in poorly performing public schools because the public school teachers' unions give the Democrats a lot of donations.

The rest is up to the African-American community leaders, in my opinion, including the pastors. It's beyond me how Christian pastors can ignore the high rates of illegitimacy among the members of their flock, and its detrimental effects on the community, even if they don't believe in the sexual immorality of pre-marital sex. The biggest predictor of poverty in this country is being born to a young, uneducated, single mother. There's nothing cool or hip about it. What a rich movie star might be able to do without major harm to her children, some seventeen year old girl living in public housing on welfare can't. I don't really care if the reason there's more tolerance for this is because the slave system destroyed the black family and made women headed families the norm. It isn't functional. Someone has to be working because you need money to raise a family, and someone has to be able to supervise the children. I'm not saying that the father has to be the one to work, but it's all easier if there are two parents to share both responsibilities. It's also my opinion that children, especially sons perhaps, need fathers. The nuclear family works better than these ad hoc arrangements, like it or not, and whether that sounds too conservative and traditional or not.

Likewise, using drugs may be a great escape, but they cost money, money these people don't have without some sort of illegality, and when you're straight again, your problems are even worse.

When traditional black Republicans try to spread this message they're excoriated by other African Americans. Middle class blacks just stay quiet it seems to me. It also seems to me that these kinds of behavior patterns are becoming more and more prevalent in white communities as well. They're certainly pretty prevalent in a lot of Latino communities. So, all in all I'm not very optimistic about where things are headed.

[Maleth]

I think one of the main reasons that Clinton didn't beat Obama for the Democratic Party nomination is simply that she's not black and he is. African-Americans are a big chunk of the Democratic Party vote, and there's no way that they were going to vote for her, no matter how much of an increase in spending for social programs she promised or how many times Bill tried to remind them of all they, the Clintons, had done for them in the past.

Very probable. It seems more of a realistic reason rather then simply for Obama being easily beatable, so she must be terribly week as per Dupidh comment.

Just generally, there aren't enough "non-liberal" white votes to win the presidency. The Republicans have to get all the disparate wings of their party together, plus get more than their share of the independents, and hopefully poach some of the Latino vote. George Bush was able to do that; he got more than 30% of the Latino vote, based largely on his record as Governor of Texas and the fact that he didn't threaten to deport people who had been here for decades. McCain and Romney couldn't do it. They couldn't get virtually any of the Latino vote, but perhaps more importantly the "right" wing of the Republican Party thought they were too "centrist", and some of them stayed home. Some Evangelicals also stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. They called it ideological purity; I called it shooting yourself in the foot. :) Added to that I just don't think either Romney or McCain really "took it" to the Democrats in those campaigns. Romney could have shredded President Obama in some of those debates, but he didn't do it. I don't know if it's just not his nature or he was afraid to do it for fear of being called a racist. This is what has happened; if you criticize the politics of a black man then you're a racist. Then there's the fact that supposedly a lot of Americans resented Romney for being so rich. Of course, they don't resent Trump for being rich, in fact richer, and having also led a charmed life and gotten a lot of help from his father. I guess the difference is that if you talk like an out of work truck driver who's had too much to drink it's all ok.

Oh it was Romney. My bad. What you explained seems to be the case. I guess it gets quite complex with all the different racial groups and they all have different histories and starting points, but yet they are all US citizens. So lots of strategic calculations need to be made, which can be very tricky indeed. Funnily enough even in Democracies where such (racial) situations do not exist or are not so prevalent, one will still find the same mind sets more or less of Liberal vs Conservatism very often with the education and the economic situation of the person that is driven to get aligned to one side or the other.

Going back to the present scenario, I still believe however that personally the biggest novelty in this election is not Trump as (With all respect) he could be seen typical American in many ways reminiscent to the old cowboys and Indians days, but the rise of socialism which I think its going to grow in the coming years. In my opinion I believe that life in America is extraordinary tough for the people in the lower strata, and the general psyche dictates that if you are in that position its all your fault so not very sympathetic to receive any kind of assistance. (Just talking about my impression as i really do not know how the system works with these peoples). Maybe that is why socialism. Some people do abuse of social assistance of course, but the general system will probably bring about inclusion and dignity and in return it pays well to the country in general in many spheres. Not everyone has started off on a level playing field and some must have been more disadvantaged then others and NOT straight forward to recuperate, which not many would agree too. This will create a viscous circle not easy to eliminate.

The other reality (to me at least) that Obama has been there nearly 8 years now, and I dont believe that these groups I mentioned have improved their positions, and there is still a situation where the Rich did get richer and the poor poorer. (correct me if I am wrong). I feel that irrelevant to who will win the presidential elections, the US is moving to a three party system as the Centralist, Democrats and Republicans will have much more in common then the loyalists. They would want to do thing on their own steam.

[Piro Ilir]

I have to admit, I don't really like any of them. I voted Rubio, as the one closer to the center, still having some chance of winning if super delegates choose so, and as a lesser evil. I don't think any of them is a good material for a leader. I would rather pick Obama or Romney from last election. On brighter side we have one billion dollar worth of reality show for a whole year paid by candidates and their faithful.

In my opinion Trump is not a real candidate. He is infiltrated by Clinton. . Clinton it's trying everything to win these elections. Trump is a puppet of Clinton. Trump declared that if he will be not the official candidate of republican party, he will be an independent candidate . This means that he is playing the game in Clinton's interests

[LeBrok]

In my opinion Trump is not a real candidate. He is infiltrated by Clinton. . Clinton it's trying everything to win these elections. Trump is a puppet of Clinton. Trump declared that if he will be not the official candidate of republican party, he will be an independent candidate . This means that he is playing the game in Clinton's interests

It seems that way, isn't it. Though honestly this one is destined to Conspiracy Theory dangen. Trump is ambitious enough to want presidency by himself alone, and he could make the biggest reality show ever, and be the main character. That's all Trump!
Maybe it is a payback for being a laughing stock like this (Warning, it is really funny):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

[Piro Ilir]

It seems that way, isn't it. Though honestly this one is destined to Conspiracy Theory dangen. Trump is ambitious enough to want presidency by himself alone, and he could make the biggest reality show ever, and be the main character. That's all Trump!
Maybe it is a payback for being a laughing stock like this (Warning, it is really funny):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

Seems we have four candidates running for the white house:
Clinton, Sanders, Cruz and Trump. I hope only Sanders don't win these elections. He looks too leftist. For me personally I hope that the new elected president would stop this new Russian- Chinese expansion. If USA don't stop it now, tomorrow will be too late. The new president should do something to deal with this new threat.

[Angela]

I've thought that Trump couldn't win the White House, but if these kinds of Trump protesters keep this stuff up, maybe he will. Talk about counter-productive...

[Maleth]

I've thought that Trump couldn't win the White House, but if these kinds of Trump protesters keep this stuff up, maybe he will. Talk about counter-productive...

Angela in my opinion if Trump will make it to the white house it will not be because of this behavior although its always condemnable, but because the majority of the American people approves to the general Trump psyche which is very defined by now to be provocative on many fronts. That would mean that the majority of the American people would think that, that will be good for them and that is what they need.

If Trump makes it to the White house we are going to see a different world order which I am defiantly not looking forward to. There is nothing I wish more then to be proven wrong and have to swallow all I think about the man

[bicicleur]

I've thought that Trump couldn't win the White House, but if these kinds of Trump protesters keep this stuff up, maybe he will. Talk about counter-productive...

it proves that there are also stupid people not voting for Trump
there are so many stupid people around, if you can get their support, you rule
it is like that in America, and even more so in most other countries all over the world

[Angela]

Angela in my opinion if Trump will make it to the white house it will not be because of this behavior although its always condemnable, but because the majority of the American people approves to the general Trump psyche which is very defined by now to be provocative on many fronts. That would mean that the majority of the American people would think that, that will be good for them and that is what they need.

If Trump makes it to the White house we are going to see a different world order which I am defiantly not looking forward to. There is nothing I wish more then to be proven wrong and have to swallow all I think about the man

I don't think that's the case, Maleth. Trump has a 76% disapproval rating among the American public. The problem is that in the early days of the Republican primaries there were 14 candidates at one point. They divided up the anti-Trump vote into so many small pieces of the pie that he got the highest number of votes and therefore in most cases all the delegates. A month ago, when registered Republicans were asked if they wanted Trump to be the nominee, only about 1/3 said yes. It's going up to about 50% now because Ted Cruz is the only other person left standing, and he's too conservative socially and religiously for Americans, and he also has a reputation as being a back stabber and double dealer. When asked about him, the former Speaker of the House said he's Lucifer, and in a town full of SOBs, he was the worst.

The thing is, if it winds up to be Clinton v Cruz, what will people do? As I said, Trump's disapproval is at 76%, but Hillary's is at about 67%. I suppose if Trump can drive her negatives higher so that they surpass his, he could win. However, he won't get the black vote, or the Hispanic vote, or probably any of the Asian vote, which could add up to 30-35% of the total electorate. Then throw in a lot of women, including me, who just can't vote for him. (Women make up about 53% of the voting public and while some women would vote for him, a lot wouldn't.) So, are there enough remaining white votes for him to win? I don't know.

Bicicleur:it proves that there are also stupid people not voting for Trump
there are so many stupid people around, if you can get their support, you rule
it is like that in America, and even more so in most other countries all over the world

I couldn't have said it better.

[Maleth]

I don't think that's the case, Maleth. Trump has a 76% disapproval rating among the American public.

I just hope it stays that way, although if he will get the nomination, which looks like he will, probably those figures will be set to change. Once he will get the nomination he will lick the wounds he inflicted on his contenders (like he did with Rubio who became the bright boy he can work with when he dropped out) and probably would do the same with Cruz. He focus his guns (insults) towards Hillary which many might find appealing. The momentum of 'if you cant beat him join him' will grow. He might get a few Muslim, Black, Hispanic Americans to rally behind him to ease and maybe win some votes from these groups. So we just need to wait and see the outcome. If he managed to get away with so much contradictions and insults by now, clearly there is a formula that is working. I mean he said he is willing to use a Nuclear bomb on ISIS. Can please someone explain were this bomb will fall?.....and he wins state after state........very sad if you ask me.

[LABERIA]

I just hope it stays that way, although if he will get the nomination, which looks like he will, probably those figures will be set to change. Once he will get the nomination he will lick the wounds he inflicted on his contenders (like he did with Rubio who became the bright boy he can work with when he dropped out) and probably would do the same with Cruz. He focus his guns (insults) towards Hillary which many might find appealing. The momentum of 'if you cant beat him join him' will grow. He might get a few Muslim, Black, Hispanic Americans to rally behind him to ease and maybe win some votes from these groups. So we just need to wait and see the outcome. If he managed to get away with so much contradictions and insults by now, clearly there is a formula that is working. I mean he said he is willing to use a Nuclear bomb on ISIS. Can please someone explain were this bomb will fall?.....and he wins state after state........very sad if you ask me.

In the Mediterranean Sea.

[Maleth]

In the Mediterranean Sea.

Thank you so much for info Laberia, at least someone knows. I will get my bunker and space food ready

[bicicleur]

now Ted Cruz is out of the race, I expect Trump to change his tune

[LeBrok]

now Ted Cruz is out of the race, I expect Trump to change his tune

why would he?