I will wait and see what he says in the debates too. It IS hard to say what you are going to do without actually being in the office for at least a short time, however, and seeing the lay of the land. When candidates promise all sorts of stuff when campaigning, they usually actually do very little of it in practice.

A very interesting youtube video link I am putting in there which showed CNN grilling Trumps with his family present and joining in. I say the apples dont fall far from the tree. It was a great interview. Its about 40 minutes long, but there is a very revealing interview with the CNN asshole Anderson Cooper and Trump’s family. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCJ1...

Fortunately Hillary is principled I guess?? This is an election that ONE of them will win. If you want Hillary in there, keep bashing Trump

I think they nailed it shut with Obama, and are applying sealant to it with Hillary. WE will all probably survive, but less well with Hillary in there.

I think both parties might very well travel that detour.

His motive, ulterior or consequential would be to enhance his brand.

Has nothing to do with feelings or anything "subjective" it has to do with ethical judgements, perceived associations and responsibility...an act of responding differently because an approval of that behavior would be a mistake and just be perpetuating that behavior.
They can speak without saying whether they support anyone or not and I think that's exactly the way Cruz will treat that situation...there is no need to race to FOX and endorse trumpet and his childish behaviors.

perhaps, but I suspect that this convention is going to bring about the demise of the RNC as it dumps Trump and nominates its own poster child that advances their globalist agenda. Some I know think Cruz will be their choice but I think they can't stand Cruz and will go their own way (decimating their credibility and revealing their unvarnished contempt for the people of this nation).

Motive? Trump feels he is God's gift to humankind and he feels he should hold all the power as a result. He is an insulting, repulsive sociopathic megalomaniac and he feels it's fine to loot from others for his own benefit. He doesn't expect any downside for his highness. Obama has shown him that executive orders can be used for anything.

So, if you get your feelings hurt, you feel justified in backing out of pledged commitments? I can assume you've never had to deal with serious contract negotiations, then. Sometimes, people fail the test of trust, and those wannabes who lost in the contest and now won't back the winner are showing why the American people were right in not choosing them.

Essentially...your right!

I completely agree with your opinion of Obama and Hillary. Truly despicable people.

Again...spot on I think.

That actually was my first impression of him. Got tired of getting beat up...ran out of cheeks...laughing.

I was speaking of obobo...not trumpet...that's a very different psychology.

Not when one considers the vial, adolescent, inaccurate rhetorical attacks they had to endure.

I too, on that basis, would of withdrawn my support.
I also would intend to speak on a platform we should adopt for a successful campaign for the restoration of America.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment. You asked about Obama and carl answered about Obama. But you seem to be replying about someone who is in the race and is not a looter. Clearly you are not referring to Obama.
Since you asked about Obama, my opinion of him is that he should have been impaled on the White House lawn for treason several years ago alongside Hillary.

It would be nice if, under the present rules, some
other, such as Cruz, could somehow be legitimately
nominated. But since Trump apparently got the
majority of primary votes (although not mine), I do not see how that can be. I heard in my childhood "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game."
As I have said previously, it looks like letting
Clinton and her supporters shoot you in the head
with a gun you know to be fully loaded, or play-
ing Russian roulette.

He is saying that Cruz has no right to free speech because he disagrees with Trump.

I don't miss any attraction. I marvel at the irrationality, ignorance and naivete of people who can't see through the confidence game that Trump has played his entire career.

First of all, you're assuming that Cruz would advocate for voters to change sides. That's not only a bridge too far built on nothing but speculation, it's patently ridiculous. That's political suicide, and Cruz has already said where his ambitions lie and it isn't the Supreme Court. If Cruz spoke - and I am betting he will - it will be to encourage Americans to stick to the traditional values that made America Great. He'll let Trump be Trump and succeed or fail on his own merits.

Second, I wouldn't be a Trump supporter criticizing another political candidate of a potential breach of class. That's a foot just begging for ingestion and subsequent indigestion. That was the hypocrisy I was referring to, which started with the whole "Lyin' Ted" mantra. Go back to the first debate and you'll see Cruz being begged to dis on Donald Trump and instead respond "I'm wearing a Donald trump tie." That's class.

Or rather, his principles only involve how he can get ahead regardless of what happens to anyone else - be it his investors, his students, his workers, or his business partners.

The problem with the Republican Party is that they are trying to appeal to everyone and so end up alienating almost everyone. The Democrats figured that out twenty years ago. Trump doesn't fix that problem, however. Trump merely targets the emotional portion of the Republican Party and tries to tie in the few Blue Dog Democrats who got left behind during the Clinton years when the Democrats pivoted hard left. That leaves behind the large bloc of conservative voters Cruz predominantly appealed to.

"The republicans should listen TO Trump actually and tap into that anti-establishment sentiment."

I agree that the establishment Republicans are a major problem for the Party and that they should take notes from this election cycle. 100% agree. But to disagree with how things are being done is pointless without a plan for what should be done. That starts with values, and what I question is whether or not Trump actually stands by any of those values on his website. He never talks about them in interviews - doesn't even point people there. I'll wait 'til the debates for a final weigh-in, but those are the issues which matter to that vital bloc of Republican voters Trump absolutely must have to win the election.

Motive: To disrupt the sure thing win for the Rs for the DNC by making a mockery of the R process. His fervid acceptance caused a plan alteration and he (they) now see he can be their guy in the cat-birds seat. I'm convinced that he (they) never intended for him to rise the way he has. For the D this is a no lose situation at this point.

Which sounds to me like a round about way of making the point that motive is key. Which then begs the point: What's Trump's motive? Is he spending his life energy to become a dictator? And open himself up to all the downsides of that effort? Given his situation/choices, that would be a step down. So pretty darn unlikely.