By Sal Bommarito

The Republican Party amateur show was in full force this week. I really must remember to change my political affiliation from the GOP to independent.

Ted Cruz, after getting whipped in several primaries on Tuesday, decided to select his VP running mate now. For some reason, Carly Fiorina gladly boarded Cruz’s Titanic. In recent history, presidential candidates have never chosen their running mates before locking up the nomination. I guess Cruz didn’t get the memo.

The ploy was obvious. Most women can’t stomach Trump’s aggressive style and his misogynistic attitude towards the fairer sex. Cruz hopes Fiorina will attract female voters. She has a sharp tongue and has been a perennial critic of Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately Fiorina has had a rough time recently in her business career and in politics. As CEO of Hewlett Packard she made a huge strategic error in acquiring Compaq Computer in 2002. At the end of her tenure, HP’s shareholder value decreased 52%.

In 2010 Fiorina ran against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and was defeated “resoundingly.” Last year she entered the Republican presidential primaries and went nowhere. 0 for 3!

Cruz’s strategy to pick Fiorina is questionable and looks like a desperate move on his part. He’s trying like hell to find famous people to support his candidacy and having little success. Very few in Congress have showed the slightest interest in helping Cruz with his campaign, or even to say he would be a good president.

Donald Trump did a few things in the past couple of days that have me scratching my head. His political strategy seems to change day by day. Doesn’t this cause anybody to wonder what will happen if he must make strategic global decisions every day in the White House?

Anyway, Trump decided to deliver a foreign policy speech to prove that he understands the complexities of world affairs. Up to now Trump has been seriously lacking in his knowledge of international events. His rhetoric pleases the crowds who want change, but it’s always devoid of specifics.

Making matters worse Trump decided to use a teleprompter to “look more presidential” rather than speaking off the cuff. Why he would change his method of communication with supporters given his success to date is a complete mystery. Trump was uncomfortable and hardly seemed like a seasoned statesman. I doubt anything he does would convince many Americans that he has the ability to lead country.

His presentation was disjointed indicating that either he wrote the speech himself or his speechwriters are inexperienced. Frankly, he looked like an amateur (that word again). In many situations he contradicted previous positions he has held. How he can flip flop on important issues while keeping his support completely befuddles his critics? By the way, the Mexican Wall, one of his chief initiatives has vanished. I suppose Trump finally realized that offending millions of Hispanics does not bode well for his campaign.

Also this week Trump recruited Bobby Knight, the bad boy of college basketball, the man who threw chairs across the basketball court when he disagreed with a referee decision. Knight is legendary in Indiana. The state will be the next big test for the candidates, and Trump was hoping Knight would help him get more votes.

Knight is a basketball coach, repeat, a basketball coach. Why would anyone base a decision for the president of the United States on the political prowess of this man? The Hoosier State is crazy wild about basketball so maybe Trump’s tactic will be helpful. It certainly doesn’t move me.

The Republicans are moving towards some crazy realities in this election. The convention could be a circus if Trump is not nominated. The general election is going to be a political catastrophe for Republicans if Trump is nominated. The stakes are huge, the presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court are all in play. I hope Trump supporters are considering all this before they pull this guy’s lever in the voting booth.

By Sal Bommarito

The opponents in the never-ending debate about global warming continue to be at loggerheads. For every scientist that says Armageddon is around the corner, there is a scientist that believes the danger is being blown out of proportion.

There is no doubt that fossil fuels such as coal are polluting the environment, increasing temperatures across the globe and creating health problems in many urban areas. There are a plethora of social and economic ramifications relating to the closing of coal-fired facilities. These issues weigh heavily on China and the U.S.

There have been reports that many Chinese are suffering serious health problems relating to extraordinary pollution precipitated by coal-fired plants. The economic revolution in the country over the past two decades necessitated greater and greater sources of energy. But the facilities that provided more energy, especially those near densely populated areas, are taking a toll.

China has agreed to participate in the global effort to stem global climate change. It is a convenient time for it to have this change of heart. An economic downturn has decreased the country’s energy requirements in the short-term.

A New York Times article indicates that China is “trying to slow things down.” This week the government issued guidelines that will halt plans for certain new coal-fired stations. The guidelines will impact 200 new planned facilities. The 105 gigawatts affiliated with these plants would be more than “the electricity-generated capacity of Britain from all sources.”

The international community has been addressing global warming of late, and leaders of 175 countries including China met last week to sign a climate accord. The intent is to keep “the increase in global temperatures between 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Nevertheless and notwithstanding that coal is becoming more unpopular in China, the state is “adding new coal-fired generators at a pace not seen in a decade.”

Experts believe that the Chinese government will not stymie the country’s growth by ignoring its longer-term energy needs. Rapid economic growth is important to China from every macro perspective. So the current attitude of the government to cooperate in the battle to decrease carbon emissions may be short-lived if economic activity begins to accelerate.

In the past the Chinese have indicated that it’s industrial revolution should be able to proceed, just like the U.S.’s in the 19^th Century, without undue restrictions prescribed by other nations.

In the U.S., the world’s second largest carbon emitter, the situation is different. It has been very difficult to build new coal-fired plants under the Obama administration. Last year 14 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity were retired and there are only six new plants planned for the next five years with a total capacity of less than 2 gigawatts.

Exacerbating the U.S. situation is concern for American’s dependence on the coal industry for jobs. Less capacity means fewer opportunities for thousands of workers in coal producing areas across America.

Our leaders and lawmakers will need to balance the global warming issue with the economic and social impact of decreasing coal facilities. It will be a hard fought debate.

By Sal Bommarito

During the past few decades, high tech companies have used stock options, in lieu of high cash compensation to lure, retain and incentivize employees at every level. Stock options (and restricted stock awards) have been used for a much longer time to compensate senior corporate executives.

Many tech companies are cash starved when they go into business . Investors provide funds for growth and for research and are resistant to using their money to fund excessive compensation. As an alternative, companies drive down cash compensation by bestowing stock options on their employees that enable workers to buy stock at a pre-initial public offering price for an extended period of time.

As an example, assume a new employee deserves compensation of $100,00 based upon his experience. A tech company could offer him $70,000 in salary and stock worth $30,000 for the first year. If the enterprise grows rapidly, as most tech companies hope they will do, the valuation of the company could double or triple in a few years and even be ten-fold by the time the company goes public.

So, the new hire’s initial stock options (he would probably receive more over time at higher conversion prices) might be worth $60,000, $90,000 or $300,000 in a relatively short period of time. Receiving stock instead of cash would be very rewarding in these instances. But, if the company stumbles, the options could be valueless, and the new hire would have been better off had he received cash.

Successful tech companies sometimes opt to pay large portions of compensation in stock to conserve cash, even after an IPO. Another reason they opt to do so is to retain employees. Usually, stock options vest over several years, meaning that employees must stay employed at the company for a specific number of years to be able to convert the options into cash. This effectively helps retain key and critical employees because they would lose significant value if they left the company before the options were fully vested.

Also, and most important, is that options give employees a longer-term perspective relating to the company’s success. Obviously, they will receive less value if the company is not so successful (or possibly nothing). So, they have the same risk as management and outside stockholders.

In recent years, the investment community has been paying close attention to the magnitude of stock incentives being provided by tech companies (See the following article). For one thing, stock paid in lieu of cash compensation is an expense, even though it is not a cash item. So, it should be considered part of the company’s employee compensation currently. From and accounting perspective, it is deducted like any compensation expense.

Additionally, in a successful company, the most expensive way to provide compensation is with equity. Paying a $25,000 bonus, as opposed to a $25,000 stock option, could be much less expensive if the company is growing successfully. Investors, including public shareholders, generally would like to see less stock distributed as compensation over time notwithstanding the benefits to the company and the employees described earlier.

 

By Sal Bommarito

Yahoo just reported earnings. Revenues in the first quarter fell 11% to $1.09 billion resulting in a net loss of $99 million. In the same period last year, the company had revenue of $1.23 billion and net income of $21 million.

Yahoo is engaged in a “strategic alternative process,” meaning the company is considering the sale of huge chunks of its business. Marissa Mayer, CEO, is controlling the process, but has been accused of “dragging her feet.” Apparently, she would like more time to turn the company around.

Yahoo’s board and one of its large shareholders are demanding that the company take extraordinary action now. First bids for Yahoo’s core Internet business are in and Verizon is considered the leading contender. A special committee of the board is evaluating the bids received.

The base businesses have been operating poorly in recent years, something that Mayer was unable to fixed since being named CEO in 2012. However, the company has some very valuable assets that account for the lion’s share of its overall value. The assets include a $32 billion investment in the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba. In January, Yahoo called off efforts to do a tax-free spinoff of Alibaba to Yahoo shareholders.

Starboard Value hedge fund and large stockholder has proposed to replace the entire Yahoo board as well as Mayer. Starboard has been aggressively demanding the company sell off assets for months.

Yahoo’s future is unclear. It’s stock price hit a high point of about $108 in 2000 and it now sells for about $37 per share. It has a market capitalization of around $36 billion.

By Sal Bommarito

The accused perpetrators of income inequality have come under attack in the 2016 presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders is leading the charge against all those that he thinks are depriving the downtrodden of a financially secure life.

The venom directed at big business and specifically Wall Street banks has become so pervasive that even candidates who received fees for speaking to companies are being lambasted.

What is most disconcerting about this political strategy is that Sanders’ targets aren’t responsible for the problems of those suffering financially. The entities that Sanders despises the most are generally the most successful individuals and corporations in the country. The question that needs to be asked is, when an executive of a large bank or corporation earns $5 or $10 million dollars, does it in any way deplete funds that might have assisted poor people?

Denigrating the most successful among us is a backdoor strategy to rid the country of its longstanding commitment and encouragement of exceptionalism. This is socialism at its worst, assigning all members of society to one homogeneous bucket and ensuring that they all have the same salary and the same size home.

For the most part, educated Americans who work hard are productive and have rewarding lives. Those that shun education for any reason (including factors out of their control) generally experience hardship. Correspondingly, those among us that don’t have a strong work ethic will not have productive lives that are consistent with others that do.

The problem with Sanders’ perspective is that the majority of Americans will never adopt it because the drive to succeed is ingrained in our national psyche. Despite this, millennials are easy targets for socialistic claptrap because of mounting educational expenses and the dearth of job opportunities. This group is suffering challenges that have beleaguered young people throughout recent history.

The job situation is the most important reason for the growing distress among many Americans. The dream of finding a job, which is interesting and affords one a life style that improves over time, represents a difficult challenge.

America’s business community is changing rapidly because of domestic and global events. There is greater competition from overseas, and many jobs are exported when corporations determine that they can manufacture products more cheaply in places other than the U.S.

Corporate efforts to reward stockholders with higher returns are not evil or even anti-social. In many cases, CEOs have had no choice but to look outside the U.S. because unions are demanding too much or costly federal and state regulations are making it difficult to operate profitably.

U.S. businesses are not averse to building new facilities and hiring more people domestically. Similarly, CEOs of companies truly want to diversify their work force. But, if it’s more economic to operate elsewhere, CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to consider it. The large compensation that some CEOs receive is in part based upon their ability to be nimble and creative to insure financial strength.

To be clear, the objectives of corporations are not exactly the same as the federal government. The former have large groups of investors and creditors that finance their businesses. The government has no profit aspirations. It creates regulations to improve and protect the lives of all Americans.

The government is responsible for societal issues such as high employment, a clean environment, safe working conditions and diversity. In its efforts to accomplish these objectives, it seeks the cooperation of the business community appreciating that corporations are simultaneously responsible to their owners and creditors.

The problem, lately, is that the federal government has tilted the balance between corporate profitability and corporate citizenship. Over-regulation in every aspect of business is making it impossible for some companies to earn a compensatory rate of return, and so they look elsewhere for a more favorable and receptive environment.

All the while, populists like Bernie Sanders are screaming that workers aren’t participating in the profitability of their employers, a hypothesis that is debatable. Workers sometimes hurt themselves by demanding too much. They work against themselves by voting for socialistic politicians that make the U.S. business environment more hostile.

Fostering a friendlier environment for business in America is the best way to combat income inequality. Businesses create jobs that are desperately needed. Now, however, thousands of small businesses are closing because they can no longer make a profit.

To be sure, some regulation is good for America. And, all companies should strive to make their workers feel secure; it’s good business to do so. But, there must be a compromise between government, businesses and workers. And opportunist politicians like Bernie Sanders should be exiled back the states from which they came.

By Sal Bommarito

There’s revolution in the air. Interestingly, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are strongly suggesting that Americans rise up against a “tyrannical U.S. government.”

Young, idealistic people are usually the ones that instigate revolution. In America, college students and young blacks initiated change during the 1960s against the Vietnam War and for civil rights. The problem with “the young” is that frequently they are very impetuous, don’t have the experience to truly understand the ramifications of their actions and are quick to walk away when the going gets tough (consider Occupy Wall Street). I stipulate that in the 60s young people refused to give up until their demands were met even in the face of aggressive governmental violence.

Revolution occurs when common people are unhappy. Yet, Trump supporters, who are much older than Sanders’, have totally different motivations than Sanders’ posse. Both are critical of a “nonresponsive” government, but there is no overlap among the issues that drive them to protest.

Trump says the federal government is incompetent, ineffective and in need of more centralization. He implies that America is no longer “great.” He thinks that he can singlehandedly build the wall separating the U.S. from Mexico and stop illegal immigration. He thinks he can put millions to work. He thinks that he can persuade (bully) other nations to be fairer economically when dealing with the U.S. He wants to use the overwhelming power of the U.S. military to threaten disruptive groups around the world to cease hostilities (referring to ISIS and other terrorists). Donald Trump wants to wield the power of a dictator because he thinks he is smarter, more experienced and more determined than the stupid, lazy, lying individuals currently managing our government.

I have two problems with Trump’s perspectives. One, he has not proven by a long shot that his understanding and insight into our problems makes him qualified to lead the country. This is either because he is incapable of getting his arms around gigantic issues, or he hasn’t taken the time to study them. Two, the last thing America needs (subsequent to the Obama reign of terror) is more power in the hands of the executive branch.

Donald Trump has a Wharton degree and is a real estate developer. How can anyone possibly believe that he can negotiate a nuclear proliferation deal (Obama and Kerry are self proclaimed geniuses and they made a bad treaty with Iran)? And, does Trump really understand how the economy operates? The American economy is much larger than a portfolio of buildings and golf clubs. He has not given Americans any comfort in this regard.

Bernie Sanders has a great shtick; young people that are struggling with college loans and unemployment love him because he intends to steal from the successful and give it to his supporters, no strings attached. But, Sanders is not a modern day Robin Hood; he’s a Pied Piper who would lead his supplicants and all the rest of us to the ocean where we will drown.

Few of Sanders’ proposals make sense because he doesn’t consider the long-term effect of them (mostly affordability). Yet, the crowds love him- he’s the candy man. Every person that has accumulated wealth and has a great life in America is being vilified and targeted by this socialist. Socialism basically blames the most successful people in a society for all the ills of the society. There is no room for exceptionalism in a socialist country. When a 1%er earns a dollar or a million dollars, according to Sanders, it comes out of the pockets of the have-nots.

Inequality is Sander’s mantra, both educational and income. Wall Street should be taxed to rectify these conditions according to Bernie. Sanders has ignored the facts regarding these two serious issues that impact many Americans.

Education is substandard in this country because many among us don’t appreciate that it is the path out of poverty. Parents and children must believe this is true. 1% families, I can assure you, drill their children endlessly about the benefits of going to good schools and achieving high grades. Throwing more money at failing schools with failing students who don’t want to be in the classroom is not going to change educational inequality in this country. There must be a societal solution.

Income inequality is similarly misunderstood. Plenty of money flows from federal and state governments to the needy. The problem is that it is an ineffective entitlement. The money is being used to subsidize families that are not doing anything to improve their living or working conditions, so there is no end to the entitlement. Funding should be directed towards increasing the employability of the needy and creating new jobs to accommodate it. Gifting changes nothing.

Trump and Sanders supporters are being bamboozled by the political alchemy of these two candidates. Revolution is a serious proposal. I hope the unhappy among us recognize that these men are proposing the wrong paths for our country.

By Sal Bommarito

Donald Trump is truly a phenom. No matter what he says, or doesn’t say, no matter whom he offends, millions of people are lining up to vote for him in the primaries. It’s uncanny that an incompetent self-promoter is leading such a large number of Republicans down the primrose path. His nomination, or the likely revolution if he is not nominated, will lead to a Clinton presidency and set the GOP back for many years.

Frankly, I haven’t spoken with anyone who supports Trump. But, it isn’t surprising really. His supporters are generally white males from blue-collar groups. Unfortunately, urban dwellers like myself infrequently interface with steel mills workers. I wish I could have a moment with some of these people to explain why Trump is such a bad candidate. Or maybe, they could tell me why they still support this guy after all that has transpired.

Really, I have an open mind because I’m so committed to ridding our political system of the Clintons once and for all. I’d like to like Trump and Cruz, but neither candidate works for me. I’m still searching for an alternative.

I do listen to what the candidates say very carefully. I’m against open-ended and illegal immigration, but moratoriums on vast groups of people are un-American; deporting those already in the county is ridiculous. I believe certain countries around the world have taken advantage of American generosity, but these issues should be addressed diplomatically, not with all-out economic threats. I believe our president should be tactful, truthful, modest, tough and able to work with world leaders while dealing with mutual problems such as terrorism. Applying hard-ass tactics and empty threats are Trump’s way of doing things and not a good course for America.

It’s impossible for me to ignore the rhetoric of candidate Trump. He discovered several themes that strike a chord with average Americans and repeats them time and again without details to stir up his base. He’s going to build an impenetrable wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it. China and Russia are making fools out of our leaders and will pay if Trump is elected. Blah, blah, blah.

These empty clichés are reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the late 30s and 40s. Uber-nationalists used discriminatory rhetoric to gin up their downtrodden citizenry. In these situations, leaders look to blame minorities, other countries and other groups for all their social and economic problems.

The U.S., under the leadership of Barack Obama, has continually insisted that unfavorable conditions and events are America’s fault. He singled out the wealthy, Wall Street and Republicans, somehow dismissing radical jihadists and rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. This is a strategy perpetrated by a president who abhors exceptionalism. His tactic is to attack the most successful Americans, as if their hard word and ambition causes others to suffer. Trump has adopted Obama’s tactics. He’s targeting other groups within our society and outside of it for political advantage.

Our president must be the leader of all Americans regardless of their race, religion, sex or political persuasion. Obama has blackballed everyone who is not a Democrat; how has that strategy worked out? Trump alienates women, minorities, immigrants, business leaders, the media and anyone who dares to challenge his half-cocked ideas about how he is going to make America great. How will that plan turn out?

With the largest unfavorable rating in the history of presidential politics, Trump actually believes Americans like him personally. He’s dead wrong; he’s not likable. Many of us resent his idiotic proposals for the country. And, he’s incapable of explaining any of his major policy proposals. Even with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly (a supporter), Trump sounded like a madman, avoided questions because he could not answer them and fought back the suggestion that well over 50% of America dislikes him personally.

The good news is that Trump has no chance to win the general election even if he cajoles, whines and intimidates Republicans to vote for him. Hillary will destroy Trump, and he will thankfully be exiled to Fifth Avenue and Mar-a-Lago. The bad news is that Clinton will inundate America with her warped and untruthful politics.

 

By Sal Bommarito

Donald Trump has dramatically changed the political landscape in America during this primary season. His bare-knuckle approach has been greatly augmented by social media, which increased the ability of candidates to communicate with the electorate 24 hours a day.

Yet, hardball politics is not a new phenomenon. Political competitors have always been ruthless, never hesitating to expose the weaknesses of the competition. However, mudslinging and unabashed attacks have never been as extreme as they are now. Trump has adopted, personified and encouraged this approach in the election process.

In an era of political correctness, Trump is unafraid to label his adversaries as liars, losers and incompetents. But, most disconcerting is the man’s aggressive tactics and tough-guy persona, a demeanor prevalent in business, but less so in government.

Trump has directly and indirectly resorted to xenophobia, racist fears and misogyny when it suits him. He says things that many of us may think about, but rarely discuss publicly because the issues are often deemed to be off limits.

There have been many moments during which Trump has made comments that historically would have ruined a political career. One of the most memorable was a verbal assault on Megyn Kelly of Fox News after she moderated a Republican debate. He said: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever …” It’s doubtful that this topic had ever arisen during a presidential campaign. The comment was horrendous, yet it had no significant impact on Trump’s appeal to voters at the time.

Trump’s negative commentary about women was not over. A few days ago, he said: “Women who have abortions should be punished if the practice were illegal.” Trump backtracked on the comment shortly thereafter. It remains to be seen to what extent this remark will hurt his chances in the primaries. In his zeal to be sensational, Trump stuck his foot in his mouth once again. It makes you wonder, how could a person running for president not have canned answers to obvious questions on one of the most important social topics in America?

Trump has insulted women to an extent that no one ever has before. Does he know that women accounted for 53% of the total votes in the 2012 election? How can you possibly win an election after pissing off such a large percentage of voters?

Trump may or may not resent Hispanics, but it sure seems like he does. Speaking of illegal Mexican immigrants, he said: “. . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists . . .” Given that 11.2 million Latinos voted in the 2012 election, why would Trump go out of his way to alienate so many voters? Really, was it to obtain the approval of bigots in America?

Trump’s xenophobic attitude, of course, makes no sense given that America is a melting pot, and almost all American families emigrated from other parts of the world.

An even more serious concern is the potential impact of Trump’s rhetoric on the values of our nation. Ultra-nationalism was a trademark of Nazi Germany. Attacking minorities and blaming them for the problems of the country was the mantra of the most despised leader in history. It’s also shameful that Trump is suggesting that violence may erupt if he does not achieve his goals. This type of oratory encourages the darkest members of our society that thrive on barbarity rather than comity in life.

By Sal Bommarito

Donald Trump had a crappy week. He managed to offend, alienate or piss off a huge number of Americans, minorities and foreign countries. Included are women, Europeans, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Ted Cruz and his wife, women again, Japanese, South Koreans and others.

The fallout from these blunders is that Trump is no longer a shoe-in to win the Republican nomination. On Tuesday, Wisconsin voters are poised to back Cruz over Trump by a decisive margin. This momentum could dramatically change the dynamics of future primaries as we approach the Republican Convention. Trump needs to win just over 50% of the remaining delegates to lock up the nomination. This is becoming more of a problem every time Trump opens his mouth. Seriously, we all knew this would happen.

Here is a bullet point list of offensive and inane comments made by the man vying to become our president:

• Trump suggested that women who seek illegal abortions should be prosecuted. After making this comment Trump walked-back the statement by saying he meant doctors who perform illegal procedures should face legal action. It was a stupid response to an inane hypothetical (thank you Chris Matthews) given that abortions are legal

• Trump said he would not rule out the use of nuclear force in Europe in response to a threat, presumably from Russia. This may be appropriate in the hearts and minds of hawks, but to openly admit it while world leaders were meeting to discuss ways to end nuclear proliferation was idiotic and unpresidential.

• On a similar note, Trump indicated that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to China and North Korea. Encouraging more nuclear development is not consistent with longstanding American policy to decrease the number of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. And, it increases the chances that a nuclear confrontation could occur accidentally.

• Staying with Japan and South Korea, Trump wants these countries and others that the U.S. protects at its expense to bolster their security. By doing so, the U.S. would not have to subsidize the defense of other countries. This is an important issue, but it should be dealt with confidentially and without the addition of WMDs.

• Trump, along with Cruz and Kasich, have indicated or implied they may not the support the ultimate Republican candidate (all three candidates promised to do so at an early debate). For Cruz and Kasich this means the nomination of Trump. For Trump this means that he will run as an independent or encourage his supporters to shun the Republican nominee if he is “treated unfairly.” The definition of this contingency means that Trump loses for any reason.

• Trump has viciously attacked the physical appearance of Cruz’s wife. A Cruz affiliated PAC posted nude pictures of Melania Trump that appeared in a men’s magazine. Cruz said he did not sanction this act. Dragging the wives into this already crude contest is nothing less than dishonorable.

• Trump continues to defend his campaign manager after he was accused of assaulting a female reporter. Trump has attacked the reporter personally, when he should have sanctioned or fired his employee

I hope that Republicans who still must vote in the primaries understand why a vote for anyone makes more sense than a vote for Trump. What else can the man do to prove he is not worthy to be president? Most talking heads are convinced that Trump will embarrass America if he wins the White House; recent comments justify this perspective.

There is virtually no chance that a candidate other than Trump can obtain 1,237 delegates before the convention. The only way to thwart Trump is to force a brokered convention and nominate another person after the first ballot.

It should be noted that many Republicans have a problem with Trump along with a huge percentage of women, African Americans and Hispanics. This means that Clinton will trash Trump in the general election.

A vote for Trump in the primaries is a vote for Hillary Clinton, the second worst choice to become president.