You know if Steam refuses to pay for it, GoG will just have to make the wall taller!

Are you saying the wall was asking for it?

Indeed; it is in fact mathematically impossible for Kasich to be nominated, based on the arcane and esoteric caucus/primary system. His only (very remote) chance is if Trump does not win a high enough percentage in the last few months leading to the GOP convention to beat Cruz outright. Then, in Cleveland, an act of divine intervention or hypnotism causes a majority of both Trump AND Cruz "delegates" to suddenly change their minds, and vote for Kasich--a person who probably to them seems like the complete opposite of the candidate they were chosen to represent.

Bottom line is, most Republican voters will be dissatisfied at best and riotous at worst, no matter whether Trump wins or not. At this point, even not knowing who the *actual* nominee will be, the main difference in what will happen between the conventions and November is how many people stick with Trump, and how angry/disgusted/depressed or in denial everyone else will be because of that number.
XPPP

P.S. If I would be so bold as to make wild, purely speculative predictions on the statistics of that last point, I would estimate that by the time of the convention...
Situation 1: If Trump's supporters never get past the 33-43% range that they've floated around after March 1, then there will be a lot of angry grumbling--but maybe, *just maybe*, the Republican Party might just be able to pull itself together around an "anti-Trump" candidate--and that person will lose to Hillary, but keep it close enough to preserve some shred of dignity.
Pulling off a block of Trump's nomination at this point, with no riots afterwards, would be an incredible achievement for them--but it would only happen if they are both skillful AND lucky. So far, they aren't managing either one of those gifts.
Situation 2: If Trump increases to the 43-53% range, but doesn't secure a clear majority of delegates, then there might just be enough working-class activists and protesters*, getting angry enough from the nomination voting, that civil unrest may erupt in Cleveland or elsewhere; (*edited) if Trump won, it might be anti-Trump partisans and independents. If Trump is rejected, it might be the Trump supporters. Either way, not only is this a nightmare scenario for the GOP, and not only would they lose in November, it might make GOP congressmen lose, too, just by being part of the same party that has stirred up so much controversy.
The Democrats might not only keep the White House, they might win back a majority of the Senate and increase their power as the opposition party in the House. If that happened, the new President might actually get bills passed in Congress again, and THAT would be radical, indeed.
Situation 3: Trump's followers grow unchecked and he surpasses 55% or more, clinching the GOP nomination with a terrible, rambling speech about not only how great he is, but how he's officially changing the name of the party to the TRUMP PARTY, and all bets are off. He will invite anyone who doesn't like it to leave, perhaps to Mexico, or worse, to the Democratic party. Hillary will be forced to choose Bernie as running mate, and the reality TV spectacle will continue unabated.
Who knows what would happen? Perhaps we'll start hearing trumpets and the Anti-Christ will be revealed. Whoever it is, the Anti-Christ will then run as a third-party candidate, but lose, because everyone knows you can't win as a third-party candidate in America. Right?

(After all, two-thirds of the voting public just look for the R or the D, they don't even look at the names. The Anti-what? Oh. Well, never mind.)

tl;dr? It isn't likely that "the candidates" themselves will "make enormous changes."
But if enough of the minority of Americans who vote in primaries, vote Trump...then one of "The Two" parties in "the USA 2-party system" may completely fall apart.
That seems pretty enormous to me.
(And alarming, too.)

Looks like the inmates are running the asylum again. Get the hose....

Oh yes:)

All the rest of your post is fine and I basically agree, but this part? 'Working class' people in the convention are the potential cause of 'civil unrest'?

If you mean historically, that was actually college students and minorities afaik protesting and/or rioting. If you mean 'hillbillies get in a lot of bar brawls and are totally down with fighting on the convention floor', I think your prejudice is showing.

An AI backing would be nice for our wall :P

First of all, I am glad that you mostly agree, Gilozard. Also, in such a anxiety-saturated, hyper-polarized political climate as the one plaguing our country in recent weeks/months/years, I certainly understand and appreciate your vigilance for potentially offensive rhetoric, hidden in otherwise reasonable-looking posts from unknown accounts. Rest assured: it was not my intention to offend, or inflame sociological grievances. I apologize to anyone who found my upsetting or in poor taste. Nevertheless, I must protest your characterization of my mostly-loosely-defined, entirely hypothetical, non-authoritative pondering about the *POSSIBLE* future state and nature of the Republican nominating electorate. It's one thing to say you disagree with my opinion, but it's another to accuse me, ad hominem, of prejudice based off of an over-inflated exaggeration of what words I actually typed.

It is true, in searching for a variety of subject nouns to use in my sentences, (so as not to just be repeating the same word in sentence after sentence,) I made an error in undergeneralizing angry Americans specifically as "working-class delegates," when I should have chosen a different, more accurate word to express the idea I meant to convey. I have edited the post accordingly, so that it more precisely articulates what I meant.
I stand by my description of the people--whose potential anger, (about perceived impotence/misrepresentation in the GOP nominating process,) I envision as possibly, *MAYBE* having the potential to boil over into civil unrest--as "working-class." However, I did not, (and do not now) say that it was exclusively working-class people who would get angry. In fact, if any protesting (violent or otherwise) does occur in Cleveland, it will almost certainly be a mix of working-class AND middle-class activists, including Ohio residents, students and minorities from around the country (but probably not many upper-class ones).

Indeed I intended to suggest that "enough anger" from "enough delegates" might well produce a nomination result that became the catalyst for some form of unrest, but I specifically decided not to speculate on what kind of unrest. I was saddened and frustrated to see you decided to assign your hyperbolic interpretation of my wording, to an assessment of my moral character.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that the delegates themselves would engage in violence, (in the convention hall or otherwise), although I concede that I may have accidentally implied that. My understanding (and Google's definition links) of the term "civil unrest" is that it includes all kinds of social disruptions, including peaceful protests, not just violent riots. To me, it seems pretty unfair to accuse me of stereotyping all working-class Americans (of which I *am* one, btw) as punch-drunk "hillbillies," purely on the basis of my suggestion that angry Americans are likely to voice their concerns in public protests at the GOP convention. After all, even with the nomination still months away, there have already been sizable protests that have disrupted campaign rallies and resulted in minor scuffles. Obviously, angry American voters are expressing their feelings in such numbers that the effect on the primary/caucus contests is unprecedented in modern political history.

There may be echoes of 1968, (indeed students and minorities are among the core forces driving some of the protests of today) but they aren't the ones making the biggest splash, this time. At least not on the GOP side.
I don't feel that pointing out such trends means I'm prejudiced.

The people who are stirring up the most crap are a cross-demographic slice.

That's part of why Trump is so successful - people assumed his message would appeal to the lower/working (lol) classes, and instead it turns out that he's popular at about the same rate regardless of education. People are voting for him as a protest vote. His appeal does skew heavily white, and somewhat older, but social class doesn't matter very much.

Then there's the highly educated liberal elites, who are going craaaazzzzy and buckling down on their own groupthink. This election year is so full of echo chambers I don't know if we'll ever be able to sort out the whys and wherefores of everything.

Sounds like we're basically on the same page, but your wall-of-text approach lends itself to misunderstandings.

Indeed; 'tis the elites of both political persuasions, liberal and conservative, whose already-swollen heads are threatening to burst--with each of the two ideological fringes forcing their respective establishments into head-in-the-sand entrenchment. Sigh.
Just like the contestants in reality tv, which makes a mockery of the idea of "reality," this year's contestants to represent the will of the American people in a "representative democracy" seem like they are themselves only primary-school educated.

Oh, and speaking of education, I found this RCP article (w/demographic data circa Super-Tuesday) interesting: exit poll statistics about half-way into article

I thought building a wall was what this thread was all about? ;D XP
Cheers.

This looks bad.

Doesn't look as bad as the discriminatory bill that was just rushed through the North Carolina legislature in a special session and signed into law on the same day.

And that has what do with this? :P

Will the wall have regional pricing?

Donno but I am sure it will have regional lock because it is at the region between steam and GoG.
People in Gamergate, Gamespot, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, playstation etc etc will not be able to access it.