Debate Now Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

[Shrimpbox]

I tend to generally agree with you fox. I think he ought to go to the debate and as oreilly said, if you think a question is unfair let them have it. I do think Megan, with her aggressive bighorn sheep hairdo, is awfully close to crossing the line between journalism and making herself the story, and I like Megan. I am also glad Fox News didn't back down.

But from a strategic advantage you have to love the Donald. Are we talking about anything else? Is there any oxygen in the room for Cruz, Rubio, et al. And if the debate gets ho hum ratings the Donald is just going to say I told you so. Has there ever been anyone who could so manage the news cycle to his advantage. And so I won't be sexist, the Donald had to have a whole can of hairspray on his head tonight. But an exchange tonight between Donald and oreilly really highlights where the Donald is coming from. Oreilly offhandedly said at first people thought of trump as not serious a blowhard or even a buffoon and now he might be president. Trump shot back that he has never been a buffoon and that was an unfair characterization of him. He then reeled off a list of his accomplishments and scolded oreilly for using that term. It was a good interview for both men. But trump is laying down the marker, he is not going to put up with any bs. This is both good and bad as he loves to dish it out but he can't take it. Maybe some of the other candidates ought to say that.

I am going to bet that this will be seen as a stroke of genius. He will not be in the debate to make a gaff. He is already ahead. He makes the other candidates look like they are desperate and he is above th fray. As long as h comes back to Iowa to campaign before the caucuses the voters won't care. If he can run the govt as successfully as he has run this campaign so far, we should have him in there right now.

Let's get this party started.........

 

[Foxfyre]

You're probably right, Shrimp. He's certainly no fool and this may be a brilliant strategy on his part. He doesn't have to put himself out there in the debate, and he still gets all the attention. And these days, because so many people don't do their homework, being the most 'visible' candidate is a huge advantage. And I agree, of all the candidates, he does have the track record for getting things done, and has demonstrated it with this campaign.

But to me he tarnished his halo by appearing to be a petulant spoiled brat who didn't get his way instead of a statesman. And it pushed Cruz and Rubio and several others ahead on my short list. How many people like me are out there? It's a little nerve wracking to me when I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else. Probably Johnson. And we all know that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary--we have to be able to concentrate the conservative vote on a single candidate to beat Clinton, assuming she actually runs and isn't in jail.

And the thought that any of the Democratic candidates will be the one to make the next two or three Supreme Court nominations is terrifying to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

And those of you who say that as a matter of principle or conscience, you can't vote for any of the GOP contenders and will instead vote libertarian, here is something that might make you rethink that:

Clinton ‘Loves’ Idea of Appointing Obama to Supreme Court

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand to the Donald Trump supporters, this video is beginning to go viral and, if it is the real deal, it is pretty incriminating:

 

[Alystyr]

I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else.

I believe it. And behavior like you described worries me.
I wish that those types would just not vote, instead of voting third party if "their" candidate doesn't get the nomination. Voting third party only draws needed votes away from the party that the candidate most closely aligns with, which can have consequences - Perot, for example. Not voting at all really doesn't hurt anyone directly. It just adds weight to others' votes.
Personally, I neither care much for Trump nor do I trust him implicitly. That being said, however, if he's the nominee he'll have my vote... only because the thought of having another four years (at least) of what we've had for the last two terms is extremely unsettling.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else.

I believe it. And behavior like you described worries me.
I wish that those types would just not vote, instead of voting third party if "their" candidate doesn't get the nomination. Voting third party only draws needed votes away from the party that the candidate most closely aligns with, which can have consequences - Perot, for example. Not voting at all really doesn't hurt anyone directly. It just adds weight to others' votes.
Personally, I neither care much for Trump nor do I trust him implicitly. That being said, however, if he's the nominee he'll have my vote... only because the thought of having another four years (at least) of what we've had for the last two terms is extremely unsettling.

We seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I think not voting is a vote for the other party as much as voting third party is. It is after all the person who gets the most votes in any state who wins the state.

 

[Alystyr]

I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else.

I believe it. And behavior like you described worries me.
I wish that those types would just not vote, instead of voting third party if "their" candidate doesn't get the nomination. Voting third party only draws needed votes away from the party that the candidate most closely aligns with, which can have consequences - Perot, for example. Not voting at all really doesn't hurt anyone directly. It just adds weight to others' votes.
Personally, I neither care much for Trump nor do I trust him implicitly. That being said, however, if he's the nominee he'll have my vote... only because the thought of having another four years (at least) of what we've had for the last two terms is extremely unsettling.

We seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I think not voting is a vote for the other party as much as voting third party is. It is after all the person who gets the most votes in any state who wins the state.

I see not voting as a case of "the lesser of two evils", but I think that it still doesn't do as much harm as voting for a third party.
Here's my logic:
If a person doesn't vote at all, then no one benefits, but the vote totals stay the same and no one loses ground, either. Each individual vote just represents a larger percentage of the total if this happens.
If a person votes for a third party, then the first party, one that they would have voted for normally (ex. GOP), has lost a potential vote. When that third party candidate fails to win (a very likely outcome), then the second party (ex. Dems) has essentially gained the vote that was thrown away on the third party since the vote total for the first party is one less than it would have been otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else.

I believe it. And behavior like you described worries me.
I wish that those types would just not vote, instead of voting third party if "their" candidate doesn't get the nomination. Voting third party only draws needed votes away from the party that the candidate most closely aligns with, which can have consequences - Perot, for example. Not voting at all really doesn't hurt anyone directly. It just adds weight to others' votes.
Personally, I neither care much for Trump nor do I trust him implicitly. That being said, however, if he's the nominee he'll have my vote... only because the thought of having another four years (at least) of what we've had for the last two terms is extremely unsettling.

We seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I think not voting is a vote for the other party as much as voting third party is. It is after all the person who gets the most votes in any state who wins the state.

I see not voting as a case of "the lesser of two evils", but I think that it still doesn't do as much harm as voting for a third party.
Here's my logic:
If a person doesn't vote at all, then no one benefits, but the vote totals stay the same and no one loses ground, either. Each individual vote just represents a larger percentage of the total if this happens.
If a person votes for a third party, then the first party, one that they would have voted for normally (ex. GOP), has lost a potential vote. When that third party candidate fails to win (a very likely outcome), then the second party (ex. Dems) has essentially gained the vote that was thrown away on the third party since the vote total for the first party is one less than it would have been otherwise.

Well I'll have to think about that.

If Candidate A has 50 votes and Candidate B has 49 votes, then I can't see any difference in effect between your not voting or your voting for Candidate C. The fact is the Democrats have more registered voters than the Republicans do and who knows how the Independent vote will split? But if the GOP starts splitting its vote, the Democrats are less likely to do that which is why I say that we have to vote GOP or we hand Hillary or whomever an extra vote.

 

[Alystyr]

I see several true conservatives that I admire say they simply could not vote for Donald Trump and if he is the GOP nominee, they will be voting for somebody else.

I believe it. And behavior like you described worries me.
I wish that those types would just not vote, instead of voting third party if "their" candidate doesn't get the nomination. Voting third party only draws needed votes away from the party that the candidate most closely aligns with, which can have consequences - Perot, for example. Not voting at all really doesn't hurt anyone directly. It just adds weight to others' votes.
Personally, I neither care much for Trump nor do I trust him implicitly. That being said, however, if he's the nominee he'll have my vote... only because the thought of having another four years (at least) of what we've had for the last two terms is extremely unsettling.

We seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I think not voting is a vote for the other party as much as voting third party is. It is after all the person who gets the most votes in any state who wins the state.

I see not voting as a case of "the lesser of two evils", but I think that it still doesn't do as much harm as voting for a third party.
Here's my logic:
If a person doesn't vote at all, then no one benefits, but the vote totals stay the same and no one loses ground, either. Each individual vote just represents a larger percentage of the total if this happens.
If a person votes for a third party, then the first party, one that they would have voted for normally (ex. GOP), has lost a potential vote. When that third party candidate fails to win (a very likely outcome), then the second party (ex. Dems) has essentially gained the vote that was thrown away on the third party since the vote total for the first party is one less than it would have been otherwise.

Well I'll have to think about that.

If Candidate A has 50 votes and Candidate B has 49 votes, then I can't see any difference in effect between your not voting or your voting for Candidate C. The fact is the Democrats have more registered voters than the Republicans do and who knows how the Independent vote will split? But if the GOP starts splitting its vote, the Democrats are less likely to do that which is why I say that we have to vote GOP or we hand Hillary or whomever an extra vote.

I see your point. Perhaps if all things were equal, it might make what I wrote more valid.
Also - you are absolutely correct in saying that splitting the GOP vote is about the worst thing that could happen, especially since this whole deal has it starting at a disadvantage - more registered D's, media bias, and so on.
That's why, regardless of who the Republicans nominate, I will be voting for them. With a few, though, it will be much more of a vote against the Dems than it will be for the particular candidate.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the early debate, I was impressed with all four people and thought all did equally well. Any one of them would be so much better as President than what we now have or what the Democrats are offering. In the main debate, again I was extremely frustrated with the moderating. Once again they seemed to be more focused on you and him fight rather than allowing the candidates to get their message out. But at least Trump was not center stage as I expected and everybody else got more opportunity to participate though of course it was way lopsided--some got twice as much time as others.

The winner? I would have to say Rubio. The only one who may have been hurt a bit I think is Cruz who had to defend himself the most both from the moderating team and the other candidates. Trump wasn't there to siphon off that attention. Everybody else did a reasonably good job--the one who may have helped himself a bit was Jeb who did a much better job presenting himself last night, but he was so over shadowed by Cruz and Rubio probably most won't remember that.

 

[2aguy]

I have to say I can't watch the debates anymore...it is better to just go and see what they have done over their careers and make judgements based on that. The debate format should have been winnowed down to the top 3-4 in the last 2 debates.........

 

[9aces]

I have to say I can't watch the debates anymore...it is better to just go and see what they have done over their careers and make judgements based on that. The debate format should have been winnowed down to the top 3-4 in the last 2 debates.........

Yep, Kasich, Bush, Paul at the least should have all been weeded before now.

 

[2aguy]

When Illinois primaries I will be voting for Cruz. And if he doesn't make it any republican that does.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every few weeks I've been taking this comprehensive test. I answer all the questions as honestly as I can, mark how important it is to me (at the left of each question) and also answer all the additional questions available at a line at the bottom of each section. Rubio has been on my short list since the beginning but never first, second, or third. But he keeps coming up as the candidate most closely matched with my views every single time.

It takes a little while to complete if you answer all the options, but I took the test again yesterday and the results:
Rubio - 88%
Cruz - 88%
Carson - 88%
Trump - 83%
Paul - 82%
Fiorina - 81%
Bush - 75%
Santorum - 74%
Huckabee - 69%
Kasich - 65%
Christie - 59%
Clinton - 13%
Sanders - 11%
O'Malley - 6%

THE LINK: How Republican vs Democrat are you?

 

[9aces]

Every few weeks I've been taking this comprehensive test. I answer all the questions as honestly as I can, mark how important it is to me (at the left of each question) and also answer all the additional questions available at a line at the bottom of each section. Rubio has been on my short list since the beginning but never first, second, or third. But he keeps coming up as the candidate most closely matched with my views every single time.

It takes a little while to complete if you answer all the options, but I took the test again yesterday and the results:
Rubio - 88%
Cruz - 88%
Carson - 88%
Trump - 83%
Paul - 82%
Fiorina - 81%
Bush - 75%
Santorum - 74%
Huckabee - 69%
Kasich - 65%
Christie - 59%
Clinton - 13%
Sanders - 11%
O'Malley - 6%

THE LINK: How Republican vs Democrat are you?

Carson - 90%
Cruz - 90%
Trump - 85%
Paul - 84%
Rubio - 84%
Santorum - 78%
Fiorina - 78%
Huckabee - 78%
Bush - 64%
Christie - 57%
Sanders - 23%
Clinton - 19%
O'Malley - 10%

 

[Foxfyre]

So Iowa is now behind us with Cruz winning the night, Trump in a close 2nd, Rubio surprisingly one point behind Trump in 3rd - Carson a distant 4th. Carson calling dirty pool by the Cruz people who they say told their caucus groups that Carson had suspended his campaign and shift his votes to Cruz. But since Carson only lost 1 point during all that, I don't know how accurate that is. Carson has not suspended his campaign. But from what I observed last night, I see Rubio as absolutely a contender and the real winner of the night as nobody thought he would do better than 15%..

As of this hour, Fox News is still calling the Clinton/Sanders contest too close to call - a few votes still to come in and they are knotted at 50% apiece and I think 5 votes separating them the last time I looked? I do suspect the powers to be will find a way to eke out a win for Clinton though but it is definitely a psychological/emotional win for Sanders who wasn't given a prayer 60 days agao..

Huckabee has suspended his campaign on the GOP side--Mallory has suspended his on the Democrat side.

And it's on to New Hampshire.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Cruz is becoming less and less a viable general election candidate for me. He talks too loud, he talks too much, he is a dirty tricks player with Carson. And he comes across as a win at any cost candidate, and I don't know why. But he just increasingly is an Unlikable candidate.

Trump won't miss any more debates and Rubio can't believe his good fortune. Christy looks mean spirited, Kasich is dark horse, Carson putting all his marbles on SC.

Have you all been reading all the media reports about how diverse the republican field is? I didn't think so!

 

[9aces]

Cruz needs Carson's supporters to keep his apparent momentum. Politics is not a game played by gentlemen. It's a field where not the most capable thrive, but the most corrupt, and most ruthless reign.

 

[2aguy]

I was listening to Rush….and after what he said about Rubio it seems like I could vote for him without too much trouble……my new line up…Cruz, Rubio, Trump….the others should just get out.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was listening to Rush….and after what he said about Rubio it seems like I could vote for him without too much trouble……my new line up…Cruz, Rubio, Trump….the others should just get out.

I still haven't settled on a strict order but I'm pretty sure I'm going to settle on Cruz or Rubio as #1 and I agree, Rubio is looking much more appealing to me.