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

[PredFan]

I also would cast my vote for Trump if Cruz is out.

Again, remember that the POTUS isn't the supreme ruler. Trump may talk trash but his head is in the right place on several key issues.

I would prefer that Cruz make the next Supreme Court appointments though……we have Alito, Scalia, and Thomas…the only ones holding the line, and they are old. The next President may appoint a few on he left and maybe replace one or more on the right….and that could be a disaster if hilary is in office or a President who doesn't understand the Court.

I'm still pretty sure that Trump will not be the nominee.

 

[Alystyr]

My choices and why:

1. Ted Cruz - rock solid conservative. I believe he will do the things he says because for the most part, he has already tried to do them as senator.

2. (Tie) Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. If for some reason Cruz is out of the race, I will have a decision to make. On the one hand, Rubio is a conservative with experience, and on the other, The Donald is a leader with experience.

3. Ben Carson - solid conservative, but doesn't inspire confidence.

4. All the rest of them except:

5. Jeb Bush - I could never vote for this guy, likely even if it's against Hillary. He's no different than Hillary in my mind. But the main sticking point is what Bush did in Florida when his daddy was POTUS.

Similar to my thinking.
1 - Agree wholeheartedly. I'll also add that he appears to have an actual spine, unlike some that are alleged Republicans.
2 - Trump over Rubio, primarily due to stances on illegal immigration.
3 - I like and respect the man, but he doesn't seem to have the temperament for politics - at least at the POTUS level.
4 & 5 - Bush and Kasich (tied) would be my absolute last choices, but I'd vote for either over Hillary. I wouldn't like doing it, but life under Hillary would likely be worse, in my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just read that George Pataki has also now hung it up. That leaves only Huckabee for the pre-debate table I think. And since the media continues to fall all over themselves to report, criticize, flame, or otherwise comment on whatever Donald Trump says, tweets, or communicates via body language, I don't see how any of the low end people can gain any traction because they get almost no coverage or face time.

On the other hand, Trey Gowdy formally endorsed Rubio this week. It will be interesting to see if that changes any of the numbers because Trey is seen as a rising star and is highly respected by a lot of politically astute Republicans.

Trey Gowdy just hurt himself pretty badly. Rubio is seen as the next establishment candidate who supports illegal immigration…..

Does he? I guess I'm not seeing that. Rubio has made some statements in the past that his opponents will use to hurt him, and he is certainly not a 'throw everybody out' guy like Trump and maybe one or two others, but overall he has some pretty conservative views when it come to immigration. From the "On the Issues" site:
Marco Rubio on Immigration

 

[Foxfyre]

I also would cast my vote for Trump if Cruz is out.

Again, remember that the POTUS isn't the supreme ruler. Trump may talk trash but his head is in the right place on several key issues.

I would prefer that Cruz make the next Supreme Court appointments though……we have Alito, Scalia, and Thomas…the only ones holding the line, and they are old. The next President may appoint a few on he left and maybe replace one or more on the right….and that could be a disaster if hilary is in office or a President who doesn't understand the Court.

I'm still pretty sure that Trump will not be the nominee.

He may not be, and he is still not on my short list, but I am slowly being convinced that we could do a lot worse.

I received this in my e-mail via "The Best from the Wall Street Journal" so I'm sorry I don't have a link. But it was published in the WSJ I believe today titled "Better Call Saul":

Jeb Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) recently called Donald Trump a “chaos candidate.” There’s something to that description: Trump is certainly good at producing “confusion, fear and retreat.” But Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Finnegan offers a crucial qualification:

If Trump sows chaos, it is tightly controlled chaos. The bluster and put-downs are part of a meticulously calculated strategy by a surprisingly disciplined front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is the rare first-time candidate whose mastery of basic political skills seems unmatched by most, if not all, of his rivals in a crowded Republican field.
A case in point is Trump’s recent dustup with Hillary Clinton over the question of sex, helpfully summarized by New York’s Margaret Hartmann.

Last week Mrs. Clinton complained to the Des Moines Register that Trump had a “penchant for sexism.” He responded on Twitter by alluding to Bill Clinton: “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband [as a campaign surrogate], with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’ s wrong!” On the “Today” show, he elaborated: “There certainly were a lot of abuse [sic] of women, you look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones, or any of them, and that certainly will be fair game.”

Confusion, fear and retreat ensued. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus was forced to acknowledge Trump had a point:

What is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency. But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree wit h Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist. . . .​

--James Taranto

The more the media is forced to agree that Trump is actually telling it like it is, the less ability his opponents have to hurt him.

 

[PredFan]

I also would cast my vote for Trump if Cruz is out.

Again, remember that the POTUS isn't the supreme ruler. Trump may talk trash but his head is in the right place on several key issues.

I would prefer that Cruz make the next Supreme Court appointments though……we have Alito, Scalia, and Thomas…the only ones holding the line, and they are old. The next President may appoint a few on he left and maybe replace one or more on the right….and that could be a disaster if hilary is in office or a President who doesn't understand the Court.

I'm still pretty sure that Trump will not be the nominee.

He may not be, and he is still not on my short list, but I am slowly being convinced that we could do a lot worse.

I received this in my e-mail via "The Best from the Wall Street Journal" so I'm sorry I don't have a link. But it was published in the WSJ I believe today titled "Better Call Saul":

Jeb Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) recently called Donald Trump a “chaos candidate.” There’s something to that description: Trump is certainly good at producing “confusion, fear and retreat.” But Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Finnegan offers a crucial qualification:

If Trump sows chaos, it is tightly controlled chaos. The bluster and put-downs are part of a meticulously calculated strategy by a surprisingly disciplined front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is the rare first-time candidate whose mastery of basic political skills seems unmatched by most, if not all, of his rivals in a crowded Republican field.
A case in point is Trump’s recent dustup with Hillary Clinton over the question of sex, helpfully summarized by New York’s Margaret Hartmann.

Last week Mrs. Clinton complained to the Des Moines Register that Trump had a “penchant for sexism.” He responded on Twitter by alluding to Bill Clinton: “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband [as a campaign surrogate], with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’ s wrong!” On the “Today” show, he elaborated: “There certainly were a lot of abuse [sic] of women, you look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones, or any of them, and that certainly will be fair game.”

Confusion, fear and retreat ensued. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus was forced to acknowledge Trump had a point:

What is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency. But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree wit h Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist. . . .​

--James Taranto

The more the media is forced to agree that Trump is actually telling it like it is, the less ability his opponents have to hurt him.

In my opinion, the media while acknowledging the plain facts about Bill, are hoping you don't know about what Hillary did.

She didn't simply stand by her man, she shamed and blamed the women who accused Bill Clinton. She public ally called them out, accused them of lying of being trash that no one will believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

I also would cast my vote for Trump if Cruz is out.

Again, remember that the POTUS isn't the supreme ruler. Trump may talk trash but his head is in the right place on several key issues.

I would prefer that Cruz make the next Supreme Court appointments though……we have Alito, Scalia, and Thomas…the only ones holding the line, and they are old. The next President may appoint a few on he left and maybe replace one or more on the right….and that could be a disaster if hilary is in office or a President who doesn't understand the Court.

I'm still pretty sure that Trump will not be the nominee.

He may not be, and he is still not on my short list, but I am slowly being convinced that we could do a lot worse.

I received this in my e-mail via "The Best from the Wall Street Journal" so I'm sorry I don't have a link. But it was published in the WSJ I believe today titled "Better Call Saul":

Jeb Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) recently called Donald Trump a “chaos candidate.” There’s something to that description: Trump is certainly good at producing “confusion, fear and retreat.” But Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Finnegan offers a crucial qualification:

If Trump sows chaos, it is tightly controlled chaos. The bluster and put-downs are part of a meticulously calculated strategy by a surprisingly disciplined front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is the rare first-time candidate whose mastery of basic political skills seems unmatched by most, if not all, of his rivals in a crowded Republican field.
A case in point is Trump’s recent dustup with Hillary Clinton over the question of sex, helpfully summarized by New York’s Margaret Hartmann.

Last week Mrs. Clinton complained to the Des Moines Register that Trump had a “penchant for sexism.” He responded on Twitter by alluding to Bill Clinton: “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband [as a campaign surrogate], with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’ s wrong!” On the “Today” show, he elaborated: “There certainly were a lot of abuse [sic] of women, you look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones, or any of them, and that certainly will be fair game.”

Confusion, fear and retreat ensued. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus was forced to acknowledge Trump had a point:

What is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency. But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree wit h Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist. . . .​

--James Taranto

The more the media is forced to agree that Trump is actually telling it like it is, the less ability his opponents have to hurt him.

In my opinion, the media while acknowledging the plain facts about Bill, are hoping you don't know about what Hillary did.

She didn't simply stand by her man, she shamed and blamed the women who accused Bill Clinton. She public ally called them out, accused them of lying of being trash that no one will believe.

Yup. And if Hillary is as brilliant and qualified as her supporters want us to believe she is, she won't belabor the sexism thing and force Trump to educate the public on that point.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I didn't think so before but I have to admit trump has a shot at it, and I am not sure that would be a bad thing, it would definitely be an only in America thing. I am still trying to picture trump giving his inauguration speech, or a state of the Union address. I keep hearing that Cruz has the best ground game in a lot of states. That will be so important. Republicans need less consultants and more grass roots operatives. Rubio comes across as so sharp and composed, but I want him to disavow reports that he is,the establishment candidate. Is he too short to win? How silly tonight were reports about the damn shoes he is wearing. Who says men never get questioned about what they are wearing.

It seems that we are all agreed AT THIS POINT that there will be no surprises and Trump, Cruz, Rubio are the main players, possibly with a Christie dark horse. What happens if trump does not win Iowa or New Hampshire? If his aura of infallibility is punctured is his brand fatally damaged? Can he manage a bump in the road? Might be good training for,the presidency if it happens that way.

The biggest thing is that the garbage being piled in the dumpsters behind the White House is going to b a daunting task for whoever gets elected, and it gets more serious by the minute. Intestinal fortitude is going to be a mandatory requirement.

Happy New Year Fox

 

[Militants]

It seems that we are all agreed AT THIS POINT that there will be no surprises and Trump, Cruz, Rubio are the main players, possibly with a Christie dark horse.

This is true.

I believe that Christie win president election.

But I hope Cruz.

 

[Militants]

Trump and Sanders are two other can be president. Hillary and Rubio are not my favorite.

 

[Militants]

Kasich if he have fans over America but he been vice president if Rubio or Christie win.

 

[Militants]

In precents I thinking this:

Christie - 30
Trump - 25
Cruz - 20
Kasich - 10
Rubio - 10
Carson - 5

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay gang, we are gearing up for the last (and likely most important) debate before the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary. The Thursday debate - early debate 6 pm Eastern and primary debate 9 pm Eastern on Fox Business Network channel - are divided up thusly:

Qualifiers for the main stage debate in Charleston, S.C.: Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich

Qualifiers for "undercard" debate that will precede prime-time forum: Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum

Rand Paul is threatening to boycott the debate because he is offended that he got bumped from prime time.

 

[Dhara]

May they actually debate issues and not snark each other. Good luck GOP!

 

[Militants]

I don't thinks Bush but Christie and Kasich are possible candidate for republican.

 

[Dan Daly]

Gary Johnson is the only candidate I could vote for without feeling dirty...like some kind of traitor to my country.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I know this may not be,the forum bit let me just shoehorn this in because it will affect election strategy. Obama tonight is going full,circle. I guarantee that he will say we went from hope and change in 2008 to change and greater hope today. I don't want to watch this thing, can I get a mulligan fox. Lastly, while I believe in propriety, if Obama tells an unmitigated whopper, I would like to see the freedom caucus get up and walk out. The country is ready for this. Republicans need to stake out their ground. Obama is doing his best to tell historians how to write his legacy. It will be,up,to,republicans to begin the process of telling the truth. We'll see.

 

[Shrimpbox]

From a purely visceral standpoint I hope Trump wins because I can't wait to see Obama kissing trumps ring and choking on feathers. That narcissistic, condensending, egotistical, I am so much better than you attitude was on full,display during his interview today when he was asked can he foresee a trump presidency, and he stammered and then said well maybe on Saturday night live. What,do,I want to hea from him tonight? That he is taking early retirement.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know this may not be,the forum bit let me just shoehorn this in because it will affect election strategy. Obama tonight is going full,circle. I guarantee that he will say we went from hope and change in 2008 to change and greater hope today. I don't want to watch this thing, can I get a mulligan fox. Lastly, while I believe in propriety, if Obama tells an unmitigated whopper, I would like to see the freedom caucus get up and walk out. The country is ready for this. Republicans need to stake out their ground. Obama is doing his best to tell historians how to write his legacy. It will be,up,to,republicans to begin the process of telling the truth. We'll see.

I didn't watch it. I didn't think I could stomach it. But I did, in a moment of weakness perhaps, send a command to the DVR to record it today. So now that it's over, I may take a minute and go watch at least some. I somehow think I won't watch the whole thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gary Johnson is the only candidate I could vote for without feeling dirty...like some kind of traitor to my country.

I know Gary personally and he was my governor. He is a really great guy, much more honest than your average politician, and has his heart in the right place. But my main concern with him is that he doesn't seem to have the instincts or skills to choose good people to do the jobs they need to do. That has been my worry about Ben Carson too, though he ranks right at the top on my respect meter.

 

[Shrimpbox]

The speech has no impact fox. He started out stronger but ran out of mojo as the speech went on, much like his presidency. Shots of the audience showed people on their phones, iPads, looking at their nails, yawning, or just plain bored. He went out with a whimper. Ted Cruz called it less a state of the Union and more a state of denial.