Eh, buddy, don't knock poutine 'til you try it.

 

Also, aboot.

 

Poutine is just two letters off from Putin.  Canada and Russia are both cold.  It's a conspiracy, I tell you!  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Poutine is just two letters off from Putin.  Canada and Russia are both cold.  It's a conspiracy, I tell you!  

To conquer Canada, one must simple cut off supplies of gravy and syrup. 

---

The more people actually see cruz the better. Most people have only heard what the media says about him not actually what hes said and how he carries himself.


Watch out for Carly. Of them all she might be the most presidential. She appears decisive without being inflexible and whenever she answers a question she delivers a plan based on conviction generally with specifics and can fit it into a debate format. More likely than not she will be on the main stage in october and she has the oppurtunity to make herself the more sensible choice for the pro business conservatives that are currently flocking to trump.

---

To conquer Canada, one must simple cut off supplies of gravy and syrup.

I heard tim hortons is the biggest contributor to his SuperPac. #canadianconspiracy

---

    As a Conservative Republican,  I'm convinced that John McCain and Mitt Romney weren't tough enough to win.    That was my biggest issue with both of them.   To the point that I refused to give Romney even a penny in the campaign once he won the nomination.   Instead,  I supported PAC'S that at least recognized that political correctness was not going to defeat Obama.  (1)

 

  Though the 47 % comment hurt Mitt Romney,   he never went on the Offensive after the Obama campaign,  the media,  and others working to keep Obama in the oval office attacked him non stop.    People can say what they want about Newt Gingrich but at least if he was the nominee he would have made Obama sweat.  (2)

 

   Along the lines of what jj82284 expressed,   many Republicans are desperate for a Presidential Nominee that isn't a pansy in the general election campaign.   The problem from my perspective is many have latched on to Donald Trump,  who is anything but a Conservative based on history even this century and this decade.   Ted Cruz represents what these people are truly looking for.   I hope they see it before it's too late.  (3)

 

1 - I respectfully disagree that McCain or Romney wasn't "tough enough".  McCain had an uphill battle, and though I know you like Sarah, her selection did not make McCain's path easier.  Romney might not have been the toughest looking or sounding candidate, but I disagree that it was his calm, respectful, confident demeanor that did him in.

 

2 - Newt was a weak candidate, and certainly weaker than Romney.  His affairs would not have made him popular with women of either party, and I doubt he would have debated Obama any better than Romney did.  Romney won both debates in 2012 and still couldn't take POTUS 44 down.  Gingrich is smart, speaks well, and gives off an arrogant aura that is often confused with strength.

 

3 - I agree with the first half of your final paragraph.  Conservative Republicans are certainly desperate for  a non-pansy nominee, and many think that looks like Donald.  If you think Cruz can be that candidate, fine, and I think he'd govern better than Donald.  There are better candidates in this field for a moderate like me.  I heard a pundit say it over the weekend:  if Trump can't handle being put on the hot spot by Meghan, how do you think he's going to handle Putin?

---

I heard tim hortons is the biggest contributor to his SuperPac. #canadianconspiracy

I heard Cruz doesn't eat real American bacon. 

 

The video with the machine gun is a total fraud!

---

1 - I respectfully disagree that McCain or Romney wasn't "tough enough".  McCain had an uphill battle, and though I know you like Sarah, her selection did not make McCain's path easier.  Romney might not have been the toughest looking or sounding candidate, but I disagree that it was his calm, respectful, confident demeanor that did him in.

 

2 - Newt was a weak candidate, and certainly weaker than Romney.  His affairs would not have made him popular with women of either party, and I doubt he would have debated Obama any better than Romney did.  Romney won both debates in 2012 and still couldn't take POTUS 44 down.  Gingrich is smart, speaks well, and gives off an arrogant aura that is often confused with strength.

 

3 - I agree with the first half of your final paragraph.  Conservative Republicans are certainly desperate for  a non-pansy nominee, and many think that looks like Donald.  If you think Cruz can be that candidate, fine, and I think he'd govern better than Donald.  There are better candidates in this field for a moderate like me.  I heard a pundit say it over the weekend:  if Trump can't handle being put on the hot spot by Meghan, how do you think he's going to handle Putin?

By telling them they are losers, building a wall around Russia and making Putin pay for it presumably. 

---

1 - I respectfully disagree that McCain or Romney wasn't "tough enough".  McCain had an uphill battle, and though I know you like Sarah, her selection did not make McCain's path easier.  Romney might not have been the toughest looking or sounding candidate, but I disagree that it was his calm, respectful, confident demeanor that did him in.

 

2 - Newt was a weak candidate, and certainly weaker than Romney.  His affairs would not have made him popular with women of either party, and I doubt he would have debated Obama any better than Romney did.  Romney won both debates in 2012 and still couldn't take POTUS 44 down.  Gingrich is smart, speaks well, and gives off an arrogant aura that is often confused with strength.

 

3 - I agree with the first half of your final paragraph.  Conservative Republicans are certainly desperate for  a non-pansy nominee, and many think that looks like Donald.  If you think Cruz can be that candidate, fine, and I think he'd govern better than Donald.  There are better candidates in this field for a moderate like me.  I heard a pundit say it over the weekend:  if Trump can't handle being put on the hot spot by Meghan, how do you think he's going to handle Putin?

 

  1.  I totally agree with you that John McCain had an uphill battle.   Yet,  I'm convinced to this day that he didn't use Sarah Palin to his advantage.  Palin was more than willing to play the attack dog role in the campaign.   But McCain and his staff put a muzzle on her.   If that was going to be the case,  it was a mistake for McCain to select Palin as his running mate.

 

  IMO,  one of my major criticisms of Mitt Romney in his general election campaign is the way he played Prevent Defense in the final debate.   Even the Liberal moderator from CBS gave Romney an opening at the beginning of the debate to discuss the Libya situation but Romney in essence punted.

 

 2.   My take is that there were debates that Newt Gingrich won and that there was at least one debate that Mitt Romney one.   The latter probably ended Gingrich's campaign.   While Romney was aggressive against Gingrich,   I knew he wouldn't do the same against Obama.    From my point of view,  even with Newt's baggage,  he matched up better against Obama.  

 

3.    What people want in candidate comes down to preference.   I certainly respect that you prefer a moderate candidate,  even though I want something as close to what I consider a true Conservative as possible.     Ted Cruz has the combination of Conservatism,  intelligence,  communication skills,  and poise that I prefer.   While there's an issue or two that Cruz isn't my top choice on,  overall he's clearly the candidate that I think has the best combination from my preference point of view. 

---

John Mccain literally tried to rip off obamas campaign strategy. He tried to campaign against his sitting president in the absence of a contradicting message and then suspended his campaign to support TARP. in short why was he running for president.


Mitt Romney should be president. By all mathematical analysis be it gdp or unemployment the incumbent president looses that election. He sat on his lead for two debates and squandered the small lead he haf built because he didnt want to offend anyone by calling the president to task.


Being a tough candidate isnt about lighting your hair on fire. You can be calm and respectful but you better have a strong message and not be afraid to express it. The ladt two candidates did horribly.

---

   In an earlier post in this thread,  you did a good job of illustrating that specific questions were asked to the candidates regarding their history...

 

 

 

First of all, thank you for the compliment.

 

Though Ted Cruz isn't my first choice, I went through the footage of the debate, and got the time marks regarding each question and answer given by Cruz.  I chose him for this post because he has gotten the "biggest surge" in recent polls, and some on here seem to think that he is an "establishment" candidate and/or he was given "softball questions" during the debate.

 

The full footage of the debate can be viewed here, and the full transcript can be reviewed here.  Video footage and time marks are from the video provided by FOX News and the transcripts are provided by CBS News.

 

12:45 - This is the first question asked to all candidates individually regarding their "elect ability", and specifically points to what would be deemed a "flaw".

 

31:16 - This question has to do with immigration reform.

 

36:41 - This question has to do with ISIS, specifically within the U.S.

 

There is some time difference at this point, and it's possible that I might have missed a question.  You did mention that there was an extended period of time that he wasn't asked a question.

 

1:25:47 - This is a question regarding national security and specifically cyber war.

 

1:34:47 - This is regarding religion and was asked to all of the candidates.

 

1:44:22 - These were his final remarks.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Who's with me?

 

It comes on at 9PM Eastern time...  Anyone staying up late to watch it?  If so, we can discuss it while it happens.  Thanks to Al Gore for creating this series of tubes we call the interwebs!!!

 

I never had more fun watching a debate, thank you Donald Trump.  I don't think he will win, but he sure makes it entertaining to watch.

---

I never had more fun watching a debate, thank you Donald Trump.  I don't think he will win, but he sure makes it entertaining to watch.

 

Well, he's still leading in the polls, which is the crazy thing.  

---

First of all, thank you for the compliment.

 

Though Ted Cruz isn't my first choice, I went through the footage of the debate, and got the time marks regarding each question and answer given by Cruz.  I chose him for this post because he has gotten the "biggest surge" in recent polls, and some on here seem to think that he is an "establishment" candidate and/or he was given "softball questions" during the debate.

 

The full footage of the debate can be viewed here, and the full transcript can be reviewed here.  Video footage and time marks are from the video provided by FOX News and the transcripts are provided by CBS News.

 

12:45 - This is the first question asked to all candidates individually regarding their "elect ability", and specifically points to what would be deemed a "flaw".

 

31:16 - This question has to do with immigration reform.

 

36:41 - This question has to do with ISIS, specifically within the U.S.

 

There is some time difference at this point, and it's possible that I might have missed a question.  You did mention that there was an extended period of time that he wasn't asked a question.

 

1:25:47 - This is a question regarding national security and specifically cyber war.

 

1:34:47 - This is regarding religion and was asked to all of the candidates.

 

1:44:22 - These were his final remarks.

 

  My pleasure.

 

 Thanks for all of the time and effort provided in the research that you did in this thread.

 

 I believe that you documented all of Ted Cruz'  opportunities to speak in the debate.  

 

 As a Ted Cruz supporter,  I felt frustrated when Cruz was being overlooked by the moderators for what felt like 40 minutes.   It actually appears to be even longer than what I previously thought.     The fact that Cruz moved up substantially in at least one of the polls despite his lack of air time in the debate relatively speaking,   bodes well for Cruz's potential moving forward.    It's still an uphill battle for Cruz for multiple reasons,  including the establishment in and out of the Republican Party being against him and the presence of Donald Trump in the race.   But at the very least,   Cruz is making a major impact in the race.   That by itself is very important.  

---

I somewhat agree with you regarding the amount of exposure that Ted Cruz did/didn't get during the debate D6, but in all fairness, it's looking to me like it was fairly spread out among the candidates (from what I can tell anyway).

 

I can't say that I disagree with any of the questions asked to Ted Cruz and I don't disagree with any of his answers.  I'm interested to get some perspective from others regarding his debate performance.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I somewhat agree with you regarding the amount of exposure that Ted Cruz did/didn't get during the debate D6, but in all fairness, it's looking to me like it was fairly spread out among the candidates (from what I can tell anyway).

 

I can't say that I disagree with any of the questions asked to Ted Cruz and I don't disagree with any of his answers.  I'm interested to get some perspective from others regarding his debate performance.

 

 After reading your reply,  I found an article that lists the amount of airtime each candidate received during the debate.   As it turned out,  you are correct and I wasn't regarding Ted Cruz's airtime % relative to the other candidates.   Because Cruz didn't get a question for such a long period of time during the debate as you illustrated yesterday,   that's the reason why it felt like Cruz didn't get enough airtime.   I'm surprised that Rand Paul got the least amount of airtime,  as it felt like he was talking longer than the data indicates:

 

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/who-go...le/2569766

 

  Like I mentioned yesterday,  while I agree with Ted Cruz the vast majority of the time,  like with everyone I don't agree 100 % of the time.   There's one thing Ted Cruz mentioned in the debate that I wish he didn't say it.   That's the 2nd paragraph which appears on the transcript site you provided in this thread yesterday.   I'll highlight it:

 

 

CRUZ: Yes, it is ideological, and let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an apologist. He said, "Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions--"

 

 

We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.

 

Based on at least one contradictory statements that al-Sisi has made that Dr. Andrew Bostom caught a while back,  I would be very cautious to praise al-Sisi.   The specific illustration  probably violates the COC but intentional deception on the Egyptian President's part very realistically might have occurred.  

---

---

Blakes Life Matters

 After reading your reply,  I found an article that lists the amount of airtime each candidate received during the debate.   As it turned out,  you are correct and I wasn't regarding Ted Cruz's airtime % relative to the other candidates.   Because Cruz didn't get a question for such a long period of time during the debate as you illustrated yesterday,   that's the reason why it felt like Cruz didn't get enough airtime.   I'm surprised that Rand Paul got the least amount of airtime,  as it felt like he was talking longer than the data indicates:

 

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/who-go...le/2569766

 

  Like I mentioned yesterday,  while I agree with Ted Cruz the vast majority of the time,  like with everyone I don't agree 100 % of the time.   There's one thing Ted Cruz mentioned in the debate that I wish he didn't say it.   That's the 2nd paragraph which appears on the transcript site you provided in this thread yesterday.   I'll highlight it:

 

 

CRUZ: Yes, it is ideological, and let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an apologist. He said, "Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions--"

 

 

We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.

 

Based on at least one contradictory statements that al-Sisi has made that Dr. Andrew Bostom caught a while back,  I would be very cautious to praise al-Sisi.   The specific illustration  probably violates the COC but intentional deception on the Egyptian President's part very realistically might have occurred.  

 

Thanks for the link.  I was judging based on my own research.  I went back through and got time stamps for Marco Rubio and I noticed that each candidate was asked the same amount of questions.  Clearly FOX News handled the debate in a fair and balanced way (gee something about that sounds familiar).  I don't believe that they were "harder" or threw "softball questions" at any of the candidates.

 

I'm still interested to hear other opinions regarding Ted Cruz's question/answers.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Thanks for the link.  I was judging based on my own research.  I went back through and got time stamps for Marco Rubio and I noticed that each candidate was asked the same amount of questions.  Clearly FOX News handled the debate in a fair and balanced way (gee something about that sounds familiar).  I don't believe that they were "harder" or threw "softball questions" at any of the candidates.

 

I'm still interested to hear other opinions regarding Ted Cruz's question/answers.

 

I would disagree slightly.  I think that the way they opened the debate with the hand raising question kind of poisoned the well for Trump.  

---

I would disagree slightly.  I think that the way they opened the debate with the hand raising question kind of poisoned the well for Trump.  

 

Is it not a valid question?  Here is the quote from the transcript.

 

 

BAIER: Gentlemen, we know how much you love hand-raising questions. So we promise, this is the only one tonight: the only one. Is there anyone on stage, and can I see hands, who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican party and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person.

 
Again, we're looking for you to raise your hand now -- raise your hand now if you won't make that pledge tonight.
 

 

So in other words, Trump says that if he can't win the nomination for the Republican Party representative (which he is running on), then he will not support the eventual nominee and will run as a third party candidate.

 

If he feels that way, then why does he not run as a third party candidate now?

 

After all, this is a Republican Party primary.  If he is so "against" what the Democrat party is all about, why does he not run on that side?  Assuming that he thinks that he can beat Hillary or Bernie Sanders, I would think that getting the "ticket to the final dance" would be easier for him on the Democrat side.

 

I'm suspicious that the only reason he is running is a) for some kind of "business" deal, or b) he is a "democrat operative".

 

I don't have any proof of either, it's just my "gut instinct" that I'm going by.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I can't wait for time stamped analysis of the next 13 debates. (I have no idea how many there are)

---