Cruz-Rubio feud flares as GOP candidates battle for tough-on-terror mantle


#1

foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/16/cruz-rubio-feud-flares-as-gop-candidates-battle-for-tough-on-terror-mantle.html

                                 Watched the entire debate and thought Cruz was the clear winner. Also thought Trump had his worst moment of his campaign with his initial comments that sounded like he wanted to shutdown the internet. Later he somewhat clarified his position but still sounded vague.

#2

Vague is a very apt description. More blustering as usual from Trump, playing I guess to an emotional sort of patriotism, but very little actual substance, and he doesn’t always seem to have a clear grasp of what he does propose. Jeb was better this time, appealing more to reason it seemed to me, with a few workable proposals, but as long as Trump stays high in the polls, his constituents don’t seem that interested in reason.


#3

On foreign policy, Trump’s positions are less confrontational than all other candidates with the exception of Rand Paul.


#4

Trump sounds like a child that talks big and wants people to like him but doesn’t actually have a workable plan to get what he wants.

Carly Fiorina just sounds repetitive with her “private sector” and “technology” repeats plus I don’t like the way she plays on her gender.

For some reason Cruz rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like him. Everytime he opens his mouth it sounds rehearsed and fake.

I think Bush did ok, but I started the process thinking I’d never support him and I’ve come to actually like him. I think he a good job laying out his ideas.

I thought Carson only did ok, but he did a great job on that one gotcha question about being ok killing innocent children.

Rand Paul, I wasn’t impressed. He always seems like he’s gunning for a fight with the other nominees and he’s a broken record on his talking points.

Kasich, I can’t even take him seriously.

Hukabee, how many tomes has he ran now? 4-5? I’m not interested

Graham and Pataki I wasn’t at all impressed with in this debate. I think Santorum left them in the dust.

Cristie, I thought he did a good job distinguishing how he’s different from the rest of the pack.

Santorum is the only one from the early debate that I take seriously and like. He was my guy last election and I was disappointed he dropped out before I could vote for him in the primary. I thought he did a great job in the early debate and I wish he’d been on the main stage.

Rubio is pretty much my guy at this point. He never sounds like a hot head, he gets into details. He always sounds prepared but not scripted. I’d absolutely vote for him.


#5

Cristie did well except for talking about the no-fly zone.

But at least, Cristie honestly addressed the issue when Carson, Fiorina, Rubio and I believe Kasich too, have spoken for a no-fly zone; if one sets it up, one has to implement it and enforce it.

The no-fly zone may have worked earlier before Russia entered the war; now it is a hot potato issue whereas it wasn’t before.


#6

The “no fly zone” idea is preposterous. Under whose authority does it get implemented? If not the UN or the Syrian government, it is totally arbitrary and an act of war. If the US unilaterally declares a no fly zone over Syria and Iraq, it will only be because it is powerful enough, it wants to, and it can.

One would think the political class in the US would see the dismal results of the US arbitrarily imposing its will on that region, but for some that is not the case.


#7

Russia has permission to have planes flying over Syria, the US does not, yet I believe at least 3 of the candidates believe they have some authority to tell the Russians they’d be violating a no fly zone.


#8

My feelings towards Cruz andRubio are the exact flip side of yours.
I really like Ted Cruz.I think he comes across as more thoughtful and extemporaneous in his responses.Whereas,Rubio has always bugged me,largely due to the way he speaks.Too fast,very rote in his responses.I also think Ted Cruz is a true Conservative,Rubio,not so much.


#9

Syria’s government has welcomed some foreign intervention besides Russia, I can find the articles on this certainly.

We need to add in that candidate Clinton endorsed the idea as well.

Dictators also have laws to abide by, international laws. The first no-fly zones were proposed to stop the regime’s barrel bombs.


#10

:thumbsup:

You are correct and no matter how much I like Rubio, his saying things like “I’m not in the Senate as often because I can’t get things done but as President I could” does not appear to be a great talking point really.

Other than a possible foul-up on immigration, Rubio has been steadfast in my view.


#11

To my knowledge, the Syrian government has not asked for the imposition of a no fly zone.

[quote=Path_Finder] We need to add in that candidate Clinton endorsed the idea as well.
[/quote]

Doesn’t make it a good idea.

[quote=Path_Finder]Dictators also have laws to abide by, international laws. The first no-fly zones were proposed to stop the regime’s barrel bombs.
[/quote]

The Syrian government or the UNSC are the only entities authorized to impose a no fly zone.


#12

I wasn’t able to watch the debates. I wanted to hear Cruz since he has risen in the polls. I am sorry to see Carson falling. I don’t know yet who I want to be the nominee yet.


#13

I agree that Rubio is the best candidate right now, for all the reasons Cider gave and more. Plus, he is probably the most electable in the general.


#14

Rubio is extremely conservative on social issues. He is more liberal on immigration, but that’s about it.


#15

I thought Rubio looked vulnerable on immigration-terrorism. Cruz and Paul took some good shots at him. His ties to Chuck Shumer were really exploited last night. Then again a debate often means very little.


#16

Does Assad and Russia have authority to kill Syrian people?


#17

One can find articles where Western Strikes were welcomed by the Regime as well; if one needs to dig those up.


#18

The regime has lost so much of Syria, the regime may well not be able to make claims in what amounts to parts being a failed state. They can present their case at the UN if this is international law.

Of course, invading Lebanon or supplying missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah to fire at Israel must be a different law.


#19

Why exactly can Senator Cruz run for President? His father was not American and he was not born in the US. I thought that made you ineligible per the Constitution.


#20

see:
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.