[adorno]

While your points regarding how corrupt Hillary and democrats are, you also pointed to something that presents a problem for Trump and which Megyn Kelly's line of questioning brought out.

Therefore the audience for the Republican debate is interested practically exclusively in the substantive policy differences among the candidates.

It's true that we want to concentrate on the substance of the issues and of the candidates. But, when it comes to the candidates, we must also examine who they are very closely. Megyn's questions were focused on the 'character' issues, were Trump was confronted with the way he treated people in the past. It matters how he did it, and that is what 'character' is about. While there are many who applauded how he talked back to Rosie O'Donnell, would the same people have been as accepting if Trump had been running for president at the time? Would it be okay now for Trump to call somebody a 'fat pig' now that he's a candidate for president? Yeah, he's not saying those things now, but, he is still the same person he was a few years back when he did say those things. A tiger does not change his stripes, especially when all of his formative years are way behind him.

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea that Trump is fearless in discussing the issues that matter, and I would, no doubt, vote for him if he became the republican nominee. But, I'd be doing so with some hesitancy. Furthermore, I'm not convince that he is the type of republican that we want in the White House. I could see him flipping on the issues once he's in the White House, especially since he held mostly democrat views in the past.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I said,

the audience for the Republican debate is interested practically exclusively in the substantive policy differences among the candidates.

It's true that we want to concentrate on the substance of the issues and of the candidates. But, when it comes to the candidates, we must also examine who they are very closely. Megyn's questions were focused on the 'character’ issues

My problem with that is the “Russian Rabit Stew” issue:

In Soviet Russia, an American takes a seat in a restaurant, studies the menu, and tells the waiter,

“I’ll have the rabbit stew, please."

The waiter brings the meal, the American takes a bite of it, and exclaims to the waiter,

This is terrible food. Are you sure this is rabbit stew?

The waiter replies,

Yes, of course.

The American responds,

Are you sure about that? It tastes like horse meat to me.

The waiter replies,

Well, it does have some horse meat in it . . .

the American replies,

Some horse meat?

The waiter replies,

Well, half and half.

the American replies,

Half and half?

The winter replies

Yes - one horse and one rabbit.

It appears to me that you are ordering Russian Rabbit Stew in your, and Megyn Kelly’s, priorities. Hillary’s character is the “horse meat,” and the character of the worst Republican in the field is rabbit. You label each “the character issue,” and in the process you cannot help exaggerating the importance of the flaws in the Republican:

Sure, Hillary has flaws - but she is so clever at making sure she never gets convicted or even criminally charged.

And besides, Donald Trump spat on the sidewalk back in 1922 . . .

Just remember, slapping two shell-shocked soldiers is a character issue, too - one that should have been prevented from recurring. It was; George S. Patton was relieved of command, and did not command the invasion at Anzio. Which promptly turned into a battle of attrition. Lots of Germans died for their country - but just as many soldiers for the Allies did the same. It was “a thousand pities that we didn’t let Patton do it.”