Posted on 02/06/2016 3:55:15 PM PST by PJBankard
Link Online. Live Coverage at Link.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
ditto and ditto
Well we know how good of an analyst you are. You had Trump winning Iowa by double digits. Cultist crap belief by the actual votes.
Quiet night for Cruz.......good move on his part.....plus the others are trying to distinguish themselves....
Carson needs to wrap things up. The more I hear him the more I don’t like him.....he continued to play victim tonight in his closing. He’s simply out of his environment/league trying to pull this off. It would be like Jeb or Cristie stepping into one of his surgical suites saying they were going to operate on someones brain.
Jeb had the crowd, but is lack of confidence shows....he never wanted this in the first place.......I thought Christie held the stage pretty well....Rubio just repeated his same canned speeches to convince people he’s presidential. Kascich’s normal boring stuff.....And Trump doing the same Trump talking points.
what did he lose?
Chris was ready tonight. Met him here in Houston in 2015. I’m still a Trump guy tonight though.
1. Cruz
2. Rubio
3. Trump
The rest do not matter.
I know that many people won’t believe it because of the times Trump hit Carson, but they’re friends. It’s one of the few times that I don’t think it’s just about winning with Trump, I think he really resents Cruz’s actions.
Rubio had a better night than Cruz.
Rubio: “traditional marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. Plus that makes gay cruising parks so deliciously wrong.”
For Pete’s sake, what are you talking about? We need a great, slick-talking-lawyer to be president. One who can debate well./s
Chris was ready tonight. Met him here in Houston in 2015. I’m still a Trump guy tonight though.
I agree with you 100 percent. Trump or Cruz good. Not sure if Cruz can with a national election.
I agree but you might have a pretty fierce fighting force if you draft them when they hit menopause.
-— All this Q&A session does is have people support who they’re already for. Not sure what it do for the undecideds. Not sure it helps. -—
Rubio’s performance in the last debate gave him a big bump with late-deciders, so the debates are very important.
I thought Trump’s good moments were rare, indeed.
He had the overall attitude of “I am king ... I don’t really need to answer your silly little questions.”
His answers were brusque and without much substance.
I know his supporters liked his performance but what else is new.
It was not that good.
1. Cruz. 2. Trump. 3. Christie. 4. Carson or Rubio. 6. Bush. 7. Kasich
“The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[4] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term “public use” rather than “public purpose,” “public interest”, or “public benefit”.[5]
The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner’s consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate “just compensation,” a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment.[6] All U.S. states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.[7]
The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may take private property by passing an Act transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, “... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government’s right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.[8]
From wiki
Yeah Cruz froze. He knew he was cornered and his stuttering has been a topic. He had to make sure she didn’t do it.
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
Chiming in after missing the first part of the debate:
Why did no one say “Absolutely not!” for women being drafted? Why didn’t someone at least say “but not for combat”? Phyllis Schlafly fought a long battle over this years ago when she defeated the ERA. Everyone waffled and talked about the RIGHT of women to serve. That wasn’t the question. Jeb said confidently “there won’t be a draft”—what does he know that we don’t?
Rubio the only one with an acceptable pro-life position, and it was clearly a pro-life crowd, so don’t be surprised if he wins over that one. Of course it’s not enough for me to switch my allegiance. The others who answered waffled and went after the rape and incest boogeyman.
Overall impression: The presentation was anti-Rubio. Democrats are after the powerful candidates. Mary Katharine Ham is not a Democrat—she was OK. Also ABC kept fading out. Now I have to watch the whole thing in rerun. Well, I probably would have anyway.
Can’t wait to read all the freeper input on the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.