Fox News Poll: Trump jumps, Cruz climbs, Carson sinks in GOP race (Trump 39%, Cruz 18%)

Fox ^ | Dana Blanton

[fiftymegaton]

You said: “If Trump is such a giant conservative failure, why is he aligning himself with the most conservative candidate in Cruz? If Trump had more liberal leanings, you would think he would cozy up to Gov. Christie especially in an effort to solidify New York and New Jersey.”

Well IF it’s the case Trump is as you put it ‘a closet liberal pulling a giant con to get into the White House’ clearly he’s smart enough to recognize aligning himself with the Christie wing of the party(and spouting all the inherently required milquetoast establishment rhetoric) would likely have him in the single digits in the polls right now.

If he’s as smart as the consensus believes, I’m sure before he entered the race he sat down and plotted a strategy of how to win over the the republican electorate, complete with hammering hot button issues(immigration) that would set him apart from the crowd... at least rhetorically.

I understand the enthusiasm for an outsider who is saying many of the right things in a manner that’s refreshing in the context of the ubiquity of political correctness.

What I don’t understand is the willingness of some of his supporters who claim to be conservative to smear a guy like Ted Cruz and throw him under the bus in the process. Cruz being literally one of the only voices of opposition, in both word and deed, on a multitude of occasions and issues to Obama(and big government) over the course of his 2nd disaster term.

By the way I agree with you that Cruz is ‘the most conservative candidate’ running.

[JoSixChip]

You are a really crappy loser, you know that?

[JoSixChip]

Does Trust trump Integrity?...or are they jointly the same?

That is the kind of unfounded crap that you find in trailer park by dragging a one dollar bill trough it. Give us one example where Trump has lied or broken the law? lets compare it with Cruz's statement that he never supported amnesty, or his pledge to stop obumbers agenda. Cruz has actually helped obumber achieve his wildest dream, Not only did he get his Iran deal he can write any TPP agreement he wants and has full congressional support. Not only did cruz vote for it, it was his so called leadership that got it passed. If that is what you call integrity, you have a closer relationship to clinton the Trump ever had.

[GonzoII]

[Rodamala]

Who gives a shit?

Another shit-flinger Trumpanzee.

[fiftymegaton]

“Cruz’s statement that he never supported amnesty, or his pledge to stop obumbers agenda. Cruz has actually helped obumber achieve his wildest dream, Not only did he get his Iran deal he can write any TPP agreement he wants and has full congressional support. Not only did cruz vote for it, it was his so called leadership that got it passed.”

Say what? How do you come to this conclusion?

Cruz voted against the Iran deal and Trump even joined him in a rally against it, if I recall.

Also if I remember correctly, Cruz voted against the final version of TPA after multiple add ons were made to the bill including reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, and after McConnell lied to his face a in closed door meeting.

Cruz’s original support for the TPA was probably an error considering the current President, and what kind of trade deals he’d look to implement. But at least Cruz ultimately made the right decision.

Also from what I recall TPP hasn’t even been voted on yet, so how could Cruz ‘vote for it’ as you said?

And what contrary information are you referring to when mentioning Cruz’s statement that he never supported amnesty? From everything I’ve read, he’s never supported amnesty. Unless you are drinking the Rubio campaign Kool-aid, which by the way is utter horseshit.

Reading your comments, I think you have a healthy skepticism of Cruz, I only wish you’d implement that skepticism when it comes to Trump too.

And for the record, I’d vote for Trump in the general in a heartbeat against Hillary. But I’d do so recognizing there was a certain amount of ‘hope’ involved. I’ll grant you that at least he’s saying most of the right things, now, for as much as that’s worth.

[LowOiL]

Yes but Ted “Surging” Cruz is catching up right? He’s only down 21 and surging right? He is behind Trump everywhere but he’s surging right?

In Iowa Cruz has not only surged (as he has across the nation) but has surpassed Trump in most polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

One of the interesting stories is the PPD poll released the same day as this poll 12-17-15 also has Trump over Cruz by about the same margin... 34% to 18%.

Yet question 24 asked "Who would you support if it came down to just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump... Trump 45% Cruz 44% and Unsure 11%.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/GOPResults.pdf

45% to 44% is about as close as it gets....

Yeah, Cruz is surging.

Lets look at this poll...

One of the questions ask was to all voters.. Hillary vs ??? who would you think would win.

49% thought that Hillary would beat Trump and only 38% thought Trump would win.

Lets compare the same question to Cruz...

Cruz 45% vs Hillary 45%... virtual dead heat...

Trump is loved by many, but Cruz is too... and perhaps hated by less.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-2016-gop-race-trump-muslim-ban-terrorism-isis/

Also note that the trend over time shows Trump losing ground towards Hillary.. vs older polling times.

[21twelve]

“Cruz’s original support for the TPA was probably an error considering the current President, and what kind of trade deals he’d look to implement.”

From what I understand, the TPA gives the president a frame of reference for what Congress will agree to in negotiations with a foreign government regarding trade. So then the President can make an agreement within that framework, with both him and the foreign government knowing that it will pass. It has been around for 80 years iirc in some form or another.

The trouble is, obama will probably just go beyond the agreed upon framework, and then blame and/or ignore Congress. This already happened with Cruz’s amendment to the Corker Bill, which called for a 60(?) day review of all of material regarding the deal with Iran. He knew obama wouldn’t submit it all in time (obama didn’t), but then when Cruz used that to tell congress not to vote for the deal as it broke the law (the 60 day review), Congress ignored the law, and made the deal regardless.

[matthew fuller]

Americans want a win. We are sick of cowardice, surrender, treason, and community agitating. Trump and Cruz know this, GOPe is oblivious. The world’s next leader, America’s next President will be one of the above named candidates. Pray for the USA.

[JoSixChip]

If you believe that the corker bill, which Cruz voted for, did not result in the passage of the Iran deal with full Congressional support.

Or that Cruz’s active promotion and vote for TPA will not lead directly to easy passage of any TPP agreement obumber puts forward, with full Congressional support.

Or if you believe Cruz voted for the corker bill to stop the Iran deal.

Or if you believe that Cruz did not vote for TPA.

Or if you believe Cruz voted for TPA so that he could change TPP after he is elected POTUS.

or if you believe Cruz voted for TPA because mitch lied to him.

You should be supporting hillary, because you are a gullible idiot.

[JoSixChip]

No doubt that is the best you got. Cheap accusations and childish insults.

[SmokingJoe]

First of all this is about Ted Cruz being basically tied with Hilary Clinton, despite getting short shrift in media coverage, with what little coverage there has been being very negative.
And secondly, Trump has had vastly more free publicity and media coverage than any presidential candidate in history. He has lead the GOP field for 5 months during which voters have come to know him about as much as they ever will, and he is still running 10,11 points behind Hilary Clinton and doing worse against Hilary than any of the other contenders? That is not a very good sign.

[traderrob6]

Look at our conversation Einstein. He made a silly statement and I called him on it.

Then you butt in and post 2 ridiculously dated polls for who knows what reason and I told you so.

So quit calling people names and pay attention.

[entropy12]

On Super Tuesday, March 1st, 2016.

Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas.

Why you keep asking the same question Vet? I already explained that before.

[entropy12]

Jim Robinson is an astute judge of people. He realizes Trump loves America, is not controlled by any rich donors, and has more accomplishment in the main street economy than all previous presidents COMBINED. If Trump can run the country as frugally as he is running his campaign, and be ahead of others by 18 points, AMERICA WILL BE GREAT AGAIN.

[fiftymegaton]

“The trouble is, obama will probably just go beyond the agreed upon framework, and then blame and/or ignore Congress. This already happened with Cruz’s amendment to the Corker Bill, which called for a 60(?) day review of all of material regarding the deal with Iran. He knew obama wouldn’t submit it all in time (obama didn’t), but then when Cruz used that to tell congress not to vote for the deal as it broke the law (the 60 day review), Congress ignored the law, and made the deal regardless.”

No question Obama loves to break the law. All I’m saying is Cruz shouldn’t be held responsible for Obama’s actions. Nor for the Congressional leadership’s willingness to kiss Obama’s feet.

JSC - Clearly you believe Cruz is just a shill for the Establishment. Just a guy that ‘talks a good game but never accomplished anything’ in the Senate. I disagree, however, I understand your frustration.

At the same time you give Trump credit for paving the way for dialogue on issues that were heretofore more or less off-limits politically. (Namely immigration, and recently muslim immigration) I agree that Trump has absolutely been a force in opening new narratives on these issues, and has been voicing an opinion that most Americans share. And it’s absolutely refreshing.

In the same breath I give Cruz much the same credit, for without him and a few others in Congress like Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, and Louie Gohmert there would have been almost no voices of Congressional opposition to Obama over the last few years.

It’s for this reason, that I do tend to give those guys the benefit of the doubt on some of the questions you asked.

As for the Iran deal, I think Cruz had the belief that a 60 day review period by Congress would’ve potentially been a long enough time to generate enough public opposition to get the 67 votes necessary to kill the bill. As it was without any review period at all there were still 58 votes against. His floor speech explaining the Administration’s violation of the 60 day review period, and how Congress didn’t need to vote right away, led me to believe he thought the Republican leadership wouldn’t so blatantly ignore the law in an effort to help Obama ignore his obligations. McConnell pushed the vote the next day.

Am I naive to believe Cruz wasn’t just all talk? Maybe. When it comes to politicians, I’ve become very pessimistic and jaded over the years. However, when I look at the totality of his positions, he is still one of only a handful in Congress that I still give the benefit of the doubt too.

If you think I’m an idiot for believing Cruz in these situations, then that’s your right.

Good luck to your candidate, gullible or not, I won’t be voting Hillary.

[entropy12]

In Iowa, barely 2.5% of Iowans vote in republican caucus. It is hardly a primary. Santorum & Huckabee both won Iowa, only to be defeated in bigger states by Romney. Do not put all your marbles on Iowa.

[ETL]

"I think that I would probably get along with him [Putin] very well."

--Donald Trump, CBS' Face The Nation, Oct 2015

****************************************************************

TRUMP: Vladimir Putin's praise is 'a great honor'

Business Insider ^ | December 17, 2015 | By Maxwell Tani

Republican US presidential front-runner Donald Trump is apparently "honored" that Russian President Vladimir Putin considers the real-estate magnate a "flamboyant" and "very talented" man.

"It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," Trump said in a statement, according to Politico.

He continued: "I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect."

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...

[ETL]

From a 2007 article titled "Putin's Russia"...

"KGB influence 'soars under Putin,' " blared the headline of a BBC online article for December 13, 2006. The following day, a similar headline echoed a similarly alarming story at the website of Der Spiegel, one of Germany's largest news magazines: "Putin's Russia: Kremlin Riddled with Former KGB Agents."

In the opening sentences of Der Spiegel's article, readers are informed that: "Four out of five members of Russia's political and business elite have a KGB past, according to a new study by the prestigious [Russian] Academy of Sciences. The influence of ex-Soviet spies has ballooned under President Vladimir Putin."

The study, which looked at 1,061 top Kremlin, regional, and corporate jobs, found that "78 percent of the Russian elite" are what are known in Russia as "siloviki," which is to say, former members of the KGB or its domestic successor, the FSB. The author of the study, Olga Kryshtanovskaya, expressed shock at her own findings. "I was very shocked when I looked at the boards of major companies and realized there were lots of people who had completely unknown names, people who were not public but who were definitely, obvious siloviki," she told Reuters.

Other supposed experts - in Russia and the West - have also expressed surprise and alarm at the apparent resurrection of the dreaded Soviet secret police. After all, for the past decade and a half these same experts have been pointing to the alleged demise of the KGB as the primary evidence supporting their claim that communism is dead.

From the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the Russian security apparatus Cheka (and its later permutations: OGPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB) had been the "sword and shield" of the communist world revolution.

"We stand for organized terror," declared Felix Dzerzhinsky, the first chief of the Cheka for Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin. In 1918, Dzerzhinsky launched the campaign of arrests and executions known as the Red Terror. Krasnaya Gazeta, the Bolshevik newspaper, expressed the Chekist credo when it reported approvingly in 1918 of the terror campaign: "We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood."

Unflinching cruelty and merciless, bloody terror have been the trademark of the communist secret police, from the Cheka to the KGB. Obviously, the demise of such an organization would be cause for much rejoicing. Hence, when the KGB was ordered dissolved and its chairman, General Vladimir Kryuchkov, was arrested in 1991 after attempting to overthrow "liberal reformer" Mikhail Gorbachev in the failed "August Coup," many people in the West were only too willing to pop the champagne corks and start celebrating our supposed victory over the Evil Empire.

But, as Mikhail Leontiyev, commentator for Russia's state-controlled Channel One television, recently noted, repeating a phrase popular among the siloviki: "Americans got so drunk at the USSR's funeral that they're still hung over." And stumbling around in their post-inebriation haze, many of these Americans have only recently begun noticing that they had prematurely written the KGB's epitaph, even as it was arising vampire-like from the coffin.

However, there is really no excuse for Olga Kryshtanovskaya or any of her American counterparts to be stunned by the current siloviki dominance in Putin's Russia. For nearly a decade, even before he became Russia's "president," THE NEW AMERICAN has been reporting on Putin's KGB pedigree and his steady implementation of a long-range Soviet deception strategy, including the public rehabilitation and refortifying of the KGB-FSB. ..."

(continues at link)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8420-putins-russia

***********************************************************

"For 16 years Putin was an officer in the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before he retired to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991.

He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration where he rose quickly, becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999 when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging,[3] and was reelected in 2004."

"On 25 July 1998, Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin head of the FSB (one of the successor agencies to the KGB), the position Putin occupied until August 1999. He became a permanent member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation on 1 October 1998 and its Secretary on 29 March 1999."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Cruz went up more than Trump did and is within shouting distance of him

Yeah, only 20 points behind.