With pandering to the ethanol lobby and the vow to continue the EPA to enforce that mandate in Iowa, Mr Trump broke any chance of getting my vote.
Considering Gov. Branstad had pulled out the long knives for Cruz because Cruz said he'd eliminate the mandate (The Gov's son is an ethanol industry lobbyist), Trump's announcement very shortly afterward that he'd seek to increase the mandate and use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it reeked of pandering for local GOP support. I have belabored the forum with the implications of that trade off for everyone, and for merely Iowa, but that was the deal breaker for me.
It takes a HUGE logical disconnect to vow to continue the one agency which has been the standard bearer (literally) of the destruction of American industry and then say you're going to make America Great again.
That's like raising the speed limit and dynamiting the bridge.
None of the candidates is perfect, and some far less than others, but Cruz does have the sand to stand his ground against hostile media and a hostile Congress. I think he'll play a better game of hardball, and be less likely to measure success by making deals than accomplishing Conservative goals.
YMMV
“but Cruz does have the sand to stand his ground against hostile media “
um, Trump has done this more than Cruz. Who declined to go to the debate, with their make-all-candidates-look-bad questions. What Trump has done though, is refuse to let the media win while at the same time using them and getting free publicity - and in some bizarre cases, getting them to even go along with him.
“...be less likely to measure success by making deals than accomplishing Conservative goals.”
If you read Trump’s books - or are in business for yourself - ‘deals’ mean being beneficial to yourself. Not like the deals the Republicans have made. One cannot stay in business, and definitely not succeed at it, by making deals contrary to one’s objectives.
Thank you for adding some rational thinking to this thread.