I seek to empower people by giving them something to ponder.
Updated 12/20/2016
By Marcial Bonifacio
My friends and fellow conservatives, this commentary on the election results has apparently been long overdue, since Nov. 9th---the day after the general election. However, various developments have prompted me to postpone it for fear of publishing it prematurely. After all, what if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was correct about voter fraud, or the Russians influenced the presidential election, or that some of the electoral college members will change their vote on Dec. 19th? Regardless of such prospects, I have finally decided to publish my commentary.
Therefore without further ado, I am pleased to announce Donald Trump’s win. On the whole, Trump won 306 electoral votes, the largest Republican win since George H.W. Bush’s election in 1988. Clinton tallied at 232 electoral votes. However, Clinton’s total popular vote count is approximately 65,762,564 (48.1%), while Trump tallied at 62,914,474 votes (46.0%).
To the astonishment of leading pollsters and political commentators as Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Trump even won electoral votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and Michigan---states which voted for Pres. Obama in 2008 and 2012. Incidentally, it is the first time a Republican has won Wisconsin since 1984 and Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988. The Michigan contest was the closest race in the state’s history with Trump’s count at 2,279,543 votes and Clinton’s tally at 2,268,839 votes. Such unlikely wins occurred, in spite of overwhelming odds and opposition from the Republican establishment, Democrat establishment, mainstream media establishment, and the short-sighted #NeverTrump conservatives. Indeed, this has been, as Fox News anchor Bret Baier accurately described “the most unreal, surreal election we have ever seen.”
To my astonishment, not only did Trump win the presidential election, but Republicans have retained power in both chambers of Congress which essentially establishes a national Republican trifecta. In the Senate, Republicans have 52 seats, while Democrats have 48. The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats. That essentially means the GOP will control all three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, whenever Trump fills the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat and replaces retiring justices with conservatives.
GOP victories extended to the state legislatures and governorships as well, just as during the 2014 midterm elections, which I wrote about in “Another Big Blow to Obama’s Tyranny.” As a result of nearly 6,000 legislative races, Republicans dominate 66 out of 98 chambers. They control both chambers in 33 states and hold 33 governorships. Finally, at least 25 states have Republican trifectas, while Democrats have only retained 5 trifectas (namely, California, Deleware, Oregon, Hawaii, and Rhode Island).
In Kentucky, the GOP increased their state house membership to 64 (from 47, out of 100) which has been controlled by Democrats since 1921. That puts 30 legislative chambers in the South in Republican hands for the first time in American history. Iowa’s state senate was won by Republicans, putting them in control of both chambers. Wisconsin’s Republican state legislative majority is the largest since the 1970s.
Phil Scott won the Republican governorship in Bernie Sanders’s home state of Vermont, which puts a check on its Democrat-controlled legislature. In Indiana, Eric Holcomb defeated Democrat John Gregg, which will preserve the state’s 12 year lineage of Republican governors. Before the race, the former was nominated to replace Mike Pence during his vice presidential run with Trump. Republican and former Navy SEAL Eric Greitens beat Democrat Chris Koster in Missouri’s gubernatorial race, making him the state’s second Republican governor in the past 24 years.
In order to continue this momentum of GOP dominance on every level of government, I have a few suggestions to offer Trump and his team. Notwithstanding his primary issues of border security and Obamacare, Trump must prioritize aiding the blacks (many of which are disgruntled Democrats) who voted for him. Since he garnered more black votes than John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, he has an excellent opportunity to start flipping the blacks, just as Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson began goading them into swelling the ranks of the Democrat Party in the 1960s. The only difference is that instead of appeasing them with a pittance, “just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference” in order “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years” (as Johnson so blatantly put it), Trump will provide them with opportunities for a bright future via diverse educational options (public, private, charter, magnet, home schooling, etc.) and job and career options, especially for those who reside in the inner cities.
Since many black church leaders advocate family values aligned with the GOP (e.g., the right to life as opposed to abortion and traditional marriage), Trump must launch a massive outreach campaign to establish a dialogue with them as well as others in the black community. His meeting with black role models as former football stars Jim Brown and Ray Lewis and musician Kanye West to discuss gang violence, education, and jobs was a good start. Such a move can eventually undermine the agenda of the race hustlers like Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jessie Jackson, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright., who have profited from the racially-based entitlement and grievance industry they help perpetuate.
Trump must also expand the Republican base by welcoming his blue collar voters (over 1 million of which are Democrats) to the “big tent”, just as Pres. Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. However, he must refrain from his populist, protectionist rhetoric, and simply emphasize regulatory and tax reform as an incentive to dissuade businesses from outsourcing, at least on such a grand scale. It is a fact of economics that some outsourcing or automation (the primary cause of worker displacement) is essential to streamline the production process, which, in turn, will keep the price of goods low for American consumers, thereby increasing demand and output, which will create new jobs. It is the principle of what free market economists call “creative destruction” at work. For that reason, Trump should encourage displaced blue collar workers to either learn new skills or acquire knowledge calibrated to the predominant service and knowledge sectors of the economy.
Alternatively, many blue collar workers have become successful entrepreneurs either by starting their own businesses or by inventing products or services, which have allowed them to resign from their jobs or professions. You can easily view them on TV shows as Shark Tank or Blue Collar Millionaires. Indeed, such entrepreneurs and small business owners are the backbone of the American economy, which is why Trump should acknowledge them as successful examples of the free market system, rather than focusing so much on retrieving outsourced manufacturing jobs for big companies.
That is more practical and realistic than threatening companies with punitive taxes (namely, a 35% tariff) for outsourcing or subsidizing them in exchange for retaining their plants in the U.S., an arrangement which Gov. Sarah Palin says reeks of “special interest crony capitalism” as was possibly the case with Carrier. Incidentally, Mark Levin (constitutional scholar and former advisor to Cabinet members under Reagan) questions the constitutionality of “specifically targeting (or favoring) one business and possibly threatening that business, should they leave the country.” Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal editorial board criticizes it as “a mercantilist Trump trade policy” in which the Carrier CEO Gregory Hayes was “made an offer he couldn’t refuse.”
Anyway, after scaling back on regulations and reducing taxes for businesses and the working class, many jobs will be preserved. Others will be created as a result of outsourcing and automation, and many jobs will yet be created from the ingenuity of blue collar inventors, who will use their entrepreneurial skills or knowledge to form their own companies and employ others. Afterwards, Trump can rightfully take credit for a booming economy while winning over much of the blue collar Democrats. Although he has 4 years (or 8 if re-elected in 2020), Trump should set the deadline at 2 years after his inauguration in order to steer the 2018 midterm elections in the GOP’s favor.
Aside from what Trump and his administration must do, conservative voters must hold him, as well as other elected officials, accountable. That includes all the national and local legislators and governors. While it may be argued that many of these newly elected Republicans simply rode Trump’s populist movement into victory, we must see to it that this powerful force eventually converts into the conservative movement whose end aligns with the vision of America’s founding fathers and the restoration of constitutionally limited government.
For that reason, I advocate a mass, nationwide campaign to educate citizens on America’s constitutional history and its relevance today. In an age wherein the uninformed youth are easily mesmerized by the socialist rhetoric of Sen. Bernie Sanders or the populist rhetoric of Trump, constitutional literacy is the appropriate and perennial remedy. Indeed, Sen. Ted Cruz emphasizes this:
It’s easy to talk about making America great again. You can even print that on a baseball cap. But the critical question is, do you understand the principles and values that made America great in the first place?
Hillsdale College offers a free online course on constitutional studies, which is certain to impart such principles and values to anyone taking it.
Another effective thing conservatives can do to preserve and expand the GOP majority is become active in local politics. Whether by attending townhall meetings with the Tea Party, signing petitions, registering citizens to vote, running to be a precinct captain, or simply sharing conservative content on the social networks (like Facebook or Twitter), one can have a positive impact on a collective scale. American Majority is a conservative organization which trains activists in all these things.
My friends and fellow conservatives, in closing, I would like to express my appreciation to everyone who contributed to this turning point in the election of Donald Trump. That includes all pragmatic Cruz conservatives, blue collar Democrats, and former political rivals. I wish I could extend my gratitude and praise to the #NeverTrump conservatives with whom I endeavored to persuade in my previous commentary. Perhaps they will all eventually have a change of heart as it will soon be “morning again in America”---not because of Trump’s short-lived wave of populism, but because of the time-tested constitutional principles, which conservatives will revitalize within the party of Reagan and throughout the country.
Long live Liberty! Long live the U.S.A.!
Update: As of December 19---the day in which the electoral college members cast their votes for the final time---seven altered their vote. In Texas, one elector voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, while another from Texas voted for former Texas House Rep. Ron Paul. In Washington state, three Democrat electors cast their votes for former state secretary Colin Powell and one voted for Sioux tribe leader Faith Spotted Eagle. A Democrat elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders. Three other "faithless" electors from Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado had their votes barred. That puts the final electoral tally for Clinton at 228 and 304 for Trump.
Updated 11/03/2016
By Marcial Bonifacio
My friends and American countrymen, I am a constitutional conservative and am no advocate for Donald Trump. In fact, I have been very critical of him in my two commentaries titled “Are Trump Conservatives Irrational?” and “Why Conservatives Should Cruz with the Best and Trump the Rest . . . including the Donald.” Anyway, I am also a pragmatist. As such, I view the leftist progressivism of Hillary Clinton (more so than Trump’s populist-nationalism) as an imminent threat to conservatism, namely in her Supreme Court justice appointees. Clinton herself clearly vocalized in the last presidential debate that she favors justices who would uphold same-sex marriage and the pro-abortion Roe vs. Wade ruling.
By contrast, Trump has vowed to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia,” including the constitutional conservative Sen. Mike Lee, whom Sen. Ted Cruz said “would make an extraordinary justice.” This issue of the Supreme Court justices alone is sufficient reason to keep Clinton away from the White House because as political commentator Dennis Prager points out, “Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant.”
Political reality is such that only Trump, not Gary Johnson or Evan McMullen, can beat Clinton. Some of Cruz’s staunchest supporters (who are #NeverTrump conservatives) have vowed to write-in Cruz’s name on the ballot. However, Cruz himself has said, “I am not encouraging anybody to write my name in. That is not something I am suggesting that anybody do. . . We lost the race. I recognize that. I respect the democratic process. I respect the will of the people.”
That is precisely the only reason why I, along with Sen. Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, and Dennis Prager, urge conservatives to vote for Donald Trump---not because he is the icon of conservatism and the champion of America’s founding fathers, but because as Cruz says, “Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her [Clinton’s] way.” For the #NeverTrump conservative whose conscience prevents you from voting for Trump, I must ask you: How can your conscience be clear, if Clinton wins the presidency due to your refrain from voting for Trump? Consequently, would her election make you feel better knowing the adverse repercussions it will have on your children and grandchildren (in terms of life, liberty, the national debt, the economy, etc.) ?
“The choice this November is tragic,” states Prager. “As it often happens in life, this choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good. . . When forced to choose between bad and worse, we supported Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler, and we supported right-wing authoritarians against Communist totalitarians.” Therefore Trump would be the less unfavorable choice in order to defeat Clinton.
Furthermore, if you are concerned that Trump’s newly adopted conservative positions are all a charade in order to get elected to the presidency, and he reneges on his promises as president, there is another course of action conservatives can undertake. The founders have established a process by which delegates can hold a Convention of States in order to propose amendments to the Constitution. It is designed to curb or restrain the power of the federal government in the event that it becomes unresponsive to the states or the people and serves as an alternative to another constitutional convention. The process is outlined in Article V of the Constitution and is advocated by Mark Levin, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Tom Coburn, Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sean Hannity, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and other prominent conservatives.
Lastly, I suggest conservatives meet their delegates in the Rules Committee of the Republican Party to add a few clauses, which would make the GOP more effective in the next presidential election and others to come. For example, a “Closed or Republican Exclusivity Clause” would only permit registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primaries. Political commentator at RedState.com Michael Harrington has estimated that Trump's voters in the primary were composed of only 3.3 million Republicans, while the rest were composed of 12 million Democrats. Many political analysts contend that if such a clause took effect in the primaries, Cruz would have won the nomination, instead of Trump, since the former tallied well in most of the closed primaries.
The additional amendment to the rules would include a “Conscience Clause,” which would serve as a safeguard against politically weak candidates as Trump. The proposal would allow the current 1,237 delegates to freely vote their conscience on the first ballot, rather than automatically binding them to their state's primary or caucus. It would also help prevent discouraged conservatives from joining the #NeverTrump voters, and thus maximize votes for the Republican Party. Sen. Mike Lee has been at the forefront of this effort as well as being a prominent member of the Rules Committee.
In conclusion, my friends and fellow conservatives, if you want to defeat Hillary Clinton and restore constitutional principles to the American Republic, do not write in Ted Cruz’s name on the ballot, and do not stay home and refrain from your civic duty. Go to the polls on November 8th, and vote for Donald Trump. Join the Convention of States movement, and pressure your delegates to add a “Republican Exclusivity Clause” and a “Conscience Clause” to the election rules.
Long live Liberty! Long live the U.S.A.!
Comments
Devlin Baker I read it, not sure what you were hoping from someone that is by definition a christian and constitutionalist to read someone that claims to be a constitutional conservative, then confesses he is really just a pragmatist.
Great appeal to the pragmatists with no convictions though
Marcial BonifacioI appreciate your perspective, Devlin, but is it not possible to be both? If your family is being threatened by an assailant, and the only practical way to save them at the moment is to shoot him, what would you do? Would you adhere to the Christian principle of refraining from killing, or would you take a more practical approach to save your family?
Life is full of such unfavorable choices. However, reasonable compromises are necessary in times when our choices are limited due to reality, are they not?
Marcial Bonifacio You have made some valid points, Kayleen. However, conservatives are more informed and mindful of history, thus the prevalence of the Tea Party.
Anyway, in order to restore constitutional principles to the American government, it would be much easier to do so without a Clinton presidency. Even as much of a RINO as Trump is, the conservatives in Congress can put him in check, so that if he betrays them, they can simply vote against his progressive policies or impeach him. If that doesn't work, then the American people can meet with their state delegates and propose a Convention of States, as I mentioned in my commentary.
In the meantime, we can at least prevent a Clinton presidency by electing Trump because with a Clinton presidency, conservatives will lose. With a Trump presidency, conservatives may win, even if only a little bit.
Kayleen Knisley http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/trump-constitution.../...
Updated: 3/3/16
By Marcial Bonifacio
My friends and American countrymen, it is imperative that in the midst of a constitutional crisis, the war against Christian liberty, economic turmoil, and global Islamic terrorism, you all choose a candidate worthy of the Republican nomination. Marco Rubio was correct when, in the first GOP debate, he said, “God has blessed the Republican Party with many fine candidates. The Democrats can’t find even one.” Indeed, diversity in race, gender, age, career, and political perspective is currently pervasive. However, I will simply highlight the relevant qualities which uniquely make Sen. Ted Cruz the most suitable for the nomination.
1. He is a trustworthy, anti-Establishment, public servant.
As far as Cruz’s power permitted, he has honored his promise of opposing Obamacare, Obama’s executive amnesty, and Planned Parenthood. In fact, the first bill he introduced as a senator was crafted to repeal every word of Obamacare. On the federal budget, Cruz has displayed his determination in balancing it by opposing a debt ceiling increase, in spite of foreseeing the negative optics of a 16-day government shutdown that ensued.
When repealing Obamacare failed, Cruz urged his Republican colleagues in the House to utilize their power of the purse to defund Obamacare. He did so in a 21-hour protest speech on the Senate floor, in which the rules required him to stand and remain in the chamber. Perhaps he has a strong pair of legs and a large bladder. He certainly has a large pair of proverbial testicles to stand up to his own party, which compromised its conservative principles in capitulating to the Democrats.
In spite of such fierce opposition from his Republican peers, Cruz did not deviate from his mandate to the American people. Thus he has been a “consistent conservative,” whereas others were conservative only until Election Day. Brent Bozell III (president of the Media Research Center) points to weak willed Republicans as Sen. John McCain, Sen. Orin Hatch, and Speaker John Boehner.
Furthermore, Jesus did not go to Jerusalem to compromise with the corrupt Jewish authorities of the time, but to defy them and fulfill the pre-existing law of God. Similarly, Cruz did not enter the Senate to make deals with the proverbial devils in the Washington Establishment, but to defy them and defend the Constitution. Would President Trump, who frankly admits and even boasts he will make all kinds of deals in Washington, be preferable?
2. He has a proven conservative record rooted in "Texas values."
Consider the landmark cases Cruz has challenged and won before the Supreme Court and his work as a U.S. senator:
• He has successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument before the Supreme Court.
• He successfully defended the "moment of silence" law in Texas schools in federal district court.
• He successfully defended the terms “under God” in the Texas Pledge of Allegiance.
• He defended Hobby Lobby against the Obamacare contraception mandate.
• He supported Kim Davis in her right to exercise her Christian faith.
• He successfully defended a federal law on behalf of 13 states before the Supreme Court, which bans partial birth abortion.
• He successfully defended Texas’s Rider 8, which bars state funding of abortion groups.
• As U.S. senator, he drafted the State Marriage Defense Act, which would protect the marriage laws of each state in spite of the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Thus it would nullify gay marriage in a state which does not recognize same sex marriage.
• He co-sponsored a bill which would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and would direct the U.S. embassy to transfer therein from Tel Aviv.
• In Medelin vs. Texas, he fought against and won a case in which the UN and World Court would infringe on the sovereignty of the U.S.
• In another victory, Cruz defended 31 states in which the Supreme Court overturned a firearms ban in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Such a victory was so significant that he was awarded the NRA’s 2010 Carter-Knight Freedom Fund, which “rewards exemplary activities in the support and protection of the right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Even the NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre acknowledged, “Ted has fought tirelessly to defend our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and his leadership was absolutely critical to our major victories before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
• He introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which revokes the citizenship of any American who collaborates with Islamic terrorists and bans those who leave the country to join them.
What comparable things has Trump done to advance the conservative cause in defense of life, Christian liberty, gun rights, and the Constitution?
3. He is an exceptional debater.
In 1992, Cruz won the top speaker award at the U.S. National Debating Championship and North American Debating Championship and was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year. Such skills could be relevant not just to the debate against the Democrat nominee, but in consultations with government officials, diplomats, and world leaders in making foreign policy as president. Even his former liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz stated that in spite of disagreeing with Cruz’s politics, he is “off-the-charts brilliant.” Although some may boast of Trump’s Art of the Deal, his experience in foreign affairs is confined exclusively to business and economic issues, whereas Cruz’s experience extends to issues of national security and international peace---matters far removed from Trump’s area of expertise.
4. He could capture a large percentage of the Hispanic vote.
Aside from relishing the same strong family values of Hispanics simply by being a Republican, Cruz himself is Hispanic via his birth to a Cuban father who fled Fidel Castro’s oppressive government in Cuba. He was also the first Hispanic solicitor general in Texas history and founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. When Cruz ran for the Senate in 2012, he garnered 40% of the Hispanic vote, which led him to become the first Hispanic U.S. senator representing Texas.
5. He has the best chance of capturing the evangelical vote.
Some political pollsters claim that Mitt Romney’s defeat to Obama in 2012 was largely due to low turnout of disgruntled evangelicals who did not find him to be up to their high religious standard, thus allowing someone of an even lower standard to clench the presidency. However, Cruz’s personal Christian convictions and legislative work in defense of religious liberty (not to mention his father being a pastor) could win them over.
6. He was gracious to Gov. Sarah Palin.
In spite of Palin’s betrayal to Cruz and conservatives in her endorsement of Donald Trump, Cruz remained humble and acknowledged that “I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if it were not for Gov. Sarah Palin.” That is truly a man with class to have such a big heart. Such humility should be present within the temperament of the most powerful man in the U.S. Has Trump displayed such humility?
7. He knows precisely what must be done and how to do it.
Cruz’s extensive legal background, track record as a senator, and grasp of the original intent of the Constitution give him the competitive advantage to make decisions on a wide range of issues with legal and constitutional implications---concerns of privacy, drone attacks, waterboarding, etc. Other candidates would have to rely excessively on legal advisors or attorneys for their expertise, especially Trump. In Cruz’s younger years, he clerked for the jurist Michael Luttig on a U.S. appeals court and for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, two prominent conservatives. Would you want him or Trump to appoint the new Supreme Court justices whenever the most senior ones will soon retire?
8. Unlike Trump, he showed up for the only job interview (GOP debate) in Iowa.
Trump refused to participate in the last Republican debate (due to the alleged bias of Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly). “Journalists ask tough questions”, stated Cruz. “If you’re afraid of Megyn Kelly, then you’re going to be afraid of Hilary Clinton, and you’re going to be afraid of Vladimir Putin. If you’re afraid of anyone to ask a question, that does not bode well for what kind of commander-in-chief you’d make.”
Later, Trump revealed he already committed to a charitable event (occurring on the day of the debate), which entailed fundraising for military veterans. He claimed that was more important than participating in a debate, which would treat him unfairly. As a result, Cruz challenged Trump to debate him for 90 minutes, one-on-one, without any moderators before the Iowa Caucuses. Cruz already reserved the venue and pledged to donate $1.5 million to veterans, provided Trump commit to the debate challenge.
9. Conservatives owe him their loyalty.
The first known battle in which Cruz opposed the Republican establishment was in the 2012 senatorial primary against the moderate Texas lieutenant governor David Dewhurst. Through the efforts of the Tea Party, a not so well-known Cruz began to emerge into the limelight as he consistently articulated his firm position as a constitutional conservative and his proven track record. Many predicted that the elitist donor-funded campaign of Dewhurst and his established political machinery would quash the grass roots-funded campaign of a seemingly unknown Cruz. However, not only was Cruz undefeated, his large conservative support resulted in a run-off, which eventually led to Dewhurst’s defeat. Cruz proceeded to run against and defeat Democrat Paul Sadler in the general election.
In the Senate, where his conservative reputation began to shine, he continued to battle not only Democrats, but moderate and establishment Republicans in defense of constitutional principles and conservative values. As a result of Cruz’s prominence, he now has the opportunity to advance to the White House, whereby he would be able to streamline his efforts with a fully Republican controlled Congress. Is it therefore not incumbent on conservatives to continue being loyal to Cruz, just as he has tenaciously been loyal to his conservative constituents? What do conservatives owe to Trump?
10. He has a unique way of using a gun and cooking bacon.
In conclusion, my friends, I urge you all to support Sen. Ted Cruz for the simple reason that he is a trustworthy, astute, accomplished Christian public servant. Throughout all of his tenure, he has lost and won some important battles on different fronts. However, more important than winning the battles is winning the war, and the presidency would put more resources at his disposal, whereby he can continue to promote conservative values and restore constitutional principles to America’s government.
Victory to Sen. Ted Cruz for God and Country!
Comments
Matt Wavle Trump said that he's not going to the Fox News debate, because moderator Megyn Kelly is biased against him. And Trump has a right to be scared, because usually when a younger, attractive woman disagrees with him, she ends up taking half his stuff. --Fallon
William Fisher Wavle, you REALLY believe that Donald is "scared"? This is not about any "disagreements" - this is about VICIOUS BIAS. Don't know about others here, but I, really, do not find it "funny".
Marcial Bonifacio William, if bailing out from the Fox News debate was due to some alleged bias of Megyn Kelley, then why didn't Trump accept Cruz's one-on-one 90-minute debate challenge without a moderator?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL6IB7uEm9Y
If Trump had firm positions and policy proposals, what would he have to lose? In fact, he would have gained $1.5 million more to help the veterans.
William Fisher Marcial Bonifacio, seriously Marcial, you truly believe that those "debates" add ANYTHING to the clarity of the candidates? Specially "debates" not "allegedly" but viciously biased by ailes doll like Kelly? BTW I believe much more in Cruz than in "debates".
Marcial Bonifacio William, many political commentators and pollsters believe that Trump's evasion of the Fox News debate turned away many potential supporters, who wanted to see his performance on the stage, and perhaps may have caused him to win the Iowa caucuses.
Anyway, since Trump evaded Cruz's challenge, I have to infer that Kelly's alleged bias was not really a factor but only a red herring. Indeed, there is no logical reason why he would not participate in either debate when there is so much to gain and so much to lose (if absent).
William Fisher Marcial Bonifacio, no, you DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE SUCH AN ERRATC INFERENCE. You will see that all your "experts" and "pundits", I suppose from fox, will have an egg on their faces starting New Hampshire. NON-PARTICIPATION in and clowny media "debate" NEVER HURT ANYONE.
Marcial Bonifacio William, notwithstanding the analysis of the "pundits", does it make any logical sense to evade a debate in which you may attract more supporters? Even Speaker Newt Gingrich was arguably a victim of bias when he was asked about his affair at the South Carolina primary debate four years ago. Not only did his astute response prevent him from getting hurt, it is conventionally accepted that he won that debate as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJxJT1H1UWU
Trump could have learned from that, instead of evading debate, could he not?
William Fisher Bonifacio, no NO dumpy, biased "debate" will get ANYONE "more supporters". Trump has just released TWO BOOKS. Please do your homework, make an effort - READ THE BOOKS rather than WASTING YOUR TIME ON lame, biased "debates". Gingrich is a genius that an average voter could not understand. WHO ELSE WON WITH THE BIASED MEDIA?
William Fisher Boneficia, you REALLY don't want to be known here as the "debate enthusiast" Do you?
