Cruz Challenges Trump to Debate


#1

No word yet from the Donald. Donald is hiding behind his liberal stripes. He knows Cruz would rip him to shreds in a debate. Trump has attacked Cruz relentlessly. It is one thing to attack someone from behind via the airwaves and quite another to attack someone to their face. Trump is nothing more than a liberal coward.

Ted Cruz Challenges Donald Trump to ‘Mano-a-Mano’ Debate
FAIRFIELD, Iowa — Ted Cruz challenged Donald Trump on Tuesday night to a one-on-one debate "anytime between now and the Iowa caucus."
Less than an hour after Trump’s campaign told reporters the front-runner will skip Thursday’s GOP debate, Cruz, looking to have his moment with Trump, suggested to a crowd in Fairfield, Iowa, that “Donald is a fragile soul” and is “scared to face Megyn Kelly” — the FOX News moderator who riled Trump in the first Republican debate back in August. …

“We’ll do 90 minutes, Lincoln-Douglas, mano-a-mano, Donald and me,” Cruz said. “He can lay out his vision for this country, and I can lay out my vision for this country in front of the men and women of Iowa.”
****

                                                                                Cruz, who has shied away from non-issue attacks  on Trump, suggested Trump's "hair might stand on end" if Kelly "asked  him mean questions." 


                                                                                The Texas senator also questioned why Trump would be "afraid" to debate him head-to-head. 
                                                                                "He's been saying this past week he thinks I'm  stupid," Cruz slyly said on conservative Mark Levin's radio program also  on Tuesday night. "He should do very well with someone who is so stupid  — away from moderators he's so afraid of." 
                                                                                Cruz furthered his attack on Trump's decision to  bow out of the debate, asking Levin how Trump would handle friction  with other world leaders.

“I promise you Putin is a lot scarier than Megyn Kelly,” Cruz said. “I’d like to hear Donald explain to the American people and to the people of Iowa how he is prepared to be commander-in-chief if he’s terrified by a television host.” Trump has just recently faced increased scrutiny by the other candidates over his past positions, which used to skew quite liberal. …

Ted Cruz Challenges Donald Trump to ‘Mano-a-Mano’ Debate - NBC News


#2

I would highly favor a debate between Cruz and Trump, only.

For the most part, I have favored Cruz. Those comments above, (if true quotes, not taken out of context), Cruz just dropped a few notches in my estimation of him.
Furthermore, Trump afraid of Megyn Kelly??? :rofl: Just whose advice IS Cruz taking?

P.S. Much as I like Cruz, it’s bull that he hasn’t ‘attacked’ Trump on a personal level. I heard him do so w/my own two ears during his Iowa rally. (And, by doing so, exposed that he fell for a media trick. And a pretty old one, at that.)


#3

Trump makes deals. Trump does not make bad deals.
This would be a bad deal.
Why? Because every poll shows that Trump has won every debate, and every poll has Trump light years ahead of Cruz. There is no win or no gain for such a debate.
Bad deal; never gonna happen.


#4

My biggest concern with Cruz, is that he takes grand sums of money from billionaire super pacs. This is, to me, the single biggest problem with politicians. Take the money, and return the favor later. They will never work for the common folk, because we cannot donate 37 million to get them elected. So, when it comes down to helping the middle class or favoring a billionaire’s group, who do you think will win?
If he wins the Nom, I’ll vote for him, but I don’t have much confidence in him.


#5

I keep hearing that about Cruz, then immediately thereafter completely forget to look up just who his donors are. (IOW, I’m sure there’s truth to it. I just like to know who. Gives insight.)

Upon rereading the OP, I caught something I missed first time around:
Cruz: "[We can each lay out our visions…in front of the men and women of Iowa.**
It’s the, “of Iowa” part that bugs me. Why didn’t say, “…in front of all the voters from sea to shining sea?” Maybe because he’s fairly certain that he already has Iowa locked up? I think even Trump as conceded to as much.
(Not that I’m alone in thinking Iowa garners far more attention than it deserves, anyway.)

FWIW, if Trump called Cruz “stupid”, I missed it.

Bottom line: Cruz didn’t do himself any favors here. What, did he think a mud-slinging approach would suddenly make him look “cool” like Trump? (After all, mud-slinging, according the media, is what got Trump all his attention. Should work for me, too, right? Jeepers, how doofy this makes him look.)

A proper, gentlemanly invitation would’ve done him far more favors. And the voting public would’ve been more inclined to take such a debate seriously.
Now I wonder if there’ll be one at all. Thanks, Cruz. You just did the voting public SUCH a great service!


#6

I believe, at this juncture, those who are serious about this race, have already made up their minds. A debate will only serve the network, and the few who are undecided.
This process needs to change. The way they fund their campaigns needs to change. The people who are seeking election needs to change. We need new blood in Washington.

Cruz says Trump called him stupid, and I never heard any of that. I think he has been pretty decent to Cruz. That citizen debacle was misrepresented by the media, as is common for them.
I don’t care to watch any more debates, especially not one with Megyn Kelly as a moderator.


#7

In all honesty, I was still wavering between the two. One offers us Constitutional knowledge along w/his defense of it; the other offers us gravitas that the other lacks - BUT Washington positively shakes in their boots over.
One: (Trump) Utter dislike, but they think they can ‘deal’ with.
The other: (Cruz) Utter fear, 'cuz they KNOW a good amount of their power will…poof…disappear.

A debate will only serve the network, and the few who are undecided.
This process needs to change. The way they fund their campaigns needs to change. The people who are seeking election needs to change. We need new blood in Washington.

New blood, indeed. (And the old pouring down the front steps, in most cases.)

Cruz says Trump called him stupid, and I never heard any of that. I think he has been pretty decent to Cruz. That citizen debacle was misrepresented by the media, as is common for them.
I don’t care to watch any more debates, especially not one with Megyn Kelly as a moderator.

Ya gotta wonder what FOX was thinking to try a repeat performance when the last one was such an utter failure - for them. They LOST millions of viewers for that stunt. Was a re-do supposed to put them back in the viewers’ good graces? If that was their hopefully strategy, they’d be hanging by a thread IF Trump had attended, and are in dire need of a new strategist.
Now that he’s backed out, NObody will be watching. lol
…but they can’t quit talking about him! LOL even harder!

But you’re right. Just what new platitude is one supposed to learn from yet another debate?
I completely forgot to watch the last one. Another holds as much interest with me.

One between Cruz and Trump, I could take. Only problem is, like you just pointed out, a debate is only as good as the moderators.
So…never mind.


#8

2cent

In all honesty, I was still wavering between the two. One offers us Constitutional knowledge along w/his defense of it; the other offers us gravitas that the other lacks - BUT Washington positively shakes in their boots over.
One: (Trump) Utter dislike, but they think they can ‘deal’ with.
The other: (Cruz) Utter fear, 'cuz they KNOW a good amount of their power will…poof…disappear.

Oh, I think they are petrified that Trump may win. They “need to protect their phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen” , and Trump may upset their apple cart.

New blood, indeed. (And the old pouring down the front steps, in most cases.)

I think we should just run every one of them out of town on a rail.
Ya gotta wonder what FOX was thinking to try a repeat performance when the last one was such an utter failure - for them. They LOST millions of viewers for that stunt. Was a re-do supposed to put them back in the viewers’ good graces? If that was their hopefully strategy, they’d be hanging by a thread IF Trump had attended, and are in dire need of a new strategist.
Now that he’s backed out, NObody will be watching. lol
…but they can’t quit talking about him! LOL even harder!

Yep, Fox really stepped in it this year. They claim all this "Fair and Balanced"stuff, and when Trump appears and starts to dominate, Hammity, Telly, O’Really go into overtime trying to discredit Trump. Oh, they fake a balanced approach, but it is obvious they want to detract form his popularity, and are arrogant enough to think they can cause him to “tank” in the polls. Now, Kelly wants another shot at it, since it failed miserably, the first time.

But you’re right. Just what new platitude is one supposed to learn from yet another debate?
I completely forgot to watch the last one. Another holds as much interest with me.
If Trump truly opts out, I’ll probably watch his pro Vet fundraiser. I imagine many people will.

One between Cruz and Trump, I could take. Only problem is, like you just pointed out, a debate is only as good as the moderators.
So…never mind.
I’m sick of debates. Let’s just vote. I’m ready.


#9

My problem with Trump is that he’s waffled on almost every moral and Bill of rights based issue over the years. I mean doggone near every one.

Donald Trump on the Issues

Just look for yourselves.

I will say I’m fine with many of his current stated positions. Not all.

I am not voting for Trump in the primary. I am voting for Cruz.
I will vote for either in the General without a doubt.


#10

Trump went after Cruz as soon as he beat Trump in an Iowa poll. Before that Cruz was the only candidate Trump was not attacking and Cruz seemed to be returning the favor. I actually thought that if Trump won there would be a Trump/Cruz ticket. Trump’s attacks on Cruz are part of why I’m not a fan. Now if Cruz wins the primary, Trump’s attack line that Cruz is ineligible to be President will hurt him in the general election.


#11

Trump never said Cruz was not eligible. Trump was raising the point that Cruz needed to get a legal ruling BEFORE the primary, because if he became the nominee, or if he was with Trump on the ticket, the DEMOCRATS would bring a lawsuit that would make it extremely difficult to overcome by election day.
I have no problem if somebody doesn’t like Trump. It is your vote, choose whomever you wish. But trying, just as the Establishment GOP tries to do, to defame Trump by misrepresenting his words, is dishonest.

Trump’s tweet:
@SenTedCruz Ted–free legal advice on how to pre-empt the Dems on citizen issue. Go to court now & seek Declaratory Judgment–you will win!

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Trump. I plan to vote for him, but I don’t care if anyone else does, or doesn’t. But, be fair. Voice real reasons, not media driven bafflegag, designed to discredit Trump.


#12

If they limit the debate to this topic it will be close to a draw with a slight advantage to Cruz, he is a very experienced debater. Trump will score points for actually showing up. If Cruz turns it into a food fight, Trump will win. Bottom line is that Trump should accept the offer, After all, he is the one who offered 10 million to charity for Obama’s college transcripts and passport applications. Obama ran from that offer but that didn’t seem to bother our brain dead electorate. Let’s see what Trump is made of.


#13

Since when does “favoring a billionaire” AUTOMATICALLY hurt the middle class???


#14

Well, Dave, I’ll treat that as an honest question.
Let’s take, for instance, Marco Rubio. He takes money from an Immigration lobbyist Group founded by Fox News Founder, Rupert Murdock. Roger Ailes, Fox CEO is also involved.
37 million dollars later, let’s imagine Rubio gets elected. Congress passes a bill to prosecute those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The bill was authored by a proponent of the middle class, because his constituents are losing their jobs to Mexican illegals. It passes the House, and then the Senate. It goes to Rubio’s desk.
He can sign the bill, and do what is best for the middle class, or he can pay his debt to the lobbyists, and veto. Does that help?

It is bad medicine for us to condone huge donations from lobbyists and special interests. As Trump has said, he paid for some considerations before. All to politicians. And he was treated to favors, for his money.


#15

I think it was pretty clear that those comments were meant to hurt Cruz.


#16

Fine…except we shouldn’t be dealing in “what if’s” but rather in facts. It is ALREADY illegal (and therefore prosecutable) to hire an illegal alien…Mexican, Chinese or French. Rubio wouldn’t HAVE to “veto” anything. That said, let’s take Obama’s veto of the Keystone pipeline as an example. The Keystone Pipeline would create several hundred construction jobs and a number of permanent ones in order to operate and maintain it. Obama vetoed its construction to protect the investment of a billionaire donor who owns large interests in railroads and their tanker cars–which are currently hauling that Canadian oil to the US gulf coast. He made a decision that, on the surface, seems to be against the interests of the “middle class” and in favor of a billionaire. However, if the pipeline IS built, those middle class railroad workers–who currently benefit from hauling crude oil–would lose THEIR jobs, so insofar as the “middle class” is concerned, it’s a wash (or nearly so), even though a billionaire benefits. My point being, that just because a billionaire “benefits” doesn’t mean that the “middle class” suffers. Oftentimes, benefitting a billionaire ALSO benefits some in the “middle class”, too.


#17

:eusa_think:

Cruz will give vets 1.5 mil if Trump debates him.
Q: Does that mean he won’t give the vets the money if Trump says no?
Think about that.
Cruz is using the vets as a tool (So is Fiorina who made the same offer for 2 mil.)


#18

Trump is, and did it first.


#19

But Trump is not dangling the money in front of vets with conditions, he’s just giving it. To me that’s a big difference.


#20

So, you think it is fine to have a President who accepts millions from a donor, who may want a favor in return? I want a President who makes his decisions, without concern for how his donors view said decision. There are literally dozens of scenarios that would fit my concerns.
But, I really do not care how you view that situation, I don’t like having politicians indebted to lobbyists. Lobbyists have an agenda, and they use money to achieve their ends. Only the truly naive could consider that to be a good thing.