I think that whole Megyn Kelly thing is a ruse. He isn't showing up to debate because he doesn't need to. He has a comfortable lead and he has nowhere to go but down so he's going to sit it out rather than take the chance of letting one of the others show him up. It's better to blame it on Kelly than to admit you're really afraid of the other candidates putting you on the spot. If this was 2 months from the caucus then maybe but this close? He's unlikely to lose the lead at this point so why chance it?

DB Roy wrote:I think that whole Megyn Kelly thing is a ruse. He isn't showing up to debate because he doesn't need to.

Doesn't need to or even, doesn't want to, Either way, to much Trump, is to much Trump. Over exposure right now with a tight but inconsequential Iowa caucus leave's him open for foot in mouth
type gaff's. Trump needs these early primaries for the flotsam to weed out the other flotsam, even though most other candidates don't have Trumps poll numbers they can still wield enough rhetoric to affect those numbers Trump has held, if only slightly. These early small states, the way this election campaign has played out so far, I'm not convinced they even qualify as a bellwether.

He is opening himself up, though, to the idea that if he's afraid of Megyn Kelly then how is he going to deal with the likes of Putin, Kim, ISIL, and others. That's what the other candidates will play up on, I would imagine. But I doubt it will hurt him much. He's the 800 lb gorilla in the room and he doesn't need to be in the room to prove it. And, as much as I hate Trump, the idea of Cruz in the White House is truly terrifying. Although he trails Trump too far to overcome him, he becomes the default leader of the pack if Trump suddenly decides to drop out and THAT scares me! Then again, Cruz is such an asswipe that I can't see most Americans voting for him. Can't see it.

I can see why Trump The Wuss skipped the debate last night. Megyn Kelly absolutely blistered Rubio and Cruz by showing video clips proving they've changed positions on immigration several times.

That's why some pundits are saying that Trump won the debate by not being there. He didn't get blistered by Kelly. But, yeah, it also betrays a certain cowardice. Maybe she should get the nomination. I have a thousand times more respect for her than the rest of that pack of idiots put together. She seems to be a sharp person who doesn't get intimidated or overwhelmed.

Wow I missed this part: Cruz The Wuss threatened to leave the stage if he was asked another mean question! (I s'pose he was kinda sorta joking?)

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruz ... 43071.html

I give up! Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace from Fox News are TOO ROUGH!
Buncha tough guyz dese here Republicans!

Conservative candidates can't take questions from conservative moderators on a conservative network. But we're to believe they will set this country straight! None of them deserves a single vote.

The next POTUS will in all likelihood be the one to nominate the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court, Ginsberg is 82, not being ageist but I think, how much more time can she give us as associate justice? Seems to me, that when I consider any of the front runners, I see a country that is self-indulgent. Trump certainly is a visual representation of that indulgence. Obama is not very deep, he is not a profound person, That lack of dynamic thinking is what the next potential Democrat president will bring to the National Capitol Region, that's one of my concerns anyway. Getting back to the Court, They gave us Citizens United, bad news for the election process if you ask me, I wonder what a post Ginsberg court would be capable of? I'm inclined to think that a conservative court might be dangerous for as example Roe v Wade. In an era in which we see the Fed whittling away at individual state sovereignty, do we really want the supreme court ruling on behalf of states that desire to restrict access to abortion rights for women?. I'm not proposing that the court would reverse its previous ruling, but they certainly could rule in favor of states that desire to restrict access.