I think he had it confused with Baltic Avenue and wanted Monopoly tanks.

It was definitely nice to see a debate on policy instead of a Trump fest about how rich and important he is.

It was refreshing to see the candidates discussing issues rather than being in a circular firing squad. One of the post-debate guests said it was what the debates would have been if Trump had stayed on The Apprentice.

What was noteworthy was the reaction of Frank Lunz's focus group to Trump skipping out. Not good for Trump.

Another good comment: "Medium-Energy Jeb." Trump really destroyed everyone's assumed front runner with the "Low-Energy" jab.

Lunz's group - if it has any meaning across the Party - suggests that Marco is consolidating support and may be the nominee when the smoke clears. I suppose we'll see whether that is happening with the southern primaries. He never did attempt to answer the question how he can win if he's currently running only 3rd in Florida.

Biggest fear of Republicans - that Hillary would nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. Probably a Democratic wet dream. The next President will probably name up to three Supreme Court justices, which is a little-discussed issue, but could light a fire under conservatives who might otherwise stay home on election day. I think this was the first time they brought up the issue, but it won't be the last.

Watching it on rerun now. Rubio definitely going after the religious folks! Carson as ridiculous as ever. Rand so nice to listen to. Cruz - scary, nasty POS. Christie - "On 9/11 ..." ... lost it right there.

Love the Megyn Kelly haircut; but do women still wear those false eyelashes?! And can't they get a more lively person than Krauthammer? He really sounds like he's about to die!

Krauthammer probably is about to die, he certainly looks terminal.

Highlight for me was Kasich having the integrity to defend Ohio's Medicaid expansion and push for the mentally ill to have access to treatment. That won't go down well.

Did anybody read the antiwar.com commentary on the two front-runners? Very interesting. Here's the link:
Anti-anti-Trump, Anti-anti-Sanders - Antiwar.com Original by -- Antiwar.com

As someone who disapproves of the commitment of all the other candidates to continue enriching the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) and endorsing the serial war-crimes program, I have my fingers crossed for both of these candidates. I don't get to vote in this election, but I would be one of the victims of World War III, so I have a stake in the contest.

Not that what I feel has any affect on things, but I am conflicted on who to root for. Rubio has a chance at the election, but Trump and Cruz could be far more dangerous. Do I hope that either the uber crazy Cruz or the scatter gun populist Trump win the primary, but will struggle in the election. Or let the slightly less problematic Rubio win the primary, but he would have a real chance at the Presidency.

Looks like Marco needs to spend a bit more time boning up on foreign policy. There's more to it than deciding which brown people to bomb next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ish-royalists/

I get the impression that these candidates are all about having a dirty great military machine. Do they anticipate another war on the scale of WW2. The religion part is also disturbing.

That's got me singing "onward Christian soldiers"

See this list of US defense contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...se_contractors

Then ask your self who funds all the election campaigns.

Or think of it this way...

Ted is from Texas, Ted promises his state lots of juicy defense contracts...

http://www.governmentcontractswon.co...s_counties.asp

It keeps people in well paying jobs and keeps Ted in his job. But what's the agenda for people like Cruz, Trump and Rubio? Is the US going to go on being the world's policeman? Military expenditures take a huge chunk out of the national budget. Creating "the worlds biggest and strongest military " in Trumps words means that the enormous extra cost will have to be paid for by cutting other budgets and aside from terrorism what threat is the US facing to justify all this spending? A 10 million man invasion by the Chinese Army on the west coast? A mass invasion of Mariachi musicians from Mexico?

Then there's the subject of his 1400 mile long wall between the US and Mexico and the mass deportation of the alleged eleven million illegals. It's not going to happen and Trump knows it. It gets a lot of applause from his ditto heads though but is fairly useless rhetoric when it comes to seriously dealing with the problems of illegal immigration.

Trump will never acknowledge it but during the Obama administration the number of illegals deported has been the highest for many years. if he bothered to check the history on his hero Ronald Reagan in this matter more thoroughly he would discover that Reagan's amnesty program was responsible for many more illegals entering the country on the hope that later on they too would get amnesty under a second program.

But wait... I'm slipping.... all these eleven million illegals has be Obama's fault... Silly me

Their agenda is to keep receiving large brown envelopes stuffed with non-sequential bills.

The US's current military spending is more than the next seven highest spenders combined and is over a third of the world's total defence spending. And yet some of these Republican candidates claim that Obama has "decimated" the military...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Trump is critical of US MidEast intervension , while the others just parrot the script the NeoCons gave them.

Hillary is hardly different from the GOP hawks in pushing for the US to get the US involved in MidEast wars. Hillary lost the 2008 Dem support because of here support for the Iraq war while Obama opposed it. Hillary then joined the GOP hawks in pushing for airstrikes against Gaddafi and pushed for Assad's overthrow.