Actually to be honest, I'm a little split on the handling of the debate itself. For the most part the moderators threw soft balls and never bothered with follow ups to the most insane of lies. But then on the issues of the candidates tax plans, they seemed to unleash hell on the candidates.
So I mean I guess I cant totally accuse them of laying down on the job.
Now just like the last 3 times, the format is the same. For those just tuning in:
The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.
Now please note in this debate several of the candidates had a statistical tie for 1st, hence why there will be no Number 2.
Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.
#8 Ben Carson (1/10)
So yea, Ben Carson is at the bottom again.
Not shocking, given that this has been a no good horrible very bad week.
First there was the question on minimum wage, in which Carson tripped over himself. By which I mean he stated he wouldnt raise it. Except that, per his campaign press release today, he actually totally would.
Or at least the "real?" minimum wage, his "starter minimum wage", which he introduced all the way back in Debate 1, and never mentioned again, wouldnt be raised. So for all the people who were shocked when Carson seemingly reversed course on the minimum wage last night...well as of this morning he would like you to know he didnt.....it just sounded like he did cause he wasnt talking about YOUR minimum wage...he was talking about the other guys.
This by the way was Carson's FIRST question of the night.... and it didnt get any better for him.
For example there was this question on Taxes
"First off, Dr. Carson, to you. You say you are in favor of a tax system, I guess akin to tithing, sir, with a flat tax rate of up to 15 percent because you said, if everybody pays this, I think God is a pretty fair guy, so tithing is a pretty fair process. But Donald Trump says that is not fair. That wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it’s a fair thing to do. So whose plan would God endorse then, Doctor?[...]"
Which got this answer:
"Everybody should pay the same proportion of what they make. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. You get same rights and privileges."
Anyone notice the problem there? According to the premise of the question Carson would be taxing at 15%....as he admitted he would have to do in the last debate.
The examples he gives however all seem to assume a 10% tax (his original amount before CNBC called him on his bullshit)
Basically he just flunked the math on his own damn tax plan.
Oh, and then he added this:
"And, the other thing is, I do care about the poor people. And in the system that we’re putting together, there will be a rebate for people at the poverty level. "
Which means, that Ben Carson's flat tax would not in fact be a flat tax. It would tax the rich at a higher rate. And if that sounds familiar it should....it is, as the question pointed out, Donald Trump's tax plan.
Thats right, Ben Carson accidentally ( i assume) endorsed his opponents tax plan while attempting to bash that same plan in favor of his own (which he himself couldnt do the math for).
And we anit even close to done.
Next up Carson was asked about his opposition to the iraq war, and putting troops in Syria.
To which he said this: "We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there."
This was news to many people....including the Chinese.
Which he followed with this:
"But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence.
Presumably this plan is going to involve special forces sneaking into ISIS bases after dark and drawing dicks on peoples faces.....cause that will make them look like losers right?
Actually to be fair to Carson, he did elaborate.
"And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if — outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there."
Ah, so what we really need to do is invade Iraq to get oil. BECAUSE THAT WORKED SO WELL LAST TIME, that the then presidents brother is now too scared to mention the former presidents name in the same sentence as Iraq. And even republicans now seem to think the entire war was a massive mistake. Just saying.
But wait theres more.
When asked about "too big to fail" banks and preventing economic collapse Carson tossed out this gem
'And I think this all really gets back to this whole regulation issue which is creating a very abnormal situation. This country was — declared its independence in 1776. In less than 100 years, it was the number-one economic power in the world."
Now theres two problems here....first its not true....but the second problem is the bigger one.
I wonder what we had in the first say 90 or so years of this countries history that would have impacted the economy that we no longer have? Its on the tip of my tongue but I cant quite put my finger on it....
Oh yea......now I remember.......AWKWARD!
#7 Donald Trump (1/5)
So Trumps been hanging around in or near the top, mostly because nobody wanted to pick a fight with him. NOT ANYMORE. After delivering a rather lengthy tirade against the TPP and how it benefits China, Donald Trump got straight up shut up by Rand Paul..an event I will cover more in detail in Paul's entry.
He also didnt really react well to John Kasich getting in his face either as durring their arguement Trump popped off this line when pleading for moderator interventon:
"[I] built an unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars. I don’t have to hear from this man, believe me. I don’t have to hear from him."
In other words, Trump wants to know why security hasn't escorted this peasant away (like they did Jorge Ramos) for daring to debate His Highness Sir Donald of Trump....
But that really just the shit flavored icing on the cake for Trump last night, as he also took the position WAGES are too high....people need to be paid LESS to make more money. (again math and republicans dont get along much). Also that we should leave Putin and ISIS alone...because they will attack each other, then we swoop in and attack the winner (which sounds good, until you realize ISIS and Putin actually dont seem to have an issue with each other, so have no reason to attack each other)
By the way speaking of Terrorist, Trump agian pledged to finish the wall, And "the wall will be successful. And if you think walls don’t work, all you have to do is ask Israel."
You know, Israel, the same Israel that has seemingly daily rocket and/or terrorist attacks from the Palestinians....who are on the other side of the wall.......yea......
And lastly he wants to know "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?" a statement that got him loudly booed...although I cant tell if that was cause of the sexist connotation (given that everyone was interrupting everyone and only "she" bothered trump) or if people are just tired of him being a whiny little bitch every time some tries to disagree with him.
Now if it looks like I'm not doing much on trump....your right, I'm not. Because much of this debate was focused on Policy and well Trump usually stays quite during those parts and this was no exception.....and this time based on some of the coverage on FOX after the fact, people noticed, so that's actually one of the reasons he winds up down here.
#6 Ted Cruz (4/9)
Well for the second straight debate in a row, Ted Cruz contributed the soundbite most likely to be replayed on a loop indefinitely.....but this time it really, and undisputedly makes him sound like an idiot.
Cruz was asked how he would pay for his massive tax cuts....his answer
"[T]oday, we rolled out a spending plan. $500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD"
In the words of Rick Perry, when he got tripped up over the exact same kind of statement 4 years ago. "Oops"
As a side note, he followed that up without the slighest hint of irony when he said
"You want to look at specificity? It’s easy for everyone to say, “cut spending”. It’s much harder and riskier to put out, chapter and verse, specifically the programs you would cut to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids."
Yea it is difficult....as he just clearly demonstrated.
Nor was that the only really really stupid thing he said. He was asked about how to grow the economy and he identified 3 "levers" needed to do it...and ended with this:
Every time we’ve pursued all three of those — whether in the 1920s with Calvin Coolidge or the 1960s with JFK or the 1980s with Ronald Reagan — the result has been incredible economic growth."
Yea, see its that first one thats kinda a problem here.....I think even middle history students remember how the 20's ended.....with the GREAT FUCKING DEPRESSION. Not really an awesome go to example for economic growth...just saying.
He also had this bit on Washington Corruption....which I admit wont get him in trouble in the primary, but if by some nightmare he ever makes it to the general, he will get hounded mercilessly for (I know cause its already happened to him in the past)
"And, I’ll give you an example of that, which is the Congressional exemption from Obamacare, which is fundamentally wrong, and I’ll tell you this, if I’m elected president, I will veto any statute that exempts members of congress."
Now I admit on its face, it doesn't seem bad. But as it turns out, its a lie....and if you dont believe me, ask Ted Cruz 9 months ago:
#5 Jeb Bush (5/7)
Ok so Jeb! spend long portions of the debate not even trying to talk....which is odd cause when he did talk he was bitching about not having more time to talk.
Granted, when he finished bitching, he said some pretty odd things. For example:
"It is tragic that you see Iraq, and other countries now talking to Russia. It wasn’t that long ago that Russia had no influence in the region at all."
Ok so Jeb! spend long portions of the debate not even trying to talk....which is odd cause when he did talk he was bitching about not having more time to talk.
Granted, when he finished bitching, he said some pretty odd things. For example:
"It is tragic that you see Iraq, and other countries now talking to Russia. It wasn’t that long ago that Russia had no influence in the region at all."
Yea, like in 2003....before your brother invaded. Incidently by the way, Jeb! never mentioned his brothers name....in fact he never mentioned even having a brother. And he went to great pains to do so, and not only in the first quote. For example:
"On the regulatory side I think we need to repeal every rule that Barack Obama has in terms of work in progress, every one of them."
that, presumably would lead to the same regulation standards that were around when your brother was in office....odd that you dont want to mention that part if you actually think this is a good idea. Or maybe he's just aware that most people still associate "Bush Economy" with the Great Recession....so he's trying to work around that by convincing people hes an only child.
When he wasnt trying to commit retroactive fratricide, he managed to come on in favor of a sane approach to immigration, including allowing people to stay in the US, and doing investment and research into alternative energies. Now I might agree with him on these issues....but the GOP base is going to fucking hate him for this. So you cant really call it a great debate performance.
#4 Carly Fiorina (6/1)
Ms. Fiorina was on fire last time....but this time, not so much. Mostly because she promised to repeal Obamacare.....and replace it with nothing. Ensuring we go back to the old system.....you know the one everyone hated so much it lead to outcry used to create Obamacare? Points for honesty at least, Shes about the only republican willing to admit that, in 7 years, they aint come up with shit.
She also mentioned Reagan for walking away/backing down from the Russians at Reykjavik., and trying to ignore them, instead of treating them as a threat, and "being strong".and the context it came up in (in which Rand Paul was trying to praise Reagan's strength, and she refuted it) could easily make it look like an attack on Reagan (even though in context it wasnt, crosstalk makes the context very hard to follow, in fact watching the debate live, even I thought it was an attack on him)...which will likely kill her support with the Republican base.
#3 Marco Rubio (3/3)
Theres always that one guy who shows up to every debate, and thats really all I can say about him.
Well this time around that was Marco Rubio. And its not a bad thing. He talked alot, and laid out some policies. Maybe you like them, maybe you dont. But he avoiding saying anything stupid.
Of course, on the flip side, he also basically said nothing memorable either. So even though he laid out policy, I cant really remember any of it with reading the debate transcript.
Still he gave the impression of being involved and having answers and not being an idiot. So overall we can call that a win.
Well this time around that was Marco Rubio. And its not a bad thing. He talked alot, and laid out some policies. Maybe you like them, maybe you dont. But he avoiding saying anything stupid.
Of course, on the flip side, he also basically said nothing memorable either. So even though he laid out policy, I cant really remember any of it with reading the debate transcript.
Still he gave the impression of being involved and having answers and not being an idiot. So overall we can call that a win.
#2 John Kasich (8/2)
Much like Rubio, Kasich spent most of the debate laying out unmemorable policy...just as he as in every other debate.
However, while doing so, he managed to pick a fight with basically every other candidate on the stage.
My overall impression of Kasich this time around is that he was basically a pitbull and attacked everyone who got too close to him. So he gets the higher spot that Rubio because everyone is more likely to remember he was at the debate simply because he made sure to be involved in almost every question...even when he wasnt supposed to be.
Much like Rubio, Kasich spent most of the debate laying out unmemorable policy...just as he as in every other debate.
However, while doing so, he managed to pick a fight with basically every other candidate on the stage.
My overall impression of Kasich this time around is that he was basically a pitbull and attacked everyone who got too close to him. So he gets the higher spot that Rubio because everyone is more likely to remember he was at the debate simply because he made sure to be involved in almost every question...even when he wasnt supposed to be.
#1 Rand Paul (7/4)
I got to say, I'm a bit shocked by it myself, but its hard to argue anyone other than Rand Paul won this debate. Admittedly that is mostly for the second half of the debate but still.
Paul spent the first quarter of the debate basically asleep, by which I mean he was giving pretty much the exact same answers hes given to every question for the last 6 years, and I'm actually pretty sure he could give those anwsers in his sleep if he needed to.
His second quarter saw him attempt to pick a fight with Marco Rubio, but it kind of fell flat, and he got burried under every other candidate on the stage interrupting.
But then the second half started. Specifically the Second half started with a question to Donald Trump on the newly signed TPP. And trump engaged in a several minute long back and forth with the moderator over how the TPP was designed to advance China over the US.
And then, when he was done, Rand Paul struck.
"Hey, Gerard [one of the moderators], you know, we might want to point out China is not part of this deal."
The moderator by the way, backed him up on that.
Donald Trumps reply meanwhile........nothing. He didnt even attempt one. In fact he said nothing about anything until directly asked a question several minutes later.
Thats right Donald Trump had absolutely nothing to say following the Rand Paul initiated knockout punch disguised as a live fact check on air.
Its worth noting that, and Rand Paul continued to explain China's non involvement in the TPP, the buffer music played to go to commercial....and Paul kept talking....and he won, the commercial break was pushed back.
Of course, coming back from commercial, the debate turned to national security, and literally every answer Rand Paul gave got massive applause from the audience as he explained how to be "Stong" without fighting unnecessary wars.
its actually worth noting one of the applause lines he got was for "I think the first war in Iraq was a mistake…"
Yea thats right, Rand Paul just got cheered at the GOP primary for condemning Iraq. That one is going to make some headlines (or it would if his rhetorical chin check of trump wasnt getting all the coverage)
But yea, by any metric Rand Paul got the most applause of any candidate in the second half of the debate....and outside of his usual and old worn out libertarian bullshit on the Fed and money, managed to avoid saying anything new that was also really fucking stupid.
So yea....there you have it....the winner of the 4th debate....Rand Paul.
I got to say, I'm a bit shocked by it myself, but its hard to argue anyone other than Rand Paul won this debate. Admittedly that is mostly for the second half of the debate but still.
Paul spent the first quarter of the debate basically asleep, by which I mean he was giving pretty much the exact same answers hes given to every question for the last 6 years, and I'm actually pretty sure he could give those anwsers in his sleep if he needed to.
His second quarter saw him attempt to pick a fight with Marco Rubio, but it kind of fell flat, and he got burried under every other candidate on the stage interrupting.
But then the second half started. Specifically the Second half started with a question to Donald Trump on the newly signed TPP. And trump engaged in a several minute long back and forth with the moderator over how the TPP was designed to advance China over the US.
And then, when he was done, Rand Paul struck.
"Hey, Gerard [one of the moderators], you know, we might want to point out China is not part of this deal."
The moderator by the way, backed him up on that.
Donald Trumps reply meanwhile........nothing. He didnt even attempt one. In fact he said nothing about anything until directly asked a question several minutes later.
Thats right Donald Trump had absolutely nothing to say following the Rand Paul initiated knockout punch disguised as a live fact check on air.
Its worth noting that, and Rand Paul continued to explain China's non involvement in the TPP, the buffer music played to go to commercial....and Paul kept talking....and he won, the commercial break was pushed back.
Of course, coming back from commercial, the debate turned to national security, and literally every answer Rand Paul gave got massive applause from the audience as he explained how to be "Stong" without fighting unnecessary wars.
its actually worth noting one of the applause lines he got was for "I think the first war in Iraq was a mistake…"
Yea thats right, Rand Paul just got cheered at the GOP primary for condemning Iraq. That one is going to make some headlines (or it would if his rhetorical chin check of trump wasnt getting all the coverage)
But yea, by any metric Rand Paul got the most applause of any candidate in the second half of the debate....and outside of his usual and old worn out libertarian bullshit on the Fed and money, managed to avoid saying anything new that was also really fucking stupid.
So yea....there you have it....the winner of the 4th debate....Rand Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment