The final GOP debate of 2015. Or how to end the year on a bad note.

Alright so dont have a good intro this time around.....this debate was basically just across the board bad. I actually dont think ANYONE came out looking better than they did going in. So this is more a ranking of worst to least bad.

Now the rules for those just joining us:

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.

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 last 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.


9) Donald Trump (1/7)

Holy fuck, what a disaster for Trump. This is one of the few times that if you listened to the debate on the radio, you probibly think Trump did much better than he did.......because you couldnt see the 5000 expressions of irritation and annoyance (or outright stupidity) on his face. If it wasnt already a known fact, this debate established Trump is a glass cannon.....he can dish it out, but man can he NOT take it. (all pictures are from the debate, although admittedly Im focusing on the stupid ones not the angry one)

Grumpy Trumpy

And it turns out, he has no freaking clue what the internet actually is or how it works.

For example when asked about his comments about wanting to close down the internet he started with:

"Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, andit was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing"

Of course unless you close down the internet for everyone (which he says he didnt mean to suggest) those people in Silicon Valley are going to tell him the internet doesnt work that way......you cant just close off certain people.

He continued

"But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people."

I wonder where Trump thinks our intelligence about ISIS is coming from right now?

"WOLF BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump.

So, are you open to closing parts of the Internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet. Yes, sir, I am.

So maybe by parts trump means Websites, which would at least suggest he realize the internet doesnt have a physical location.....but then this happens a bit later

" So, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? That's what you're saying. And as far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it.

Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that is getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their Internet, so that we know exactly where they're going, exactly where they're going to be. I like that better."

So Trump clearly thinks we have "our" internet and they have "their internet" and that "their internet" is located in Iran and Syria. Right......except thats not even remotely close to how the internet works.

By the way, it appears the audience realized this cause Trump actually got booed for this....which led to him yelling at the audience for booing him

"But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. I don't think so."

Though to be fair, Trump has a point here....the GOP audience has supported very other non nonsensical thing he's ever said, so I dont know why they would draw the line at incorrect comments about what the internet is and how it works.

Internet? dur

Then we leave the stupid moments behind and reach the awkward moments....like this
"I do want a wall. Walls do work, you just have to speak to the folks in Israel. Walls work if they're properly constructed." Which is a little awkward given that Trump just cancelled his trip to Israel after Prime Minister Netanyahu called Trumps ideas stupid (paraphrasing).

Israel? Psss

Or this

"DANA BASH: Mr. Trump, just this weekend you said Senator Cruz is not qualified to be president because he doesn't have the right temperament and acted like a maniac when he arrived in the Senate. But last month you said you were open to naming Senator Cruz as your running mate.

TRUMP: I did.
BASH: So why would you be willing to put somebody who's a maniac one heartbeat away from the presidency?

TRUMP: Let me just say that I have gotten to know him over the last three or four days. He has a wonderful temperament."
Which is awkward cause if you follow the timeline this means Trump both declared Cruz qualified to be vice president and a maniac before he ever knew the guy....meaning both comments were made in equal ignorance. Not sure that really helps....

Change a position? Who me?

Also Trump pledged not to run as a 3rd party candidate.....again. Cause he made the same pledge right after the first debate (in which he had refused to make the pledge)....before reversing himself after the 4th debate. But this time, I'm sure he means it......maybe....sorta.

Dude who knows the future? Amirite?

8) John Kasich (8/2)

John Kasich was basically the forgotten man in this debate. He was never attacked by any candidate, and never attacked another candidate. Which might be classy, but also likely resulted in his having the least amount of time to speak of any candidate.....at 9 minutes. And nothing he said in those 9 minutes was remotely memorable.

7) Ben Carson (2/8)

On the one hand, this was Carson's strongest debate performance....it actually sounded like he had some idea of what he was talking about. On the other hand it was pretty clear he was sticking to the few pieces of information and trivia he had actually memorized, and otherwise still doesnt really know anything. Which is probibly why, like Kasich, he never attacked or was attacked by anyone

And when the moderator tried to get him involved in a disagreement between Rubio and Paul over NSA data collection he refused to take a side......presumably because he didnt actually know anything about the issue. or as he put it "I think you have to ask them about that. I don't want to get in between them. Let them fight."

Also when doing a break down on topics during the debate, its worth noting Carson said not a word on privacy and security or immigration, and spent less than a minute on foreign policy.  Because I guess those issues arnt that important?


And then there was the really awkward and rushed second of silence.....just saying in the future, thats one of those things that shouldnt be done under a timer

6) Carly Fiorina (6/4)

Another candidate who neglected to attack anyone...and also got no damn speaking time. (9 minutes 30 seconds). Of course there is some question as to what she used that speaking time for, as per CNN's breakdown she only spoke on 3 of the 6 debate topics....and only one of those 3 for longer than one minute.(privacy and security 3 minutes 3 seconds). Which kinda makes her a literal single issue candidate in this debate. I only rank her higher than Kasich (who actually covered more issues) because I remember her actually being at the debate, whereas I easily forgot Kasich was there. Ditto that justification for putting her above Carson, I at least remember her taking, more than I can say for him.

5) Ted Cruz (3/6)

So honestly Ted Cruz is only this high because he controlled the debate.  He got far and away the most speaking time, and contributed the most or second most to 4 of the 6 debate topics.

Problem is, much of what he said was a disaster. For example he disagrees with Donald Trump on banning muslims but fell into the im a nazi but not as much of one thing saying  "Well, listen, Hugh, everyone understands why Donald has suggested what he has." and "I understand why Donald made that proposal. I introduced legislation in the Senate that I believe is more narrowly focused at the actual threat[...]" deflected multiple attempts to get him to give specific differences between his plan and trumps by blaming Obama....and also FDR's Grandfather.

Then there was his attempts to dodge questions about his claim he wants to carpet bomb ISIS, which lead to exchanges like this:

"WOLF BLITZER: To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?"

CRUZ: "You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed -- and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists."

Right....except the Troops are located IN a city....which apprently Ted Cruz wants to not bomb except when bombing, but he doesnt want to bomb unless bombing.....

And that wasnt the only time something like that happened. Marco Rubio accused Cruz of voting against the National Defense Authorization Act....to which Cruz said this;
Well, you know, Marco has continued these attacks, and he knows they're not true. Yes, it is true that I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, because when I campaigned in Texas I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process.

So Rubio is lying because you actually did what he said you did? Huh?

Then there was Cruz's attempt to do the obligatory Reagan reference, except he even managed to bollox that.

"You know, there was a time for choosing as Reagan put it. Where there was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan."

See the thing is, Reagan ALSO supported that massive amnesty plan....so yea not really the best example.

Although it was the best example for Cruz's debate performance....he talked ALOT, and no matter your position on an issue, he likely agreed with you....and then disagreed with you, then agreed with you, then tried to make it look like you agreed with him.

And I gotta be honest, if this is the best Cruz can do....well I hope he doesnt get comfortable near the top of the polls cause after this performance I doubt he has the skills to stay there.

3) Marco Rubio (4/3)

Rubio gets a boost here from the fact that he was clearly the one Ted Cruz (who again dominated the talking time) was trying to take down....and yet Rubio "won" most of the exchanges.

Heck even the one time Rand Paul tried to take him on, Rubio won with a compartively great line of
"I want to thank Rand for another 30 seconds" after Paul mentioned him....and Rubio then used those 30 seconds to ignore Paul.

And he gave a really good anwser on if we should keep bombing ISIS and how to fight them.

Well, let me begin by saying that we have to understand who ISIS is. ISIS is a radical Sunni group. They cannot just be defeated through air strikes. Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force. And that ground force must be primarily made up of Sunni Arabs themselves, Sunni Arabs that reject them ideologically and confront them militarily.

Which was not to say his debate preformance was steller, it really wasnt. He managed to articulate plenty of really stupid things....although as sound bites they likely sound good in the primary...but I suspect should he make it to the general election he's going to have to walk alot of it back.

For example when describing ISIS he said:

"But this is what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS. This is the most sophisticated terror group that has ever threatened the world or the United States of America."

Yea, ISIS is the most sophisticated threat we've faced Not Nazi Germany (then again given current republican policies, this makes sense). Not Al Qadea (who actually DID 9/11). Not China (all the hacking). Hell not even the USSR, who you know had NUKES. No its ISIS, who compared to any of the groups I named (and a lot more) hasnt really done shit to us....

Then he got around to American's who join ISIS

Yes, let me -- three points of distinction. The first is, if you're an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights. You're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.

Because you know, FUCK the Constitution. President Rubio is only going to apply that when convenient. Otherwise they can just claim your ISIS...and without your rights, they probably dont have to prove it.

Or when addressing his flip flop on Immigration between 2013 and now:

"Yeah, a couple points. In 2013 we had never faced a crisis like the Syrian refugee crisis now. Up until that point, a refugee meant someone fleeing oppression, fleeing Communism like it is in my community."

2 problems here. First WE HAD faced those kinds of problems before. Off the top of my head, the Irish during the famine and the Jews during WWII (but then again ISIS is worse than Nazi's per ruibo)

Second problem is the bigger one. As it sounds like Rubio is fine with different rules for people allegedly like him...but fuck everyone else. Not a great position. And I say allegedly like him, because Rubio's family ARNT  Cuban refugees. His parents voluntarily immigrated here during the reign of Batista....before Castro came to power.  And Rubio KNOWS this....but I'm sure misrepresenting himself wont fuck him with the Cuban vote in Florida...

Oh, speaking of refugees, how many of them is Rubio willing to kill/damn if needed? Well let him tell you.

"If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer -- we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem.

And there is not a single person in the national defense apparatus of this country that can guarantee you are going to be 100 percent right. And that's why as president, I'll take this very seriously."

Cause hey if 1 out of 1000 people is bad....fuck em all.

Finally there was this, in Rubio's closing statement

"For over 200 years this has been a special country. A unique place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. "

Heres the problem....assuming we accept his premise HE'S THE ONE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THAT BY KEEPING PEOPLE OUT, that was literally his main debate topic for the debate.

3) Rand Paul (9/1)
The problem for Rand Paul is that he was basically irrelevant. He tried to attack other candidates.....and they brushed him off and ignored him.

That said He did a good job of explaining why US intervention in the middle east was a mistake, and he did a good job of explaining why a no fly zone in Syria would likely start world war III...its just that no body gave a shit. And some of the blame here goes to the moderators, who after Paul spoke would ask follow up questions to other candidates....but without mentioning anything Paul had said that might change the framing of the question. I think everyone knew that with Rand's poll numbers being what they were, they would never actually see him again anyways....and treated him like that.

Thought I dont want to say it was all good for Paul.  He also had his awkward I'm a Nazi but not as much as other people moment on his bill to ban immigration.....which was "more focused" (read less extreme) than the Rubio Cruz and Trump plans he attacked, and well his explanation on that really did seem to be "this is an unamerican idea....except when I do it cause logic"

2) Chris Christie (7/did not participate in the last debate)
I dont actually have much to say here for Christie, except that he made an impression, he DID come across as very strong and very forceful....and also puffed the fuck out of his executive expericence.

Granted he also repeated his lie about being named chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey the day before 9/11.

And wants to launch the world headline into World War III by shooting down russian planes.

But he was at least honest and clear about what he wanted. So he gets high marks for that. Unlike the other candidates you know what a bad deal your getting with Christie upfront and he's not shy about it. So he gets this spot due only to clarity and presence...not content. But he WILL be talked about after the debate....and he wasnt even in the last one, so thats got to be a "win"

1) Jeb Bush (5/5)
Winner by Default is really the only thing I can say about Bush. Like Christie, he mostly got this spot by standing firm....and finally punching back on Donald Trump. In fact he was responsible for most of the Trump angry faces though out the night.

Though to be fair, like a couple of other candidates he did have a reasonable explanation for what he wanted to do with ISIS (fight them in syria not here) and why banning Muslims here actually strengthens ISIS.

Well except for one possible issue:
"We need to get the lawyers off the back of the warfighters. Right now under President Obama, we've created this -- this standard that is so high that it's impossible to be successful in fighting ISIS."

Not really sure what he means here.....except maybe as a reference to Obama's justice department banning the use of torture. Which presumably means he wants to bring it back.....cause that worked so well under his brother.

And then there was one really awkward moment when Bush was asked what made him qualified to be commander in chief and he said
"Because I -- first of all, I know what I don't know. I know what I don't know."

Which made me think of this

Again, referencing some of the most infamous parts of his brothers presidency doesnt seem like a great idea.

And then the potentially stupidest thing Bush said: 

"I completely agree with Chris. And this administration has been so lax. Think about it. Hillary Clinton is using a private server for -- where classified information go by. This is a -- this is a serious administration?"

I get it. You want to take the easy pot shot at Hilary Clinton. Heres the problem....Bush got caught doing the same damn thing. Well not exactly, Bush did something WORSE. See Hillary turned her emails over to a government investigator who redacted anything secret.

Bush turned the government emails HE did from his personal account over to the public by posting them on his website. And forgot to redact them. Including up-words of 13,000 social security numbers of Floridians, with all other identification included.  Or as identity thieves called it "Christmas come early".

Just saying the response add from Hilary if these two do make the general writes itself....and not favorably for Bush,

But again at the end of the day most of Bushes fuck ups wont hurt him too badly in the primary and require analysis or a second look to realize how dumb/bad they are. Which means he did better than anyone else, making him again the winner by default, even if his performance really wasnt that good.

So yea, there you have it, my review of the 5th and final debate of the year. The GOP must be SO proud of their candidates........