The 10th GOP debate or that time the other candidates realized Trump is running.

Its actually kinda unusal that an entire 2+hour political debate can be summed up in a single screenshot. But apparently the closed captioning guy for CNN found a way....mostly cause he clearly got tired of this shit and gave us this gem:

And that really is the best summary I can think of for this debate

Which is also why I am going to do away with my usual rules this time around. I'm still ranking people, but given the total lack of substance from ANYONE, I cant really judge this debate on the usual criteria....so this one is mostly going to be about whose unintelligible yelling did the most damage to other candidates.  But for that same reason I dont think it matter who was ranked in what spot based on polls or my own previous performance evaluations. So with that in mind this time here we go

5) Trump
Ok so Trump got his ass handed to him repeatedly in this debate. However he also did a fair amount of damage to himself, which is mostly what I'm going to cover here....theres time to cover the asswhopping he got from Cruz and Rubio when I do their sections.

However we do have to start with Trump laying the groundwork for most of the beating he took right out of the box. Cruz and Rubio would hammer him most of the night for having no polices, no understanding, no explanation and no ability to even explain his own ideas.

Which brings us to the nights opening question:

Mr. Trump, you’ve called for a deportation force to remove the 11 million undocumented immigrants from the United States. You’ve also promised to let what you call, “the good ones”, come back in. Your words, “the good ones”, after they’ve been deported.

Senator Cruz would not allow them to come back in. He says that’s the biggest difference between the two of you. He calls your plan amnesty. Is it?

TRUMP: First of all, he was in charge of amnesty, he was the leader, and you can ask Marco because they’ve been debating this every debate that we’ve had.

As far as coming back in, number one, you wouldn’t even be talking, and you wouldn’t have asked that as the first question if it weren’t for me when my opening when I talked about illegals immigration. It wouldn’t even be a big subject.

See trump is challenged on something and his reply is "I am rubber you are glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you"...and assuming everyone else (Rubio in this case) will agree with him. Good luck with that.

Then there was the time he rather weirdly embraced the Romney concept of "Self Deportation", which as you might recall got Romney roundly mocked for months by pretty much everybody.

"Well, first of all, self-deportation is people are going to leave as soon as they see others going out. If you look at Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, they started moving people out and the rest of them left.

Self-deportation, as I really define it, and that’s the way I define it, is you’re going to get some to go, and the rest are going to go out.

As far as the people that I’ve hired in various parts of Florida during the absolute prime season, like Palm Beach and other locations, you could not get help. It’s the up season. People didn’t want to have part-time jobs. There were part-time jobs, very seasonal, 90-day jobs, 120-day jobs, and you couldn’t get.

Everybody agrees with me on that. They were part-time jobs. You needed them, or we just might as well close the doors, because you couldn’t get help in those hot, hot sections of Florida."

Now I'd give the context for the first part there, and why trump needs to define self deportation....but there isnt any. He brought it up himself, no one else mentioned the term, and what he was responding too was a comment by Marco Rubio that the border was considered a problem before Trump started talking about it.

So yea, Trump has now randomly embraced the idea that got Romney laughed out of a chance at the white house, self deportation for no real reason.....also he failed the history on the Ike bit too, that wasnt self deportation, that was the government forcing people out, and it didnt really work long term.

And when Rubio pointed out that Trump had just agreed with Romney on an issue after critizing Romney on that same issue in 2012, Trump tried to fire back with this:

"TRUMP: I criticized Mitt Romney for losing the election. He should have won that election. He had a failed president. He ran a terrible campaign. He was a terrible candidate. That’s what I criticize Mitt Romney — I mean, ran…

RUBIO: No, he…

TRUMP: Excuse me. He ran one terrible campaign. That’s an election that should have been won."

See, so when Trump says he disagrees with you, he doesnt...he just thinks your a loser cause your ideas are worse than his ideas which are identical, but better cause its his...

Speaking of having his ideas challenged he got challenged once again on his wall that mexico will pay for:

BLITZER: The spokesperson for the current president of Mexico says that will never happen. The last two presidents of Mexico say that will never happen. In fact, the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox — he said today, and I’m quoting him — he said, “I’m not going to pay for that,” quote, “effing wall.”

(LAUGHTER)

So if you don’t get an actual check from the Mexican government for $8 billion or $10 billion or $12 billion, whatever it will cost, how are you going to make them pay for the wall?"

This is of course an entirely reasonable question, and a response that anyone with a working brain could have predicted mexico having, because of course they would NEVER pay for a wall as anyone functioning in reality knows. But then we have Donald Trump:

"TRUMP: I will, and the wall just got 10 feet taller, believe me."

Basically, Trumps response to being faced with reality boiled down to

actually to be fair, maybe I should give more of his comments

"It just got 10 feet taller. I saw him make that — I saw him make the statement. I saw him use the word that he used. I can only tell you, if I would have used even half of that word, it would have been national scandal.

This guy used a filthy, disgusting word on television, and he should be ashamed of himself, and he should apologize, OK? Number one. Number two, we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion a year. And that doesn’t include all the drugs that are pouring across and destroying our country.
We’re going to make them pay for that wall. Now, the wall is $10 billion to $12 billion, if I do it. If these guys do it, it’ll end up costing $200 billion."

Wait so Trump can build the wall at spending 1/200th of what the other republicans would have to spend, even if mexico doesnt write him a check? I wonder how that work....

...oh yea....of course. My mistake actually expecting anything remotely resembling logic here.

and yet the Trump continues:


But the wall is $10 billion to $12 billion. You need 1,000 — you need 1,000 miles. The Great Wall of China, built 2,000 years ago — 2,000, is 13,000 miles. We need 1,000, because we have a lot of natural barriers.

By the way, for those who are curious, the US mexico border is 1989 miles....and Im not entirely sure what natural barriers exist on half of that.....also if we only need 1000 miles, arnt we pretty much done? pretty sure we passed a bill back in 2006 to cover at least 700 miles...unless thats an additional  1000 miles?

Also this wasnt the only time Trump got tripped over a wall, as he was later asked another logical follow up to the idea that we need a wall to keep us safe:

Mr. Trump, you have been very vocal about securing the Mexican border, but ISIS has called upon its supporters to conduct attacks on our neighbor to the North, Canada.As a matter of fact, U.S. officials have warned that it is the Canadian border which is the most significant threat. You have said that you will not build a wall in Canada. When it comes to national security, and the threat of terrorism, why does Mexico need a wall, and Canada doesn’t? Isn’t that, like, closing the front door, and leaving the back door open?

Hey if you think a wall keeps us safe from terrorists, thats kinda a great point...plus that is the border the 9/11 guys came over, just saying.....so what was Trumps response:

TRUMP: First of all, you’re talking about a border that’s many, many times longer. You’re talking about a massive border.

But wait, you literally just added 10ft of height to a 1000 mile border because fuck mexico. and now suddenly a border is too big too big? again the US mexico border is 1989 miles, the US Canadian border (or at least the Continental US Canadian border) is 3,987 miles. But just like you claim on the Mexican border, we do have some natural barriers on the northern border, like the Great Lakes. Just saying we might only need 2000 miles or so of actual fence, thats barely more than the mexican border if we are adding your 1000 to the existing 700....

Another self inflicted wound came when Rubio kept challenging trump on illegally hiring foreign workers (polish in this case), for illegally low wages, not paying them, and then lying about it in court, which eventually lead to this exchange:

RUBIO: You lied about the Polish workers.

TRUMP: Yes, yes, yes. 38 years ago.

You know I had something pithy here, but actually I'm going to let Rubio handle this one

RUBIO: Oh, he lied 38 years ago. All right, I guess there’s a statute of limitation on lies.

Speaking of Trump's lying, he got called out by the moderator for a pledge he made last year to release his tax returns and his now refusal to do it:

HEWITT: Mr. Trump, a year ago you told me on my radio show, the audio and the transcript are out there on YouTube, that you would release your tax returns.

TRUMP: True.

HEWITT: Are you going back on your commitment?

TRUMP: No, I’m not. First of all, very few people listen to your radio show. That’s the good news.

Near as I can tell, Trump is saying yes he said it, but since no one listens to that show, no one will know he said it, so therefore no one will know hes flip flopping, even though he just admitted it 5 seconds ago. WTF?

Oh and again, if you need to impune Trumps honesty, hes more than happy to do it himself.....just ask him about Israel:

As president, however, there’s nothing that I would rather do to bring peace to Israel and its neighbors generally. And I think it serves no purpose to say that you have a good guy and a bad guy.

Now, I may not be successful in doing it. It’s probably the toughest negotiation anywhere in the world of any kind. OK? But it doesn’t help if I start saying, “I am very pro-Israel, very pro, more than anybody on this stage.” But it doesn’t do any good to start demeaning the neighbors, because I would love to do something with regard to negotiating peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors.

Now to be fair, right up to this point Trump is actually making a lot of sense......but the problem is he's Trump so he keeps talking

And I can’t do that as well — as a negotiator, I cannot do that as well if I’m taking big, big sides. With that being said, I am totally pro-Israel.

So in otherwords Trump is saying I actually DO understand how to solve that problem and I'm going to tell you how to do it.....except it turns out I cant do it cause when I said I was neutral, I LIED.

Also Trump apparently gets audited every year cause something is really weird with his finances, and if you dont believe me, ask him:

As far as my return, I want to file it, except for many years, I’ve been audited every year. Twelve years, or something like that. Every year they audit me, audit me, audit me.

Nobody gets audited — I have friends that are very wealthy people. They never get audited. I get audited every year. I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three years, so I can’t do it until the audit is finished, obviously. And I think people would understand that.

Actually I think the only part of that most people will understand is that per you wealthy folks dont get audited all the time just for being wealthy....apparently its something unique to you and your 4 bankruptcies.

by the way, he tried that same defense again later

Look, let me just tell you something. Let me just tell you something. I want to release my tax returns but I can’t release it while I’m under an audit. We’re under a routine audit. I’ve had it for years, I get audited.

And obviously if I’m being audited, I’m not going to release a return. As soon as the audit is done, I love it.
Incidentaly, the IRS says he can release them under an audit....theres nothing stopping him, except whatever he wants to hid.

But by FAR the biggest wound Trump gave himself was when he decided to talk about Planned Parenthood:

As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I’m pro-life. I’m totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women — cervical cancer, breast cancer — are helped by Planned Parenthood.

So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn’t fund it.

Translation: Hey most of what Planned Parenthood does is awesome for women, helps tons of them....but I'll defund them anyways cause fuck bitches amirite?

by the way in case you think he misspoke:
I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don’t know what percentage it is. They say it’s 3 percent. But I would defund it, because I’m pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.
Translation: So to repeat I'm totally defunding Planned Parenthood which you know helps MILLIONS of women.....

Finally there was one last unique part to this debate...I think for the first time ever Donald Trump realized he was drowning, as evidenced by this exchange late into the debate:


HEWITT: Mr. Trump. You told me…

TRUMP: Are you going to ask anybody else that question?

Yep thats right, Donald Trump does not give a DAMN what the question is. Hes had enough of this shit. And in his defense, asking him questions like "what do you plan to do and how will it work?" or "so when you said this what did you mean?" are clearly above his limited abilities....

4) Carson & Kasich
So Im issuing my first ever tie here for Ben Carson and John Kasich. Because quite frankly neither one of them did a damn thing as this debate.

I mean I could make fun of Carson for talking about the "Fruit salad" of our lives or begging someone to attack him or John Kasich basically saying their is an alternative to Obamacare, its socialized medicine, or claiming not to believe your lying eyes there never was an actual revolution in Libya it was all an obama conspiracy, but the simple fact of the matter is, for the most part neither of them said anything...and even less that was memorable or important.   Now granted they also both avoided looking like morons, so they still rank higher than Trump, despite the fact the debate would have been no different had they both dropped out.

2) Cruz
So honestly Cruz and Rubio didnt really contribute much of their own to this debate. What they did do was kick trumps ass. So their standings here are honestly less about who did more to advance themselves, and more about who dished out the better ass-whopping to Trump.

So with that in minds, some Cruz/Trump highlights

First there was a straight up attack on Trump's allegedly strongest trait, his deal making ability

'You know, I actually think Donald is right [about how great his relationship is with people in Washington]. He is promising if he’s elected he will go and cut deals in Washington. And he’s right. He has supported — he has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats. Anyone who really cared about illegal immigration wouldn’t be hiring illegal immigrants. Anyone who really cared about illegal immigration wouldn’t be funding Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi; wouldn’t be funding the Gang of Eight. And, you know, he is right. When you stand up to Washington, when you honor the promise you made to the men and women who elected you and say enough with the corruption, enough with the cronyism, let’s actually stand for the working men and women of this country, Washington doesn’t like it.

And Donald, if you want to be liked in Washington, that’s not a good attribute for a president.

and continued to hit him with it thoughtout the debate. For example on the Supreme Court

'CRUZ: So that means on Supreme Court…

HEWITT: … can I…

CRUZ: … he’s going to look to cut a deal, rather than fight for someone who won’t cut a deal on the Constitution, but will defend it faithfully.

He also walked Donald Trump right into a trap on Socialized medicine:

On Obamacare, both Donald and I say we want to end it, but for very different reasons. I want to end it because it goes too far, it’s killed millions of jobs, and it’s hurting people’s health care. Donald wants to end it because he says it doesn’t go nearly far enough. And what was amazing in that exchange that was missing is for decades Donald has been advocating socialized medicine.

What he’s said is government should pay for everyone’s health care, and in fact, a couple of debates ago, he said, if you don’t support socialized health care, you’re heartless. Now, liberal Democrats have been saying that for years. Now let me tell you if you’re a small business owner, Donald Trump’s socialized medicine, putting the government in charge of your health care would kill more jobs than Obamacare, and if you’re elderly, the results of socialized medicine in every country on earth where it’s been implemented has been rationing, has been the government saying, no, you don’t get that hip replacement, you don’t get that knee replacement, the government is in charge of your health care.

[...]

TRUMP: I do not want socialized medicine, just so you understand. He goes around saying oh, he wants it. I do not want socialized medicine. I do agree with him that it’s going to be a disaster, Obamacare, for the economy.

[...]

CRUZ: Donald, true or false, you’ve said the government should pay for everyone’s health care.

TRUMP: That’s false.

CRUZ: You’ve never said that?

TRUMP: No, I said it worked in a couple of countries…

CRUZ: But you’ve never stood on this debate stage and says it works great in Canada and Scotland and we should do it here.

TRUMP: No, I did not. No I did not.

CRUZ: Did you say if you want people to die on the streets, if you don’t support socialized health care, you have no heart.

TRUMP: Correct. I will not let people die on the streets if I’m president.

CRUZ: Have you said you’re a liberal on health care?

TRUMP: Excuse me. Let me talk. If people…

CRUZ: Talk away. Explain your plan, please.

TRUMP: If people — my plan is very simple. I will not — we’re going to have private — we are going to have health care, but I will not allow people to die on the sidewalks and the streets of our country if I’m president. You may let it and you may be fine with it…

CRUZ: So does the government pay for everyone’s health care?

TRUMP: … I’m not fine with it. We are going to take those people…

CRUZ: Yes or no. Just answer the question.

TRUMP: Excuse me. We are going to take those people and those people are going to be serviced by doctors and hospitals. We’re going to make great deals on it, but we’re not going to let them die in the streets.

CRUZ: Who pays for it?

Problem for trump is, there is literally no possible interpretation of his last bit except that the government is going to pay for your healthcare and/or force you to have it......which is an anathema to the GOP base.

Not to mention in the exchanges before you can see trump getting more and more flusted since he actually DOESNT have a plan or an idea here.  (granted neither does any other republican but still)

Honestly the only thing that saved Trumps ass was Rubio deciding to interject himself following that last line from Cruz and changing the subject.....at least until Cruz went right back to it after Rubio was done.

CRUZ: It’s a yes or no.

TRUMP: Call it what you want, people are not going to be dying on the sidewalk.

And thats the problem for Trump, no matter what you call it, thats government run socialized healthcare...otherwise you cant make that promise.

Cruz hit Trump again later, when Trump claimed he couldnt release his tax returns cause hes being audited

CRUZ: So, I’ve released five years of tax returns already. We will have two more years available tomorrow. And I would note that this question really goes — you know, Donald says he’s being audited.Well, I would think that would underscore the need to release those returns. If he has said something that was false and that an audit is going to find was fraudulent, the voters need to know. 

Thats honestly a hard point to argue. And Trump didnt even try.

Now admittedly the second time Cruz hit him on this (later that night), he at least opened his mouth.....but didnt say much:

You know, it’s interesting — Donald went — went on — on an extended tirade about the polls, but he didn’t respond to any of the substance. He has yet to say — he can release past year’s tax returns. He can do it tomorrow.

He doesn’t want to do it, because presumably there’s something in there…

TRUMP: Nothing.

CRUZ: … that is bad. If there’s nothing, release them tomorrow.

(CROSSTALK)

CRUZ: They’re already prepared. The only reason he’s not releasing them…

TRUMP: You — you don’t…

CRUZ: … is because he’s afraid that he will get hit.

TRUMP: I’m not afraid (inaudible).

So hes not afraid and theres nothing in there......great defense. Point to Cruz.

Cruz followed this up by hammering him on the fraud case against Trump University....and again Trump basically couldnt complete a sentence

CRUZ: You know, Marco made reference earlier to the litigation against Trump University. It’s a fraud case. His lawyers have scheduled the trial for July.

I want you to think about, if this man is the nominee, having the Republican nominee on the stand in court, being cross-examined about whether he committed fraud. You don’t think the mainstream media will go crazy on that?
To which Trump said:

So — so let me ask you this, because you’re really getting beaten badly. I know you’re embarrassed — I know you’re embarrassed, but keep fighting — keep swinging, man (ph). Swing for the fences.

Let me just tell you — let me just tell you, the Trump University case is a civil case. Not a — it’s a civil case. It’s a case where people want to try and get — it’s a case that is nonsense.

It’s something I could have settled many times. I could settle it right now for very little money, but I don’t want to do it out of principle. The people that took the course all signed — most — many — many signed report cards saying it was fantastic, it was wonderful, it was beautiful.

As — and believe me, I’ll win that case. That’s an easy case. Civil case. Number two, as far as the taxes are concerned, I’m being audited. It’s a very routine audit, and it’s very unfair, because I’ve been audited for, I think, over 12 years.

Every year, because of the size of my company, which is very, very large, I’m being audited — which is a very large company.

Translation: I'm beating you in the polls.....Random Word Jibberish, throw out emergency adjectives...and did I mention I'm being audited?

Weird by the way how just a bit ago it was hed been audited for a couple of years....and now suddenly he's been audited for over a decade..... and of course trying to prove to people your not committing fraud is the best time to remind them that your finances are weird and keep attracting scrutiny....

Ted Cruz by the way caught that and latched on like a shark who smelled blood:

TRUMP: I’m being audited 12 years in a row, at least.

Now, until that audit’s done, and I don’t think anybody would blame me, I’m not giving it…

(CROSSTALK)

CRUZ: … the years you’re not being audited? Will you release those years?

BLITZER: Gentlemen, gentlemen, thank you.

TRUMP: (inaudible) audited for those years.

CRUZ: Which years? Which years are you being audited?

Again Trump was saved, this time by the intervention of Wolf Blitzer....

And when Cruz hit him on not really supporting Israel.....again had no real defense:

TRUMP: Well, look, my response is very simple. There is nobody on this stage that has done more for Israel than I have. Nobody. You might say, you might talk, you’re politicians, all talk, no action.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: I’ve been watching it all my life. You are all talk and no action.

CRUZ: Then name one specific thing you’ve done.

TRUMP: What I’ve seen up here — I mean, first of all, this guy is a choke artist, and this guy is a liar. You have a combination…

RUBIO: This guy always goes for…

TRUMP: You have a combination of factors. He can’t do it…

RUBIO: This is so typical.

TRUMP: … for the obvious reason, and he can’t do it because he doesn’t know how to tell the truth. Other than that, I rest my case.

Trump's defense is basically Ted Cruz is a poopy head.....and thats really all he's ever got.

That said, Trump did win one exchange with Cruz, when Cruz accused him of buying off exclusively liberal politicians (to prove Trumps secretly a liberal) and Trump pointed out one of the politicians he donated to was Ted Cruz...and except for offering him the check back, Cruz had nothing.  And since Cruz lost an exchange to Trump and Rubio didnt, thats why Cruz came in second.

1) Rubio

Now I alreadly covered Rubio getting Trump to admit he lied about the polish workers when I did Trump's section but I did save the end of it for here.....cause it shows how much Rubio got under Trumps skin:

RUBIO: He hired workers from Poland. And he had to pay a million dollars or so in a judgment from…

TRUMP: That’s wrong. That’s wrong. Totally wrong.

RUBIO: That’s a fact. People can look it up. I’m sure people are Googling it right now. Look it up. “Trump Polish workers,” you’ll see a million dollars for hiring illegal workers on one of his projects. He did it.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: That happened.

TRUMP: I’ve hired tens of thousands of people over my lifetime. Tens of thousands…

RUBIO: Many from other countries instead of hiring Americans.

TRUMP: Be quiet. Just be quiet.

Let me talk. I’ve hired tens of thousands of people. He brings up something from 30 years ago, it worked out very well. Everybody was happy.

RUBIO: You paid a million dollars.

TRUMP: And by the way, the laws were totally different. That was a whole different world.

There you have it folks, Donald Trumps best defenses "it was a long time ago" and "shut the fuck up".....

Rubio also hammered him near the end of the debate when Trump tried to mention Israel..


TRUMP: I’m a negotiator. I’ve done very well over the years through negotiation. It’s very important that we do that. In all fairness, Marco is not a negotiator. I watched him melt down and I’ll tell you, it was one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen. He’s not going down — excuse me…

RUBIO: He thinks a Palestinian is a real estate deal.

TRUMP: … wait a minute, and these people may even be tougher than Chris Christie. OK?

RUBIO: The Palestinians are not a real estate deal, Donald.

TRUMP: OK, no, no, no — a deal is a deal. Let me tell you that. I learned a long time ago.

RUBIO: A deal is not a deal when you’re dealing with terrorists. Have you ever negotiated with terrorists?

TRUMP: You are not a negotiator. You are not a negotiator.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And, with your thinking, you will never bring peace. You will never bring peace…

RUBIO: … Donald, might be able to (inaudible) Palestinians and Arabs, but it’s not a real estate deal…

TRUMP: … Excuse me, I want to be able to bring peace…

BLITZER: … Senator.

TRUMP: He will never be able to do it. I think I may be able to do it, although I will say this. Probably the toughest deal of any kind is that particular deal.

But the exchange that really won Rubio the night was after Trump got hammered on his wall. Rubio got a shot in, then spent the next several minutes just landing blow after blow after blow on a totally bewillered Trump.

RUBIO: Yeah, a couple points. If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Towers, he’ll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it. The second…

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Such a cute sound bite.

RUBIO: But it — no, it’s not a sound bite. It’s a fact. Again, go online and Google it. Donald Trump, Polish workers. You’ll see it.

The second thing, about the trade war — I don’t understand, because your ties and the clothes you make is made in Mexico and in China. So you’re gonna be starting a trade war against your own ties and your own suits.

TRUMP: All right, you know what?

RUBIO: Why don’t you make them in America?

TRUMP: Because they devalue their currency — they devalue their currencies…

RUBIO: Well, then make them in America.

TRUMP: … that makes it — well, you don’t know a thing about business. You lose on everything…

RUBIO: Well, make them in America.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you — they de-value their currency. They de-value their currencies.

RUBIO: Well then, make them in America.

TRUMP: That makes it — well, you don’t know a thing about business. You lose on everything you do.

RUBIO: Well, make them in America.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, they de-value their currencies. China, Mexico, everybody. Japan with the cars. They de-value their currencies to such an extent that our businesses cannot compete with them, our workers lose their jobs…

RUBIO: And so you make them in China and in Russia.

TRUMP: But you wouldn’t know anything about it because you’re a lousy businessman.

RUBIO: Well, I don’t know anything about bankrupting four companies. You’ve bankrupted..

TRUMP: No, I — and you know why? You know why?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I don’t know anything about…

TRUMP: You know why?

RUBIO: … starting a university, and that was a fake university.

BLITZER: One at a time.

TRUMP: First of all…

BLITZER: One at a time.

TRUMP: … first of all, that’s called a…

RUBIO: There are people who borrowed $36,000…

BLITZER: Hold on. One at a time, Mr. Trump.

RUBIO: … to go to Trump University, and they’re suing now — $36,000 to go to a university…

TRUMP: And by the way — and by the way…

RUBIO: … that’s a fake school.

TRUMP: … and by the way…

RUBIO: And you know what they got? They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump…

TRUMP: … I’ve won most of the lawsuits.

RUBIO: That’s what they got for $36,000.

BLITZER: All right, I want to move on.

TRUMP: And they actually did a very good job, but I’ve won most of the lawsuits.

BLITZER: Mr. Trump, Senator, I want to bring in…

RUBIO: Most of the lawsuits.

BLITZER: … I want to bring in my colleague Maria Celeste.

TRUMP: Excuse me. Hey Wolf, let me ask you. Am I allowed to respond to this?

BLITZER: You’re allowed — you’ve been responding.

TRUMP: OK. Well let — no, I haven’t. I really haven’t.

(LAUGHTER)

RUBIO: He’s talked through the whole thing.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Here’s a guy — here’s a guy that buys a house for $179,000, he sells it to a lobbyist who’s probably here for $380,000 and then legislation is passed. You tell me about this guy. This is what we’re going to have as president.

RUBIO: Here’s a guy that inherited $200 million. If he hadn’t inherited $200 million, you know where Donald Trump would be right now?

TRUMP: No, no, no.

RUBIO: Selling watches in (inaudible)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: (Inaudible) I took…

RUBIO: That’s where he would be. 

TRUMP: That is so wrong. We’ll work on that. I took $1 million and I turned into $10 billion.

RUBIO: Oh, OK. One million.

TRUMP: I borrowed $1 million…

RUBIO: Better release your tax returns so we can see how much money he made.

TRUMP: I borrowed $1 million, I turned it into $10 billion…

RUBIO: Oh, he doesn’t make that money.

TRUMP: … more than $10 billion.

Yep Rubio pivoted from the Wall on to Trumps insincerity on a trade war onto why Trump makes all his goods overseas if thats so bad, into Trump's fraud case, into how good or bad a businessman back into his taxes. And Trump basically stammered his way though the whole thing taking shot after shot after shot from Rubio with no defense at any point.

Special hat tip to Rubio by the way in the bolded part.....he used what he had been mocked for, repeating the exact same line over and over, to rain down blows on Trump.....that actually takes talent. 

Incidently though, that wasnt the only time Rubio unleashed a furry of shots on Trump, he did it again later when Trump tried to talk about Obamacare:

RUBIO: … What is your plan, Mr. Trump?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: What is your plan on healthcare?

TRUMP: You don’t know.

BASH: (inaudible)

TRUMP: … The biggest problem…

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: … What’s your plan…

TRUMP: … The biggest problem, I’ll have you know…

RUBIO: … What’s your plan… TRUMP: … You know, I watched him meltdown two weeks ago with Chris Christie. I got to tell you, the biggest problem he’s got is he really doesn’t know about the lines. The biggest thing we’ve got, and the reason we’ve got no competition, is because we have lines around the state, and you have essentially….

RUBIO: … We already mentioned that (inaudible) plan, I know what that is, but what else is part of your plan…

TRUMP: … You don’t know much…

RUBIO: … So, you’re only thing is to get rid of the lines around the states. What else is part of your healthcare plan…

TRUMP: … The lines around the states…

RUBIO: … That’s your only plan…

TRUMP: … and, it was almost done — not now…

RUBIO: … Alright, (inaudible)…

TRUMP: … Excuse me. Excuse me.

RUBIO: … His plan. That was the plan…

TRUMP: … You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you’ll have many. They’ll compete, and it’ll be a beautiful thing.

RUBIO: Alright…

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: So, that’s the only part of the plan? Just the lines?

BASH: (inaudible)

TRUMP: The nice part of the plan — you’ll have many different plans. You’ll have competition, you’ll have so many different plans.

RUBIO: Now he’s repeating himself.

TRUMP: No, no, no.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

TRUMP: (inaudible)

RUBIO: (inaudible)

(CHEERING)

TRUMP: (inaudible) I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago… RUBIO: … I just watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago…

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: I watched him meltdown on the stage like that, I’ve never seen it in anybody…

BASH: … Let’s stay focused on the subject…

TRUMP: … I thought he came out of the swimming pool…

RUBIO: … I see him repeat himself every night, he says five things, everyone’s dumb, he’s gonna make America great again…

BASH: … Senator Rubio…

RUBIO: … We’re going to win, win win, he’s winning in the polls…

BASH: … Senator Rubio, please.

RUBIO: … And the lines around the state.

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: … Every night.

BASH: Senator Rubio.

(CHEERING)

BASH: Senator Rubio, you will have time to respond if you would just let Mr. Trump respond to what you’ve just posed to him…

RUBIO: … Yeah, he’s going to give us his plan now, right? OK…

BASH: … If you could talk a little bit more about your plan. I know you talked about…

TRUMP: … We’re going to have many different plans because…

BASH: … Can you be a little specific…

TRUMP: … competition…

RUBIO: … He’s done it again.

(CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: There is going to be competition among all of the states, and the insurance companies. They’re going to have many, many different plans.

BASH: Is there anything else you would like to add to that…

TRUMP: No, there’s nothing to add.

Like I said before in Trumps section....asking him what his plan is really is above his abilities, and it turns out he doesnt have one....and again Rubio scores using the repeat rubio moment and beating Trump over the head with it.

And those two last, and long exchanges is what it looks like when someone actually shows up ready to take on Trump.....and shows how much trouble the GOP might be in if Trump actually wins and all 3 presidential debates wind up looking like that as they likely would no matter which democrat hed face.

So yea for basically beating Trump into a stammering mess, Marco Rubio wins this debate.

The 9th GOP Debate. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE

Got to be honest, out of all the debates so far, this was BY FAR the most vicious. I dont think a single candidate, which the except of Marco Rubio, left in anywhere near as good a shape as they came in (and thats only due to Rubio having bombed so badly last time he had no where to go but up....and even then as you will find out, not anywhere near a great debate for him tonight).

Now as usual, in case somehow you missed the last 8 times I did this, the rules:

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.
#6 Ben Carson (5/6)

Carson again tried his usual "be seen and not heard" approach this time however it didnt work so well for him as it took him seconds into the debate to say something stupid. Heres the very first question of the debate

"Dr. Carson. Dr. Carson, you, like others, put out a statement after the death [of Scalia] was announced, and you said the president should delay.

You've written a book on the constitution recently. What does the constitution say about whose duty it is here to act in this kind of a situation?

CARSON: Well, the current constitution actually doesn't address that particular situation, but the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court, obviously, is a very important part of our governmental system. And, when our constitution was put in place, the average age of death was under 50, and therefore the whole concept of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court judges, and federal judges was not considered to be a big deal.
Actually the Constitution is explicit on this point. The president, with the advise and consent of the Senate appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

Also not entirely sure where the average age of death number came from (i assume he made it up). Either that or we had some freaky mutant founding fathers. Consider Washington was 67 when he died, Adams was  90, Franklin 84,  Jefferson 83, Madison 85, Roger Sherman (only founder to sign all 4 founding documents) was 72, John Jay (first Chief Justice) was 83.

But in Carson's defense, Alexander Hamilton was 49. He was also murdered....oops.

But yea, other than this Carson basically said nothing.....but too late to not be thought a fool.

#5 Marco Rubio (3/7)

Well the good news is Machino Ruboto was successfully rebooted from the last debate. Bad news is we are going to need another update patch.....

For example: You talk about someone who defended consistently the original meaning of the Constitution, who understood that the Constitution was not there to be interpreted based on the fads of the moment, but it was there to be interpreted according to its original meaning[...]And we need to put people on the bench that understand that the Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is to be interpreted as originally meant.

Now maybe this is just me, but I always get a kick out of brown skinned folks who would have had exactly ZERO rights at the time the Constitution was written talk about how we need to enforce the original meaning......just saying, we need to reprogram the robot on this one.


And the Ruboto's calculator app is busted cause he said this too:
"Number two, I do not believe the president should appoint someone. And it's not unprecedented. In fact, it has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."

This was news to Justice Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice Roberts ALL of whom were appointed by a Lame Duck president (a president not reliable for reelection), none of whom actually realized theyd been on the court anywhere near that long......

Then it turns out his historical databases also need an update:

And you can -- I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he[W.] kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but no matter what you want to say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn't do anything about it, and George W. Bush enforced what the international community refused to do.

And again, he kept us safe, and I am forever grateful to what he did for this country.

Kinda interesting here is Rubio's defense of the Iraq war. Apparently according to him its totally fine and ok to go to war based on a lie.....just as long as you eventually something that proves the people you went to war with did something maybe kinda sorta a little tiny bit of bad.

Also their is the obligatory Bush kept us safe lie.....where we kinda pretend 9/11 didnt happen. No seriously:

"RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him."

See Bush kept us safe because that one time he didnt, it was someone elses fault he ignored the intelligence briefings.....

Then on Immigration we got this gem:

"You go back to 1986 when they legalized three million people and they promised to secure the border. It didn't happen, and as a result, people have lost trust in the federal government. It is now clear that the only way to make progress on immigration is not just to pass a law that enforces the law, but actually prove to people that it's working."

Hmm, so the reason no one trusts the federal government anymore is because in 1986 the federal government fucked them over. Who was president in 1986 again?

Hey I wonder how the Machino Ruboto feels about Reagan?


"DICKERSON: No president can know everything, right? So a smart leader knows how to ask questions. So if you could talk to any previous president, what's the smart question you would ask about that job that you would want to know?

RUBIO: Well, I think one of the presidents -- well, the president I grew up under was Ronald Reagan. And Reagan had a vision for America's future. And if you think about what Ronald Reagan inherited, it's not unlike what the next president is going to inherit.

This is the worst president we've had in 35 years, 35 years back would have made it Jimmy Carter. That's what Ronald Reagan inherited. And I think the question you would ask is how did you inspire again the American people to believe in the future?"

Um...per you, he didnt get people to believe in the future. In fact per you he massively fucked over the country and started the wave of distrust of the government back in 1986.....

"How did you -- what did it take to ensure that the American people, despite all of the difficulties of the time -- you know, you look back at that time, the American military was in decline. Our standing in the world was in decline. We had hostages being held in Iran. Our economy was in bad shape.

The American people were scared about the future. They were scared about what kind of country their children were going to live in and inherit. And yet somehow Ronald Reagan was able to instill in our nation and in our people a sense of optimism.

And he turned America around because of that vision and ultimately because of that leadership. I wish Ronald Reagan was still around. This country needs someone just like that.

And if our next president is even half the president Ronald Reagan was, America is going to be greater than it has ever been."


And apparently you want to go back to those god awful days (per you) in 1986 when the country was destroyed.....

I'm actually impressed I didnt think robots could be programmed with an oxymoron.

But Rubio's biggest problem came with this exchange when Ted Cruz attacked him by saying this:

"But I would note not only that, Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as speaker of the house, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama's illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office."

Rubio responded by saying: Well, first of all, I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish.

Now for starters this is a already a dumb line of attack unless of course Rubio doesnt realize languages can be translated, even if Cruz doesnt speak Spanish, its not impossible at all for him to know what you said.

But none of that matters......cause Cruz's reply was to speak in Spanish. OOPS.

Rubio tried to pivot by unleashing what would have been an otherwise somewhat devastating attack on Cruz for all the times hes been caught lying......but after being "proven" one on TV just seconds before, they had no credibility, and came across as desperate.

[Ironic side note by the way. Turns out some translators are claiming whatever Cruz said wasnt grammatically correct Spanish....so he probably doesnt speak Spanish.....he just memorized a few lines to throw in Rubio's face.....meaning he had figured out ahead of time how the rubiobot would be programmed to respond to him......to me the fact he was able to set Rubio up that easily and Rubio was that predictable, actually makes the attacks more devastating, however as this wasnt known at the time of the debate, it didnt actually impact my rankings here]

#4 Jeb Bush (4/2)

Bush spent a good chunk of the night as Donald Trump's bitch......hardly the forceful showing he needs.

However he also unveiled his new strategy of finally embracing his family name and presidential legacy (his brother for example has joined him on the campaign trail).....and then proceeded to spend half the night getting tripped up by it.

For example on Supreme Court Justices:

"The problem in the past has been we have appointed people thinking you can get it through the Senate because they didn't have a record. And the problem is that sometimes we're surprised.

The simple fact is the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record, similar to Justice Scalia, that is a lover of liberty, that believes in limited government, that consistently applied that kind of philosophy, that didn't try to legislator from the bench, that was respectful of the Constitution."

Now alot of Republicans actually think this, that they dont do a good job of vetting their court appointments because they have a bad habit of not actually being conservatives.

However most republicans arnt the Son and Brother of the two presidents who appointed all 3 remaining conservatives (Alito, Thomas and Roberts) on the Court....thats a bit awkward.

Or on Russia:

"The very basic fact is that Vladimir Putin is not going to be an ally of the United States. The whole world knows this. It's a simple basic fact."

Again not really a problem for most republicans....or democrats for that matter. Unless of course your the brother of the president who said this:

“I looked the man [putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”

But by far and away in my opinion, Bush's worst moment came in a 3 way spat with himself and Ted Cruz attacking Donald Trump, specifically after Donald said this

"TRUMP: Ted Cruz told your brother that he wanted John Roberts to be on the United States Supreme Court. They both pushed him, he twice approved Obamacare."

to which Bush's response was this:

BUSH: He called me a liar

BUSH: Also, he talked about one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan, was a liberal maybe in the 1950's. He was a conservative reformed governor for eight years before he became president and no one should suggest he made an evolution for political purposes. He was a conservative and he didn't tear down people like Donald Trump is. He tore down the Berlin Wall.
Now in the transcripts I'm looking at, (washington post, who also appear to have the only complete copy I can find) Reagan's not mentioned AT ALL for the last several minutes, but there was some crosstalk that the transcript didnt pick up, so lets be fair and assume Reagans name came up.......its still a major problem for Bush.

See the idea that Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall is a very popular one in conservative circles.....its also not even remotely true. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

You know who was president in 1989?

Are you fucking kidding me? apparently even his own son cant be bothered to give him the credit.....which is also kinda funny cause like I said, Bush's family history tripped him up all night, this was literally the one thing he could have used and NOT been tripped by.....and instead he gave it over to St. Ronald....... 

#3 Donald Trump (1/4)

Heres something I never thought I would say. I feel bad putting Donald Trump this low, because in objective world he actually did pretty well.

Problem is, he's not in an objective world, he's in a Republican Primary.  So he wound up getting booed for statements like

"The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that." (directed at Jeb Bush)

"They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Both of those statements are in fact correct. But as has been long noted Facts and Republican base voters dont get along.

He also actually did a near perfect job of answered the opening question about if President Obama should attempt to replace Justice Scalia.

"Well, I can say this. If the President, and if I were President now I would certainly want to try and nominate a justice. I'm sure that, frankly, I'm absolutely sure that President Obama will try and do it. I hope that our Senate is going to be able -- Mitch, and the entire group, is going to be able to do something about it."
Of course that also was too grounded in reality (a phrase I cant believe Im using with Trump) to go over well with the base. So yea, because hes in a GOP primary, I kinda have to mark him down based on audience reactions for his surprising ability to see reality on 3 issues.

Though as a net positive even in a GOP primary he did spend much of the debate sucker punching Jeb Bush with snarky comments

BUSH: Look, I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up, and I saw my mom. My mom is the strongest woman I know.

TRUMP: She should be running.

or

BUSH: I'm not going to invite Donald Trump to the rally in Charleston on Monday afternoon when my brother is coming to speak.

TRUMP: I don't want to go.

Although I dont want people to get the wrong idea, he did still have a lot of his usual problems of a massively overinflated ego and no substance, for example:

"First of all, I have to say, as a businessman I get along with everybody. I have business all over the world."

Or this exhange, which devolved quickly into the usual Trump Buzz-Word Salad after being pressed on details:

Major Garrett: I was with you in Pendleton, South Carolina earlier this week at the Rodeo Arena. It was a bit chilly there. You promised the crowd and they rose to their feet that if Ford or a company like were to move a factory to Mexico, you would try to stop it or threaten them with a 35 percent tax or tariff on every car sold. 

TRUMP: Or a tax.

GARRETT: Right. So my question is, based on your understanding of the presidency, where do you derive that power? Would you need the consent of Congress to go along? And do you see the presidency as a perch from which you can cajole and/or threaten private industry to do something you think is better for the U.S. economy?

TRUMP: I would build consensus with Congress and Congress would agree with me. I'll give you an example because I don't like the idea of using executive orders like our president. It is a disaster what he's doing. I would build consensus, but consensus means you have to work hard. You have to cajole. You have to get them into the Oval Office and get them all together, and you have to make deals.

Let me just tell you, I mentioned before, China -- big Chinese company bought the Chicago Exchange. Kerry is moving -- and if you saw the people, because they have a video of the announcement that Carrier is moving to Mexico, OK?

Well, I'll tell you what. I would go right now to Carrier and I would say I am going to work awfully hard. You're going to make air conditioners now in Mexico. You're going to get all of these 1400 people that are being laid off -- they're laid off. They were crying. They were -- it was a very sad situation. You're going to go to Mexico. You're going to make air conditioners in Mexico, you're going to put them across our border with no tax.

I'm going to tell them right now, I am going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you when those air conditioners come. So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.

But his single worst line of the debate had to come after he was asked this question:

DICKERSON: Mr. Trump, let me ask you a question. Presidents in both parties say that the one thing you need in your administration is somebody who can tell you you're wrong.

You don't necessarily seem like somebody who has somebody who tells you you're wrong a lot. Can you tell us of an instance where somebody has said, "Donald Trump, you're wrong," and you listened to them?

So can the great and powerful Trump BE wrong? is such a thing possible? lets find out:

TRUMP: Well, I would say my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time. And I listen.

DICKERSON: About what?

TRUMP: Oh, let me just say -- look, I am very open -- I hired top people. I've had great success. I built a great, great company. I don't need to do this. I'm self-funding. I'm spending a lot of money. I've spent -- like in New Hampshire, I spent $3 million. Jeb bush spent $44 million. He came in five, and I came in No. 1.

That's what the country needs, folks. I spent $3, he spends 42 of their money, of special interest money. And it's just -- this is not going to make -- excuse me. This is not going to make our country great again.

This is not what we need in our country. We need people that know what the hell they're doing. And politicians, they're all talk, they're no action. And that's why people are supporting me.

I do listen to people. I hire experts. I hire top, top people. And I do listen. And you know what? Sometimes they're wrong. You have to know what to do, when to do it. But sometimes they're wrong.

Nope, Donald Trump's never been wrong about anything.....but he does ALWAYS know when iehter people are wrong......

I think we can all agree that regardless of political party if you cant admit youve EVER been wrong, your probably way too mentally insane to be president....


#2 John Kaisch (6/3)

Dude was his usual self, sold and on message the whole time...but there was a small problem this time around and it came right here:

"John, the thing is, is I think that there are people now, these blue-collar Democrats -- my dad was a blue-collar Democrat -- the Democratic party has left them. When they're arguing about being socialists, they've left -- they have lost those blue-collar Democrats.

And you know what I think they get out of me -- is my sense of what they get out of me, and it's embarrassment about campaigns, you brag about yourself.

But I think I'm a uniter, I think people sense it. I think they know I have the experience, and that I'm a man that can give people hope and a sense that they have the opportunity rise. And I'll tell you, I love these blue-collar Democrats, because they're going to vote for us come next fall, promise you that."
Dont get me wrong, thats a great line for the general election, but playing up how much democrats love you in a Republican Primary? yea think this is a self inflicted kiss of death....next

#1 Ted Cruz (2/5)

Weirdly enough, I think Ted Cruz got booed more than Trump did....so apparently you can be too crazy and too sane for a GOP primary...who knew?

Despite that, and as much as I hate to say it, I think he still won.....although more due to others incompetence then his own skills.

For example, on the first round of questioning he almost walked into an on-air fact check....and then the moderator fucked up:

JOHN DICKERSON: Right, so Senator Cruz, (UNINTEL PHRASE) (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) so Senator, the constitution says the president shall appoint with advice and consent from the Senate, just to clear that up. So he has the constitutional power. But you don’t think he should. Where do you set that date if you’re president? Does it begin in election year, in December, November, September? Once you set the date when you’re president, will you abide by that date?

SEN. TED CRUZ: Well, we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year. And– and let me say, Justice Scalia–

JOHN DICKERSON: Just– can I– I’m sorry to interrupt, were any nomina– appointed in an election year? Or is that just there were 80 years happening–

SEN. TED CRUZ: Eight– 80 years of– of not confirming. For example, L.B.J. nominated Abe Fortas. Fortas did– did not get confirmed. He was defeated.

JOHN DICKERSON: But Kennedy was confirmed in ’88.

SEN. TED CRUZ: No, Kennedy was confirmed in eight– ’87.

JOHN DICKERSON: He was– he was appoi– he was appointed–(OVERTALK)

SEN. TED CRUZ: He– he was appointed in ’88– (OVERTALK)

JOHN DICKERSON: –that’s the– but is it appointing or confirming–(OVERTALK)

SEN. TED CRUZ: In this case, it’s both. But if I could– could answer this question–

JOHN DICKERSON: Sorry, all right, I just wanna get the facts straight for the audience. But I apologize. (AUDIENCE REACTION) (LAUGHTER)

Yea heres the thing. Kennedy was confirmed and appointed to the court (in that order) in 1988.....AKA Reagans last year in office.  (he was first nominated in 1987 however)


So the moderator was right......but got tripped up, and then apologized for trying to correct cruz, even though he was right.

Also for the record, were he still alive I'm pretty sure deceased Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas would be shocked to learn he was not confirmed to the Court. He'd also probibly be shocked to learn  this was done in LBJ's last year, since two years later rumor has it, LBJ put
Thurgood Marshall on the court.

anyways on to the other major moment that Cruz benefited from someone else fucking up would be when Marco Rubio randomly decided to claim Cruz was lying when he was attacking Rubio because Rubio had been speaking spanish and Cruz couldnt possibly have understood him. To which Cruz said this

Now I dont speak spanish, so I have no idea what Cruz actually said, but if I had to guess it was "hey dumbass, NEVER claim somone doesnt speak a langauge unless you are ABSOLUTELY positive they dont, otherwise you let them powne your ignorant ass"

 [note as mentioned before, I found out later apparently Cruz wasnt using correct Spanish, meaning he may not in fact speak spanish....which also makes the fact he was still ready and able to clobber Rubio this way plays pretty well in his favor]

And actually to the one thing Cruz did do himself to actually earn this spot....he straight up caught Donald Trump in the jaw with this attack:

"CRUZ: You know flexibility is a good thing but it shouldn't - you shouldn't be flexible on core principles. I like Donald, he is an amazing entertainer but his policies for most of his life...

TRUMP: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

CRUZ: For most of his life his policies have been very very liberal. For most of his life, he has described himself as very pro- choice and as a supporter of partial birth abortion. Right now today as a candidate, he supports federal tax payer funding for Planned Parenthood. I disagree with him on that.

That's a matter of principle and I'll tell you...[shit ton of arguing and crosstalk]"

Which eventually lead to this later in the exchange:

"CRUZ: You said, "Planned Parenthood does wonderful things and we should not defund it."

TRUMP: It does do wonderful things but not as it relates to abortion.

CRUZ: So I'll tell you what...

TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me, there are wonderful things having to do with women's health."

So yea, score one more for Trump's surprising ability to understand and perceive reality....but since this is a Republican Primary, stick a fork in him hes fucking done, and Ted Cruz gets the credit for making Trump admitted Republican Satan.....err Planned Parenthood isnt all evil.

So yea, because Trump, Rubio and moderator John Dickerson all dropped the ball.....I have to (as much as it feels undeserved) declare Ted Cruz the winner of the 9th GOP debate.

GOP playing a losing hand with Scalia's court seat.

Ok so as I'm sure everyone knows by now, Supreme Court Antonin Scalia died yesterday, and it appears his death has set off a bit of a firestorm.

See normally when a Supreme Court Justice dies, they are replaced fairly quickly. But not this time.

This time the GOP is deciding to grandstand by doing what they do best.....do nothing. In fact Senat Majority leader McConnell already pledged not to allow a vote on any justice until the next president is sworn in.

Of course like most GOP grandstanding over the last 8 years, the more you look at it, the more you realize the GOP hasnt really thought this through and really are in the process of cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

Ok,so everyday Scalia's seat remains vacant is a day the GOP cant not win at the Supreme Court. As constituted without Scalia the Court contains 4 liberals, 3 conservatives and a swing (Kennedy). What this means is that rather that the 5-4 rulings we have all become accustomed to, in which the only question is what side did Kennedy (or occasionally Roberts) rule on, the most likley outcomes are now a 5-3 liberal win, or a 4-4 tie.

Now in the case of a tie the appeals court ruling (whatever that may be) remains in place, BUT only for that particular courts jurisdiction, and should two appeals courts rule differently on the same issue....well at a national level the federal government is free to pick with ruling they want to follow and ignore the other.

Problem for Republicans is that the Circuit courts tend to be liberal, to the tune of 9 out of 13 of them (at least judging by number of judges appointed by democratic presidents compared to republicans). So leaving legal decisions at the Circuit court level is basically on probibility of having a conservative ruling at the circuit court level a loser for the GOP.

By the way did we mention, Abortion, Immigration, Unions, Affirmative Action, Voting Rights, and Energy are all on the SCOTUS Docket this year? And it was possible the Conservatives could have won on any of these? Yea....well not so much anymore....instead most of these will be returned the Circuit courts, and any challenge to the nations existing laws on this issue will have to start again.


Now I know what your thinking, even if the the GOP didnt obstruct Obama, he wouldnt be appointing a conservative anyways would he?

No......but there was a good chance he could have been made to appoint a liberal swing justice (think like a liberal Anthony Kennedy), given that he has a long history of finding center ground that is 60-80% of the way to the republican position (as he did on Obamacare, the sequester, most of his budgets ect), and as mentioned the GOP does control the senate.....so they are in a position to stop a true liberal.

A position they may not be in for much longer.

See simple math says the Democrats actually have a really good chance of taking back the Senate in 2016, regardless of which party wins the presidency.

So in 2016, there are a total of 34 senate seats up for grabs. 24 of them are currently held by Republicans (12 of which are considered unattainable by democrats) .....only the remaining 10 are held by Democrats, and of those 10, 8 of them are generally considered unattainable by republicans.

So there are really only 14 seats in play, and almost all (12) of those are republican seats. and the Dems only need 5 seats to take back the senate.  (and did we mention 3 GOP seats  are in states the Dems have won in every presidential election year going back 20 years?)

Now because of this natural advantage for the Dems in the senate, the two most likely outcomes (in no order) are a Democratic president and senate in 2016 or a Republican president with a Democratic Senate in 2016.

Problem is, for the GOP's gambit on keeping Scalia's seat empty to work, they need both a republican president and a republican senate. Which is to be fair, the 3rd (of the 4) most likely outcomes.....but at the same time, being the 3rd most likely outcome also means odds are pretty good its not going to happen,

Then their is the additional problem, its not JUST that the republican needs to win the White House, the RIGHT republican (and there really is just one) needs to win the white house.  What do I mean by that? well lets take a look at the candidates and I'll show you.

Donald Trump:

Here's a guy the Republican establishment doesnt like.....and guy likely to appoint 1 of 2 types of people to the court: People who knows (who are likely to yes men from New York....so probably wont get backed even by republicans) or people who are viewed by everyone as being as crazy as he is (again his nominees may get blocked by republicans)

also it should be noted, we cant discount the chance of Trump (who was himself until very recently a liberal) nominating a person he knows well who is also liberal, it wouldnt be totally surprising if he did get a nominee the Dems actually liked and the GOP hated)

Ted Cruz:

Not sure if youve noticed, but Senate Republicans pretty much absolutely hate this man, and its on a personal level.....not to mention most of them tend to think hes only in it for himself and doesnt care about the party.

Which means I dont think the Senate republicans are really going to fight to get this man's nominees appointed.....they may even block his top choice nominees on the chance the GOP controls the senate, because they will likely claim that his nominees are crazy.

It other words from a PR standpoint neither of these are great choices for the republicans, and opposition to eithers appointments might be bipartisan meaning the GOP cant even make polticial hay out of it and that seat could be vacant for a long time.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush:

So in the possibility that the GOP control the Senate, these guys are probably the GOP's best bets.   They would quickly find and get confirmed legitimate but sane right wing judges.

BUT in the mathematically much more likely scenario that the Democrats hold the Senate....well John Kasich is currently campaigning by directly playing to democrats as to how similar in view he is to them, and Jeb Bush isnt doing it openly, but on a lot of positions is actually pretty close to Barack Obama.

In other-words with a Democratic Senate, these two are the GOP's worst nightmares, as the nominees they would appoint are likely going to be nearly the same as whoever Obama would have appointed with the current GOP controlled Senate. Most likely that person would wind up being at best a second swing vote in the mold of Anthony Kennedy.

Meaning that for either of these guys, in the most likely senatorial election outcome, the GOP will have gained nothing from grandstanding as far as who got appointed, but also have to deal with the backlash of obstructing for a year AND have another republican appointed justice their base is going to hate.

Which brings us to the final Republican candidate Marco Rubio (all due respect to Ben Carson, but hes got no chance in hell)

Rubio is kinda a mix here. With a republican senate, hes likely identical to Bush and Kasich.....but with a Democratic Senate he's closer to Cruz and Trump. By which I mean he's likely to fight alot longer to try to get an actual conservative on Scalia's seat, and that seat may be vacant longer than the GOP intends.

Which means really for this gamble to pay off for the GOP, even out of their own candidate, the nominee better be Marco Rubio.....any of the other 4 guys are a problem (cause again a vacant SCOTUS seat kinda favors Democratic ideology just based on the makeup of the circuit courts)

And again, thats just the GOP's own nominees.

What if a Democrat gets elected? How badly could this blow up in their face?

Well a Democratic President with a Republican Senate is probibily the least likely outcome (given that most of the vulnerable GOP senate seats are in solid democrat or swing states in presidential elections, so this only happens with a massive amount of split ticket voting) so the odds are extremely good that if a Democrat gets elected, they will have a senate that will allow them to appoint anyone they damn well want to the Court.

And Hillary Clinton has said she would consider appointing Obama.

Thats right, the Republican gambit here to stop Obama from influencing the Supreme Court has a chance of winding up with Obama ON the Supreme Court. Talk about a backfire for the Republicans if that happens. (and even if she doesnt go with Obama, I doubt the GOP would love her nominee anyways)

But as bad as that would be by republican standards.....it could get worse. After all if Hillary's not the Democratic President, Bernie Sanders is.

And what do you think the chances are of him appointing anyone less liberal than say Ruth Bader Ginsberg? yea I didnt think so.


So yea to sum up I really dont "get" the long term gamble here. The odds of it paying off for Republicans seem much lower than the odds of them getting someone as bad or worse than anyone they think Obama could appoint, especially when combined with their odds of being in a postion to do something about it.

------------------------------------------UPDATE-----------------------------

NBC news has an article up this morning (2/16/16) pointing out another thing to consider here.
After the November election the new congress takes their seats January 3rd, the new President January 20th.

What that means is that for 17 days President Obama will have a new Senate to work with....specifically a Senate that has good odds of being controlled by the Democrats. (especially since as long as Joe Biden (a Democrat) is VP, they only need 4 seats to control the senate)

And the Filibuster rule can be amended by simple majority vote on day one of any senate session

So Obama could nominate a super liberal justice on January 3rd 2017, (as opposed to the more centrist one hed be forced to appoint now)  and the senate would have plenty of time to confirm this person......and likely would in the scenario in which the GOP won the presidency but lost the Senate.

So yea, thats to NBC pointing that out, the chances of this working out in the GOP's favor are basically totally riding on them winning BOTH the senate and presidential races.   

----------------------------END UPDATE------------------------

The 8th GOP Debate Analysis: Paging Doctor Carson, please report to the stage....and how many candidates do we have? 6? 7?

Lets get this out of the way upfront....this was a weird ass debate. It started off badly when it started 15 minutes late, and that set the tone for night. There was literally NO ONE on stage who had an average or decent debate. They all either imploded phenomenally or had a stellar debate, no middle ground. (and by the way if we are going by production ability, just opening 2 to 3 minutes makes ABC the worst ever at producing debates)

Now as always, the rules:

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 inmy previous analysis.

Now of course Trump skipped the last debate...so I am going to have a special notification for him.


#7 Marco Rubio (3/6)

Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.
Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.
Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.

Uh sorry, got caught in a Rubio-loop.

Seriously though who could forget this:

"And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world."

this:

"But I would add this. Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country."

and this:

"Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing."

It seems that was literally his answer for EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. Did I mention by the way these were all taken from the opening like 5 minutes of the debate?

The first was in reference to his inexperience, the second in reply to Chris Christie agreeing Rubio was inexperenced, and the 3rd......well actually you go to see the 3rd to believe it so here it is in context (which is mostly Govenor Christie)

"CHRISTIE: I think he mentioned me and my record in there, so I think I get a chance to respond. You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this. That's what Washington, D.C. Does. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him. See Marco -- Marco, the thing is this. When you're president of the United States, when you're a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person. They expect you to plow the snow. They expect you to get the schools open. And when the worst natural disaster in your state's history hits you, they expect you to rebuild their state, which is what I've done.

None of that stuff happens on the floor of the United States Senate. It's a fine job, I'm glad you ran for it, but it does not prepare you for president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

MUIR: Senator Rubio?

RUBIO: Chris -- Chris, your state got hit by a massive snowstorm two weeks ago. You didn't even want to go back. They had to shame you into going back.And then you stayed there for 36 hours and then he left and came back to campaign. Those are the facts.

Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing.

CHRISTIE: There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody."

Thats right, he go to response that he had memorized and was only able to give that one reply......was to do it a 3rd time.

*faceplam*

Christie by the way also took issue with claim that New Jersey had to shame him into going back for the blizzard.....and that did end well for Rubio either:

CHRISTIE: Oh, so -- wait a second. Is that one of the skills you get as a United States senator ESP also? Because I don't think it is.

RUBIO: Chris, everybody -- you said you weren't going to go back. He told everyone he wasn't going to go back. They had to shame him into going back. And when he decided to go back, he criticized the young lady, saying, what am I supposed to do, go back with a mop and clean up the flooding?

CHRISTIE: It gets very unruly when he gets off his talking points.

Seriously, 7 or 8 minutes into the debate, and the only way Marco Rubio wasnt going to be at the bottom of my list......and EVERYONE else's was to have a fantasic debate from there out.

So how'd he do?

Well he was asked if the US should have launched a preemptive strike against a North Korean Missile, his response:

"Here's the broader point, as well, and then I think it touches on what Donald just mentioned. Barack Obama views America as this arrogant global power that needed to be cut down to size. OK?  This is a president that views this country as a country that's been too powerful in the world and we create problems around the world."

That sounds kinda familiar......although credit for changing the wording?

Or when challenged by Chris Christie....again....over his handling of the gang of eight immigration bill:

"Well, here's the response. I think anyone who believes that Barack Obama isn't doing what he's doing on purpose doesn't understand what we're dealing with here, OK? This is a president -- this is a president who is trying to change this country."
Oh for fucks sake.....

#6 Ben Carson (4/7)

I do have to give Rubio Credit for one thing though....at least he made it to the start of the debate before massively fucking up, I cant say the same for the good doctor:

And its not like things went much better for Carson once he got there:

his first question was about his reaction to Ted Cruz lying about him dropping out.

To which his reply was:

Well, you know, when I wasn't introduced No. 2, as was the plan, I thought maybe he thought I already had dropped out. But...

Um, yea, you WERE introduced second.....you just apparently got lost or something coming down the aisle. 

But you know, today is the 105th anniversary, or -- 105th birthday of Ronald Reagan. His 11 Commandment was not to speak ill of another Republican. So, I'm not going to use this opportunity to savage the reputation of Senator Cruz. But I will say -- I will say -- I will say that I was very disappointed that members of his team thought so little of me that they thought that after having hundreds, if not thousands of volunteers and college students who sacrificed their time and were dedicated to the cause -- one even died -- to think that I would just walk away ten minutes before the caucus and say, "Forget about you guys."

I mean, who would do something like that? Now, I don't think anyone on this stage would do something like that. And to assume that someone would, what does that tell you? So, unfortunately, it did happen.

Translation: So I'm not going to talk bad about Senator Cruz.....except I am. But I dont believe anyone on this stage would do that intentionally. But they did

Um What?

Now to be fair to Carson the other times he spoke he didnt actually do that bad...hence why hes ahead of Rubio. Problem is, he only spoke about 5 more times in the debate.....mostly clustered towards the end of the 2nd hour. So yea, the whole "not taking" debate stratigey has never really worked well in my opinion

#5 Ted Cruz (2/3)

Right out of the box Ted Cruz backpeddled in awe of Donald Trump. This was his opening question:

"MUIR: Mr. Trump, thank you. I want to bring this to Senator Cruz, then. Because Senator, you did said of Trump's behavior this week, that's not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe. Why not?

CRUZ: Well, you know, David, the assessment the voters are making here in New Hampshire and across the country is they are evaluating each and every one of us. They are looking to our experience. They are looking to our knowledge. They are looking to our temperament and judgment. They are looking to our clarity of vision and our strength of resolve.

The world is getting much more dangerous. We've had seven years with Barack Obama in the oval office, a commander-in-chief that is unwilling even to acknowledge the enemy we're facing. This is a president who, in the wake of Paris, in the wake of San Bernardino, will not even use the words radical Islamic terrorism, much less focus on defeating the enemy.

I am convinced every individual standing on this stage, would make a much better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

And the primary voters are making the assessment for each of us, who is best prepared to keep this country safe, to rebuild the military, to rebuild our Navy, our Air Force, our Army, our Marines, and to ensure that we keep America safe.

MUIR: Senator Cruz, I did ask about Mr. Trump. You said he doesn't have the temperament to be commander-in-chief. Do you stand by those words?

CRUZ: I think that is an assessment the voters are going to make. And they are going to make it of each and everyone of us. They are going to assess who is level-headed, who has clear vision, who has judgment, who can confront our enemies, who can confront the threats we face in this country, and who can have the judgment when to engage and when not to engage -- both are incredibly important for a commander-in-chief, knowing how to go after our enemies.

In the case of Iran, for example, who has the clarity of vision to understand that the Ayatollah Khamenei, when he chants, "Death to America," he means it. We need a president with the judgment and resolve to keep this country safe from radical Islamic terrorists."

He went on from there to channel his inner Newt Gingrich in his anwer to the "should we preemtively shoot down a north korean missile question, his reply was yes because:

"As it would orbit around the Earth, and as it got over the United States they would detonate that nuclear weapon and set of what's called an EMP, and electromagnetic pulse which could take down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern seaboard, potentially killing millions."
Except that, no one has the ability to do that yet.......especially not North Korea. But i'm glad to see the crazy that was Newt Gingrich lives.

Then there was his answer about what to do about illegal immigration:z

" So, in terms of a practical solution, I've laid out the most detailed plan for solving illegal immigration. It's 11 pages, single-spaced, chapter and verse. It's on our website, tedcruz.org.

In short, we're going to do, we're going to build a wall. We're going to triple the border patrol. We're going to increase -- and actually, since Donald enjoyed that, I will simply say, I've got somebody in mind to build it.

We're going to increase four-fold, the fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, so that you have technology monitoring an attempted incursion to direct the boots on the ground where they're occurring. We're going to put in place a strong e-verify system in the workplace, so you can't get a job without proving you are here legally.

We'll put in place a biometric exit-entry system on visas, because 40 percent of illegal immigration comes not over the border illegally, but people coming on visas and overstaying."
So thats militarize the border, give donald trump a blowjob, and then give Christie a reach around on his idea of placing tracking chips in ALL immigrants.

Speaking of weird answers, we have his answer to is water boarding torture?

CRUZ: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems, so under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.

MUIR: If elected president, would you bring it back?

CRUZ: I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use. And indeed, I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels.

But when it comes to keeping this country safe, the commander in chief has inherent constitutional authority to keep this country safe. And so, if it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe.

No its not torture....but that said we cant just let ANYONE do it, cause they might do in a way that it is torture. but its not. So Id use it. but only when I absolutely have to cause you know it might be torture.

Its weird too, Cruz is the only guy to win a primary so far....so why was he running away from everything and trying to look like Trump? (AKA the guy he beat)

#4 Donald Trump (1/wet his pants in fear of Megyn Kelly so didnt show up) 
In fairness to Trump this was probably his best debate yet, so good in fact his performance was already made into a highly successful video on youtube:

Seriously if you take a shot every time Trump said win we'd all be dead.

But in between mentions of how he was "Duh. Winning" Trump did have a few stumbles.

For example he got the same question Rubio did about preemptive strikes against North Korean missiles and his answer was:

"We have -- tremendous -- has been just sucked out of our country by China. China says they don't have that good of control over North Korea. They have tremendous control. I deal with the Chinese all of the time. I do tremendous -- the largest bank in the world is in one of my buildings in Manhattan.

I deal with them. They tell me. They have total, absolute control, practically, of North Korea. They are sucking trillions of dollars out of our country -- they're rebuilding China with the money they take out of our country. I would get on with China, let China solve that problem."

Which isnt surprising really..China is Trump's go to word anytime something vaguely Asian sounding comes up.

Then there was the whole exchange on eminent domain, in which he got in fight with Jeb....and I tend to think Jeb got the best of it.

Trump: Well, let me just tell you about eminent domain because almost all of these people actually criticize it, but so many people have hit me with commercials and other things about eminent domain.

Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have hospitals, you wouldn't have anything. You wouldn't have schools, you wouldn't have bridges. You need eminent domain. And a lot of the big conservatives that tell me how conservative they are -- I think I'm more than they are -- they tell me, oh -- well, they all want the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, without eminent domain, it wouldn't go 10 feet, OK? You need eminent domain. And eminent domain is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And what a lot of people don't know because they were all saying, oh, you're going to take their property. When somebody -- when eminent domain is used on somebody's property, that person gets a fortune. They get at least fair market value, and if they are smart, they'll get two or three times the value of their property. But without eminent domain, you don't have roads, highways, schools, bridges or anything.

So eminent domain -- it's not that I love it, but eminent domain is absolutely -- it's a necessity for a country. And certainly it's a necessity for our country.

MCELVEEN: So would that be yes on the Northern Pass project?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Yes.

BUSH: The difference -- the difference between eminent domain for public purpose -- as Donald said, roads and infrastructure, pipelines and all that -- that's for public purpose. But what Donald Trump did was use eminent domain to try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City. That is not public purpose, that is down right wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

And here's the problem with that. The problem was, it was to tear down -- it was to tear down -- it was to tear down the house...

TRUMP: Jeb wants to be -- he wants to be a tough guy tonight. I didn't take the property.

BUSH: And the net result was -- you tried.

TRUMP: I didn't take the property.

BUSH: And you lost in the court.

TRUMP: The woman ultimately didn't want to do that. I walked away.

BUSH: That is not true. And the simple fact is to turn this into a limousine parking lot for his casinos is a not public use.

(APPLAUSE)

And in Florida, based on what we did, we made that impossible. It is part of our Constitution. That's the better approach. That is the conservative approach.

MCELVEEN: Mr. Trump, take 30 seconds.

TRUMP: Well, let me just -- you know, he wants to be a tough guy. A lot of times, you'll have -- you'll have -- and it didn't work very well.

BUSH: How tough it is to take away property from an elderly woman?

TRUMP: A lot of time -- let me talk. Quiet. A lot of times -- a lot of times...

BUSH: How tough it is to take away a property from an elderly woman?

TRUMP: ... you -- let me talk. Let me talk. Quiet. A lot of times...

(BOOING)

... that's all of his donors and special interests out there.

(BOOING)

So -- it's what it is. That's what -- and by the way, let me just tell you, we needed tickets. You can't get them. You know who has the tickets for the -- I'm talking about, to the television audience? Donors, special interests, the people that are putting up the money.

(BOOING)

That's who it is. The RNC told us. We have all donors in the audience. And the reason they're not loving me...

(BOOING)

... the reason they're not -- excuse me. The reason they're not loving me is, I don't want their money. I'm going to do the right thing for the American public. I don't want their money. I don't need their money. And I'm the only one up here that can say that.

Eminent domain, the Keystone pipeline -- do you consider that a private job? Do you -- do you consider that...

BUSH: I consider it a public use.

TRUMP: No -- no, let me ask you, Jeb.

(BELL RINGS)

Do you consider the Keystone pipeline private?

BUSH: It's a public use. It's a public use.

TRUMP: Is it public or private?

BUSH: It's a public use. TRUMP: Real -- a public use?

BUSH: Yeah.

TRUMP: No, it's a private job.

BUSH: It's a public use.

TRUMP: It's a private job.

BUSH: Established by the courts -- federal, state courts.

TRUMP: You wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline that you want so badly without eminent domain.

lets break that down. Trump didn't have the greatest response to trying to take the elderly woman's house (his excuse being basically, "I failed"), and assuming everyone who disagreed with him in the crowd were basically paid Bush lackeys I dont think won him any fans with people watching at home or undecideds in the crowds.  Then the weird bit at the end where he starts badgering Bush to give him an answer....even though Bush already did.....apparently the word "use" threw Trump off and confused him.


Then there was this bit, in a reply about what we should do about ISIS:

"We actually have a case where we don't want to bomb the oil, because we don't want to hurt -- pollute the atmosphere. Can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur or General Patton saying we can't bomb because we're gonna hurt the atmosphere?"

Actually as a matter of fact....yes I can. So can pretty much anyone else. Cause most military generals dont want to do something that could get their own men....or even worse their own civilian populations killed......like say poisoning the breathable air.

I guess Trump figures he's rich enough to buy canned air when it all runs out

But probably the strangest oddest thing Trump has said yet was here:

But we will galvanize the people of this country, and we will beat Hillary Clinton. Because -- assuming that she runs, by the way, how she gets away with the e-mail stuff is hard to believe. So, I don't know that she's going to be running. But on the assumption she runs...
Assuming she runs? shes been running for like a year or so now.....and its not like its an obscure fact, Im pretty sure EVERYONE in the country is aware of this.......or well ALMOST everyone it seems.

---------------------------------------------UPDATE---------------------------------------

So I missed this the original few times I watched the intro mishaps. But Donald Trump also didnt enter when called. I had thought he'd come out to try to help out Carson (who I assumed hadnt heard the stage hand).....but instead it appears he made the intentional choice NOT to enter the stage, as he wanted to go on last cause you know biggest spotlight.

Anyways had I correctly caught this rather ugly display of pure ego and self centerism by Trumo BEFORE I published this this morning, Id have swapped him and Cruz in the rankings. Cause while it makes him look confused when going to help Carson, when viewed correctly it makes him look petty and insecure.....which he is but still

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

#3 John Kaisch (7/5)

And now we finally reach the 1st of 3 candidates who had a stellar debate.

Kasich managed to do a great of expanding on his usually "i did great shit for ohio" by actually explaining some of his national policy ideas.

For example, what he would do on immigration:

"Well, you know, David, I -- I've just spent a lot of time here in this state, as I mentioned earlier, and we have to have practical solutions, just like we were just talking about a few minutes ago on North Korea. Look, the situation is, we need to finish the border. It has to be completed. Just like we lock our doors at night, the country has to be able to lock its doors. And we can have a guest worker program, where people can come in and out in an orderly way.

And then for the 11.5 million that are here, if they have not committed a crime since they've been here, I believe they ought to pay some back taxes, pay a fine, never get on the path to citizenship, but get legalization. It is not -- I couldn't even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they've been here, leaving their children in the house. I mean, that is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.

And secondly, I think at the end of the day, that Americans would support a plan like this. I think Congress would pass a plan to finish the border, guest worker, pay a fine, a path to legalization, and not citizenship. And we've got to get this done. And I will tell you this, within the first 100 days that I am president, I will put that proposal to the Congress. And I will tell you, as a former Congressman, and an executive, in Ohio, I can promise you that I believe you'll get the votes to pass that, and we can move on with that issue and protect our border. That's what I think.

Or policing, in which he actually made a case for bipartisanship:

"I wanted -- I wanted to say, look, this -- there can be a win-win here. I have formed a collaborative between police and community leaders because people have to respect law enforcement. A family doesn't want dad or mom going home in a box. And for our community leaders, many of them think the system not only works -- not only doesn't work for them, but it works against them.

And I created a big collaborative in Ohio made up of law enforcement, community leaders, the head of my public safety and a former Democrat, liberal Senate senator Nina Turner, run it. They got together, they made recommendations on recruiting, on hiring, on the use of deadly force and what we're about to do is to bring community and police together so we can have a win-win.

We need more win-wins in America and we don't have to pick one over another divide. We love the police, but we've got to be responsible to the people in the community. We have to do all of that."

Or his VA plan:

Josh, I mean, clearly, when a veteran comes home, they should get health care anywhere they want to go. In our state, which is what we should do in the country, you know, if they drive a truck from Kabul to Kandahar in Afghanistan, we say, you can drive a truck from Columbus to Cleveland, and you don't have to go get a license. We're going to hand you one.

And if you've got expertise in the military, we're going to give you college credit or community college credit for the things that you did for our country. And in addition to that, I'll tell you, one of the biggest things I think has to be done -- and I would do it as president -- the Pentagon has got to work with the returning soldier, sailor, along with the family, and we -- they're the most valuable employees in the country. I call them golden employees.

Everybody wants to hire a veteran. But there is a disconnect between the job openings and the veteran when the veteran comes back. The veteran is a leader. The veteran is strong. The veteran is drug free. There should be no unemployment among veterans.

And if the Pentagon will work with the veterans' services agencies all across this country, Josh, we can get people jobs and we can get them jobs quickly, get them their health care get them their college education. Let's lift them. They're the greatest people defending the United States of America and we need to take care of them, and we will. We will.

Really the only thing that hurt was his lack of speaking time. I havnt checked the numbers but I wouldnt be surprised to find out only Dr. Carson spoke less than he did. That said, I think he made a really positive impression with the time he did have.

Well except when he missed his intro.....but to be fair that was the theme of the night.

#2 Jeb! Bush (5/2)

There wasnt too much that stood out about Bush's performance this time around. At least outside of the whooping he gave Trump that I showed above. Other wise he more or less followed the usual "how to sell yourself in a debate" playbook and did a pretty good job playing up his personal accomplishments, but most of his "non Trump's an idiot" opinions sounded the exact same as Kaisch's and Christie's.

Which since they all had great debates, and gave strong answers means Bush did well. But it also means I cant give him the win since he didnt do much else to stand out.

#1 Chris Christie (6/1)

Christie is now the first person to be declared [by me] the winner of back to back debates this entire campaign season. And its mostly because he ate Marco Rubio for lunch (and I dont mean that as a fat joke, its the only expression that really conveys how badly he beat up Rubio).

He came across strong, never really said anything stupid, made no mistakes. Only real weakness was like most of the not Kaisch candidates he never gave any details. Still given that their is no real difference on many issues in the primaries this isnt a huge flaw, so I give him the edge over Bush, since his mauling of Marco Rubio was much much much more effective and more delivered in a way the voters will remember it than Bush's spat with Trump was.

Though if I did have to pick a "not killing off Marco Rubio" high light for Christie it would be this:

"Well, [John Kasich] deserves credit for his record on jobs. He's done a very good job as governor of Ohio. Never said that John hasn't. He's done a very good job.

But -- but unfortunately, John's been so busy doing over stuff, he's using old statistics. That's OK. New Jersey had its best year of job growth in the last 15 years under five different governors this year in New Jersey. New Jersey cut spending over $2.3 billion and we have 10,000 fewer employees than we had when I walked in the door. John has a bigger government now and more employees than he had when he walked in the door."

This is that 11th commandment all republicans are always talking about....where they dont attack each other in a way that would hurt the entire party....but also done in a way in which Christie can also strengthen himself.

If you believe the 11th commandment rule, I would say this should now be your textbook example.