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."
"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.
#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."
"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]
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.......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment