CNN GOP Debate - Winners & Losers

[rhuarc29]

Who did well, who did poorly, and who spun their wheels? What do you think? My take:

Winners:
1) Carly Fiorina - I have to say that she did flawlessly tonight. The only black spot is when Christie trivialized her and Trump's business record.
2) Chris Christie - Passionate and played perfectly to the crowd. Responded strongly to criticism.
3) Marco Rubio - Clear and concise with his policies. On point.

Wheel Spinners:
4) Ben Carson - Too mellow to really stand out. Too mellow to make any big mistakes too.
5) Jeb Bush - Much more energy, not much ground gained.
6) Scott Walker - Same as Jeb. More forceful, but where's the appeal?
7) Ted Cruz - No chance of winning the nomination, but he's going to be around a long time yet.
8) Mike Huckabee - As with Cruz, no chance of winning, but he's not really going to decline off that stage either.

Losers:
9) John Kasich - Barely a presence. And when he did have a presence he mostly fell flat.
10) Donald Trump - Attacked mercilessly and didn't respond strongly. Not a lot of depth to his policies and it's beginning to show. Openly admitted he is not currently knowledgeable about several aspects of the presidency. Losing is relative to him as he's so high in the polls. I think his support will suffer, but he'll still be a major player.
11) Rand Paul - Basically reduced to a footnote...one minute into the debate. Relied way too heavily on talking points. Couldn't counter arguments other than to reiterate his own tired exposition, even when it had been debunked.

 

[jcpro]

Wrong format. The debate was reduced to sound bites. Too long, too. Kasich did not get any time, Carson lost on Afghanistan. Christie did score a point or two, but Paul took him apart on the weed issue.

 

[danmand]

They are all clearly nuts. Actually, Trump and Carson came across as the saner ones of them, although Trump lied through his teeth about Carly Fiorina: "You are a beautiful women".

Actually, the only candidate I found "likeable" was Jeb Bush, his family notwithstanding.



But what a sideshow. No wonder everybody laughs at the USA.

 

[rhuarc29]

Christie did score a point or two, but Paul took him apart on the weed issue.

Interesting, didn't feel that way. Thought that was one of Paul's weakest moments when he kept reiterating his medical marijuana story that had no basis on what Christie was saying. Still, the only person who came out of that ahead was Fiorina.

 

[Aardvark154]

Rhuarc, you I believe have it spot on. I had thought that John Kasich would perhaps break away from Chris Christie, but in this debate it was the other way round.

 

[Aardvark154]

Trump stupidly said that vaccines cause autism, and Carson although he said the evidence shows that the statement isn't true, never forcefully confronted Trump on it.

 

[rhuarc29]

Trump stupidly said that vaccines cause autism, and Carson although he said the evidence shows that the statement isn't true, never forcefully confronted Trump on it.

Carson's running on the platform he doesn't attack other candidates. However, he's a professional in that field; and that was the perfect time to be assertive.

Besides, everyone knows Monsanto is responsible for the rise in Autism!

 

[Butler1000]

I wonder how with over 300 million people the GOP really can't come up with someone who is good enough to be President.

I swear it's because anyone with the talent won't go near the position.

 

[Big Sleazy]

Anybody that would take time and watch the debate was a loser.

 

[danmand]

Anybody that would take time and watch the debate was a loser.

Oh no, now you ruined my day.

 

[Aardvark154]

I wonder how with over 300 million people the GOP really can't come up with someone who is good enough to be President.

I swear it's because anyone with the talent won't go near the position.

I don't know about that: Senator Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Governors Christie and Kasich all seem quite well qualified. Whether you like them is another question.

 

[danmand]

I don't know about that: Senator Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Governors Christie and Kasich all seem quite well qualified. Whether you like them is another question.

Mrs Fiorina did destroy both Lucent and HP, two companies I have inside knowledge of. (and not because she is a republican)

My guess is that the only candidate with any chance of becoming president is Jeb Bush. Seems he is the smartest of the bushes.

 

[Promo]

Mrs Fiorina did destroy both Lucent and HP, two companies I have inside knowledge of. (and not because she is a republican)

I agree. Although many of her changes at HP may have had the much needed goal of improving innovation, reducing employee complacency and improving margins, the end result was quite the opposite. Combine that problem with some of her terrible business and product direction decisions and we have a candidate for worse CEO of the decade.

Except ... Ginni Rometty of IBM will win that award hands down. Terrible what's she's done and is still doing to IBM.

 

[trtinajax]

Interesting, didn't feel that way. Thought that was one of Paul's weakest moments when he kept reiterating his medical marijuana story that had no basis on what Christie was saying. Still, the only person who came out of that ahead was Fiorina.

I'm sorry but I thought Fiorina had something to offer until last night. To me she came across last night as a miserable vindictive bitch that has to do things her way and no other way. I can now understand exactly why the HP Board of Directors cleared her out of there. Her comments about how she would teach Putin and the rest of the world leaders to respect her and the USA was damn scary. With her attitude Putin would be forced to fight the US, They are two peas in a pod. She clearly doesn't understand that all worldly decisions are not made in the White House. Yes the US must be strong, must have a strong leader but somewhere there must be a reasonable person that stands somewhere in the middle of weak-kneed, apologetic Obama and bitch extraordinaire, stuff it up your a** Fiorina.

 

[trtinajax]

Trump stupidly said that vaccines cause autism, and Carson although he said the evidence shows that the statement isn't true, never forcefully confronted Trump on it.

You must having been watching a different debate then I was. I clearly heard Trump say he supported vaccines BUT did not support them being given in their current dosages and time frame. He wants the dosage reduced and the dosages spread over a greater time-frame of a young child's life. And in case it wasn't on your version of the debate, Carson admitted that Trump had a serious point, that the vaccines should be more spread out and probably didn't need to be as strong.

 

[rhuarc29]

You must having been watching a different debate then I was. I clearly heard Trump say he supported vaccines BUT did not support them being given in their current dosages and time frame. He wants the dosage reduced and the dosages spread over a greater time-frame of a young child's life. And in case it wasn't on your version of the debate, Carson admitted that Trump had a serious point, that the vaccines should be more spread out and probably didn't need to be as strong.

How does that negate what Aardvark said? Trump did say he believes vaccines cause autism. It sounds like his belief is that large doses over a short time span is what causes autism. Carson disagreed, saying there is no link between vaccines and autism, but agreed that doses should be spread out. The dumb thing is he didn't explain why he thought they should be spread out.

 

[trtinajax]

How does that negate what Aardvark said? Trump did say he believes vaccines cause autism. It sounds like his belief is that large doses over a short time span is what causes autism. Carson disagreed, saying there is no link between vaccines and autism, but agreed that doses should be spread out. The dumb thing is he didn't explain why he thought they should be spread out.

Go back and listen to the debate again. Even Rand Paul chimed in to say that he (like Trump and Carson) believes in vaccines but thinks they need to be spread out over a greater time period. I guess if Trump had of come out in total support of vaccines give in the bunched manner they are currently given you would have criticized that position also. Something is causing autism and it's something that wasn't there years ago. Maybe you will think that Al Gore will have more credibility when he comes out and claims that autism is caused by global warming / climate change or whatever BS he is pushing

 

[rhuarc29]

Go back and listen to the debate again. Even Rand Paul chimed in to say that he (like Trump and Carson) believes in vaccines but thinks they need to be spread out over a greater time period. I guess if Trump had of come out in total support of vaccines give in the bunched manner they are currently given you would have criticized that position also. Something is causing autism and it's something that wasn't there years ago. Maybe you will think that Al Gore will have more credibility when he comes out and claims that autism is caused by global warming / climate change or whatever BS he is pushing

WTF are you talking about? You go back and watch the debate. Trump said that vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. He then spoke of a single example of a child who was "pumped" full of vaccines and who quickly developed a fever, and now has autism. As far we know he's basing his whole assumption about a link between vaccines and autism on this one example, ignoring the fact that statistically speaking quite often there will be autistic children who had vaccines, and that such a pairing does not denote causation.

Like Carson said, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. For a presidential candidate to say they do without any kind of scientific backing is speculation of the worst kind. I happen to believe genetic engineering in our food is causing a shitload of problems, possibly including a rise in autism. I have reason to believe this, but no scientific proof. I'm not going to go around spouting my opinion as fact, and I'm not even running for the leadership of a country!

 

[IM469]

11) Rand Paul - Basically reduced to a footnote...one minute into the debate. Relied way too heavily on talking points. Couldn't counter arguments other than to reiterate his own tired exposition, even when it had been debunked.

The first time I heard Rand Paul and I liked him. A few points I remember - 14.5% flat tax for people and corporations. Significant because most rich people and large corporations pay little if any taxes through tax loop holes. Another is that he voted against Iraq and believes that whenever the US topples a government, religious radicals just fill the void. He wants Arabs to fight their own fight but if the US must get involved - it is an all out no holds effort and then then the US pulls out completely. Lastly, he said most of the Republican candidates are hypocrites who have tried marijuana in their youth without consequence where as poor people are the ones that end up in jail.

 

[rhuarc29]

The first time I heard Rand Paul and I liked him. A few points I remember - 14.5% flat tax for people and corporations. Significant because most rich people and large corporations pay little if any taxes through tax loop holes.

You could just close loopholes.