12/15/15 The final Republican Debate.

[YogSothoth]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Strictly speaking, that’s not referring to the event as “an act of terror”; it’s just saying that acts of terror won’t shake that resolve, or alter that character, or eclipse that light. If I ask whether a particular woman is from Ohio, and you reply that no women from Ohio will ever marry you – well, have you technically answered my question?

That may be if you’re thinking about the speech in a vacuum, like if he made it in October or something but Obama made it the day after the attack very much so in response to them. There’s no other event he’d be referring to. In fact, the very next sentence he refers to the 4 dead in Benghazi, so you know he was talking about the act of terror there from which America’s resolve won’t waver.

@Do_Not_Taunt

This is sort of Hugh Hewitt’s schtick. Ask some hyper-specific foreign policy question that no one in the audience cares at all about (Quds forces, the nuclear triad, etc), and watch Trump ‘misunderstand’ the question or answer in vague terms. This way Hewitt demonstrates that he’s smarter than Trump. It’s silly, but it must be nice for Hewitt to feel smarter than someone else.

That said, while I agree that having an actual opinion on which leg of the triad needs more prioritization is a silly thing to debate at this level, the fact that Trump clearly didn’t even know what the Triad was should reflect badly on him. And the fact that Rubio did should reflect well on him. But in reality, Rubio probably comes off as the kid in the front row who always brings an apple to the teacher and has his hand up as high as he can, screeching “I know, I know, I know!” Republican primary voters really hate that kid.

That debate was such an establishment-friendly crowd that I’m surprised they didn’t formally declare Rubio a winner after it was over. But as we’ve seen this election season, Trump’s supporters are massive outliers. Even if he does badly, it shouldn’t attract the same fallout as a typical bad performance will for a normal candidate.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@YogSosoth

That may be if you’re thinking about the speech in a vacuum, like if he made it in October or something but Obama made it the day after the attack very much so in response to them. There’s no other event he’d be referring to. In fact, the very next sentence he refers to the 4 dead in Benghazi, so you know he was talking about the act of terror there from which America’s resolve won’t waver.

But consider the GOP talking point du jour: that Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, never use the phrase “Islamic terrorism”. I mean, sure they’ll say “terrorism”; and, sure, they’ll soon follow up with a sentence where you know they’re referring to folks who happen to be Islamic; but the GOP genuinely wants to dwell on whether they specifically declare this or that to be “Islamic terrorism”.

(The phrase might be “radical Islamic terrorism”, come to think of it.)

[LSLGuy]

@YogSosoth

… But as we’ve seen this election season, Trump’s supporters are massive outliers. Even if he does badly, it shouldn’t attract the same fallout as a typical bad performance will for a normal candidate.

This.

Imagine a typical Trumpophile saying “Gee, the Donald sure looked weak in that tussle with the others. I’m gonna switch my adoration to <______>”.

If there *was *another candidate aping Trump’s schtick from back in the pack, then transferring support to that somebody is plausible. A real Trump fan embracing Rubio or Bush or Kasich? Not so plausible.

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But consider the GOP talking point du jour: that Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, never use the phrase “Islamic terrorism”. I mean, sure they’ll say “terrorism”; and, sure, they’ll soon follow up with a sentence where you know they’re referring to folks who happen to be Islamic; but the GOP genuinely wants to dwell on whether they specifically declare this or that to be “Islamic terrorism”.

(The phrase might be “radical Islamic terrorism”, come to think of it.)

But in the debate, Romney didn’t call Obama out for not labeling it Islamic terrorism, so that’s not a valid argument.

[BrainGlutton]

@coremelt

No sorry if you don’t know what the nuclear triad is for fucks sake you should not be a candidate for commander in chief. This is very very general knowledge.

What’s the big deal about a Hong Kong crime gang?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@John_Mace

But in the debate, Romney didn’t call Obama out for not labeling it Islamic terrorism, so that’s not a valid argument.

No, he called Obama out for not labeling it “an act of terror”. I think we agree that the current candidates ‘call Obama out’ for not specifically labelling stuff as “Islamic terrorism” or “radical Islamic terrorism” – and it seems to me that Romney was ‘calling him out’ for not specifically labelling this “an act of terror”. How is that not a parallel?

[Boyo_Jim]

@coremelt

No sorry if you don’t know what the nuclear triad is for fucks sake you should not be a candidate for commander in chief. This is very very general knowledge.

If his popularity among the base goes up when he talks about excluding all Muslims, you think they’ll give a shit about his knowledge of weapons systems? There already was ample evidence that the guy isn’t qualified to be CinC, so the triad thing doesn’t matter at all.

Maybe his base would be interested if he was asked which kind of nukes he would use to nuke Muslims.

[Lance_Turbo]

I don’t know if this is an accurate reflection of debate performance, but it is data. Here is how the prices of the candidates on PredictIt moved in the last 24 hours.

candidate	-24 hours	now	change
Bush		8		9	+1
Kasich		1		2	+1
Trump		27		27	0
Christie	8		8	0
Paul		3		3	0
Fiorina		1		1	0
Carson		2		1	-1
Rubio		37		34	-3
Cruz		35		31	-4

For a broader context, here is the movement in the last week.

candidate	-7 days		now	change
Trump		22		27	+5
Cruz		26		31	+5
Christie	6		8	+2
Paul		1		3	+2
Kasich		2		2	0
Fiorina		1		1	0
Carson		1		1	0
Bush		10		9	-1
Rubio		39		34	-5

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, he called Obama out for not labeling it “an act of terror”. I think we agree that the current candidates ‘call Obama out’ for not specifically labelling stuff as “Islamic terrorism” or “radical Islamic terrorism” – and it seems to me that Romney was ‘calling him out’ for not specifically labelling this “an act of terror”. How is that not a parallel?

I honestly don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, but maybe you should start a new thread on this subject if you want to debate it further. I’m not going to participate in this hijack anymore.

[Andiethewestie]

I thought this was the worst debate ever by people who just don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. I’m not alone in that assessment

A politically incorrect take on the GOP foreign policy debate

[John_Mace]

Did anyone else cringe a little when Christie, in his open statement, talked about moms dropping their kids off at school and dads going to work? He’s young enough not to be making stupid mistakes like that, not to mention he’s got a staff to help him with prepared speeches.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@elucidator

Is it my imagination, or did the stage sag under the weight when Christie walked across?

Hahaha fat jokes. So funny.

[wolfpup]

Those prices seem very volatile. Trump was way up at 30 just a minute or two ago, and I looked again and he’s back down to 28.

Anyway the gains and losses seem to me more or less consistent with debate performance, assuming that “1” is as low as you can go – Carson was a complete wipeout. And also excluding Trump, who never makes any sense at all and whose standing is a complete mystery.

I was surprised to see Rubio take on such a hawkish position, which is concerning because Rubio is actually electable. He’s out-hawked only by Cruz, but that’s just Cruz doing his batshit-crazy act.

[wolfpup]

@John_Mace

Did anyone else cringe a little when Christie, in his open statement, talked about moms dropping their kids off at school and dads going to work? He’s young enough not to be making stupid mistakes like that, not to mention he’s got a staff to help him with prepared speeches.

At this point he’s appealing to a Republican base, so no problem. In fact maybe even a bonus for “traditional family values”. You don’t want to say stuff like that in a general campaign.

[John_Mace]

I’ve never thought of Rubio as anything but “hawkish”, so i can’t say I was “surprised”. I honestly don’t see any of these guys, other than Kasich or Christie, as being electable given HRC as their challenger.

At this point he’s appealing to a Republican base, so no problem. In fact maybe even a bonus for “traditional family values”. You don’t want to say stuff like that in a general campaign.

Maybe, but there are still a lot of working married, women who are Republicans.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@GrandWino

Got a cite that she said that Romney was correct? Because he wasn’t.

From a quick search, and yes this is Fox News.

http://nation.foxnews.com/candy-crowley/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-walks-it-back-romney-was-right

Basically, she thought Romney’s overall point was correct, he just used the wrong word and she felt compelled to intervene on Obama’s behalf. It was bad moderating, she was roundly criticized for it and I would not point to her as a good example of real-time debate fact-checking.

[Lobohan]

@John_Mace

Maybe, but there are still a lot of working married, women who are Republicans.

If there is one thing the GOP is good at, it’s getting otherwise decent, intelligent people to vote to make their lives worse.

[eschereal]

@Randolph

Cause Jeb! already took the exclamation point, and Jeb? also has some claim on the question mark, too.

Jeb‽

[running_coach]

Cruz may have leaked clasified information during debate.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters Wednesday he has asked staff members to look into whether Ted Cruz released classified information during Tuesday’s Republican debate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/12/16/cruz-rubio-richard-burr-classified-information-senate/77420022/

Oh, please, please, please.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Do_Not_Taunt

This is sort of Hugh Hewitt’s schtick. Ask some hyper-specific foreign policy question that no one in the audience cares at all about (Quds forces, the nuclear triad, etc), and watch Trump ‘misunderstand’ the question or answer in vague terms. This way Hewitt demonstrates that he’s smarter than Trump. It’s silly, but it must be nice for Hewitt to feel smarter than someone else.

That said, while I agree that having an actual opinion on which leg of the triad needs more prioritization is a silly thing to debate at this level, the fact that Trump clearly didn’t even know what the Triad was should reflect badly on him. And the fact that Rubio did should reflect well on him. But in reality, Rubio probably comes off as the kid in the front row who always brings an apple to the teacher and has his hand up as high as he can, screeching “I know, I know, I know!” Republican primary voters really hate that kid.

Hugh Hewitt asked Trump that exact same question in an earlier interview, so it’s not as if Trump hasn’t encountered it before.

So, not only did Carly Fiorina release classified information about the NSA asking her to redirect servers for their use, but Ted Cruz released classified information about NSA having the power to listen in on 100% of the phone conversations. Rubio made a mention after that about not wanting to discuss classified information. And the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating.