So I might as well start it off, what do you guys think of the debates from tonight?

I thought Carson and Paul stood out as the most rational and strong debtors. I am increasingly liking Kasich's performance in the debates. My interest in Rubio is waining after this debate. Many of the other candidates bored me with their prepackaged vague political responses.

Trump was entertaining as usual, though I particularly like the bitch slap Florin gave Trump about his comments concerning women.

So I might as well start it off, what do you guys think of the debates from tonight?

I thought Carson and Paul stood out as the most rational and strong debtors. I am increasingly liking Kasich's performance in the debates. My interest in Rubio is waining after this debate. Many of the other candidates bored me with their prepackaged vague political responses.

Trump was entertaining as usual, though I particularly like the bitch slap Florin gave Trump about his comments concerning women.

I didn't see much of what Carson said....I fell asleep each time he started talking. I like the guy, but man, can he show a little passion? He doesn't even look like he wants to be there. Paul acts more like a petulant teenager than a presidential candidate. I do think Fiorina did well.

The debate was way too long and unstructured. The Fox debate was much better.

I like the guy, but man, can he show a little passion?

He is a humble soft spoken guy and I appreciate that about him even though in debates he isn't as cut throat.

I didn't see much of what Carson said....I fell asleep each time he started talking. I like the guy, but man, can he show a little passion? He doesn't even look like he wants to be there. Paul acts more like a petulant teenager than a presidential candidate. I do think Fiorina did well.

The debate was way too long and unstructured. The Fox debate was much better.

I didn't watch this time, just went through the highlight clips. Looks like Trump needs to flesh out the details or start sliding in the polls. His net effect has been positive, he's energized this cycle, but more is needed.

Have to agree about Carson, he's obviously not comfortable in the limelight. His responses are OK, I like his stance on most things although I think he's a little soft on gun control. I've said it before, he reminds me of Carter.

Shrub and Kasich are party tools.

Fiorina won this round. Smart lady.

I didn't watch this time, just went through the highlight clips. Looks like Trump needs to flesh out the details or start sliding in the polls. His net effect has been positive, he's energized this cycle, but more is needed.

Have to agree about Carson, he's obviously not comfortable in the limelight. His responses are OK, I like his stance on most things although I think he's a little soft on gun control. I've said it before, he reminds me of Carter.

Shrub and Kasich are party tools.

Fiorina won this round. Smart lady.

I think you're right about Trump. At some point, he will need to start answering questions with more substance. It will likely be a quick crash in the polls. People are fickle - it only takes one comment or misstep. Just ask Howard Dean.....yeeeehaaawww!

I didn't watch this time, just went through the highlight clips. Looks like Trump needs to flesh out the details or start sliding in the polls. His net effect has been positive, he's energized this cycle, but more is needed.

Have to agree about Carson, he's obviously not comfortable in the limelight. His responses are OK, I like his stance on most things although I think he's a little soft on gun control. I've said it before, he reminds me of Carter.

Shrub and Kasich are party tools.

Fiorina won this round. Smart lady.

Who is Shrub?

Katich seems to be the more moderate candidate there.

I agree with you on Trump, his energy is nice but his answers often lack substance. "Yay, he is going to do something... but how?"

I liked hearing about the different tax proposals, a couple different angles from different candidates with their own reasoning.

I agree with Christie that something needs to be done about social security but I think his solution is going to make a lot of conservatives feel uncomfortable since it does essentially take money from some and not give them anything back.

Trump looked like even more of an ass than he did in the first debate. 

Fiorina was the clear winner and to quote my wife, "she's the only woman on the stage and is the least bitchy." 

The bitchy award in my opinion was a tie between Rand Paul and Donald Trump.

Rubio did well, not Fiorina well but strong overall.

Carson was forgettable.

Cruz wasn't vocal enough, allowed the "moderator" and other candidates to cut him off and was too practiced in his deliveries.  He also told a really long story about judges I guess but he lost me and the point, if there was a point to be made.  Unfortunate because I really like his stance on issues, especially 2A.

Christie did what he does and pandered to the audience.  If you didn't get it by now, Chris was U.S. attorney.

Scott Walker sweat and stammered a lot.

Kasich spent 18 years doing things.

I thought it was a pretty good debate overall, and I was surprised how well CNN did with it. Good job by Jake Tapper being an honest broker and not injecting himself into the answers (anybody remember Candy Crowley?). As for my winners and losers...

Top three, starting with the best:
1. Carly Fiorina.  Smart, concise, to-the-point, and powerful.  Great communicator. 
2. Marco Rubio.  Eloquent, substantive, and passionate. Possibly the best communicator I've EVER seen or heard.
3. John Kasich. Comforting, sort of a "voice of reason."

Bottom three, starting with the worst:
1. The Donald.  Gratuitously attacked Rand Paul for his looks, called out for what he said about Fiorina's face, and caught in a lie about trying to buy Jeb Bush's support for casino gambling in Florida. Quit acting like a child.
2. Rand Paul.  He's well on his way to becoming his father, everybody's crazy old uncle.
3. Ben Carson. Foreign policy is a big deal, and we can't afford four (or more) years of on-the-job training.

.

A lot of people were saying that Rubio did very well but I found his answers lacked the discernment I would want in a president, especially on his military answers. His delivery was good but the content worried me. He blasted a "pinpoint strike" and instead said they have to go in to win which to me implied large numbers of boots on the ground. For starters I wouldn't want him sending a bunch of troops into a Syrian civil war. Secondly I think he is not very smart military wise if he cannot recognize the usefulness and purpose of a surgical strike.

And surprisingly a lot of people said Rand Paul did poorly. I rather liked his more specific answers. He made the other candidates eat their words in the marijuana debate especially when he mentioned the 10th amendment. Also I think his military and foreign relations answers showed more intelligence and made most of the other candidate's military answers sound like their only answer for anything was brute force. His nickname was dumb to me though.

A lot of people were saying that Rubio did very well but I found his answers lacked the discernment I would want in a president, especially on his military answers. His delivery was good but the content worried me. He blasted a "pinpoint strike" and instead said they have to go in to win which to me implied large numbers of boots on the ground. For starters I wouldn't want him sending a bunch of troops into a Syrian civil war. Secondly I think he is not very smart military wise if he cannot recognize the usefulness and purpose of a surgical strike.

And surprisingly a lot of people said Rand Paul did poorly. I rather liked his more specific answers. He made the other candidates eat their words in the marijuana debate especially when he mentioned the 10th amendment. Also I think his military and foreign relations answers showed more intelligence and made most of the other candidate's military answers sound like their only answer for anything was brute force. His nickname was dumb to me though.

I think we were watching a different debate. Paul didn't make anyone eat their words in the marijuana debate. He attempted to apply the liberal approach of using sad stories and emotion and was shut down by Christie. Following Christie, Fiorina once again had the poignant last word.

A lot of people were saying that Rubio did very well but I found his answers lacked the discernment I would want in a president, especially on his military answers. His delivery was good but the content worried me. He blasted a "pinpoint strike" and instead said they have to go in to win which to me implied large numbers of boots on the ground. For starters I wouldn't want him sending a bunch of troops into a Syrian civil war. Secondly I think he is not very smart military wise if he cannot recognize the usefulness and purpose of a surgical strike.

And surprisingly a lot of people said Rand Paul did poorly. I rather liked his more specific answers. He made the other candidates eat their words in the marijuana debate especially when he mentioned the 10th amendment. Also I think his military and foreign relations answers showed more intelligence and made most of the other candidate's military answers sound like their only answer for anything was brute force. His nickname was dumb to me though.

He didn't blast a "pinpoint strike," he blasted a "pinprick strike."  Big difference.  If you're going to hit, hit hard, and yes, you can do that more or less "surgically."  (Although I think the concept of a "surgical strike" is mostly media-perpetuated crap...  Even if it's precision guided, I'd hesitate to call a 500-pound bomb "surgical.") And I don't remember him saying he intended to send a bunch of troops into a Syrian civil war, although due to our failure to act early in the conflict, we may end up having to commit forces.  The other candidates didn't just have "brute force" answers to foreign policy, but in the final analysis, foreign policy has to be backed up by credible military force.  That doesn't mean the first option is always "bomb them into the stone age" or "put boots on the ground," but military options have to be available, capable, and credible...

I think we were watching a different debate. Paul didn't make anyone eat their words in the marijuana debate. He attempted to apply the liberal approach of using sad stories and emotion and was shut down by Christie. Following Christie, Fiorina once again had the poignant last word.

Paul said he wouldn't fight the legalization of marijuana, Christie countered that he would enforce federal law. Paul said what about medical marijuana? Christie and Bush both said they were for that and would allow it. Paul then pointed out that federal law does not allow for medical marijuana. He pointed out the silliness of their "enforce federal laws" answers because if you enforce the federal laws that means arresting those who use medical marijuana because there is no medical marijuana law. And then he topped it off with the 10th amendment citation. Whereas some other candidates only seem to push the 10th amendment when it suits their message, Paul seemed more consistent in its application.

He didn't blast a "pinpoint strike," he blasted a "pinprick strike."  Big difference.  If you're going to hit, hit hard, and yes, you can do that more or less "surgically."  (Although I think the concept of a "surgical strike" is mostly media-perpetuated crap...  Even if it's precision guided, I'd hesitate to call a 500-pound bomb "surgical.") And I don't remember him saying he intended to send a bunch of troops into a Syrian civil war, although due to our failure to act early in the conflict, we may end up having to commit forces.  The other candidates didn't just have "brute force" answers to foreign policy, but in the final analysis, foreign policy has to be backed up by credible military force.  That doesn't mean the first option is always "bomb them into the stone age" or "put boots on the ground," but military options have to be available, capable, and credible...

Semantics. Pinpoint, pinprick, whatever they want to call it, their is nothing inherently weak about such a tactic. It seemed they were just nitpicking Obama's terminology for an easy answer that kind of lacked substance. Their answers just didn't seem very finessed, rather it sounded they were aimed at people who like to hear a rough and tough no nonsense answer. I think you are correct that their foreign policy answers, I sort of combined to thoughts into one sentence and didn't mean to say their answers were all brute force. I think a lot of the candidates answers on foreign policy lacked discernment. A couple said they would just not talk to Putin, for example, but then someone else (Paul I think) pointed out that even during the cold war Reagan was talking to Russia.

The other was the question about the Iran treaty. Paul's answer was much more reasoned and responsible than the other candidates who declared they would rip it up the first day in office.

I do realize no one said boots on the ground, but that was the image that came to mind hearing some of their answers.

It is interesting listening to all the post debate commentary on how they thought who answered which questions better because there are some very different takes on some of the same answers. Some thought an answer was good while others thought it was bad.

Semantics. Pinpoint, pinprick, whatever they want to call it, their is nothing inherently weak about such a tactic.

I have to continue to disagree. 

Pinprick: A cause of minor irritation.

Pinpoint: Absolutely precise; to the finest degree: this weapon fired shells with pinpoint accuracy.

If I'm intending to get another country to changes it's activities through application of military force, I'm going to need a little more than a "minor irritation."

I think a lot of the candidates answers on foreign policy lacked discernment. A couple said they would just not talk to Putin, for example, but then someone else (Paul I think) pointed out that even during the cold war Reagan was talking to Russia.

I don't think anybody said they were going to cut off diplomatic relations with Russia, which would be a huge mistake.  They just said that with the current situation, as President of the United States, they wouldn't engage in direct talks with President Putin.  Perfectly valid policy position.

I have to continue to disagree. 

If I'm intending to get another country to changes it's activities through application of military force, I'm going to need a little more than a "minor irritation."

I don't think anybody said they were going to cut off diplomatic relations with Russia, which would be a huge mistake.  They just said that with the current situation, as President of the United States, they wouldn't engage in direct talks with President Putin.  Perfectly valid policy position.

It only takes a pinprick to pop a balloon. I just thought it was a silly argument over terminology is all, but I was weary of any candidate that wanted us to get heavily involved in Syria. The Syria conflict seemed to be an interesting divider for republicans in terms of whether we should get involved and how much so.

You may be right about the talks with Russia. We do have to keep in mind that they have very little time to give their answer so we don't get to hear much of an explanation. Fiorina said she wouldn't talk to Putin, I don't know if she meant direct communications from leader to leader or if she meant we would stop communicating with their government. Paul pointed out that even during the cold war we Reagan talked with Gorbachev. Out of all the candidates that debated in the Reagan library, Paul seemed to be the only one who sounded very Reagan.

It only takes a pinprick to pop a balloon. I just thought it was a silly argument over terminology is all, but I was weary of any candidate that wanted us to get heavily involved in Syria. The Syria conflict seemed to be an interesting divider for republicans in terms of whether we should get involved and how much so.

You may be right about the talks with Russia. We do have to keep in mind that they have very little time to give their answer so we don't get to hear much of an explanation. Fiorina said she wouldn't talk to Putin, I don't know if she meant direct communications from leader to leader or if she meant we would stop communicating with their government. Paul pointed out that even during the cold war we Reagan talked with Gorbachev. Out of all the candidates that debated in the Reagan library, Paul seemed to be the only one who sounded very Reagan.

When you're talking about diplomatic discourse, words are chosen VERY carefully and carry heavy meaning.  When you say publicly that any military response to a particular situation will be a "pinprick," you're saying you're not serious about what's going on.

Paul was ANYTHING but "very Reagan."  During the Reagan administration, we were involved throughout the world in a number of ways; you just didn't hear about it on the news every night (until the Iran-Contra story broke).

I believe Rand Paul is an old-school isolationist like his father; he's just politically savvy enough to know that that position won't fly with the general electorate.  But if you think the world is a safer place when the U.S. is less powerful, then I guess he's your man.

When you're talking about diplomatic discourse, words are chosen VERY carefully and carry heavy meaning.  When you say publicly that any military response to a particular situation will be a "pinprick," you're saying you're not serious about what's going on.

Paul was ANYTHING but "very Reagan."  During the Reagan administration, we were involved throughout the world in a number of ways; you just didn't hear about it on the news every night (until the Iran-Contra story broke).

I believe Rand Paul is an old-school isolationist like his father; he's just politically savvy enough to know that that position won't fly with the general electorate.  But if you think the world is a safer place when the U.S. is less powerful, then I guess he's your man.

Perhaps agree to disagree about the pinprick.

You could be right, that Paul is an isolationist and if so I don't think I would vote for him, but I am not convinced of that at this point. I thought his response was reasoned and his answers more intelligent than just flexing military muscle. A lot of conservatives cite Reagan but Paul's answers seemed more Reagan than anyone else. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this as well?

http://rare.us/story/rand-pauls-foreign-policy-was-the-only-reagan-sounding-one-at-the-reagan-library/