stirewalt. so who do you think won tonight's gop debate? the "new york times" saying it was rand paul. we didn't talk about him much. let me know your thoughts. thanks for watching. i'm megyn kelly and this is "the kelly file". welcome to hannity tonight. 2016 republican presidential candidates squared off at the fox business network debate. all happened at milwaukee and the issue of immigration came up early and candidates went back and forth on this hot button topic, take a look. >> for the 11 million people, come on, folks, we all know you can't pick them up and ship them back across the border. it's a silly argument. makes no sense. >> all i can say is you're lucky in ohio that you struck oil, that's one thing. dwight eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. i like ike, right?
the expression, i like ike, moved a million and a half illegal im frantz out of this country, moved them way south. they never came back. they moved a million and a half people out. we have no choice. >> well million illegal immigra immigrants, to send them back, 500,000 a month is just not possible. it's not embracing american values. it would tear communities apart. it would send a signal that we're not the kind of country i know america is. >> i will say the politics of it would be very very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the rio grand or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming in and driving down the wages in the press. >> a great line. joining us in the spin room is milwaukee 2016 presidential front leader, donald trump. were you happy with the debate
tonight? i thought it was extremely substantive. >> i thought it was great. the anchors really were, moderators all elegant, all three the way they presented themselves and the questions. i thought it was a very elegant evening and very substantive, as you would say, yes. >> there were differences on economic plans and immigration we just played. interesting to listen to kasich and jeb bush going up kind of against you and ted cruz. >> true. >> i thought ted cruz made a point if these were bankers crossing the border and journalists driving down rates i think the press might have a different point of view. i thought that was a strong point. >> we're on the same side of it. go to the early 1950s, dwight eisenhower, i made that point during the debate, he took out in terms of illegal immigration he felt you had to do it. he was a nice man, a high quality man but he moved out 1.5 million people and brought them back to where they came from.
they were here illegally. it really does have big precedent. we either have a country or we don't. we have a country, we have to have borders, we have borders we have to have laws. we either have a country or we don't. it's that simple. >> seems like nobody talks about this aspect of it, too, the economic impact in terms of people that have to compete for jobs drives down wages, more importa importantly, how much is this costing our country in terms of our educational system and criminal justice system and health care system, we're talking about billions and billions of dollars because people don't respect our laws and sovereignty. >> i heard the number is 2$250 billion a year, illegal immigration, frankly, it's an expensive proposition, moving and everything else, but you're talking about tremendous amounts of money we spend, not to mention other things, for instance, when you look at this crime and other elements that happen hthat are also very bad.
we're talking 250 billion dollars a year, that's a lot of money for a country that owes 19 trilli trillion. >> 120 trillion in unfunded liability, a lot of money. you're right. you talk about every tax plan mentioned on that stage is better than the mess we have now. i agreed with your statement. i want you to specifically lay out your tax plan because i don't think people understand there's a significant number of your american population that pays zero. you said fill in i win on your tax form. >> the people at the bottom economically, less than 25,0$25 if it's a family pay zero. i'd like to have them pay something as a token but the truth is it would cost so much from the standpoint of breaks. we want to get them in as tax paying citizens by having them make a lot of money and start paying taxes. we brought it down and we will
have four classes, as you know, start at zero, up to 20 and 25%. corporate tax is 15%, which would be one of the lowest in the world and our country will be booming. we're going to charge 10% to bring the corporate inversion, bring all that money, trillions of dollars back in the country. it wants to come back in but no way of getting it here because of the taxes. we will have a plan very dynamic. it's been very well received by a lot of people. it's going to be graduated and a lot of good things are going to happen. >> i agree with you repatriating that money, will bring trillions of tlars back and the energy specte specter,. what would your corporate tax rate be if america becomes the corporate tack haven of the world all these multi-national companies want to head quarter here. >> we will have a 15% corporate tax rate on the low side. right now, we're the highest taxed anywhere in the world and we will be on the low side.
there will be a couple of countries lower but not many. taking it from the highest in the world to being on the very low side. >> i think probably the most passionate moment you had in any of the four debates, this was you talking about iraq and the troops and taking the oil. let's play this. >> look at libya, look at iraq, look at the mess we have after spending 2 trilli$2 trillion, t of lives, wounded warriors all over the place, who i love, all over. we have nothing. i said, keep the oil. we should have kept the oil, believe me. we should have kept the oil. you know what, we should have given the oil -- we should have given big chunks to the people that lost their arms, their legs and their families and sons and daughters because right now, you know who has a lot of that oil? iran and isis. >> we paid for the liberation of all these countries and they don't ever give us a dime. i thought that was a very powerful moment in the debate for you. >> they giv nothing.
that's because we have people that don't know what they're doing. they give us nothing. you're one of the few people willing to say it. we have people that don't have a clue and we should have had that. i've been saying on your show for two years, you have to lead, keep the oil. we shouldn't have been there in the first place. they destabilized the whole middle east. once you're in, you leave and keep the oil. who has the oil? isis has it, iran has it. we don't have it. we have nothing. >> i was interested in a couple other things you said tonight. i agree with this point, too. if vladimir putin, now that we in all likelihood, he had a russian airliner blown out of the sky by isis, if he wants to take out isis, let mim do it? i've been saying it for two months. if he want to do it. now, he's not in love with isis. he doesn't want them coming into russia, believe me. on top of it he had an airplane blown out, he really doesn't like -- if he doesn't like them
and wants to go after isis, i think that's just great. >> do you agree with the idea of the separate refugee camps maybe within syria we provide humanitarian assistance and food and water rather than people migrating to europe or coming to the united states and also protected military. is that something you support? >> it's called a safe zone. they take a big swatch in syria and you get all the countries like germany and others ruining theirselves, they're ruining germany. hard to believe she's allowing that to happen. you create a big safe zone and take care of the people until they can ultimately go back. that's better. can you imagine us taking two 50,000? president obama wants to bring 200 to 250,000 people in and he doesn't know where they come from. they don't have papers. we don't know who they are. we can't do that.
it would cost millions of dollars. >> james clapper said isis and al qaeda will in fill trade the community. >> it will happen, absolutely. >> you said we have made this mistake many times in the country and you pointed this out. i want you to expand on it. often sometimes you say we will support the rebels in this case against assad, we don't know who they are. we don't know if they are worse. you mention libya as a great example and libya is a safe haven for training camps. explain what we should dine stead. >> assad is not great. assad is a bad guy. we're supporting these people. a lot of people think the people we're supporting are isis. we're supporting the rebels, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars giving them weapons and russia is fighting us because they don't want them and we're supporting people we don't know who they are. i spoke to a general the other
day, very knowledgeable guy. he said, mr. trump, we have absolutely no idea who these people are. here we are again with libya and iraq and we're supporting other people. they'll probably be worse than assad? what are we doing? we have to build our country and fix our country, knock the hell out of isis and we have to build our country, sean. you know that and agree 100%. >> i thought tonight you were very gracious, you said, will you please let yjeb bush speak? >> i meant it. he was cut off. i meant it. >> it was just an interesting side note. last question, fwiks 5600 pages. ppp, nobody read obamacare, they pass these bills all the time this way. should there be a limit the number of page as bill is before we pass these things considering? i think ted cruz made the point it's more pages than the bible and less meaning than any one
page. >> almost 6,000 pages, nobody's read it. we have no idea what we're doing, no currency manipulation clauss there in, china will come in the back door, they're lau laughing at us. i'm the one that brought it up, 6,000 pages and nobody has read it. we truly don't know what we're doing. it should not be passed? thank you for your time. >> thank you. coming up, more analysis of tonight's republican debate and former governor mike huck abee and rand paul will join us from the spin room.
hannity. welcome back to hannity. 2016 marco rubio sparred over defense spending. >> i do want to rebuild the american military. i know iran is a committed isolati isolationist. i believe the world is a stronger country in the united states when we're the most powerful country in the world. >> how is it conservative to add a trillion dollar expenditure to the federal government you can't pay for. how is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military conservative. you're not conservative if you keep creating programs you can't
pay for. >> i know the world is a safer and better place when america is the strongest military power in the world. >> i do not think we're any saver from bankruptcy court as we go further and further into debt we become less and less safe. this is the most important thing we will talk about tonight, can you be a conservative and be liberal on military spending? >> the reaction, fox contributor editor and chief, and all of you, joe trippi, let me start with you. what i liked about the debate is it was substantive like that an int intramural discussion between the republicans. >> rand paul's point was america is the strongest military power because it's the richest country in the world. once it becomes not the richest country it's not the strongest
military power. r rubio's point was this president gutted the military and that obviously doesn't make us safer. the smartest line of all that foreign policy amazing came from donald trump who made a pretty persuasive case for stability in the middle east saying assad is terrible and he is but compared to what and maybe we ought to start weighing those things and it's usually a good thing. >> i think all three made really good points. >> tucker may afree with what trump said but i don't know where you pulled that out. that was 90 seconds of total incoherence from donald trump. i thought it was not only the worst answer of the debate but the most incomprehensible answer. >> he was very specific. he talked about taking the oil. he gave a very impassioned plea about taking the oil and paying the families of the military that sacrificed and a strong
point we're against assad. putin wants to take out assad, let putin do it, after they shot an airliner out of the sky or so we believe. who are the rebels we support, we have made that mistake as a country time and time again. >> complete and utter words. he may have stumbled on a point or two in the course of the answer but it was far less compelling than rand paul. i don't agree with the argument rand paul makes but he made his case very well. i agree with tucker rand paul laid out a sensible case and thought rubio's response was good and got a strong response from the audience in milwaukee. >> let me ask a question of steve hayes, why is it to think they can tell the difference between a moderate group of syria or other?
they're shooting in the dark here. trump makes a point when you have chaos it becomes dangerous for us. why is that a bad point? >> if trump had said anything close to what you said, tucker, that would be a good argument. he said nothing like it. he wants to give oil to wounded warriors. total nonsense. >> i heard him say, make an impassioned plea of mistakes made in iraq by not finishing the job and he was against going in, in the first place, do we really know who the rebels are? why not let vladimir putin take out isis and let others take over. and i think rubio was right, also, america is stronger with a stronger military. >> i think cruz had the strongest answer, because he was saying you think it's expensive to defend america, try not defending her. i think that answer got him off the charts.
donald trump's strength is not particularly in debates, in one-on-one interviews to supporters. i think he plays it right to stand back in these kind of for forums. he does tend to speak in generali generalities, i agree with steve, his answers don't quite hang all together. his appeal is so unique, it's hard to measure him the way you measure other candidates. >> i would say the same about ben carson. i don't look to his debate performance as a mean to judge him. i thought he had a particularly good night tonight. >> ben carson's appeal is unique and thought his answers to foreign policy were particularly weak. that is not his strong suit. he weeded in some things he looked out of his depth. you talking about classic outsiders, you're talking people hitting emotional notes with voters. people want somebody who will come in and essentially blow up
the system for better or for worse. people are looking at their answers and they're not looking for specifics. fra frankly, they don't care. that may change as the voting process gets closer, right now, the voters who are finding trump and carson so appealing, that doesn't matter much to them. >> i don't know why i'm asking trippi this first question i will ask all of you, but i'll try. winners and losers tonight, joe? >> i think rubio and cruz. i think carly had a great night, too. i think those were the three who really broke through. i think rubio again was very articulate on all. i kept waiting for him to turn to rand paul and say, are you calling ronald reagan a liberal on military spending? because during that exchange. but he did very well. i think cruz is doing better and
better in these debates. i think he may get another lift out of this one. >> i think he got a little more time in these last two debates and had an opportunity to shine. tucker, your thoughts. >> john kasich as always gave me the impression he's disappointed in me morally and not as good as he is and holy and that's a little off putting. they all did well. if you want to make the case of the republican party put up two hours of the protest for the university of missouri and yale university, that will have a greater effect of reminding voters to the republican party than any debate they could put on. >> i thought rubio and cruz did pretty well tonight. i didn't think anybody was a standout winner as previous debates. rubio and cruz did pretty well. i thought john kasich was the clear loser tonight. at one point he took a question how he would make decisions and he short of shrugged off having a governing philosophy and having some kind of ideology,
seemed to be taking veiled shots at conservatives and you wondered what guides his decision-making process. he was grumpy and kept lecturing and i'd be surprised if he was on the big stage when they come back. >> i thought cruz and rubio and fiorina. i thought trump and carson stalled as they usually do and didn't expect them to lose much altitude in polling. jeb bush came more prepared but i don't think it will be enough. >> i agree with two of you and the rest of you are wrong. coming up tonight on hannity -- >> everybody should pay the same proportion of what they make. you make $10 billion, you by a billion. you make $10, you pay one, you get the same rights and privile privileges. i don't see how anything gets a whole lot fairer than that.
welcome back to "hannity." the economy was a central cream of the fox business network tonight and here are the candidates on their plans on taxes? >> everybody should pay a po progress of what they make. you make $10 billion, pay a billion, make $10, pay $1, you get the same rights and privile privileges. i don't see how anything gets a lot fairer than that. >> i'm in favor of the plan called the penny plan we cut 1% across the board and the budget balances in less than five years. what's extraordinary about my tax plan it is in the context of
balancing the budget. >> for the first 36,0$36,000 yo earn you pay no income taxes or payroll taxes, no nothing. above that, every american pays 10% across the board, a flat fair tax, which means that no longer do you have hedge fund billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretary. >> here now with reaction senior editor, goldberg from the "washington times" and fox news juan williams analyst. i know there are competing pl plans. i like all of them. i like rand paul, penny plan, spending side of government in washington and on the other side, they all offer in their own way growth plans that should jump-start a very very slow recovery if you want to call it that. >> i agree with that. i think sometimes we get a little too -- about how many
angels on the head of a pin about the tax plans when in reality all tax plans expire when they come to congress. better to see where they are philosophically than get too deep in the weeds. i think ted cruz and marco rubio both hit the best points if you're thinking about what a voter in iowa and new hampshire is thinking about and looking to hear. i thought they were the best politically pitched for those purposes. >> i would agree. charles, i think they both continued where they left off in the last debate, both had strong performances tonight. to me, real simple, cut spe spending, live within your means, most americans would understand that. heard less about that. energy, most candidates expressed the need for being energy independent. i like the tax repatriation bringing money back into the country from multi-corporations and i think america should be the tax haven of the entire
world and bring more business in. >> i think every republican on the stage would agree with you on that. we hear from the media always talking about how much trouble the republicans are in and how this is going to be a cakewalk for hilary clinton, what we saw today in both debates, the earlier debate and big debate is very serious people with very serious ideas. we may like them varying degrees with each one but they're very serious people with very serious id ideas. the first questions about minimum wage, there was none of the demagoguery about it, none of the pandering, they gave real serious responsible answers to these questions. >> juan, i hate to pick on your party, but that's my job. everything in the last debate the democratic debate was free free free free. tax the rich, tax the rich, a new new deal will force corporations to share their profits. the government's even going to
stick their nose in that. how are you going to pay for that with 20 trilli$20 trillion and 125 trillion in unfunded liabili liabilities. how do you get there economically? everything is free. >> that's the question i have for you, listening to your party on the stage, wait a second, flat tax, fair tax, what about revenue neutral? where is the money going to come from? when i heard the exchange between rand paul and marco r rubio, you say you want a tax credit for childcare, you say also you want to increase defense spending, is that conservative? is that conservative? >> i think it was ted cruz that said three points in american history, john f. kennedy one of them rising tide lifts all boa boats. and maybe you want to educate juan on supply-side economics. ronald reagan dropped top rates from 20 to 17% and 20 million jobs were created. i would call that an economic
boom. >> i think it it's funny how people in the media and juan a friend of mine obsess how republicans will pay for their tax plans but they never obsess how democrats are going to pay for giving away free money and free programs. the net effect is it's somehow greedy to say that people get to keep more of their own money and generous to explain how you will take money from other people and give it to other people. >> jonah, you raise a great question. juan, your president will accumulate more debt than every other president before him combined and you're going to lecture republicans how they will pay for stuff. i never heard you complain about obama's debt. >> i have two things. this president has cut the deficit by two-thirds. you never give him credit. >> cut? how do you cut the deficit -- >> let me -- >> accumulate -- juan --
>> i say to jonah what i heard from the candidates on the debate, trust us, dynamic spe spending. if we do dynamic accounting here -- >> there's no hope. >> this president will accumulate more debt than every other president before him combined and only juan williams, a washington advocate calculator can come up with those numbers. >> one of my favorite answers of the entire debate was when rand paul was asked about income inequ inequality. his response was let's talk about where there is income inequ inequality. >> that was a great answer. >> a democratic state and democratic city, that's where you have the most income ineq l inequality. >> i think you said ted cruz and marco rubio were the winners? >> i think they had a great night. the one clear loser in this was
kasich. kasich came across as con descending and angry, almost as if he was about to shout why don't you jerks and morons like me more? really came across badly. >> i think the big loser was jeb bush, the idea he went out there and said not only he's all for america's immigration laws, it actually hurts the republican party to have a discussion about it. it blew my mind to hear him say that. that's his position. his candidacy is over. if he actually believes that, he should go home. >> i don't know if i should throw this at juan williams. go ahead, winners and losers. >> no question, jeb bush didn't have a great night. i like jeb bush, i'm not here democrat telling you -- he's a democrat. >> i don't know what he is. he didn't have an explosive night he needed to break out, say i'm back in the game, jeb can fix it. i didn't see that.
i'm sorry. he's a good man, been a good conservative, i didn't see it. >> if you're talking about winner, i think ben carson surprised me they did not attack him on the by graphical questions even when he raised to it say, well, there could have been a little difference, nobody raised it and nobody went back it an and he came out of this looking good. >> thank you? that means you're voting for him. i will put you town as a ben carson vote. >> i'm voting for hannity. hannity for president. >> you are the only one. coming up. i think we ought to look where inequality is the worst. it seems to be worst in cities run by democrats. >> a huge moment for rand paul calling out the democrats running cities. and then from the
i think we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. it seems to be the worst in c y cities run by democrats, govern governors, states run by democrats and countries currently run by democrats. the thing is, let's look for root causes. >> that was 2016 gop presidential candidate senator rand paul at the fox business network earlier tonight. he joins us in the spin room in milwaukee. i thought that was a great line but more importantly really true. conservative governors have done a really good job taking defi t deficits and turning them into surpluses, high unemployment and creating jobs in their states. these cities run by democrats are horribly run. that needs to be pointed out, i think, more often. >> even in the country at large, the country under bush had less income inequality than under obama. it's one of these made up and
concocted arguments, sure, we do have people struggling and have to figure out how to raise people out of poverty and get the income unquality growing, to give to it a political party, if anything the democrats have more trouble it appears governing over this problem. >> i listed all the different economic plans and i think there's some good in every one on that stage's plan. i thought all the candidates had a pretty good night and the party won. you were the only one to mention the penny plan. in fairness, carly fiorina talked about eliminating baseline budgeting. you're the only one that talked about cutting spending, i wish that was a stronger argument among the republican party that people would understand because of unfunded deficits and
liabili liabilities. >> i've always said i don't think we're saver arguing from bankruptcy court or getting deeper and deeper in to debt. this is sometimes a difficult subject is both parties are to plame. unholy alliance between right and left. left wants more welfare spending but the right wants unlimited military spending and together they boast raised spending last week and busted through the spending cap. really, there's blame on both parties and until we understand that we will never correct the deficit problem. >> i watched the exchange when he you and senator rubio and it reminded me of the ronald reagan years talking about carter's times of vulnerability and pl e planes couldn't fly and ships couldn't go out to sea. i'm concerned with vladimir putin and his territorial
ambitions and isis and china and their territorial ambitions, i don't think this is the time to cut. this is a really precarious world we're in. can't due what reagan did? >> i think you can be conservative and be for big national defense. i'm a big fan of john lehman, secretary of the navy under reagan and gave advice to romney on a bigger navyow how he said it, cutting waste of bureaucracy in the pentagon. if you're not a deficit hawk you will be someone who weakens the country. i'm willing to spend whatever it takes to defend the country. you can only do it if you're not borrowing more money from china. if we're borrowing more money from china we're getting weaker. >> i totally agree and seemed most candidates agree. >> that was the point. marco rubio has offered a
trillion dollars with a t, trillion dollars in new military expenditures without paying for them. how will we afford that? how will the country afford marco rubio's plans to spend so much money. this is a very legitimate point and it will come up and there will be a debate between marco r rubio's wing and my wing of the party whether or not you can do this from bankruptcy court. i don't think you project strength from bankruptcy court and i think marco rubio's plans both refundable welfare tax across and military spending would bankrupt the company. >> i thought it was a substantive debate tonight and in that sense i think the american people watching benefitted from that exchange. thanks for being with us. >> thanks. coming up 2016 former governor mike huckabee presidential candidate will be in the spin room
having grown up poor, i know a little something about it. nobody who is poor wants to be. that's a nonsense statement. i hear it all the time. poor people ought to work harder, they're working as hard as they can for gosh sakes, the problem is the system keeps pushing them down. if they work, they get punished, they lose all the benefits. when we did welfare reform in
the '90s, you know what we did? you won't lose everything at once, not an arbitrary threshold. as you move up the ladder from work and training you'll actually always be better off than you were before. that's the american way. >> that's 2016 gop presidential candidate former governor mike huckabee during tonight's presidential debate. he's in the spin room. i was thinking about what you said there, governor, i think you're dead on. government policies have caused more people to be in poverty, more people on food stamps, more people can't get jobs than ever before. government is hurting, in many places for the democrats, a big part of the constituency that believed in hope and change. we forget that part of the occasion. >> one of the reasons we have poverty we have because it's good for them for the programs. democrats love it not because it helps them get out of poverty? democrats love it because there are more bureaucrats and
nonprofit and more contract agencies the government pays to supposedly run poverty programs. if they're so darned successful how come we have the same percentage of the population, 13% in poverty today than we did in 1965 when we launched the war on poverty, 2 trilli$2 trillion >> isn't it more than that, really the more people dependent on these democrats the more they will likely vote them back into power because they're dependent on what the government's giving them? >> a lot of the reasons they vote democratic they think there's no way to get out of a hole and they say, if you're going to stick me in a hole, make the hole better. republicans need to remind them we want to let you out of the hole and go to a better school. if the school the government is forcing you to go to is failing them we want you to go to a school that will work for you and not have you live on dependency and not have the
government tell you how many groceries you can buy with your food stamps, we want you not to have a minimum but a maximum wage and want you to live independently free. we can't do that if we have these fresh holds we have done with programs, you can get wick and medicaid and section 8 and food stamps and there is a limit and you go from a lot of benefits to zero and you basically impoverish the family. those are crazy policies. >> i watched both debates tonight. i felt this was a real free open exchange ideas and are distinctive differences in american economic policy and america's role in the world and immigration. were you happy with the debate and feel it was substantive enough? i got a lot out of the candidates. i thought the winners were the candidates and the winners were moderators who did a good job letting this candidates speak. >> i thought this was substantive and focused on the format we wanted to speak to,
jobs and monetary policies and talk about the things that touch every american. i do believe certainly in our debate, in the early one i felt like the moderators really focused on the things they had promised they would focus on. that's all we can ask. >> i know you went from the first tier to the second tier. does that bother you? do you feel the rules are fair? how would you, for example, like to break up the different debate because you can't have 12, 15 people on a stage? >> i suggested back when i was in the first tier you ought to put everybody in the hat, have two numbers, one and two, everybody goes just before the debate and draws and have seven and seven on the stages, you don't know who you will be debating with. there has to be some criteria, i think national polls are so meaningless at this point, early state polls mean a lot more about who's going to be the nominee. would i love to be on the first stage, the main stage, of course. i hope i'm back on there the
next time. i think i should be, i truly do. but, look, as i said tonight, sean, it's a long way from my little rent house in hope, arkansas to be on any of those sta stages. i know why i'm there, fighting for people frankly getting run all over in this economy. a lot of people, 90% at the bottom of the economy, wage stagnation for 40 solid years. that's what's really mattering. >> a lot of people suffering needle needlessly. governor, as always, thanks, we appreciate you being here. >> more with hannity after the break. please stay with us.
welcome back to "hannity". unfortunately that's all the time we have this evening. we hope you will tune in our regular night. governor chris christie and senator ted cruz and john kasich will join us with both debate reaction. we'll see you here tomorrow night. >> your walking madness sparks fly at the fourth gop debate.
>> we can't even have an economy. there are radical jihadists crucifying christians. >> what would you do if the banks failed? >> i would not let the people who put their money in there all go down. >> i would not be talking to vladimir putin. i have met him not in a green room for a show but in a private meeting. >> why does she keep interrupting everybody. >> welcome to "fox & friends first". i am lia gabriel in for ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather childers. we have post debate coverage for you. a very exciting night. >> let's get started with john roberts and highlights of the night. >> no yes last night's debate was a substantive one like a thanksgiving dinner. i had to let my belt out a couple of notches. another big performance for marco rubio.
he was met by a feisty rand paul. carly fiorina was also strong. look at the back and forth between rubio and fiorina about military strength and dangers around the world. >> how is it conservative to add millions of dollars to military. >> there are radical jihadists crucifying christians and beheading people. i know that the world is a safer and better place when america is the strongest military tower in the world. >> i would not be talking to vladmir putin right now, although i have met him right now. not in a green room for a show but in a private meeting. we must have a no-fly zone in syria because russia cannot tell the united states of america where and when to fly our planes. we have the strongest military on the face of the planet and everyone has to know it. >> the debate revealed sharp differences over immigration,