I didn't enjoy it for the most part, because a lot of the statements made were backed up with false, or misleading premises. I don't quite remember them all clearly, I was drinking to keep myself relaxed through all the rage, but I remember Rand saying that we've been funding allies of ISIS, and mentioning their possession of American humvees, in the same breath. That annoyed me because those humvees were captured when members of the Iraqi army fled their posts, so I don't see how it's too relevant to who we fund in Syria, which was obviously the legislation he was referencing when he said he voted against it. I also still don't understand how people seem to buy Trump's assertion that the Mexican government is literally pushing killers into the US so they don't have to deal with them, as if those few violent immigrants had any noticeable effect in Mexico compared to the actual cartel killings that still go on regularly in the country. It's taking away attention from the fact that we have a neighbor that desperately needs reform and desperately needs assistance from its more fortunate ally. I do like that one of the moderators tried to push Trump on where his proof was of these assertions, at least, but it still seems like there was a lot of support. I mean, I'm further left than Bernie Sanders, so I don't know why I subjected myself to watching this, but it made me feel very cynical.
I think the reason that Trump is so popular is not just because he doesn't have a filter, but because that lack of a filter spews out slurs against the mexican people to which the listeners can then channel their inner racism through their support of him all under the guise that it's his "hard hitting, tell it like it is" language.
I think his point with the Humvees was that we left those in the care of the Iraqi military. I've served in Iraq, everyone there knew for god damn sure that giving those guys guns was a stupid way to get out of Iraq, but it was the best shot we had at not making it the 51st state because of the poor planning on W's part. Since Paul is very much so against expeditionary warfare, his argument is more along the lines that we shouldn't have been in a foreign country for no reason in the first place which forced us to leave thousands of military vehicles (entire fully built-up bases were left in place) in the hands of an irresponsible military. Expeditionary warfare leaves all of these possibilities wide open, and in a not so indirect way should be understood as helping future enemies by giving extravagant weaponry to people who can't (or won't in the case of the Iraqis) defend it.
I just think he framed it disingenuously, because he made it seem like we were supplying ISIS allies with humvees and that's how they acquired them. Even if I agree that we arm groups in an irresponsible fashion, ISIS didn't acquire its weaponry through trade with other groups.