BPL’s live broadcast of a heated debate on Friday night was not the only one to feature the Republican presidential nominee as a participant.
It was a live one, and the result was both embarrassing and shocking.
On the one hand, the debate itself was a pretty standard affair.
On Saturday night, the Republican frontrunner and a host of Republican leaders took the stage in front of a cheering crowd of tens of thousands.
This was, in the words of one of the guests, a “tremendous show”.
It was the first time since the election that a GOP presidential candidate had appeared on the show, and it certainly didn’t do much to calm the nerves of the audience.
The show went down pretty well, but it was a mixed bag of substance.
For one thing, the main event had to do with a long-standing question of the night: should the US government intervene to prevent China from manipulating the price of oil?
In other words, should the president intervene to stop China from artificially driving prices up to the level that would put the US economy in serious trouble?
The question had been raised before in the form of a tweet from the president, and was also a bit of a back-and-forth affair that went back and forth between the two candidates.
Mr Trump repeatedly called the price manipulation a “China conspiracy”.
His opponent, who is often compared to President Xi Jinping, has repeatedly argued that China is manipulating oil prices and that the price should be set by the market.
Mr Xi, in response, has suggested that the US and its allies should intervene to protect US oil companies from such manipulation.
Both candidates agreed that it was important to stop the price rises that were causing so much suffering to people around the world.
The other debate was on a question of foreign policy.
Mr Tillerson and Mr Trump have been sparring over whether the US should withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, a major international deal that requires the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Obama, in contrast, is the first US president to withdraw from it, and Mr Tillerson has said that withdrawing would be “very difficult”.
In the past, both Mr Trump and Mr Obama have argued that the deal should be implemented.
They also argued that other countries should do so as well.
The president, however, is arguing that the Paris deal should go forward as it is, not as he might want it to.
Mr Perry and Mr Rubio both argued that they would vote for the deal.
This, they said, was in part because of the US’s historic role as the global leader in the fight against climate change.
Mr Rubio was the only candidate to offer any serious answers to this question, with a rather odd choice of words.
He said the deal would be the “world’s greatest agreement on climate change”, which he did not describe as an agreement that would “go on forever”.
He went on to say that it “would make the US the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world”.
Mr Perry, however he did, say that he thought the Paris agreement should be extended.
This is something he has argued for, but he has never argued that it should be.
Mr Biden, meanwhile, was one of a handful of candidates who suggested that Mr Trump might actually be in favour of withdrawing from the deal, and that it might be a good idea for the US not to.
He suggested that he would vote against it because it would be a “historic mistake”.
He also said that if the US left the Paris accord, it would lead to the “destruction of US global leadership”.
Mr Rubio, on the other hand, said that he “would vote to stay in” the deal and said that “it would make the United States the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the entire world”.
He added that he did “not believe the Paris Accord would lead the US down the path of climate change”.
Mr Trump’s position on the Paris Agreement has been more nuanced.
In the summer, he said that it would make a good deal for America, which would lead US companies to make good deals overseas.
He has also said he would “absolutely” not withdraw from any agreement.
But Mr Rubio has suggested, for example, that if there was a country in the Middle East that wanted to join the Paris pact, Mr Trump would be open to a “free trade agreement” with that country.
Mr Carson also made a point of stating that if Mr Trump was going to sign on to a deal, he would sign it on the same terms as Mr Trump did on the campaign trail.
“I believe we can do better than what we’ve got,” he said.
“But I’m not going to be the one to say, I’m going to tell the American people, this is what we’re going to do.
It’s a very, very difficult deal.
We’re going down the road of environmental destruction.
It is not good for our