Id: Trump, Ego: Rubio, Superego: Cruz

My goodness! This is ridiculous. What a sorry state of affairs. — Sapientia

Indeed, but the sorry state of affairs has been brewing for quite some time.

There is a long tradition of political debate being closer to a brawl than Oxford-style debate, and it isn't just in the United States (though, in fairness, the US has brawled more than most).

The cheap seats in the galleries tend to respond more than the expensive box seats do, so politicians tend to play to the 'peanut galleries'. I don't think this is limited to the US either.

The US system makes the political race closer to a sports event, because it is a winner-take-all system.

The dirty old working class "political machines" that made a lot of 'smoky back room' political decisions in the past have been supplanted by non-smoking penthouse canapé-snacking martini sipping types who pull strings from behind the curtain--like the Koch Brothers. Cruz, Rubio, and Trump don't have deep roots in the canapé snacking martini-sipping milieu, like say Carly Fiorina or the elder George Bush had. So their behavior is less refined.

For example, the Pendergast machine in Kansas City, the Tammany Hall machine of New York City or the Chicago machine of Mayor Richard J. Daley (not the later Richard M. Daley) came out of working class immigrant communities that used a 'bare-knuckles' approach to persuasion. The machines weren't all bad -- they could capably deliver good results (for their constituents) and they were able to get civic projects done without excessive dithering. Bridges and tunnels take longer to get built in cities without strong political machines.

There is an inconvenient correlation of machine politics with the usual and customary corruption we have come to know and love--your basic perjury, embezzlement, bribery, and vote-counting errors--that sort of thing.

In the past the sort of thing that is now on TV for the whole world to watch would have taken place in a private bar room among cigar-smoking political bosses.

Like making sausage and law, some of these things are just not fit to be seen by the public.

Like making sausage and law, some of these things are just not fit to be seen by the public. — Bitter Crank

Otto von Bismarck, eh?

What? That's hilarious, quit being a square, nerd.

It looks like the US is catching up to Oxford-style parliaments. Two fascist Cubans whose families probably lost their slave plantations 'back in the good old days', and a pampered boy heir, fighting for Chief Executive Officer of the nation. This period of American history reminds me of the immediate post-Flavian era of Rome.

There is a long tradition of political debate being closer to a brawl than Oxford-style debate, and it isn't just in the United States (though, in fairness, the US has brawled more than most). — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's true, I think. The House of Commons - particularly Prime Minister's Questions - over here has a notorious reputation for it's frequent lack of respectful, dignified conduct: all the jeers and the raucous, childish pantomime crowd sort of behaviour. But in comparison to the televised debates in the UK, I'd say the sort of behaviour of the politicians involved in the debate in the video clip surpasses the behaviour of our lot - and not in a good way. I just can't imagine it going down like that with our lot on the BBC.

In the past the sort of thing that is now on TV for the whole world to watch would have taken place in a private bar room among cigar-smoking political bosses.

Like making sausage and law, some of these things are just not fit to be seen by the public. — Bitter Crank

Why not? Ideally, the spaces where the actual decision-making is happening should be the most public. Although I'm reminded of something that Yanis Veroufakis said about his time in negotiations with EU officials and creditors (I don't remember the particular interview or article where he said it); he said something to the effect that people would be surprised about the demeanour and callous disregard for democratic principles in these behind-the-scenes negotiations, but if it were publicly televised or something, they would just have those same behind-the-scenes discussions before the 'official' televised ones. Maybe we should keep cameras on figures of power throughout their entire day and catalogue all of their communications. If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear ;) .

I actually don't care for the pretence of 'respectability' and 'civil conduct', I'm more offended by the level of stupidity and debasement of public political discourse.

We could even go back a couple hundred years when US politicians would challenge each other to fight-to-the-death duels. We could even televise it and handout publicly-funded instant popcorn available at any post office or public library.

I'm opposed to publicly funded popcorn.

But otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Actually I don't think very many American politicians dueled. Hamilton and Burr did. Sadly, Hamilton lost. And Congressman Preston Brooks assaulted Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber, causing what is now termed 'traumatic brain injury'. Sumner never fully recovered. Sumner was an eminent progressive from Massachusetts, and Brooks was a South Carolina pro-slaver. Figures. He felt his cousin had been insulted by a Sumner speech. Otherwise, there hasn't been a lot of bloodshed between American politicians. Getting shot or assassinated is another matter.

A number of states have "sunshine laws" which require all meetings of the legislature (and some of the governor) to be open to the press and/or public. That includes committees and sub-committees as well as the whole body. In Minnesota a plain cup of coffee is about the most a legislator can accept from a constituent or lobbyist.

If the public wants to watch sausage and law being made, they should prepare themselves. Even if the sausage is a quality product, it's still kind of a messy process, fermenting meat and all -- and politics is much the same. They actually make deals, trading off one group's benefits for somebody else's benefits. Don't know how it can be otherwise. One neighborhood wants the road, the next neighborhood hates the road. Something has to give.

Your suggestion has merit. Permanently attach a transmitting video camera to their foreheads. Make it available on broadcast and cable. Put the soundtrack alone on radio. Some of them would benefit from having a ball and chain attached to their ankle, too. Oh hell, just put them into prison once they are sworn in. Either that or the public has to elect honest, less corrupt and corruptible representatives.

If you would like to watch something really dull, watch the House and Senate in session on C-span (the house/senate cable feed). BORING. Clearly, the real action is happening some place other than in the two chambers. In fact, there may be only a few people present listening to whoever is speaking -- except when votes or major confrontations are taking place. But even then, the members behave with a great deal of dignity -- the dignity of undertakers perpetrating some sort of fraud.

Who are you referring to?

Was that an audience member screeching? That felt like peering into a madhouse for a few moments.

Here's a link to the good old days of civil political debate: http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-25/news/33367841_1_jefferson-presidency-presidential-power-hideous-hermaphroditical-character

That having been said, I do believe we have reached a new nadir in all of our lifetimes regarding the state of political discourse. Trump responds to the Mexican president's refusal to fund the wall by stating that now that's there's this back-talk, the wall is going to be 10 feet higher. He then starts calling Rubio "little Rubio" and calls him a choke artist and then says that Cruz is the biggest liar he's ever seen. Trump then attacks the moderator by telling him that no one watches his TV show and asks the public to look up his ratings to confirm it. Rubio, getting late into the fray, later mentions Trump's horrible spray on tan.

What we do know about the wall is that it will be funded by Mexico, that it will be fantastic, the best we've ever seen, and that with Trump in charge, you better believe it will come in under budget and ahead of schedule.

It's just amazingly stupid, but entertaining, which is what it is sort of about I guess.

Regarding what you see in the House of Commons, it appears to me to be a bit tongue in cheek, and the people are generally informed and actually responsive to the issues, even if they throw in a few unnecessary barbs. There is also a level of civility that always accompanies an English accent, where no matter what they say, it seems important and well thought out. Sometimes when I have nothing to say, I'll say it with my award winning English accent so that I can gain some credibility. It's the Simon Cowell effect.

The CBC (from Canada) interviewed a conservative religious talk show host about Trump. Trump. Trump Trump Trump. He was remarkable thoughtful.

He said that his constituency (conservative religious talk show listeners) feel so betrayed and alienated, that they do not care what Trump has done in the past. They don't care what sins or crimes he may or may not have committed. They just don't like "politicians" and in their minds, Trump is not a politician.

The broadcaster concluded by saying, "If people don't care about the morality of the people they want to vote for, then this country has bigger problems than who wins the next election."

Trump has small hands clearly disqualifying him from the presidency. When will the American people, distracted by his love for the KKK, Mussolini and big hair, finally get that?

Surely Trump is a sign: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Perhaps after he wins and we get to see him in action. Otherwise. . . I think people will say "If only he had won".

I'm thinking primarily of Bush II here. It was only after 2 terms that Republicans began to change their opinion of the man. Though, to their credit, Democrats appear to revise their opinions to fit the newest president, while the Republican base decided to stick to their principles and denounce his presidency.

Well, Bush II precipitated a conflict throughout the middle east that will last for the next president's term(s) and beyond. Would you like to see if Trump can trump that?

Oh, certainly not. I don't want Trump to win at all. I wasn't speaking in terms of my desire, but attempting a description of American's behavior. I'm for Bernie Sanders, personally.

No surprise there Moliere, but perhaps Sanders' best hope is to influence a future Hillary administration. I don't think there's a window to turn back the clock to before Obama betrayed the left wing of the Democratic party. I find it very peculiar that Americans are fixated on the locker room talk here and not on the dangerous nature of Trump's strongman/nativist rhetoric - which seems to be unobjectionable to Cruz (who may be even more dangerous) and Rubio.

This period of American history reminds me of the immediate post-Flavian era of Rome.

Post-Flavian? Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius?