During the last republican debate the candidates really went after each other. Some name calling, Talking over each other. The candidate speaking spanish. They all went after each other hard.
This is different from previous years debates where the candidates were all polite and reserved. Frankly in this debate its more interesting because the candidates get off track and sometimes really reveal themselves.
Also this makes for better tv drama.
What do you all think?
Tough is not the word that came to mind as I watched. Puerile sums it up for me.
These are all candidates for President. :smack:
Name calling, interrupting and lack of policies is not what you want in a President.
If they were auditioning for a spot on Jersey Shore this would indeed be great entertainment.
But they’re not and it isn’t.
When most of the GOP candidates are asked a question, they redirect the question to knocking down another candidate without ever answering the question. Tough is not the word for this, more like “weak”. A strong debater comes prepared, doesn’t interrupt, and doesn’t point out what’s wrong with the person next to them before answering the question. Almost every question posed to a candidate ends up with an answer of, “My plan? Well, my plan is better than THIS guy”, without ever describing their plan in detail.
IOW, they should just quit pretending to have debates and interview each candidate on the same questions individually, in private. Thus ending all bullshit interruptions and actually answering a freaking question.
Tough? No.
Mean? Juvenile? Petty? Angry? Useless? Self-destructive? Sure, I’ll go along with those.
Locrian, your idea sounds good, but all you have to watch is one interview on a Sunday morning talk show to realize we still won’t get a straight answer.
I think the current Republican landscape represents the Dunning Kruger effect writ large. The average Republican voter doesn’t know enough about civics and what is required of the president to realize how little they know. They think that they themselves would make a better executive than those jokers in Washington, all it takes is a bit of common sense. And so they want a candidate who looks just like them and bullying an obnoxious thoughtlessness is how they react to the world around them, so why shouldn’t the president do likewise.
Exactly. We’ll get Trump saying, “I’ll fix it. I will.”, without saying how, but there won’t be a Rubio or Cruz in the corner interrupting, ALSO without giving an answer of their own. 
Well, that’s only true since Christie dropped out. 
And we’re well on our way to becoming an idiocracy.
Tough would require some kind of substantive discussion. So would debate. What we have here is failure to communicate.
Seriously, I watch the Democrat’s debates and think that I could live with fairy-tale, soak-the-rich policies if it meant seeing that level of professionalism, respect and civility. Maybe I should move to Canada? 
The debates should lose the audience. It plays more like a roast than a serious political event.
Jeff Ross, with his track record for making cutting remarks, might actually come up with questions having the potential to elicit candidate-self-revelations. (Yikes!)
Coincidentally, I just watched the documentary “Best of Enemies” about the 1968 series of debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, which ran during the national conventions. They kinda set the bar for punditry that pertains to this day.
So since Rubio didn’t call Trump a “crypto-nazi”, and Trump didn’t call Rubio a “queer” and threaten to punch him in the face – there’s been worse.
The last debate was a shitshow, and the lack of effective moderating didn’t help. Even Glenn Beck tweeted that it was an embarrassment.
These debates are like a children’s playground argument - “I know you are but what am I??” and mainly come down to which candidate can promise to kill or deport the most brown people.
The one debate moment I was glad to see was Christie’s epic takedown of Marco Roboto.