How healthy or unhealthy is political debate in the USA? Give it a grade:
A. Excellent. It's very healthy. Politicians put country ahead of personal interests. Disagreements with other politicians are honest and respectful philosophical differences. They stick to the issues instead of personal attacks and diligently make an honest effort to get their facts straight.
B. Good. It's fairly healthy. It's mostly like above, but occasionally when tempers flare personal attacks happen and someone might on occasion get a fact or two wrong.
C. Fair. There's a mixture of honest debate and personal attacks and a mixture of politicians getting their facts right or wrong -- if wrong, it's due to sloppiness, not deliberate misrepresentation.
D. Poor. It's unhealthy with more personal attacks than honest disagreement. Facts are gotten wrong most of the time, either due to sloppiness or deliberate misrepresentation.
F. Failure. Most political discussion consists of personal attacks with very little substance with facts deliberately misrepresented for personal or party gain to the point where representative government is failing in the USA.