This post by Dragonfli re: debates (and I think ieoeja has been saying it, too...)

[woo me with science]

is worth repeating across social media, I think.

I would like debates held by the League of Woman Voters, those of us old enough to remember
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6629353

When that was a thing, also realize that debates can be more than the biased dog and pony show the modern debates have become (some more dog, some more pony and some just show depending on the venue).

I suggest a letter writing campaign suggesting they host a primary debate as soon as all candidates have declared, I would go further, my suggestion is to openly stick a finger in the eye of those in the DNC trying to control the the debate process in favor of the candidate they certainly appear to favor over the others. Also contact the un-anointed to agree as a group to this debate and Ms. Clinton can stand on stage by herself at Debbie's events with DWS throwing her softballs and applauding each non-answer. This would nip this nonsense in the bud (after they blatantly refuse admission to all other primary candidates).

Make this ridiculous and transparent attempt to bend the debates to favor a single candidate work against such attempts.

This would also insure a proper debate structure that may be as substantive as they once were. For those too young to know what I am talking about, debates were once actual debates, and when the LWV held them, they were quite unbiased and would include challenging and pertinent questions.

It is unlikely to happen, but would any here agree with me to try to encourage such a thing?

If so, their contact page is http://lwv.org/content/contact

The address and phone numbers:

1730 M Street NW, Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036-4508
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

We haven't had real debates in this country since the two corporate parties seized control of them during the 1988 election, and they have been steadily tightening control ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

(more at link)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Debates are a joke, would be nice if we had real ones someday

[sabrina 1]

2. Let's have some real debates this time. Not the staged prepared

pretend debates that tend to protect the appointed candidates and are so boring.

The American people have a right to hear from the candidates.

[KoKo]

3. Absolutely...how many more MSM Stars who control the questions from their Handlers

do we have to suffer through? Why can't Amy Goodman or any other number of people be allowed to ask a question in a debate.

Remember when there were some that were thrilled that Gwen Iffil of PBS was allowed to "Moderate" a Debate? After PBS had already started to be run by Right Leaning Contributors?

[mother earth]

4. Absolutely. K & R

[cui bono]

5. k n r

[octoberlib]

6. K&R!

Even the debate process has been corrupted.

[progressoid]

7. Rec!

[nikto]

8. Hey, I'm a REAL Amurkin! So, I have to ask, uh...what's a debate?

Is that something you fish with, er sump'n?

[Thespian2]

9. First, I think the DNC sucks...

Second, I think a good debate format would something like the UK or Canadian parliament, where the candidates ask each other questions...no need for a panel of partisans...often, rousing good cat-fights...

[jalan48]

10. And at the end of this fake DNC process we will be told to vote for Hillary because

the Republican candidate will be utter catastrophe if he gets in. We will dutifully bow our heads and mark Hillary on the ballot because that's just the way it has to be. How many times does this have to happen before we say finally enough, we're not participating in the charade anymore?

[lovemydog]

11. k & r

[whereisjustice]

12. k & r

[Enthusiast]

13. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[merrily]

14. A book was written about the carefully orchestrated Presidential debates.

http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Debates-Professor-Alan-Schroeder/dp/0231114001

[dreamnightwind]

15. After making candidates sign the"exclusivity agreement"

or whatever they call it, the DNC will place the real issues way off the table. I think I will follow through and contact LWV, couldn't hurt, it woud be great if we finally had a debate on some of the truly critical issues we have to confront, rather than the usual narrow nuanced differences between similar world views (should we fund our military to be able to fight 2 wars at once, or only 1?)

edit to add I sent LWV a query using their contact form, hopefully others will do something too to try to open up the debates.