Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
40. We no longer have "Presidential Debates" in the USA.
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:54 PM
Aug 2013

We have Campaign & Marketing Opportunities tightly controlled by the two major parties.
We used to have "debates",
back when they were sponsored by the League of Women Voters,
but both major Parties decided that the questions were too hard.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[5] In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

[font size=3]" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

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


Kudos to The League of Women Voters for "no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Now THERE is an organization I can STAND with proudly.


What once were called "debates" have fallen to the level of mild infotainment
complete with Gotcha Journalism more concerned with the best One Liners than actual policy or substantive differences between the two parties.

What is MORE important to the American citizen is NOT what was discussed in these faux "debates",
but what major issues were AVOIDED or IGNORED, because the Two parties absolutely AGREE 100%.

These would be issues like:
*The destruction of the Working Class in America

*The Plight of the Poor

*The erosion of Constitutionally protected Civil Liberties

*The expanding powers of the "Unitary Executive"

*Privatized Prisons

*Privatized ANYTHING that used to be in The Commons

*The negative effects of so called "Free Trade" and the mythological "Free Market"

*Blowback from the "War on Terror"

*the growing disparity of WEALTH in America

*"Too Big to Fail"

*Support or Demonization of the emerging Transparent Democracies in Latin America

*Black Box Voting & verifiable Elections

*The Failed War on Drugs

*Out of Control Military Spending

...does anybody remember ANY of the above important issues discussed in the 2012 Presidential Debates? ALL of the above affect every single American every single day, but none of the above were "debate" issues between the two major parties.

It is easy to become distracted by parsing out What was Said,
but more difficult to discern what was NOT said because BOTH Parties agree 100%, especially when "they" control all aspects of the "debates".

Its not that important anyway.
Its ONLY our Democracy that is at stake here.







You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good. Bring on the KKKrazy. nt onehandle Aug 2013 #1
Maybe boycotted media should boycott their candidates. Fuddnik Aug 2013 #2
. KansDem Aug 2013 #3
anagrams for "republican party" trusty elf Aug 2013 #34
+1 for the anagrams TexasTowelie Aug 2013 #35
a few more... trusty elf Aug 2013 #42
so good, sounds like the end for them...death throwes I think.... Raven Aug 2013 #4
OFFS! sakabatou Aug 2013 #5
There is a God! Won't have to listen to their moderator, Rush the bigoted blowhard! freshwest Aug 2013 #44
I'd like to thank the gop and wish them success Hayduke Bomgarte Aug 2013 #6
Welcome to DU wryter2000 Aug 2013 #9
Thanks Hayduke Bomgarte Aug 2013 #14
It's not Hillary's fault---- DFW Aug 2013 #7
Oh, I don't know wryter2000 Aug 2013 #11
actually, cosmicone Aug 2013 #25
Well, there's a winning strategy for you wryter2000 Aug 2013 #8
Good EC Aug 2013 #10
May I Be the first to call 911 and have them send the wwwaaaaaambulance???? BlueManFan Aug 2013 #12
So much for trying to be "adults" Hamy85 Aug 2013 #13
So Hillary or whoever will end up debating an empty chair? KamaAina Aug 2013 #15
Awww...Poor Bwabies. Unknown Beatle Aug 2013 #16
In a normal world they would request that a similar program be aired for their guy.... Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #29
"the party would consider holding its 2016 nominating convention in June or July, rather than August KamaAina Aug 2013 #17
Next step on the road to irrelevant oblivion... on point Aug 2013 #18
"Holy shizz! We better keep our candidates off TV or we'll lose another election!" struggle4progress Aug 2013 #19
the gopers have been clamoring for a one party Iliyah Aug 2013 #20
That strategy will work perfectly... Xolodno Aug 2013 #21
That's exactly what will happen bloomington-lib Aug 2013 #26
Excellent. A sign at the other podium stating "Missing in Action", and a real Democrat or two, jtuck004 Aug 2013 #22
Send Clinton Eastwood in their place! chuckstevens Aug 2013 #23
so they are threatening to hurt themselves iamthebandfanman Aug 2013 #24
I didn't think the GOP had any feet left to shoot off, but I guess I was wrong. eom 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #27
Of course. It feeds into their "victims of the librul media" stitch. Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #28
Why do we bother with debates in the first place? VADem1980 Aug 2013 #30
Their irrelevance is showing randr Aug 2013 #31
Good! But I wonder how the next group of Republican rodeo clowns will feel about the notadmblnd Aug 2013 #32
We will still get to see clips from the Republican primary debates won't we? A Simple Game Aug 2013 #33
It would be like they weren't there anyway. nytemare Aug 2013 #36
Reince Priebus: ''Give us what we want...... DeSwiss Aug 2013 #37
I demand that they also boycott ABC, CBS, and PBS! tanyev Aug 2013 #38
Are Republicans Really This Arrogant DallasNE Aug 2013 #39
We no longer have "Presidential Debates" in the USA. bvar22 Aug 2013 #40
Kudo's DallasNE Aug 2013 #47
They stand for freedom bucolic_frolic Aug 2013 #41
Yet when Fox ran the Swift Boat smear campaign . . . crickets. . . . ET Awful Aug 2013 #43
Excellent! displacedtexan Aug 2013 #45
pussies NYtoBush-Drop Dead Aug 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»GOP to Boycott Presidenti...»Reply #40