4 0

Does the Commision on Presidential Debates own a monopoly?

Flowerwall 7 Oct 12

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It does not own anything.

It owns the political debate that is most visible to American public. Is that nothing?

@FlowerwallI repeat, it does not own anything. By consensus, it has been granted permission to arrange, negotiate conditions for the debates, and host them. That permission can be withdrawn.

@wordywalt Whose consensus?


It's interesting that you are both very much okay with not hearing other POVs. Is this typical Biden supporter mindset?

@Flowerwall I find your lack of insight disturbing.
I said it before and now I'll say it again, you're probably a Russian Troll.
Hence your POV is alien and harmful.
Your lack of knowledge about civics is certainly similar to that of Eastern Europeans. Yes I know a bunch of Russians and Bulgarians, it seems that no matter how long they live here they just don't get it and only vote fascist.

@Willow_Wisp Don't waste your time trying to get FlowerWall to make sense. Remember the old adage, " Never argue with a fool in public. After a while people begin to wonder which one is the fool."

@wordywalt Oh please, Wordy, at your age to not have fully embraced the neccessity of dignified communication in political debate and the full, multi-faceted discussion of ideas, leaves your entire facade that you put up in public social settings as being a knowledgeable, well intentioned individual, in reality, a completely mishonest ploy. Get real!

@Willow_Wisp "No"



It's interesting that you are both very much okay with not hearing other POVs. Is this typical Biden supporter mindset?

@Flowerwall that's a strange reply... I'm actually following this post... I didn't submit this post, you did... Is this typical trump speak?

@Cutiebeauty Strange? You think the system is okay as is? Please tell me how you arrived at the answer "No".

@Flowerwall @wordywalt already explained it to you...


The current reality is that we have a two-party(insert sarky comment here) system in the United States. My impression is that they have done a reasonable job trying to stay impartial at least between those two parties. When they start to deviate from that, it will be time to act.
Feel free to give examples when they have deviated.

According to Wikipedia:

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a nonprofit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States.

What about the white supremacist debate question? They are making fools of this nation. The next debate should include the phrase capitalist pigs in order to be fair. Something like, "How will you protect the nation from the self-serving interests of capitalist pigs?" That would be very fair, well inch us closer to fairness anyway. I think it's something most ppl want to know. What do you think? And for the record I do believe in free markets with some government restrictions where neccessary. I don't believe in the merits of institutions that prevent full debate, however.

@Flowerwall The Commission On Public Debates is not a public utility -- as successful as it has been promoting that image. It is based on the assumption (correct so far in the last 30+ years) that the only choice voters get is between Ds & Rs.
It promotes the idea of research relating to the debates, but it make no promise and indeed, has no motivation(beyond TV ratings and reputation) to cover all the issues.

In the end... It was created by the Democratic and Republican political parties. It pays a little lip service to other entities but that's about it until the public demands otherwise (I for one would like to see it).

The first paragraph of their mission statement: []

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process. CPD’s primary purpose is to sponsor and produce the quadrennial general election debates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501☕(3) corporation, sponsored all of the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016.

@RichCC Does it make a disclosure of this sort? I have never seen an acknowledgent that debates are actually large scale infomercials. The first couple sentences on its website seems to play up the idea of free debate in service of electorate.

Also, it is quite possible that even with full debate we would still mainly seek R or D positions. As much as ppl disparage big money, we can't say it has absolutely no place in society. I just feel that fuller debate would be beneficial to all.

@Flowerwall I don't remember ever seeing such an overt disclosure. But the mission statement quoted above is from the Debate Commission website. They've never made a secret as far as I know of their position -- the Ds vs Rs situation is petty much baked into our society at the moment.

And I agree with you on the big money comment. I don't like concentrating such money based power into the hands of a few (often family members). But what else is going to happen?
Short of completely rewriting society in the vein of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism or something -- where everybody's happiness somehow counts the same (which is obviously outrageously unrealistic), I don't see any remotely possible alternative.

@RichCC Be careful because now you yourself are starting to sound like a commercial. It's wrong and should be fixed.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:542828
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.