General Discussion

tularetom

(23,664 posts)

194. "Either they can raise funds and get their message out or they become an "also ran"."

Reply to MohRokTah (Reply #81)

Mon Jun 1, 2015, 08:28 AM

Jun 2015

In other words, you pretty much agree with Citizens United.

I think you're in the wrong party.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Democratic Party needs to get it's Sh*t together. [View all] ZX86 May 2015 OP

i am not outraged. i will listen to others, to see if there is a reason to be outraged. seabeyond May 2015 #1

Making a candidate ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups. ZX86 May 2015 #26

The LoWV only EVER sponsored debates for the GE. MohRokTah May 2015 #56

And why was that? ZX86 May 2015 #61

Which is why they NEVER get involved in primaries MohRokTah May 2015 #63

Non-partisan debates moderated by people ZX86 May 2015 #68

And those come AFTER THE PRIMARIES MohRokTah May 2015 #72

I want non-biased debates interested in informing voters. ZX86 May 2015 #83

And you get those in the GENERAL ELECTION! MohRokTah May 2015 #90

You're wrong on that point. ZX86 May 2015 #104

BULLSHIT!!!! MohRokTah May 2015 #107

Being loud doesn't make you right. ZX86 May 2015 #125

Being right does, though. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #126

Only a fool believes that corporate money ZX86 May 2015 #129

Only a fool ignores the fact that a Democraticc candidate who cannot raise eough money MohRokTah May 2015 #130

Plus one! Enthusiast Jun 2015 #190

Nor does repeating the same thing over again make you right. LanternWaste Jun 2015 #202

Bernie agrees with you - ZX86 RobertEarl May 2015 #114

Speaking truths to Americans on talking heads shows? oh, my. merrily May 2015 #132

Willing to argue anything that benefits Hillary, no matter how merrily May 2015 #127

Actually, I don't remember Kalb asking Dukakis that question... JHB May 2015 #151

I stand corrected. ZX86 May 2015 #159

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for the thread. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #189

you have to sort of see beyond, in order to see it.. :) 2banon May 2015 #46

ha ha. you are funny. i am sure we know each other well, but... i only remember seabeyond May 2015 #53

His petulance is a thing of peevish beauty LanternWaste Jun 2015 #203

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #2

he's running for the Democratic nomination dlwickham May 2015 #3

Better question, why wouldn't you? Exilednight May 2015 #66

because this is the time to try and win over Democratic voters dlwickham May 2015 #148

One stone, two birds. Exilednight May 2015 #149

Let's start by replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of DNC NightWatcher May 2015 #4

I agree. She's doing a terrible job, LuvNewcastle May 2015 #133

How do more debates help the average working Democrat? brooklynite May 2015 #5

"Democrat Party" is the denigrating name Righwingnuts use for the DemocratIC Party. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #8

I know, that was a referral back to the OP. brooklynite May 2015 #16

I know, the OP has been told multiple times. MohRokTah May 2015 #20

When you have nothing else to say attack the messenger. I am an older FDR Democrat or should jwirr May 2015 #43

Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. MohRokTah May 2015 #54

Actually he was helping him.. "Democrat party" is what rw call us to denigrate. Cha May 2015 #162

More information is always better than less. ZX86 May 2015 #28

I want weekly debates on issues, nationally televised Carewfan May 2015 #33

What a completely revolting suggestion. MohRokTah May 2015 #39

Yeah, more money in politics is the solution. ZX86 May 2015 #45

It's the game we have. MohRokTah May 2015 #50

It's not a game. ZX86 May 2015 #64

It's more like a game than anything you can describe. MohRokTah May 2015 #67

It isn't playtime. ZX86 May 2015 #75

IT HAS RULES! MohRokTah May 2015 #77

I will not GTFO! ZX86 May 2015 #86

Then vent your anger on an internet messge board and have the same effect as... MohRokTah May 2015 #92

The post is about presidential debates. ZX86 May 2015 #100

The debates and rules are set. MohRokTah May 2015 #119

Or change rules. ZX86 May 2015 #122

Not gonna happen. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #123

Not with that attitude. ZX86 May 2015 #128

Money does determine the value of candidates in the United States. MohRokTah May 2015 #131

Who said anything about wishing? ZX86 May 2015 #135

Well for the 2016 capaign cycle, you ai't changin' it, so all that's left are wishes. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #137

why are you setting yourself crazy debating this person dlwickham May 2015 #150

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #191

WTF???? ?????? 2banon May 2015 #55

It's called "vetting". MohRokTah May 2015 #58

Your world utopia is a plutocracy apparently. what's the point in holding elections at all? 2banon May 2015 #79

No, my party vets the fund raising capabilites of the candidates. MohRokTah May 2015 #81

"Either they can raise funds and get their message out or they become an "also ran"." tularetom Jun 2015 #194

Love you putting words in my mouth. MohRokTah Jun 2015 #195

Here's some words right from your mouth, dude tularetom Jun 2015 #198

What is not true about what I said? MohRokTah Jun 2015 #199

Pro-Citizens United = supporter of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas.. Shouldn't he be a Repuke? 2banon Jun 2015 #200

To achieve fair elections millions of us want publicly funded elections, as you know Enthusiast Jun 2015 #192

Was the title line a preface to the message body? Scootaloo May 2015 #153

The disgusting thing is refusing to allow a candidate to be vetted on their fund raising capability. MohRokTah May 2015 #154

You are advocating buying the nomination Scootaloo May 2015 #156

I am advocating winning the General Election. MohRokTah May 2015 #158

No, you are advocating putting the nomination up for auction Scootaloo May 2015 #161

You are simply not being realistic. MohRokTah May 2015 #166

I'm using your argument. Scootaloo May 2015 #169

If somebody besides Hillary Clinton can prove they can raise $1 billion they become viable. MohRokTah May 2015 #170

Including the Kochs. Scootaloo May 2015 #171

Super PACs are an entirely different conversation. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #173

I'm suggesting we put the nomination up for auction, like you want Scootaloo May 2015 #175

+1 appalachiablue May 2015 #183

And this is why we can't have nice things MFrohike May 2015 #172

OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #174

Whoops MFrohike May 2015 #176

I think they'd be more likely to catch a few if there were more of them? hollowdweller May 2015 #80

Because then they can get a debate on issues relevant to them. jeff47 May 2015 #85

+1 You get it, totally. As few chances as possible for the people to learn about real appalachiablue May 2015 #182

What do you know about the "average working Democrat"? Scootaloo May 2015 #152

IF Bernie cannot abide by the rules of the DNC, maybe he'd better seek the... MohRokTah May 2015 #6

Totally agree. /nt workinclasszero May 2015 #25

Because to acquiesce to authority ZX86 May 2015 #32

They DID create rules that benefit Democratic voters. MohRokTah May 2015 #35

Really? What's the benefit? jeff47 May 2015 #88

OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #94

Voters benefit from more debates, not fewer. merrily May 2015 #138

These aren't the rules of the DNC. They are the proposed rules. jeff47 May 2015 #91

These ARE the rules. MohRokTah May 2015 #96

Sorry, no. The exclusivity rules are new and not yet adopted. jeff47 May 2015 #97

Sorry, no, the exclusivity rule went into place and was announced May 5. MohRokTah May 2015 #105

No, the rules were not similar. Exclusivity is utterly and completely new. jeff47 May 2015 #109

+1 merrily May 2015 #143

The Democrat Party, really? JaneyVee May 2015 #7

There is no such party frazzled May 2015 #9

I think that was Lee "POS" Atwater's idea. n/t FSogol May 2015 #14

Do you evidence that FDR did not use Democrat Party? jwirr May 2015 #44

Ahem MohRokTah May 2015 #62

But I suspect he called it "the democrat party' also. And I can tell you we did not use this silly jwirr May 2015 #71

You are under the burden of proof here. MohRokTah May 2015 #74

Really. Trying to defend "Democrat Party" on DU? I see the OP changed it. Cha May 2015 #163

I know, then demanding we prove a negative on top of it. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #168

+1 Art_from_Ark May 2015 #84

A couple years ago I was sending an email about a heated topic and paused once when appalachiablue May 2015 #184

Its 2015, not 1940 frazzled May 2015 #144

Well, Democrats who named the New Democrat Coalition came close. merrily May 2015 #142

No such thing as the "Democrat" Party. It's the Democratic Party. nt City Lights May 2015 #10

tells... see i missed that. iddnt see the outraged, but did say i would check back and listen seabeyond May 2015 #13

My bad. ZX86 May 2015 #19

Thanks for making the correction. City Lights May 2015 #22

It's always fun Spirochete Jun 2015 #188

It's DemocratIC Duckhunter935 May 2015 #11

That was an oopsie. It is Democratic Party. ZX86 May 2015 #17

evereybody makes mistakes Duckhunter935 May 2015 #23

.... merrily May 2015 #145

Big whoop, if you want to appear at another event, you just have to call it FSogol May 2015 #12

He'd better edit soon or else somebody's gonna alert that shit. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #15

Some people around here will alert ZX86 May 2015 #31

Sometimes the Ham Sandwich deserves the alert. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #40

WTF. "Democrat Party" ???? AtomicKitten May 2015 #18

Please show me the evidence that anyone gave a damn back in 1940. Up until the last several jwirr May 2015 #48

I simply posted the definition AtomicKitten May 2015 #99

We Democrats stage left May 2015 #21

I had an aquaintance call it the "Democrat Party" when we were having a heated discussion. MohRokTah May 2015 #24

Good one! stage left Jun 2015 #186

The DNC does not need to have lots of debates. If the candidate can not get their message out in Thinkingabout May 2015 #27

Love it or leave it? ZX86 May 2015 #29

That was only in the GE. MohRokTah May 2015 #37

When you don't have an argument do you think the "corporate" word rolls out. Thinkingabout May 2015 #38

If you don't understand how corporations ZX86 May 2015 #47

OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #65

Apparently some feel corporations should share profits with every one. Thinkingabout May 2015 #82

And they wonder why people freak out about Socialism. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #87

Yes. It's called being a good corporate citizen ZX86 May 2015 #98

You haveno clue what that term means. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #124

You missed on that one. It isn't any wonder this nation doesn't function well. Thinkingabout May 2015 #160

We all share our income. It's called paying taxes. Corps. don't pay a fair share. merrily May 2015 #147

Well, if they're going to share the COSTS with everyone, it's only fair Scootaloo May 2015 #155

I perhaps do not share your opinion. Thinkingabout May 2015 #70

If you don't understand that corporations ZX86 May 2015 #112

I understand the corporation makes money for the owners (shareholders) and it may surprise some but Thinkingabout May 2015 #157

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ZX86 May 2015 #164

6 is enough imo. hrmjustin May 2015 #30

Double it, and you're talking.. Carewfan May 2015 #36

Don't like it, run for the nomination of a different party. MohRokTah May 2015 #41

Because when they changed it from outside groups ZX86 May 2015 #57

The LoWV have NEVER sponsored primary debates. MohRokTah May 2015 #59

You're missing the point and focusing on minutiae. ZX86 May 2015 #120

OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #121

That would be a no. ZX86 May 2015 #134

Since I'm very active locally and am a precinct comitteeman, it's definitely MohRokTah May 2015 #136

No. ZX86 May 2015 #139

So you cannot spend about 2 hours per month? MohRokTah May 2015 #140

I am very active as well kenfrequed Jun 2015 #201

i don't think we need 12. 6 is enough imo. hrmjustin May 2015 #42

No, it isn't. Because all 6 are national debates. jeff47 May 2015 #95

I think you can ask questions about individual state isuues in a national debate. hrmjustin May 2015 #102

Yes, we can completely cover 8-1/3rd states in each debate!! jeff47 May 2015 #106

Well then the candidates can petition the dnc to change the rules. hrmjustin May 2015 #110

How bout the DNC explain why they changed the rules first? jeff47 May 2015 #113

Ask them. hrmjustin May 2015 #115

I'm not the one with Debbie on speed-dial. jeff47 May 2015 #117

Lol point taken. But you are not lesser folk imho. hrmjustin May 2015 #118

Yes, it does sound that way. jwirr May 2015 #34

The Party doesn't care. Understand that. There is only one party. Two ends of the same worm. bowens43 May 2015 #49

Ridiculous. MohRokTah May 2015 #51

Really? What party would you workinclasszero May 2015 #178

Of course all the pro-6 debate supporters are those who's candidate will benefit from the limited jwirr May 2015 #52

One candidate will get most of the questions, the rest will get asked only about that candidate n/t arcane1 May 2015 #60

If your candidate can't get their shit together i six debates... MohRokTah May 2015 #69

Debates do not have to be national debates. jeff47 May 2015 #103

The DNC held 6 debates in 2004. MohRokTah May 2015 #108

No, candidates participated in 34 debates in the 2008 primary. jeff47 May 2015 #111

It's such a surprising pattern. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #101

If you're not confident in your candidate, you'll want to limit debates and who writes the Jefferson23 May 2015 #73

Absolutely Art_from_Ark May 2015 #93

I would like that.n/t Jefferson23 May 2015 #167

It's a disadvantage to candidates who are less well known and less well funded. merrily May 2015 #146

snip* Jefferson23 May 2015 #165

Democratic and exclusivity ZX86 May 2015 #177

Exactly. That it was changed from 22 is telling.n/t Jefferson23 May 2015 #179

That's The Guardian, seen by us political junkies and 14 other people. Let's see if the DNC toughs merrily May 2015 #185

I am so glad we have ignore. BTW not for you. jwirr May 2015 #76

you do realize it's a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY JI7 May 2015 #78

But if he talks directly to another candidate ZX86 May 2015 #181

That's the truth, another fixture to steer the Election away from voters, orpupilofnature57 May 2015 #89

This is to protect the only candidate who starts primary season with 91%f name recognition. merrily May 2015 #116

The root of the problem is that the DNC can't be trusted nm Teamster Jeff May 2015 #141

They dont want a repeat of what happened to the GOP in 2012. DCBob May 2015 #180

The More debates the better. stage left Jun 2015 #187

Limiting debates favors the candidate with the highest name recogniton, ergo the policy. Scuba Jun 2015 #193

Derp. nt. NCTraveler Jun 2015 #196

Funny how everybody on this thread who agrees with this silly debate limitation tularetom Jun 2015 #197

Limiting debates goes against everything Democracy stands for. azmom Jun 2015 #204