Should the 2 most unpopular candidates in American history be allowed to run unopposed?

[Grandma]

Obviously none of you have seen expanded debates.

A whole bunch of the other 45 candidates are nutjobs, the rest are naive or weak, or they have shitty ideas, or they have no real policy on crucial matters.

 

[Tehon]

Obviously none of you have seen expanded debates.

A whole bunch of the other 45 candidates are nutjobs, the rest are naive or weak, or they have shitty ideas, or they have no real policy on crucial matters.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that 45 other candidates be given access to the debates.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

Ok but you can't expect there not to be a polling theshold when it comes to being on the debate stage. There are a lot of people running for president beyond the main 4. One of them is a domimatrix who thinks men shouldn't be in leadership roles of any kind. Should we let her on the debate stage?

Appealing to extremes is a poor argument. There are 4 candidates on all 50 state ballots. There's no reason the media should be allowed to crown 2 of them.

There are 4 candidates on all 50 state ballots.

Not quite.....but close.

On another note..... what happened? Hillary's checks start bouncing?

 

[Tehon]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

Ok but you can't expect there not to be a polling theshold when it comes to being on the debate stage. There are a lot of people running for president beyond the main 4. One of them is a domimatrix who thinks men shouldn't be in leadership roles of any kind. Should we let her on the debate stage?

Appealing to extremes is a poor argument. There are 4 candidates on all 50 state ballots. There's no reason the media should be allowed to crown 2 of them.

There are 4 candidates on all 50 state ballots.

Not quite.....but close.

On another note..... what happened? Hillary's checks start bouncing?

Am I crazy because you don't know what you are talking about (the GPUS is on the ballot in 42 states), or because I erred in my recollection of you supporting Hillary Clinton only a short while ago?

 

[Billy000]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

Ok but you can't expect there not to be a polling theshold when it comes to being on the debate stage. There are a lot of people running for president beyond the main 4. One of them is a domimatrix who thinks men shouldn't be in leadership roles of any kind. Should we let her on the debate stage?

Appealing to extremes is a poor argument. There are 4 candidates on all 50 state ballots. There's no reason the media should be allowed to crown 2 of them.

Ok but what threshold do you suggest should allow a third candidate on stage. Johnson and Stein are polling below 10%. Does they really deserve a place on stage? Maybe. But there must be some standard when it comes to polling.

 

[Tehon]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

There is no good reason the two dominant political parties should have control over the debate process. We should provide an independent entity that represents the people's interests to conduct the debates.

 

[francoHFW]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

There is no good reason the two dominant political parties should have control over the debate process. We should provide an independent entity that represents the people's interests to conduct the debates.

Commission on Presidential Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 parties works better than any other, or as well. The problem is the gd New BS GOP. "No compromise, un-American TP GOP"- TIME

 

[jillian]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

they haven't hit 15% so the answer is no.

and that's better than faux news gave to the republican candidates they sat at the kids' table.

and for the record, she's unpopular with righties.

he's unpopular even in his own party.

so there ya go.

 

[francoHFW]

If a 3rd party reaches 15% we'll know it's needed and not just a nuisance. TYVM, Perot.

 

[Tehon]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

There is no good reason the two dominant political parties should have control over the debate process. We should provide an independent entity that represents the people's interests to conduct the debates.

Commission on Presidential Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 parties works better than any other, or as well. The problem is the gd New BS GOP. "No compromise, un-American TP GOP"- TIME

Two parties working in collusion, funded by large amounts of corporate money doesn't seem very democratic to me. It seems somewhat limiting as to the ideas that can be entered into the public discourse and the challenges that can be raised against the status quo.

 

[Markle]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

As you know, there are four candidates. If two have such little support, how is that the fault of anyone else?

 

[Markle]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

3rd and 4th parties should be allowed to debate. The system is rigged.

Bernie says, 15% is too high. 10% would be good. Who decided that?

Bernie said many stupid things. The most stupid was FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY AND FORGIVENESS OF ALL DEBT.

 

[Markle]

Obviously none of you have seen expanded debates.

A whole bunch of the other 45 candidates are nutjobs, the rest are naive or weak, or they have shitty ideas, or they have no real policy on crucial matters.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that 45 other candidates be given access to the debates.

Why not, if candidates are allowed regardless of their ratings in the polls, why not have 100?

 

[Tehon]

Obviously none of you have seen expanded debates.

A whole bunch of the other 45 candidates are nutjobs, the rest are naive or weak, or they have shitty ideas, or they have no real policy on crucial matters.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that 45 other candidates be given access to the debates.

Why not, if candidates are allowed regardless of their ratings in the polls, why not have 100?

That wouldn't be very practical.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

Or should 3rd parties be allowed to debate with them on equal footing?

Did the founders hope that one day the citizens in this country would be completely neutered, and be forced to accept whatever the hell 2 filthy rich organizations are trying to shove down their throats?

The 3rd parties should be allowed to debate, but it won't matter because:
1) They suck
2) The American people are stuck in the "voting for the lesser evil" mode.