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

Should we cheer 2 awful tyrants running unopposed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Voting for evil is just fine

  • Shut your mouth komrade


Results are only viewable after voting.

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
62,631
10,101
2,070
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
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?
 
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?
That's one of the 7 mysteries of America. The USA has 7 mysteries and that's one of em.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
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?
That's one of the 7 mysteries of America. The USA has 7 mysteries and that's one of em.
What are the other 6? If they were written on golden slates that nobody has ever seen, please don't feel the need to respond.
 
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?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
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.
 
The Donald is running opposed by almost all the political and MSM establishment. Crooked Hillary is running supported by the the political and MSM establishment. Besides if The Donald is facing gridlock once elected and he is in one of the two parties, how the fuck could a third party not face even more gridlock. Think a little bit. Again, this election has nothing to do with the MSM trope about polls suggesting unpopularity. It is about The Donald an anti-establishment, healthy, successful, person committed to improving America and Crooked Hillary, a very ill, failure and pathological liar who should be committed! Wake the fuck up.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
The Donald is running opposed by almost all the political and MSM establishment. Crooked Hillary is running supported by the the political and MSM establishment. Besides if The Donald is facing gridlock once elected and he is in one of the two parties, how the fuck could a third party not face even more gridlock. Think a little bit. Again, this election not the MSM trope about polls suggesting unpopularity. It is about The Donald an anti-establishment, healthy, successful, person committed to improving America and Crooked Hillary, a very ill, failure and pathological liar who should be committed! Wake the fuck up.
Look at you, desperate to silence the minority/potential majority. Go fuck yourself.
 
We have a two party system, and it actually works. But truthiness is getting out of hand. "Post factual era" is not funny as Chuck Todd thinks.
 
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.
 
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?
Why not? We have the technology to see if people want to hear her POV.
 
Last edited:
We have a two party system, and it actually works. But truthiness is getting out of hand. "Post factual era" is not funny as Chuck Todd thinks.
:cuckoo:
Well, it worked until the new BS GOP came along. The "no compromise, un-American TP GOP" - (TIME". And its brainwashed dupes. Hopefully about to go bust.
In any given election cycle, there's a chance that lunatics like that can take over 1 of the 2 parties. That's why it's better to have 3 other options instead of just 1.
 
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?
 
We have a two party system, and it actually works. But truthiness is getting out of hand. "Post factual era" is not funny as Chuck Todd thinks.
:cuckoo:
Well, it worked until the new BS GOP came along. The "no compromise, un-American TP GOP" - (TIME". And its brainwashed dupes. Hopefully about to go bust.
In any given election cycle, there's a chance that lunatics like that can take over 1 of the 2 parties. That's why it's better to have 3 other options instead of just 1.
They just make it more likely the boob will get in...Like 2000. I don't envy countries with 3 or more parties. I'd just like to change the evil in practice lying thieving New BS GOP. A laughingstock and horror, and the inmates have taken over the asylum now.
 
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?
 
If they are so unpopular, then who are these people coming here and defending them so vigorously? Why do the supporters of one hate the other?

It seems they are quite popular, and only hated by the other side.
 

Forum List

Back
Top