Opinion of bronz4141

[Phony Moderate]

Seems to be passionate....

[retromike22]

Seems to be passionate....

Ugh omg a true Midwestern nationalist if there ever was one. Overly obsessed about SOOTHING Midwesterners and the SOOTHING midwest region. Also overly promotes Representatives, obscure state officials, and conservative radio talk show hosts as being potential Presidential nominees.

I'm pretty convinced he's a former strategist of the Pawlenty 2012 campaign.

[RR1997]

Ugh omg a true Midwestern nationalist

Which is why he is an FF.

The Midwest FTW!

[Suburbia]

Seems to be passionate....

Ugh omg a true Midwestern nationalist if there ever was one. Overly obsessed about SOOTHING Midwesterners and the SOOTHING midwest region. Also overly promotes Representatives, obscure state officials, and conservative radio talk show hosts as being potential Presidential nominees.

I'm pretty convinced he's a former strategist of the Pawlenty 2012 campaign.

Retro, I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm an independent. I love the Midwest region because they are good candidates from both parties from the region that I can somewhat support that won't make headlines. It's better to not make news as a president or vice president than do create headlines every day. Also, who wasn't more obscure than President Obama in 2004 before the DNC in Boston? Candidates come out of obscurity all the time. I liked Pawlenty's prospects as a candidate because he doesn't make news and is low-key than other potential choices. The reason why I used to "promote" conservative talk show hosts is because at work I heard some co-workers mentioning that they would be better than the "typical politician" and they said that Newsmax.com would decide how GOP voters think in 2016. Not every GOP voter wants a politician in 2016 to run. I'm not promoting candidates, I'm just suggesting.

[IceSpear]

SP (Soothing Person)

[retromike22]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No one who comes up with this post

I am NOT annoying.
I am NOT a fool.
I am a concerned American.
The questions that I put are "what if questions" on the 2016 thread, because 2016 is A WIDE OPEN CONTEST. This is not a ONE-PERSON RACE.
I would support a Hillary Clinton candidacy, in 2016.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A WIDE OPEN FIELD!
Why wouldn't Pawlenty or Pence run?
IT'S THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY!
Michael Reagan, Mike Pence, and Tim Pawlenty are all personalities with considerable political skill and NO ONE should be surprised if we wake up on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, and find out that one of these men are the 45th president of the United States.
I AM NOT ANNOYING.
IF I am annoying anyone, I AM SORRY BECAUSE I CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. We need alternatives.
IM SORRY.
I'M TRULY SORRY.

...deserves anything less than a resounding vote of FF.   The two declarations of "I AM NOT ANNOYING" got a literal LMAO from me. 

[Mr. Morden]

SP (Soothing Person)

SM (Soothing Midwesterner)

[Suburbia]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

[Suburbia]

No one who comes up with this post

I am NOT annoying.
I am NOT a fool.
I am a concerned American.
The questions that I put are "what if questions" on the 2016 thread, because 2016 is A WIDE OPEN CONTEST. This is not a ONE-PERSON RACE.
I would support a Hillary Clinton candidacy, in 2016.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A WIDE OPEN FIELD!
Why wouldn't Pawlenty or Pence run?
IT'S THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY!
Michael Reagan, Mike Pence, and Tim Pawlenty are all personalities with considerable political skill and NO ONE should be surprised if we wake up on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, and find out that one of these men are the 45th president of the United States.
I AM NOT ANNOYING.
IF I am annoying anyone, I AM SORRY BECAUSE I CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. We need alternatives.
IM SORRY.
I'M TRULY SORRY.

...deserves anything less than a resounding vote of FF.   The two declarations of "I AM NOT ANNOYING" got a literal LMAO from me.  

HockeyDude, I'm sorry for that post. I was just annoyed on that day. I was just too passionate for some reason on that topic. Passion gets the best out of everyone. It still hurts.

[SWE]

Provides plenty of entertainment

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No one who comes up with this post

I am NOT annoying.
I am NOT a fool.
I am a concerned American.
The questions that I put are "what if questions" on the 2016 thread, because 2016 is A WIDE OPEN CONTEST. This is not a ONE-PERSON RACE.
I would support a Hillary Clinton candidacy, in 2016.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A WIDE OPEN FIELD!
Why wouldn't Pawlenty or Pence run?
IT'S THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY!
Michael Reagan, Mike Pence, and Tim Pawlenty are all personalities with considerable political skill and NO ONE should be surprised if we wake up on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, and find out that one of these men are the 45th president of the United States.
I AM NOT ANNOYING.
IF I am annoying anyone, I AM SORRY BECAUSE I CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. We need alternatives.
IM SORRY.
I'M TRULY SORRY.

...deserves anything less than a resounding vote of FF.   The two declarations of "I AM NOT ANNOYING" got a literal LMAO from me.  

HockeyDude, I'm sorry for that post. I was just annoyed on that day. I was just too passionate for some reason on that topic. Passion gets the best out of everyone. It still hurts.

Sorry?!  It's the funniest non-opebo thing I've ever seen here!  I'd be proud of that post. 

[retromike22]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

Why do you believe Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe than those who are not from the Midwest?

[SWE]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

Why do you believe Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe than those who are not from the Midwest?

They're too soothing to make gaffes

[Suburbia]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

Why do you believe Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe than those who are not from the Midwest?

Midwesterners are somewhat more cautious than Southerners and Northeasterners in what they say (except for crazy fringe candidates like Joe Walsh from Illinois).

[Hash]

have no clue who he is, assume he's terrible (normal)

[Oakvale]

have no clue who he is, assume he's terrible (normal)

^ voted HP obviously

[retromike22]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

Why do you believe Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe than those who are not from the Midwest?

Midwesterners are somewhat more cautious than Southerners and Northeasterners in what they say (except for crazy fringe candidates like Joe Walsh from Illinois).

Out of curiosity, where are you from?

[ElectionsGuy]

FF

[Suburbia]

No one who comes up with this post

I am NOT annoying.
I am NOT a fool.
I am a concerned American.
The questions that I put are "what if questions" on the 2016 thread, because 2016 is A WIDE OPEN CONTEST. This is not a ONE-PERSON RACE.
I would support a Hillary Clinton candidacy, in 2016.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A WIDE OPEN FIELD!
Why wouldn't Pawlenty or Pence run?
IT'S THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY!
Michael Reagan, Mike Pence, and Tim Pawlenty are all personalities with considerable political skill and NO ONE should be surprised if we wake up on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, and find out that one of these men are the 45th president of the United States.
I AM NOT ANNOYING.
IF I am annoying anyone, I AM SORRY BECAUSE I CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. We need alternatives.
IM SORRY.
I'M TRULY SORRY.

...deserves anything less than a resounding vote of FF.   The two declarations of "I AM NOT ANNOYING" got a literal LMAO from me.  

HockeyDude, I'm sorry for that post. I was just annoyed on that day. I was just too passionate for some reason on that topic. Passion gets the best out of everyone. It still hurts.

Sorry?!  It's the funniest non-opebo thing I've ever seen here!  I'd be proud of that post.

HockeyDude, I'm still proud of that post because I defended my position, but it was a crazy day. What i'm most passionate about is that Netherlands-Spain World Cup final in 2010 that was so upsetting and made me turn off from soccer for a while.

[Suburbia]

But I don't understand why midwestern candidates are less likely to "make news" than non-midwestern candidates.

What do you mean by "make news"? Do you mean they're less likely to make a gaffe or have scandals or both? Because I agree that I wouldn't want a candidate like that either.

Yes, I meant that most Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe unless if they are really crazy.

Why do you believe Midwestern candidates are less likely to make a gaffe than those who are not from the Midwest?

Midwesterners are somewhat more cautious than Southerners and Northeasterners in what they say (except for crazy fringe candidates like Joe Walsh from Illinois).

Out of curiosity, where are you from?

New Jersey, but I go on tours across the country especially in the Midwest region (especially in the autumn)

[MATTROSE94]

He reminds me a bit of TX Conservative Dem in a way, so FF overall.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

There should be a 3rd option: NA (NOT ANNOYING!!!)

[TJ in Oregon]

Seems okay even if a bit unconventional with his views. FF (Midwesterner)

Also should get an avatar so I can tell him apart from other non-avatar newbies.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i'm not a fan of necromancers in general.