Phx-Suns.Net

LazarusLong wrote: Actually, include a swimsuit and a talent completion and you have a short Miss America program.

This evening's night terrors brought to you by our very own, Mr. Lazarus Long!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Ghost wrote:But the Tea Party isn't a real party, and they are never going to split from the Republicans. They effectively have moved the party further to the right just by being there, but they never really shook anything up either.

I get they didn't split, but if they wanted to do that, I don't think the media would hinder it. Actually, I think they would welcome it (for completely selfish reasons, on both sides). I honestly wish they would, and take the "I don't agree with facts and science because it contradicts certain interpretations of my holy book" with them. I think then we could have a really good conservative party in this country.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Seems to be working out a lot better for you...

Indy wrote:

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Seems to be working out a lot better for you...

Significantly! Although tapatdalk was interesting too...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Indy wrote:I get they didn't split, but if they wanted to do that, I don't think the media would hinder it. Actually, I think they would welcome it (for completely selfish reasons, on both sides). I honestly wish they would, and take the "I don't agree with facts and science because it contradicts certain interpretations of my holy book" with them. I think then we could have a really good conservative party in this country.

What I mean is that one of the groups would just get shredded, either by negative coverage (initially) or by being ignored (once the novelty wore off). Look at Perot's 92 campaign. At first, he was a media darling, and his polls reflected that. But after he dropped out and then reentered the race, he got brutalized in the press. I think something similar would happen here. But it would take longer.

I do think that short term, the media would LOVE it. This isn't entirely on them; our voting system naturally tends to lead to two parties.


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Ghost wrote:

Indy wrote:I get they didn't split, but if they wanted to do that, I don't think the media would hinder it. Actually, I think they would welcome it (for completely selfish reasons, on both sides). I honestly wish they would, and take the "I don't agree with facts and science because it contradicts certain interpretations of my holy book" with them. I think then we could have a really good conservative party in this country.

What I mean is that one of the groups would just get shredded, either by negative coverage (initially) or by being ignored (once the novelty wore off). Look at Perot's 92 campaign. At first, he was a media darling, and his polls reflected that. But after he dropped out and then reentered the race, he got brutalized in the press. I think something similar would happen here. But it would take longer.

I do think that short term, the media would LOVE it. This isn't entirely on them; our voting system naturally tends to lead to two parties.


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Agreed. That is a huge problem in this country.

You can tell if a candidate is serious by whether they have the guts to attack the other top candidates. If not, they want to preserve their slim chances at being chosen as a VeeP rather than trying to actually win.

Mori Chu wrote:You can tell if a candidate is serious by whether they have the guts to attack the other top candidates. If not, they want to preserve their slim chances at being chosen as a VeeP rather than trying to actually win.

I disagree. They all attack each other quite a bit. All is forgiven after the primaries, it seems.

Mori Chu wrote:You can tell if a candidate is serious by whether they have the guts to attack the other top candidates. If not, they want to preserve their slim chances at being chosen as a VeeP rather than trying to actually win.

Sorry, the "me against the world" approach rarely works. Any fool can swing wildly in a crowd brawl.

Instead of yelling about what one opposes, I'll listen to the candidate who rationally states what he or she believes in a consistent manner ...

LazarusLong wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:You can tell if a candidate is serious by whether they have the guts to attack the other top candidates. If not, they want to preserve their slim chances at being chosen as a VeeP rather than trying to actually win.

Sorry, the "me against the world" approach rarely works. Any fool can swing wildly in a crowd brawl.

Instead of yelling about what one opposes, I'll listen to the candidate who rationally states what he or she believes in a consistent manner ...

Yeah, but you're a lot more rational than the average American who gets most of their "news" by listening to their favorite mouth breather scream about the other side.

I'd say the screaming candidates who don't have a shot in the primary make better VP candidates, though, because they bring their pack of rowdy supporters with them, whereas the calmer, more rational ones who aren't giving the best sound bites tend to get drowned out and forgotten.

Interesting article: The Demise of Jeb Bush.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... src=usn_tw

Put a fork in him.