I think you’re entirely missing the point of the clowns’ show if you think it even makes sense to talk about whether a clown’s plan makes sense.
If you really think Ben! uses advisors, perhaps Sam Stone is the finance guru; teradollar deficits are nothing to him: he’s on record as calling $5 trillion chump change, $20 trillion a rounding error, and mentioning any amount less than $1 trillion is nitpicking. (That’s when the talk turns to taxing the rich of course; Welfare Mama’s 69-cent bottle of catsup is a collosal fraud.)
(I’m waiting for Carson to blurt out that he’s found a way around Braess’ Paradox; then we’ll know Stone is his boy!)
I’m willing to bet Carson doesn’t actually have advisors. He’s a brain surgeon, and the only difference between a brain surgeon abd God is that God doesn’t think he’s a brain surgeon.
Rep. Lamar Smith reminds everyone how all Republicans in the house are Stupid for making him a Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
…
As a poster from Ars Technica said on the previous article:
For a better reply and more about the #1 enemy of science check Tamino’s take:
Kevin Swanson is a Colorado pastor who wants gays put to death. He thinks that the Girl Scouts,the movie Frozen, and the US Women’s Soccer Team will turn little girls into lesbians. He will be hosting a "National Religious *Liberties *Conference in Des Moines next week,
It has worked so far for Trump, and it is not surprising to me that many conservatives are declaring that they will support Trump if he becomes the Republican candidate. The bigot candidates (or the ones that pander to bigots) do not mind about the prejudice, and it is clear that many Republicans don’t.
Thanks for calling this to our attention. I’ve not seen any mention of it on the Lame Stream Media.
Can you imagine the pandemonium if Hillary had done something like this? Select committees, special reports; Rupert Murdoch might have to start another newspaper.
Perhaps it’s good that America’s media is so biased. I don’t think we could stand it if they scrutinized one side as much as they do the other.
‘Winning’ a debate now just requires bombastic quotable sentences and good photo ops. No one watches and then fact checks the statements themselves, they have their news outlets to tell them what it all means and sum up who won. On both sides, though not equally.
How about ALL of the questions come from regular, voting citizens like us? After all, they’ll be working for us if elected… oh, never mind. I see the problem already.