[adc]

“I know Newt references Hayek quite a bit, which is pleasing to hear.”

WHY is that pleasing to hear? To suggest that that is a positive thing when the uninformed voting masses have all they can do to know who the Secretary of State is? Or what the 2nd amendment is?

Neither Hayek, Friedman or Reagan is on the top of anybody’s reading list in this culture. Newt’s “nuances” are lost. Just lost. If they have to be explained they will be misunderstood. Or easily twisted. This is getting absurd. Look at our electorate. Please.

Reality is hard to take.

[Utmost Certainty]

Neither Hayek, Friedman or Reagan is on the top of anybody’s reading list in this culture. Newt’s “nuances” are lost. Just lost. If they have to be explained they will be misunderstood. Or easily twisted. This is getting absurd. Look at our electorate. Please.

Well, I share your concerns about an electorate whose critical thinking skills don't extend beyond Twitter soundbites.

Unfortunately, if that's really the case, and it is as bad as we're both pessimistically inclined to believe, then all of our candidates are doomed. None of them are stupid enough to communicate effectively with the masses.

[Utmost Certainty]

The GOP will just have to wait to nominate future President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Then, it will take back the White House.