The point is not to elect her, but to learn how she handles gotcha questions like these.
Uh no.
The premise of David French’s essay is flawed and dangerous. It promotes the bizarre and Lysenko-like notion that Science is settled by consensus, by convincing people to ‘vote’ on scientific truth.
If people were truly informed, they would castigate such arguments into the dens of opium addicts to be parlayed among the Geisha consumers, never to see the light of the public square.
In other words, politicians have no place infringing on science and climate change history nor should they be allowed to promote scientific cranks for political purposes.
Read the consequences of allowing this to be chatter fare for the Fiorina’s of the day:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
But my point is she is all talk and she is for the establishment and I could care less what she says.
Maybe you should direct this comment to the Trump baser group on this forum.
Like her or not once she is on the stage with Trump she will begin to whittle down Trumps lead, because she is saying essentially the same thing except she speaks in clear concise sentences. Three political outsiders in the top four should tell the GOPe something but so far it hasn't.
I am in no way endorsing Carly just predicting what likely will happen.