Fri Fun 2:Scientists Recommend Reducing The Number Of Democratic Presidential Candidates To Help Fight Climate Change

From The Babylon Bee

April 11th, 2019article-4011-1

WORLD—Scientists have issued a dire warning: the current number of Democratic presidential candidates is simply unsustainable.

“No one ever thought this many people would run for president,” said climate scientist Dr. Raymond Hall, “and the planet just can’t take it. We’re talking each of them eating up resources vying for airtime, printing stickers with trite slogans, and flying from Iowa to New Hampshire. If they were actually all to be in one place for a debate, it would be an ecological disaster.”

Read the full story here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 12, 2019 2:09 pm

puts “divided we stand” in a whole new light…

…I say encourage them to do more. spread that money around

It’s very profitable…Bernie is a $millionaire now

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
April 12, 2019 2:40 pm

Now Bernie can afford to put “Sanders Trailer” next to Trump Tower. 👍💲

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 12, 2019 2:59 pm

..for some jackwipe that never had a job…politics is very profitable

Reply to  Latitude
April 12, 2019 3:20 pm

Sold a lot of books, LOL. Just like the Baltimore mayor. She sold 120,000 copies of her book, but only bothered to print 60,000. Why waste paper for a scam to pay off a politician?

I wonder how many copies were bought by organizations funded by Soros.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Latitude
April 13, 2019 4:36 am

Speaking of Democratic Treasure Chests:
> “A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Pelosium. The chemical symbol of Pelosium is Pu. Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark particles called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
> Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
> When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates MSNBCobnoxium and CNNadnausium, both elements that radiate orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since they have half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.
> Since it has no electrons, Pelosium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Pelosium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second. In the presense of anti-morons, Pelosium can be extremely corrosive. Botox seems to distort and smooth it’s surface, without impeding it’s ongoing decay.
> Pelosium has a normal half-life of approximately two years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a transmutation, appearing in a new location but displaying the same properties. In this process, assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each transmutation.
> Research at other laboratories indicates that Pelosium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, universities, and anywhere there is news coverage occurring. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.
> Scientists point out that Pelosium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Pelosium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.”

Steven Lohr
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 14, 2019 3:14 pm

There are recent indications that significant quantities of Pelosium may exist in Colorado.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Latitude
April 19, 2019 5:02 pm

Obama told he made 60 mio when his folders and flyers to climate change were bound and sold as books via Internet.

Pop Piasa
April 12, 2019 2:11 pm

I think the oil companies must be paying people to make this crap up…

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 12, 2019 2:18 pm

Yes- sarcasm. 🙄

April 12, 2019 2:13 pm

Babylon Beel – always good for a LOL. Frequently with a tiny germ of truth, however. The total “carbon cost” of a Presidential primary and then election would make any proper Green froth at the mouth.

Perhaps they are aware of this, though – it could be one reason they much prefer a system where the next Paramount Leader is simply designated by his or her predecessor.

Reply to  Writing Observer
April 12, 2019 5:33 pm

That’s what voting’s all about anyway – tell them which party you want them to decide what “President/Prime Minister” THEY want to put in the top job. Not that confusing eh..?

Reply to  Writing Observer
April 12, 2019 6:15 pm

Speaking of germs, Mike Mann has just won another award for ethics.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
April 12, 2019 6:43 pm

What, avoiding them?

April 12, 2019 2:15 pm

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary have a purpose. We put up with all of them so you don’t have to.

We don’t pick winners so much as eliminate losers.

D. Anderson
Reply to  Chris4692
April 12, 2019 2:53 pm

I’d rather let Iowa pick our candidates than, say California (sorry Anthony).

Pop Piasa
April 12, 2019 2:22 pm

I thought the Democratic primary would reduce the number of candidates. Are they doing away with that as well as the electoral college?

April 12, 2019 2:31 pm

They all have more than one screw lose.

April 12, 2019 2:37 pm

If you torture the data enough, it will confess. Here is a confession:

April 12, 2019 2:46 pm

Here’s my question:

What is the political climate’s sensitivity to doubling the number of presidential candidates?

ANSWER: As the number of presidential candidates doubles, the level of stupid increases by, I best guess, minus 2 IQ points. Of course, the proper way to determine this is to simply take a vote, and then limit the pool of respondents in such a way as to arrive at 97% agreement on this guesstimate.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 12, 2019 3:27 pm

What sensitivity factor are you using? I think stupidity tends to increase exponentially as the whole number of politicians increases. Can you provide your calculations? :))

Gunga Din
Reply to  SMC
April 12, 2019 4:57 pm

I think the sensitivity factor won’t be know until the MSM has decided which clown gets the least laughs.

George Daddis
Reply to  SMC
April 12, 2019 5:03 pm

Why should he!?!

You will only try to find something wrong with it!!

(I have to post fast before someone beats me to it. It’s too easy.)

Reply to  George Daddis
April 12, 2019 6:01 pm

Robust science is not about consensus but about data. I realize he may have spent minutes (seconds?) massaging his data but my computer models tell me the stupidity sensitivity is much greater than he suggests. Therefore I must conclude we are all doomed. 🙂

Reply to  SMC
April 12, 2019 5:09 pm

Sorry to say that I have not yet perfected my calculations to the level of mastery of the climate “science” consensus. (^_^) For now, you’ll just have to use your imagination, … like the fervent climate alarmists do. Whatever you come up with will do just fine, as long as it sounds good, and you can quote lots of barely-relevant peer “reviewed” (toilet) papers.

nw sage
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 12, 2019 5:32 pm

The peer reviews are by the co-authors but using different names

J Mac
April 12, 2019 2:48 pm

We need fewer fossil fuel sucking, sophist socialist democrats because….. Science!
Do it for the children! Do it for Planet Earth!
Just Do It!

Joel Snider
April 12, 2019 2:48 pm

I would endorse reducing the number of Democrats – period.

I don’t know about the climate, but the country would certainly benefit. So would the general world at large.

Reply to  Joel Snider
April 12, 2019 4:29 pm

If they were reduced to zero, or even the liberal use of duct tape, would end the “climate crisis”.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 12, 2019 5:40 pm

True, but some need to remain and vocal, such as AOC to ensure we have a demonstration of the kind of idiot to never vote for.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
April 12, 2019 10:06 pm

Soon, children won’t know what a democrat is!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
April 13, 2019 4:21 am


You have explained the meaning of the term “useful idiot”. I don’t see why anyone complains about certain politicians. Let them run, let them speak, let them share their visions. As one of my buddies says, “She’s perfect!”

Help to choose candidates. Act wisely. Get out the vote. Vote early and vote often, as they say. At the macro level it might be enough to show the sheer unwisdom of having parties at all.

In Waterloo, as in Ontario, there are no party affiliations at municipal level and it works far better. We should push the best into power from below, not choose between self-assured wannabes.

That’s why we have mature, responsible leaders at local level and a punk with minions at the national level. Parties – we can live without them. Nunavut does.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 13, 2019 5:44 am

Crispin: “That’s why we have mature, responsible leaders at local level […]”

Ah! Proof positive that you have never been to Chicago.

Joel O’Bryan
April 12, 2019 2:52 pm

It give a rational mechanism to the global climate warming during Democratic Administrations and cooling during Republican administrations. Call it the Democratic Party hot air and methane flatulence conjecture of AGW. I tend the favor the methane flatulence part as the dominate mechanism when I see Bernie or Buttgig on TV.

Joel O’Bryan
April 12, 2019 2:55 pm

I also think Jimmy Carter should run for the DNC nomination for President.
That would be fun.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 12, 2019 7:59 pm

The current crop of demos would destroy him. He teaches at a Baptist Church. Oh, the horrors!!!!!

April 12, 2019 3:17 pm

Apply the same logic to do nothing climate conventions. Not worth the resources.

David S
April 12, 2019 3:38 pm

Best Idea I’ve heard in decades!

Bruce Cobb
April 12, 2019 3:44 pm

I am vehemently opposed to researcher Jeannie Perry’s reccomendation of firing excess candidates into space. We have far too much space junk as it is.

April 12, 2019 4:01 pm

Beto will add this to his catalog of made up tales, right there with his Republican mom and the blind squirrel.

David Baird
April 12, 2019 4:21 pm

All the candidates need to pledge to support and participate in the “Green Soylent New Deal”. Sustainable food for free and positive reductions in Carbon.

Gunga Din
April 12, 2019 4:25 pm

Is really any question now that “Climate Scientist” are really just “Political Scientist”?
(No offense to those real scientist out that study our climate.)

April 12, 2019 4:32 pm

In other news, did Putin really say “climate change”?

That would be funny if the translation is valid.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 13, 2019 8:08 am

Be concerned. Putin is well aware that CAGW is farcical nonsense. That won’t prevent him from weaponising it.

April 12, 2019 4:52 pm

Is it a case of the so called “Climate Scientists” realising that “Too many
cook may spoil the broth”.


April 12, 2019 5:34 pm

Fake scientists bemoaning fake politicians? Are they serious??The equation isn’t more complicated than one with two unknowns, and is obviously indeterminate! But if the theorem of limits is applied, the Democrats could run their whole party and still not have anybody that’s electable! Sad that they’d blame climate for an obvious political deficit!

April 12, 2019 6:05 pm

There is a conservative website tracking the candidate list; The Conservative Treehouse.

The corresponding list of candidate matches 2016’s list of candidates with 2020.
At present, there are still several blank spaces where 2016 had candidates that 2020’s election does not, yet.

“Senator Ted Cruz was to 2016…. as Senator Elizabeth Warren is to 2020
♦Governor Jeb Bush was to 2016 as….
Senator Marco Rubio was to 2016… as Senator Bernie Sanders is to 2020
Governor John Kasich was to 2016… as
Senator Lindsey Graham was to 2016 as… Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is to 2020
Governor Mike Huckabee was to 2016… as Senator Corey Booker is to 2020
Senator Rand Paul was to 2016…. as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is to 2020
Dr. Ben Carson was to 2016… as Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke is to 2020
Governor Chris Christie was to 2016 as… Governor J. Hickenlooper is to 2020
Governor Scott Walker was to 2016 as… Governor Jay Inslee is to 2020
Senator Rick Santorum was to 2016…. as Senator Sherrod Brown is to 2020
Governor George Pataki was to 2016 as…. Eric Swalwell is to 2020
Governor Rick Perry was to 2016…. as Senator Kamala Harris is to 2020
Governor Bobby Jindal was to 2016…. as Julian Castro is to 2020
Carly Fiorina was to 2016 as…. Senator Amy Klobuchar is to 2020
Governor Jim Gilmore was to 2016 as… Rep. Tim Ryan is to 2020”

A) 2020’s Presidential candidates is not unusual, nor complete, yet.
B) Democrats do not seriously care about “climate change” enough to change their quest for power.
C) Democrats are treating the 2020 candidate field as solely theirs.

April 12, 2019 7:36 pm

They might as well all save their time and go and do something else more useful.

Occasional-Cortex and her fellow travellers have poisoned the well with their outlandish GND hogwash.

Any candidate who fails to support it will be trolled and howled down, anyone who does support it will be unelectable.

Let’s just hope another term will be long enough for The Donald to truly drain the swamp.

Talking of which, I hope Will Happer and his team are busy at work behind the scenes…

April 13, 2019 1:58 am

The amount of hot air produced by politicians has to be a major factor in AGW. The UK parliament’s output over the last two years could be the equivalent of a volcanic eruption.

Kevin A
April 13, 2019 5:51 am

Thanks for the link, Babylon Bee, it is always good to read something that isn’t bleeding, ‘If it bleeds it leads’. I enjoyed the article about Biden being given the lead at TSA.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights