Paul Krugman is a neo-maxi-zoom-dweebie.

So there.

Hey, he started it.

From the New York Times:

Why are there so few conservative scientists? It might be because academics, as a career, appeal more to liberals than to conservatives. (There aren’t a lot of liberals in police departments — or, contra Trump, the F.B.I.) Alternatively, scientists may be reluctant to call themselves conservatives because in modern America being a conservative means aligning yourself with a faction that by and large reject climate science and the theory of evolution. Might not similar considerations apply to historians?

But more to the point, conservative claims to be defending free speech and open discussion aren’t sincere. Conservatives don’t want to see ideas evaluated on their merits, regardless of politics; they want ideas convenient to their side to receive (at least) equal time regardless of their intellectual quality.

TFG.

Note: Paul is so intellectual that we had to correct a few different pieces in the copy we grabbed from his article. You’d think someone so superior to us idiots on the Right would know how basic subject-predicate relationships work, right?

And of course, there was that whole cholera thing …

Good times.

Seems a fairly weak way to debate people you know are likely smarter than you are.

Touché.

Yeah, how’d that turn out for Paul?

Poor guy.

Or he simply can’t keep up.

Related:

UNHINGED! Debbie Wasserman Schultz cursed and SCREAMED at House Officials over IT-aide Imran Awan

He NEVER learns! Tom Arnold HUMILIATES himself (again), triggers over ANOTHER Candace Owens tweet

Fact check: DERP! Ben Rhodes’ take on why Trump reverses Obama’s policies is just a HOT MESS