He thinks the pyramids were used to store grain...

Do you no longer think he is a brilliant scientist?

Well yeah he's still a brilliant scientist but he used to be somewhat of a role model to me and now he's just
Uh
Yeah

Ah I get it, so what you're saying is he's fallen from grace.

In neuroscience I still respect him.
In everything else not so much.
So yes essentially.

He's the candidate I know least about, what has he done to lose your respect?

While there are some things he's ignorant on, I don't think he is intentionally misrepresenting things... Or at least I'd like to think he wouldn't. I kind of figured he would have trouble during speaking engagements and debates because he's not a business man or a politician.

Lots of people who are not business people or politicians do speaking engagments. It's his duty to find the facts of what he's speaking on

Oh since I have the opportunity, odorerex, where do you stand politically/who do you support the most? Whether or not fully?

First, I just realized that people have been calling me odorex because they think my username is the odorex, but it's actually theodore rex, a hat tip to Theodore Roosevelt. I've been wondering why this has been going on for weeks haha!
I am a fiscal conservative and internally I'm a social conservative. I say internally because externally I'm somewhat of a social liberal... As long as individuals aren't hurting anyone, I think people should more or less have the freedom to do what they want. I really liked Rand Paul, which I knew was a long shot, and I'm not particularly sure who I support the most now.
What about you?

Well "fiscal conservative" has lost its meaning from what understand because all the Republicans running are "fiscally conservative" but none of the tax plans that I've heard about from those candidates actually even cover their own cost, whereas Bernie (from my understanding) has a plan that should cover most if not all of the cost he wishes to implement with minimal long term deficit, if there even is one in the long term. Also that type of social view is libertarian (not liberal, libertarian is its own thing). Personally I like the social aspects of rand Paul and for the most part the economic plans of Bernie (although I'm trying to do more research on his stock transaction tax, something brought to my attention by you)

I'm not educated enough on candidate tax plans to have anything worth saying haha. Regarding Bernie's economic plans, I don't disagree with what he is trying to achieve, but rather how he is trying to achieve it. The College for All Act will be funded by the stock transaction tax, which I have misgivings about. I don't like his corporate tax plan because the U.S. has one of the worst corporate tax structure of all developed countries, and I think a blanket increase of the minimum wage to an arbitrary $15 per hour is a recipe for disaster. I'm all for making America one of the best countries for business in the world, and I don't think that can be achieved with Bernie's proposed plans.

Well he's trying to fix the tax issues and institute protectionism (what we had under FDR and beyond until about Regan) And on minimum wage, while the fears are legitimate, he doesn't want to increase it all at once (cuz that would be stupid) nor is the number arbitrary. He wants a gradual increase (like over a few years) to a living wage (being 15 dollars/hour) (that number is the average across the country) (he would also tie it to inflation)

But what's the definition of living wage? What's the economic rationale behind it? In 1933, FDR said "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." In 1938 he signed the FLSA into law and a $.25 minimum, living wage was set. Adjusting for inflation, that minimum wage is equal to $4.20 in 2015 dollars. When did the definition of living wage change? If we upgrade it not by general inflation but by the general rise in wages over that time it’s worth $8.86 an hour. I'm not necessarily saying I'm against increasing the minimum wage, but rather that if it is increased, it should be done regionally or on a state by state basis.

(from the skimming I've done (so take this with a grain of salt)) it's determined via how much you would need to make per hour given a ~50 hour work week to be above the poverty line. Now, as many people have rightly pointed out, the 15 dollars/hour doesn't take into account the differences between states or even areas within states (eg Mississippi vs NY / Rural CA vs LA) so some people have suggested have suggested that the federal government either
A) Make it so the minimum wage in every state (and maybe add a clause about local Govs) need to be a living wage (this may not hold up in the supreme court however, unless they accept it under regulating commerce under Article 1 Section 3 (believe that's the regulating commerce clause))
Or
B) Doing what congress always does when plan A Doesn't work, cut the states funding and hold a giant bag of money over their heads until they implement those policies, something congress has a MASSIVE precedent for being allowed to do.

I think option A with a supreme court ruling is likely, but I think option B is quicker and potentially more effective. Honestly I'm just interested to see how this pans out in it's entirety... This has the potential to be the biggest economic event of our lifetime and I'm really excited about the analysis that will be forthcoming once the policy is in place. Like my opinion aside, this is as exciting as economics gets! (that may sound like sarcasm but I'm legitimately giddy).

And hey if something goes wrong Iceland will probably be fine so we can all just move there