"anyone who can think critically leans towards the Democratic party" isn't something anyone who's actually intelligent would ever say.
They are doing so much damage to institutions and ultimately to people that their loss in 2028 will be damned near inevitable leaving them no course of action to stay out of prison other tha what they have already outlined which is to end democracy.
There is no substantial opposition from the Republicans singly or in groups. They are barely willing to verbally chastise him and none dare vote in a meaningful way that would impact his plans.
They were barely willing to admit he wasn't pres in 2021 when he was nothing.
That act alone pretty much disqualifies you from being able to talk about intelligence in the first place.
Also this https://www.project2025.observer/en
So please understand that when you claim that these things are false, it is absolutely ok for people to assume you are mentally ill. Because you chose to live in a world inside your head instead of actual reality.
There used to be less of that on HN, my theory is younger accounts that are more politically extreme/lefty are now here as the younger generation graduates school and posts more on HN.
There's some historical irony too since communism came out of highly educated academic elites and is responsible for an enormous amount of death and value destruction. Ideological driven academics that think they're better than everyone are particularly good at crafting insane ideologies someone outside of that insular community would not, then leveraging institutional and cultural power to force it on everyone else. The woke and gender ideologies share similar origins, same for DEI.
It's a political and ideological monoculture and it's a dangerous mixture of incredibly confidently smug and wrong.
Worth picking up Peter Thiel's first book which goes into this in some detail (he wrote it pretty young, observing the early start of this when he was at Stanford). It's wildly prescient and was from the mid 90s iirc.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideo...
I'm very midwitted. 50% of the planet is below the mean after all..
A lot mediocre students I knew in school stayed on to do more school because they were not able to do something else. A lot of degrees and classes are frankly bullshit and this problem has gotten worse since the 60s - the details matter. Time wasted studying pseudo-intellectual nonsense doesn't imply someone has a better understanding of the world than someone else (often the opposite) - just that they wasted time getting indoctrinated in a particular culture (often subsidized by others if not the taxpayer).
What about the people doing interesting and useful things in society, building stuff, creating wealth - what these people think matters a lot more than someone that got a PHD on olfactory ethics. Not all education is equal.
Even then, the meta analysis matters less than the details of the actual underlying argument. Appeal to authority and experts is a poor substitute for rigorous good faith debate of the actual issues.
There's a reason William F. Buckley said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the phone book than by the faculty members from Harvard.
"I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."
So it's not that I dispute the data that there's a lefty bias in universities (there obviously is), I dispute what that actually means.
The issue at hand isn't perceived bias in universities, it's voting tendencies of people who have higher education.
PS, this conversation is a waste of both of our times. I won't be continuing it. Because there is no good faith either side. I'm certainly not going to display any and I aver you aren't either, but you can judge for yourself.
Arguably they go hand in hand, take young people and immerse them in a political/ideological monoculture for four formative years and it's not surprising many come out saying the same things and voting the same way all of their professors did, there's a lack of viewpoint diversity. Most people are mimetic, exposure to the best arguments from an intellectually diverse curriculum would be great but that's not what universities (broadly) are today. It's very hard to think for yourself, even harder when immersed in a place where ideological conformity is rigidly enforced.
FWIW I thought your comment was in good faith, we just don't agree.
In reality, the modern democrats are pretty much the exact center. Any sensible traditional right leaning policy like free market capitalism, gun ownership, and immigration enforcement is already part of the liberal Democratic platform.
The reason that what I said holds true should be self evident. One of the cornerstone of modern conservativism is small government and reduced government spending. Yet Trump is pretty much doing the exact opposite of this. So to to even begin talking about why conservatism is valid, you have a LONG bridge to cross of somehow proving that Trump objectively the better choice, which at this point would require exceptionally extraordinary evidence.
Another way of testing intelligence is basically to ask the question - what concrete evidence would it take for you to change your mind to the opposite view on a certain subject? For the question of what is better for society, Democrats and their policies vs Republicans and their policies, no conservative can provide a clear answer on what would it take for them to change their mind.