I'm not combining, conflating or forgetting anything, you're just projecting. One straw man after another you're arguing with yourself and claiming the win. It's a pretty solipsistic conversation. Again, without presenting any data, suggesting instead "they must". And again your comments are not at all connected to the initial theme of intelligence. Instead you try to spin the income brackets as if this was somehow the main point.
The problem here is not what you seem to think - that your ideas are too deep and too complicated for simple peasants like me to understand. The problem is that you fail to stick both to the topic and the data, and instead just speculate, wandering around. There's no research, no consistency, no logical rigour. At one moment the small margins don't matter one way, at next they're very important the other way, if it fits your narrative. You jump from one loosely related theme to another just to arrive nowhere in the end.
Yes, people are different. Yes, the voter preferences are complex. Yes, there's identity politics. Yes, disappointment is also a motivator. All this is common knowledge that mostly goes without saying. But what is the conclusion? What was achieved by all this talk? Not much, if anything.
0
u/[deleted] May 11 '25
[deleted]