The Michael Flynn matter

[Brad Austin]

The ACTUAL question: Would it be fair to question the intellect of the American voter?

Then we'd have to start questioning the morals of voters on both sides. The left may be more intelligent yet at the same time they are far more likely to shun religion.

Whether one believes in religion or not, to argue the Left (in general terms) who shuns religion at a much higher rate lives with a greater or equal moralistic standard of behavior than the right is naive.

Clear examples of this are shown in charitable donations. Even Huffpo admits it.

For the statement about religion to be true I'm excluding Islam. As the others don't condone or promote violence or condemn non-believers even if reading texts literally.

On the whole what makes a more qualified voting base? Less intelligent and decent or more intelligent and deceitful?

As for the original topic, there's little argument from intelligent people that the average American voter (regardless of affiliation) is quite dense and has little factual grasp on anything to do with the candidates beyond what others tell them to believe.

 

[Joe Fan]

...Ironically, John Oliver's viewers rank as the the most informed.

I guess you can argue that people who watch Oliver (who are the Jon Stuart audience migrated to HBO) are informed of the SJW/lefty viewpoint on certain issues. But that is not the same thing as being "the most" informed which is what you allege. They are different things. For example, there are alot of issues Jon Oliver will not come within 300 feet of. He just ignores them or pretends they dont exist. And, thus, his audience, just like the Stuart audience before, has no knowledge whatsoever of these issues. They just dont discuss certain things. They cant discuss things they are willfully ignorant of. We see this happen all the time.

So, if you want your original claim to be truthful, you need to amend it to "John Oliver's viewers rank as the the most informed on issues liberals think about and are willing to publicly discuss." If you did that, then a robust argument could be had whether it was accurate or not. Lastly, I would argue that people who read what I post here are better informed than at least 98% of the Oliver audience.