> Northern Western media lean heavily towards US Democrats, I remember Reagan basically being described as the devil. In the same vain, Trump is painted as an i

> Northern Western media lean heavily towards US Democrats, I remember Reagan basically being described as the devil. In the same vain, Trump is painted as an imbecile. The U.S.A. Democrats are portrayed as a lesser evil at best, and even that is starting to become a thing of the past since they assimilated various political factions that do not categorically stand for the little man, but only for themselves whom they believe to be a little man, otherwise not caring for the others, that are often rife with the authoritarianism the U.S.A. Republicans were known for. > The question I ask people who share these beliefs is : do you really think you can win the presidency of the US when you are below average? Of course not. No, but I, and many on H.N. have probably never had a serious conversation with a man whose i.q. is south of 100. George W. Bush' i.q. was apparently estimated as 125 from SAT scores, so this thread reports — everyone I know who took an i.q. test is higher than that so 125 seems quite low, and to me insufficient to lead a country. I would gander that most statesmen indeed have an i.q. north of 125, so that would make G.W.B. lower than average in that world at least. Such vague words as “dumb” and “idiotic” are of course taken to be relative to the speaker's perceptions and milieu.