Hello everyone. Before IlliniRay jumps in, I will.

‘No one is illegal on stolen land’ is associated with progressive and left-wing activist movements, though it is not a universal slogan among all progressives.

The phrase combines two ideas:

‘No one is illegal’ — a slogan used by immigrant-rights advocates who argue that a person's existence or migration status should not make them inherently criminal.

‘On stolen land’ — a reference to the belief that countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and others were established through the dispossession of Indigenous peoples.

People who use the slogan are often expressing solidarity with both immigrants and Indigenous communities. It is especially common in some activist, decolonial, socialist, anarchist, and Indigenous-rights circles.

Critics—including many conservatives and some moderates—argue that the slogan oversimplifies complex questions about sovereignty, immigration law, history, and property rights.

Historically:

Gaza is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities, with a history spanning several millennia. In ancient times, the region changed hands many times among different peoples and empires, including the ancient Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arab caliphates, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, and others.

According to the Hebrew Bible, Gaza was within territory associated with the ancient Israelites, though it was also a major city of the Philistines and was not continuously controlled by Israelite kingdoms.

After antiquity, the area's population and political authorities changed repeatedly over centuries.

The area now called the West Bank includes places of central importance in ancient Jewish history, such as Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem (though Jerusalem's status is a separate issue).
In antiquity, parts of the region were ruled by the ancient kingdoms of Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah.
After those kingdoms fell, the region was governed by many successive empires and states over more than two millennia, including the Romans, Byzantines, various Islamic caliphates, Crusaders, Ottomans, and the British.
Following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the West Bank came under Jordanian control. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured the territory from Jordan and has maintained varying degrees of control over it since then.

Similarly, many Jewish and Israeli nationalists argue that the West Bank (often called Judea and Samaria in that context) is part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and that Jews have an enduring historical claim there.

Many Palestinians argue that they and their ancestors have lived in the region for generations and possess rights based on continuous residence, self-determination, and modern international law.

Most historians would distinguish between ancient Israelite presence and modern questions of sovereignty, noting that thousands of years of demographic and political change occurred in between.

It is accurate to say that the region was part of ancient Israelite kingdoms and has deep significance in Jewish history; it is also accurate that many other peoples and states have lived in and governed the area over the intervening centuries.

Historians generally agree that both Jews and Palestinians have deep historical connections to the broader land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, but they disagree on how ancient history should affect modern political claims.

As for Itasca, Illinois, the area was inhabited or used by several Indigenous peoples over time, including groups associated with the Potawatomi, Odawa, Ojibwe, and earlier peoples in the region. Much of northern Illinois was ceded to the United States through treaties in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, often under circumstances that remain controversial.

Some people argue that Indigenous nations retain a moral claim because the land was taken through coercion, unequal treaties, or displacement. Others argue that modern property rights and centuries of subsequent settlement make reopening ownership questions impractical or unjust. Many communities address this history through land acknowledgments, preservation of cultural sites, treaty-rights protections, or compensation rather than transferring ownership of current towns and private property.

Indigenous peoples have a strong historical connection to the land around Itasca.

I had not figured in my computations that Nichi would be back. Interesting

The controversy is not that data were proven to be fabricated, but that Justice Samuel Alito relied on a voter-turnout statistic that many election experts say was calculated using a misleading methodology.

In the 2026 case Louisiana v. Callais, Alito wrote that Black voters had turned out at rates equal to or higher than white voters in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. He cited a Department of Justice brief that calculated turnout using the total voting-age population (everyone 18 and older) as the denominator.

Critics argue that this measure is misleading because it includes people who are not eligible to vote, such as non-citizens and some people disenfranchised because of felony convictions. Election researchers generally prefer using the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) or the eligible-voter population when calculating turnout.

According to those critics, when the standard eligible-voter measures are used:

Black turnout in Louisiana exceeded white turnout only once (2012), not in two of the last five presidential elections.

Nationally, Black turnout has generally lagged white turnout in the most recent presidential elections rather than exceeding it.

So the disputed data point was the claim about Black voter turnout relative to white voter turnout. The argument from critics is that the underlying numbers were generated using an atypical denominator that made Black turnout appear higher than it would under the methodology commonly used by election scholars.

Supporters of the opinion might respond that the Court relied on data submitted in a government brief and that disagreements over statistical methodology do not necessarily mean the data were intentionally falsified. The dispute is therefore primarily about methodology and interpretation rather than a finding by a court or official body that numbers were fabricated.

I am fairly confident the majority aren't as closed border as you and your hero Donnie.

I have doubts whether or not Trump is an America First ideologue, or an opportunist who found an issue to exploit. For practical purposes, I assume he is the former.

I do agree Trump and MAGA successfully sold his anti-immigrant / closed border agenda.

Ray, I am not a Christian.

The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information.
We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

TL:DR

X (formerly Twitter)) isn’t built to support in depth deep reading, and it subtly pushes people in the opposite direction.

Here’s what’s really going on:

1) It’s a mismatch between platform and content
Twitter is optimized for:

speed
novelty
short reactions

Long, in-depth pieces require:

sustained focus
fewer interruptions
slower thinking

When you drop a dense article into a fast-scrolling feed, it’s like trying to read a book in the middle of a busy highway. Most people could do it—but the environment makes it unlikely.

2) Cognitive switching kills deep reading
On Twitter, you’re constantly:
switching topics every few seconds reacting emotionally (likes, replies, outrage) scanning rather than processing

That creates what psychologists call attention fragmentation. Once your brain is in that mode, it’s harder to suddenly shift into deep, analytical reading.

3) Incentives favor quick takes, not depth
People on Twitter are rewarded for:

being first
being witty or provocative
simplifying ideas

They’re not rewarded for:

nuance
long explanations
careful reasoning

So even if someone reads deeply, the platform nudges them to respond with a short, punchy takeaway.

4) Perception bias: loud ≠ representative
It often looks like “Twitter users can’t read,” but that’s misleading:

The most visible posts are the shortest and most reactive

People who actually read deeply are quieter or link out

So you’re seeing a selection effect, not the full population.

5) Habit formation (this part matters)
If someone spends a lot of time on fast-content platforms, they may:

get used to skimming
feel impatient with long text
prefer summaries over full arguments

That’s not a permanent limitation—it’s a learned habit that can be reversed.

Bottom line
It’s not that Twitter users can’t read in-depth pieces. It’s that:

the platform discourages it

the social rewards don’t support it

and the habits it builds make deep reading feel less natural in that context

Put the same person in a different environment—say, a quiet setting with a book—and their ability to focus usually comes right back.

Custard is a highly intelligent person by any measure. Just ask him.

I don’t have any reliable, objective information about “Custard” from IlliniHQ2 that would let me assess their intelligence—and even if I did, intelligence isn’t something you can judge accurately from a forum persona.

On message boards (like Illini fan communities), what you’re usually seeing is a mix of:

Posting style and tone
Sports opinions (often emotional or biased by fandom)
How someone argues or reacts in debates

Those can feel like signals of intelligence, but they’re pretty noisy. Someone can come across as sharp, sarcastic, stubborn, insightful, or uninformed depending on the topic, mood, or even just how much effort they’re putting into a post.

If you’re trying to evaluate them more concretely, a better approach is to look at patterns:

Do they use evidence or just assert opinions?
Can they adjust their view when presented with new info?
Are they consistent in their reasoning across topics?

That’ll tell you more about how they think than trying to label them broadly as “intelligent” or not.

Hal, why are US universities dominated by leftists and why have conservative and even middle of the road folks been pushed out?

https://x.com/ianmsc/status/2044085796861558913?s=46

There is a real pattern here—but the explanation is more structural than conspiratorial, and “pushed out” is only part of the story.

1) The ideological imbalance is real—but uneven

Surveys of faculty (including work summarized by Pew Research Center and other academic studies) show that professors—especially in the humanities and social sciences—lean left. But it’s not uniform:

Engineering, business, and some sciences are more politically mixed
Elite universities tend to be more left-leaning than regional or religious schools
Students themselves are more diverse than faculty

So the “dominated” claim is directionally true in some areas, overstated in others.

2) Self-selection is a big driver

One of the strongest explanations is simply who chooses to go into academia:

Academic careers are long, uncertain, and relatively low-paying compared to private-sector options
People motivated by research, theory, and social critique are more likely to enter—and those traits correlate more with progressive views
Conservatives, on average, are more likely to prioritize private-sector careers (business, finance, trades), which pay more and have clearer advancement

That alone creates a skew without anyone being “pushed out.”

3) Geography and culture reinforce it

Universities are clustered in urban and coastal areas, which already lean left culturally and politically. Over time:

Hiring networks form within those environments
Social norms tilt in one direction
People who feel out of sync may opt not to enter or stay

This is more of a feedback loop than a purge.

4) Certain disciplines lean left by nature

Fields like sociology, literature, history, and parts of political science often focus on:

Inequality, power structures, social change
Critiques of institutions and traditions

Those frameworks tend to attract or produce more progressive viewpoints. Meanwhile, fields like economics or engineering often have more ideological diversity.

5) There are concerns about viewpoint bias

This is where your question has some grounding. Some evidence suggests:

Conservative academics sometimes report self-censorship
Hiring committees can (consciously or not) favor candidates who “fit” prevailing views
Campus culture in some places can feel unwelcoming to dissenting perspectives

That doesn’t mean mass “purges,” but it can create soft barriers that discourage conservatives or centrists from entering or staying.

6) “Pushed out” vs. “opted out”

The cleaner way to think about it:

Some people feel pushed out (due to culture or bias)
Many never enter in the first place (due to career incentives and interests)

Both dynamics matter, but the second is probably larger.

Bottom line

U.S. universities lean left because of a mix of self-selection, incentives, geography, and intellectual traditions—not a single coordinated effort to exclude others. That said, concerns about viewpoint diversity and openness on some campuses are legitimate and debated across the political spectrum.

Who tends to be more educated and have a higher IQ, progressives or MAGA?

I am sorry, Ray. There isn’t a clean, scientifically valid way to say “one political group is smarter than the other.” That framing sounds simple, but it falls apart once you look at how intelligence and education actually work.

What can be measured reliably is education level. In U.S. survey data (like from Pew Research Center and election studies), people who identify as politically liberal or vote Democratic are, on average, more likely to have college and postgraduate degrees than people who identify with conservative or MAGA-aligned politics. That’s a consistent pattern.

But a few important caveats:

Education ≠ intelligence (IQ). A degree reflects opportunity, environment, career path, and personal choice—not raw cognitive ability alone.

IQ differences by political ideology are not clearly established. Research on IQ and politics is mixed, limited, and often controversial. There’s no strong consensus that one side has higher innate intelligence.

Different strengths cluster differently. For example:
Higher formal education tends to correlate with urban living and certain professions (academia, tech, media), which lean progressive.
Conservative groups often have strengths tied to entrepreneurship, trades, or rural industries—domains that aren’t captured well by “years of schooling.”

A more grounded takeaway:

Progressives (on average): higher formal education levels.
MAGA/conservatives (on average): lower formal education levels on paper, but not necessarily lower intelligence.

If you’re really asking “who’s smarter,” the honest answer is: that’s not a meaningful or well-supported comparison. Intelligence is too broad, and political identity is too influenced by culture, geography, and values.

Ray, you ought to take a stress pill and think things over.