Will Trump win again???

Started by Planktonmd
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Popping in here to endorse Nunez's characterization of the impeachment hearings: a "low-rent Ukrainian sequel" to the Russia hoax peddled furiously by Leftists for three years (and ended with an ignominious *womp womp womp*).
 
radsisrad said:
Popping in here to endorse Nunez's characterization of the impeachment hearings: a "low-rent Ukrainian sequel" to the Russia hoax peddled furiously by Leftists for three years (and ended with an ignominious *womp womp womp*).
Click to expand...
Hmmmn, the dairy farmer really? It’s rather telling that the Ds are lead by two former Assistant US Attorneys, respectively trained at Stanford and Harvard Law, while the Rs, have a dairy farmer, an attorney whose background is in commercial litigation and Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan never passed the bar and went to Capital Law which has an average LSAT of 147 or a Mcat equivalent of the 490s. For law, LSAT scores have a direct correlation to your ability to pass the bar, at below 150, you have only a 40 percent chance of ever passing the bar. So, before you scream elitist, in law, unlike medicine, it really does matter a lot where you went to school. The team the Rs put together is mediocre at best and dim-witted.
 
Matty44 said:
BS. Utter BS. Sorry. Wealth inequality is not a problem.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....

I wrote a lot of things - then erased them, then rewrote them...then erased. No reason to get snooty or mean (I kept saying to myself...)

But really, I think some education is in order. You may believe this - but WHY do you believe it? Wealth inequality is a HUGE problem and history has shown this OVER and OVER again.

So - let's let really smart people answer this question for us - rather than political pundits or reporters.

What do most of the plutocrats say? funny they agree that wealth inequality is a problem - yet you don't.

What do MOST economic professors say? Isn't it interesting that most agree that wealth inequality is a huge problem.

What do history professors, pyschologists, evolutionary biologists say about wealth inequality? They say it is very bad for a functioning society. I wonder why you disagree.

But before your angry fingers start typing your response - try listening to this first (it's only 11 minutes. You have 11 minutes, right?)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
epidural man said:
Hmmm.....

I wrote a lot of things - then erased them, then rewrote them...then erased. No reason to get snooty or mean (I kept saying to myself...)

But really, I think some education is in order. You may believe this - but WHY do you believe it? Wealth inequality is a HUGE problem and history has shown this OVER and OVER again.

So - let's let really smart people answer this question for us - rather than political pundits or reporters.

What do most of the plutocrats say? funny they agree that wealth inequality is a problem - yet you don't.

What do MOST economic professors say? Isn't it interesting that most agree that wealth inequality is a huge problem.

What do history professors, pyschologists, evolutionary biologists say about wealth inequality? They say it is very bad for a functioning society. I wonder why you disagree.

But before your angry fingers start typing your response - try listening to this first (it's only 11 minutes. You have 11 minutes, right?)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


More recent work on this very topic suggests that inequality could lead to economic or financial instability. In a 2010 book Raghuram Rajan, now governor of the Reserve Bank of India, argued that governments often respond to inequality by easing the flow of credit to poorer households. Other recent research suggests American households borrowed heavily prior to the crisis to prop up their consumption. But for this rise in household debt, consumption would have stagnated as a result of poor wage growth. Economic eminences such as Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers argue that inequality may also contribute to the world's "savings glut", since the rich are less likely to spend an additional dollar than the poor. As savings pile up, interest rates fall, boosting asset prices, encouraging borrowing and making it more difficult for central banks to manage the economy.


Crafting a response to rising inequality is tricky, however. Some of the negative impact of inequality on growth can be blamed on poor government policies in highly unequal countries. In Latin America, for instance, populist pressure for excessive state economic control seems to shorten the average duration of growth spells. Yet in moderation, redistribution seems to have benign effects—perhaps by reducing dependence on risky borrowing among poorer households. Over the past generation or two inequality has risen most in places where progressive policies, such as high top tax-rates, have been weakened. A little more redistribution now might improve the quality and quantity of economic growth—and reduce the demand for more aggressive state interventions later.
 
BoolaHI said:
More recent work on this very topic suggests that inequality could lead to economic or financial instability. In a 2010 book Raghuram Rajan, now governor of the Reserve Bank of India, argued that governments often respond to inequality by easing the flow of credit to poorer households. Other recent research suggests American households borrowed heavily prior to the crisis to prop up their consumption. But for this rise in household debt, consumption would have stagnated as a result of poor wage growth. Economic eminences such as Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers argue that inequality may also contribute to the world's "savings glut", since the rich are less likely to spend an additional dollar than the poor. As savings pile up, interest rates fall, boosting asset prices, encouraging borrowing and making it more difficult for central banks to manage the economy.


Crafting a response to rising inequality is tricky, however. Some of the negative impact of inequality on growth can be blamed on poor government policies in highly unequal countries. In Latin America, for instance, populist pressure for excessive state economic control seems to shorten the average duration of growth spells. Yet in moderation, redistribution seems to have benign effects—perhaps by reducing dependence on risky borrowing among poorer households. Over the past generation or two inequality has risen most in places where progressive policies, such as high top tax-rates, have been weakened. A little more redistribution now might improve the quality and quantity of economic growth—and reduce the demand for more aggressive state interventions later.
Click to expand...
I loved the documentary on Netflix - Inequality for All...worth a watch.

I agree - the ANSWER to significant wealth inequality is not straight forward and very complex. However, to say that it isn't a problem at all is....well...it's really surprising someone would say that.

Now I could take someone saying - there are historical cases where wealth inequality has destabilized some systems, but we are no there yet. That seems reasonable. Or to say, wealth inequality is only a problem when these conditions are met...x, y,z. That would also be reasonable.

But to argue that wealth inequality is not or never has been an issue is really, really strange. If someone makes this argument, you then have to seriously question ANYTHING or ANY argument they have ever made about anything. Because I suspect - there are many things going on in that person's head - and "reason" and high level abstract thought - likely is not. You would suspect that in that person, agenda trumps reason, and politics trumps empathy. But I don't want to guess...online forums are a hard way to get at these things.
 
epidural man said:
Hmmm.....

I wrote a lot of things - then erased them, then rewrote them...then erased. No reason to get snooty or mean (I kept saying to myself...)

But really, I think some education is in order. You may believe this - but WHY do you believe it? Wealth inequality is a HUGE problem and history has shown this OVER and OVER again.

So - let's let really smart people answer this question for us - rather than political pundits or reporters.

What do most of the plutocrats say? funny they agree that wealth inequality is a problem - yet you don't.

What do MOST economic professors say? Isn't it interesting that most agree that wealth inequality is a huge problem.

What do history professors, pyschologists, evolutionary biologists say about wealth inequality? They say it is very bad for a functioning society. I wonder why you disagree.

But before your angry fingers start typing your response - try listening to this first (it's only 11 minutes. You have 11 minutes, right?)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


If you listen to Jordan Peterson in that podcast, he makes the very important point that wealth inequality it necessary to drive innovation. Beyond that fundamental truth, my problem with redistributionist theory is twofold.

First, our current methods of measuring inequality are probably fundamentally flawed. This was very nicely illustrated in the supplied WSJ on the last page of this thread. Although wealth and income are not analogous (there is certainly a significant correlation), the wealth gap that people use as a barometer is not nearly as wide in America after factoring social services received by the poor or wealth seized in the form of taxes on the so called rich. I’ve yet to hear a coherent formula on necessary vs unnecessary inequality, and my experience in academia does not give me much hope that such a calculation for our society is on the horizon.

Second and most importantly, the engine that redistributionists would use, namely the government, is an inherently inefficient means to achieving harmonious equality. Most of Europe has recently abandoned its extreme attempts at wealth redistribution via wealth taxes because enforcing the measures would encroach on civil liberties. That is saying something given the extent to which Europe has enforced socialism at the tip of a spear in living memory.

As I look upon the historical landscape littered with bodies needlessly killed in the name of equality, I’m left to wonder if the brief blood lettings that occur to reset extreme inequality are far preferable to the protracted misery of government imposed equality.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
DrGasPasser said:
As I look upon the historical landscape littered with bodies needlessly killed in the name of equality, I’m left to wonder if the brief blood lettings that occur to reset extreme inequality are far preferable to the protracted misery of government imposed equality.
Click to expand...

Well at least you recognize that wealth inequality eventually leads to problems when certain conditions are met (as Jordan Peterson ALSO pointed out). Some have (strangely) argued it isn't a problem.

I can grant that you may be correct about measuring inequality (I haven't read the article you mentioned), but that doesn't matter. What matters - as both Brett and Jordan point out - is the PERCEPTION of how extreme the inequality is, and if the game is rigged.
 
DrGasPasser said:
If you listen to Jordan Peterson in that podcast, he makes the very important point that wealth inequality it necessary to drive innovation. Beyond that fundamental truth, my problem with redistributionist theory is twofold.

First, our current methods of measuring inequality are probably fundamentally flawed. This was very nicely illustrated in the supplied WSJ on the last page of this thread. Although wealth and income are not analogous (there is certainly a significant correlation), the wealth gap that people use as a barometer is not nearly as wide in America after factoring social services received by the poor or wealth seized in the form of taxes on the so called rich. I’ve yet to hear a coherent formula on necessary vs unnecessary inequality, and my experience in academia does not give me much hope that such a calculation for our society is on the horizon.

Second and most importantly, the engine that redistributionists would use, namely the government, is an inherently inefficient means to achieving harmonious equality. Most of Europe has recently abandoned its extreme attempts at wealth redistribution via wealth taxes because enforcing the measures would encroach on civil liberties. That is saying something given the extent to which Europe has enforced socialism at the tip of a spear in living memory.

As I look upon the historical landscape littered with bodies needlessly killed in the name of equality, I’m left to wonder if the brief blood lettings that occur to reset extreme inequality are far preferable to the protracted misery of government imposed equality.
Click to expand...
One, JP is many things, but he is not a trained economist, his is a psychologist.

Two, inequality hurts economic growth, especially high inequality (like ours) in rich nations (like ours).
In 2014 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a collective of the world's 35 wealthiest countries including the United States, found that rising inequality in the United States from 1990 to 2010 knocked about five percentage points off cumulative GDP per capita over that period. Similar effects were seen in other rich countries.

The main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development,” the OECD found. Children from the bottom 40 percent of households (a huge chunk of the population) are missing out on pricey educational opportunities. That makes them less productive employees, which means lower wages, which means lower overall participation in the economy.
While that's obviously bad news for poor families, it also hurts those at the top. If you're a billionaire owner of a retail or manufacturing company, you want people to be able to afford the stuff you're selling. Henry Ford offered his workers high wages not out of any altruistic impulse but because he wanted them to be able to actually buy his own vehicles.
 
BoolaHI said:
Hmmmn, the dairy farmer really? It’s rather telling that the Ds are lead by two former Assistant US Attorneys, respectively trained at Stanford and Harvard Law, while the Rs, have a dairy farmer, an attorney whose background is in commercial litigation and Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan never passed the bar and went to Capital Law which has an average LSAT of 147 or a Mcat equivalent of the 490s. For law, LSAT scores have a direct correlation to your ability to pass the bar, at below 150, you have only a 40 percent chance of ever passing the bar. So, before you scream elitist, in law, unlike medicine, it really does matter a lot where you went to school. The team the Rs put together is mediocre at best and dim-witted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the dairy farmer. Kind of like the dim-witted peanut farmer who was President 40 years ago. Remind me, what party was Carter from?
 
DrGasPasser said:
Yeah, the dairy farmer. Kind of like the dim-witted peanut farmer who was President 40 years ago. Remind me, what party was Carter from?
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter went to the Naval Academy and had advanced degrees from Georgia Tech. Child please, know your history at least....
 
DrGasPasser said:
Yeah, the dairy farmer. Kind of like the dim-witted peanut farmer who was President 40 years ago. Remind me, what party was Carter from?
Click to expand...
And Carter and Nunes, should not be ever in the same sentence. One had a life’s work that speaks volumes and the degree of dignity, humility, and profound benevolence in which he has lived his life are exemplary. The other is a sychophant cockold who I’m not surprised doesn’t have cancer of the nose as his appendage is so far up Trumps rectum.
 
epidural man said:
Well at least you recognize that wealth inequality eventually leads to problems when certain conditions are met (as Jordan Peterson ALSO pointed out). Some have (strangely) argued it isn't a problem.

I can grant that you may be correct about measuring inequality (I haven't read the article you mentioned), but that doesn't matter. What matters - as both Brett and Jordan point out - is the PERCEPTION of how extreme the inequality is, and if the game is rigged.
Click to expand...

Everything in extreme leads to harm. When dealing with the government, the game is always rigged. Peterson cited the period after the Crash of ‘07-‘08 as giving people the perception that the game is rigged. Well, yeah. Who do you think supplied the golden parachutes (TARP) - the government. That perception would not have been nearly as prevalent had we allowed nature to run its course with an economic blood letting.
 
I’m at a point where I have a hard time looking Trump supporters in eye. I ****ing hate Hilary Clinton. The current Democratic Party is pretty much insane. But my god. I don’t know how you can even consider supporting Trump and the current administration. This literally has NOTHING to do with politics. It’s about supporting a lying, ill tempered, misogynistic, immoral, corrupt ****.
 
jw3600 said:
I’m at a point where I have a hard time looking Trump supporters in eye. I ****ing hate Hilary Clinton. The current Democratic Party is pretty much insane. But my god. I don’t know how you can even consider supporting Trump and the current administration. This literally has NOTHING to do with politics. It’s about supporting a lying, ill tempered, misogynistic, immoral, corrupt ****.
Click to expand...

I vote for policy not the politician. Trump is probably the most despicable person to occupy the OVAL OFFICE since Nixon. I think Nixon was worse but that is just splitting hairs.

Again, I have to choose between the socialist and the idiot narcissist to run the country. I hate socialism more than the current degenerate in the White House.

All I need as proof that Trump is despicable is his "turnover ratio." Can anyone name any other administration with this much turn over ever? I can look back as far as Jimmy Carter in terms of my life but I doubt there has ever been more people coming and going over 3 years than Trump's first term in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgg
jw3600 said:
I’m at a point where I have a hard time looking Trump supporters in eye. I ****ing hate Hilary Clinton. The current Democratic Party is pretty much insane. But my god. I don’t know how you can even consider supporting Trump and the current administration. This literally has NOTHING to do with politics. It’s about supporting a lying, ill tempered, misogynistic, immoral, corrupt ****.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time why any idiot who can add 2 + 2 would ever vote for a person wanting to bankrupt this nation. The fact that he/she doesn't care about the math shows ignorance on a dangerous level. That typre of ignorance was why the founders wanted men of intellect and property to be the one's with the right to vote. The "masses" would be too stupid to elect their leaders. I'm sure you feel that way about Trump voters but you would be wrong again. Trump voters must choose between "decent" policy (not great) and horrible, dangerous policy spewed by a nice person. I know which way I am going to vote and if you can add (basic math) then Bernie and Warren shouldn't even be under consideration.

1573694422092.png
 
BLADEMDA said:
I vote for policy not the politician. Trump is probably the most despicable person to occupy the OVAL OFFICE since Nixon. I think Nixon was worse but that is just splitting hairs.

Again, I have to choose between the socialist and the idiot narcissist to run the country. I hate socialism more than the current degenerate in the White House.

All I need as proof that Trump is despicable is his "turnover ratio." Can anyone name any other administration with this much turn over ever? I can look back as far as Jimmy Carter in terms of my life but I doubt there has ever been more people coming and going over 3 years than Trump's first term in office.
Click to expand...
The specific attrition rate now for WH positions is 89 percent -yes 89 percent. Cleanup of toxic uranium has better figures...
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BLADEMDA said:
I have a hard time why any idiot who can add 2 + 2 would ever vote for a person wanting to bankrupt this nation. The fact that he/she doesn't care about the math shows ignorance on a dangerous level. That typre of ignorance was why the founders wanted men of intellect and property to be the one's with the right to vote. The "masses" would be too stupid to elect their leaders. I'm sure you feel that way about Trump voters but you would be wrong again. Trump voters must choose between "decent" policy (not great) and horrible, dangerous policy spewed by a nice person. I know which way I am going to vote and if you can add (basic math) then Bernie and Warren shouldn't even be under consideration.

View attachment 286163
Click to expand...
I mean. I get it. But I’m not gonna stop bitching about it.
 
And if you are taking economic counsel from a psychologist who caters and advocates for losers who can’t get laid, well, that’s like listening to your beagle for counsel to build a Tesla.
 
BoolaHI said:
Hmmmn, the dairy farmer really? It’s rather telling that the Ds are lead by two former Assistant US Attorneys, respectively trained at Stanford and Harvard Law, while the Rs, have a dairy farmer, an attorney whose background is in commercial litigation and Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan never passed the bar and went to Capital Law which has an average LSAT of 147 or a Mcat equivalent of the 490s. For law, LSAT scores have a direct correlation to your ability to pass the bar, at below 150, you have only a 40 percent chance of ever passing the bar. So, before you scream elitist, in law, unlike medicine, it really does matter a lot where you went to school. The team the Rs put together is mediocre at best and dim-witted.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because you are an attorney, and not a physician, but, you REALLY appeal to authority WAY too much. God's honest truth, no one here cares that one of your children went to UCSF, or the other places you name checked. That's for a few reasons. One might be because there are folks here that also attended there. However, another is that most of us on SDN are board eligible/certified. Our academic cachet is equal. The only time people mention the university of their program is something emblematic or idiosyncratic to that program. It's not someone ****ting on another person, because the other person's program didn't have the name recognition or respect as theirs. Now, I know that that is big thing with lawyers - if one guy went to Buffalo or Toledo, that doesn't line up with Harvard or Penn or Boalt Hall, and the lawyers love laying that on the "lesser" lawyer.

It could also be because there are no unaccredited med schools in the US, unlike law schools, and any foreign grads in medicine have a higher hurdle to surpass, and, board certification is the great equalizer. Maybe lawyers ask about someone's LSAT, but docs don't ask about the MCAT, because we don't care.

When you have to name a place that had greater recognition or public perception, it detracts from the point you are trying to make.

And, then, on a different track - you can't have it both ways - deriding one guy for being a " dairy farmer", yet saying that the peanut farmer was more than that. Nunes, unlike Carter, has a master's degree. And, incidentally, I don't think that President Carter graduated from Georgia Tech, although he attended before going to Annapolis.
 
Apollyon said:
Maybe it's because you are an attorney, and not a physician, but, you REALLY appeal to authority WAY too much. God's honest truth, no one here cares that one of your children went to UCSF, or the other places you name checked. That's for a few reasons. One might be because there are folks here that also attended there. However, another is that most of us on SDN are board eligible/certified. Our academic cachet is equal. The only time people mention the university of their program is something emblematic or idiosyncratic to that program. It's not someone ****ting on another person, because the other person's program didn't have the name recognition or respect as theirs. Now, I know that that is big thing with lawyers - if one guy went to Buffalo or Toledo, that doesn't line up with Harvard or Penn or Boalt Hall, and the lawyers love laying that on the "lesser" lawyer.

It could also be because there are no unaccredited med schools in the US, unlike law schools, and any foreign grads in medicine have a higher hurdle to surpass, and, board certification is the great equalizer. Maybe lawyers ask about someone's LSAT, but docs don't ask about the MCAT, because we don't care.

When you have to name a place that had greater recognition or public perception, it detracts from the point you are trying to make.

And, then, on a different track - you can't have it both ways - deriding one guy for being a " dairy farmer", yet saying that the peanut farmer was more than that. Nunes, unlike Carter, has a master's degree. And, incidentally, I don't think that President Carter graduated from Georgia Tech, although he attended before going to Annapolis.
Click to expand...

I’m just surprised that someone with BoolaHi’s acumen would find it acceptable that a US President got their degree from Anne Arundel County Vocational Academy. I mean seriously, at least the Army Fight Song wasn’t written by the Village People...

OK, there has to be at least one squid in this thread who is willing to step forward and defend my sister service’s academy. What? Was Carter really that embarrassing? Why wait for December 14th?

All joking aside, calling people a child behind the anonymity of the internet; judging people’s worth by their degree - hmm, yeah.
 
Apollyon said:
Maybe it's because you are an attorney, and not a physician, but, you REALLY appeal to authority WAY too much. God's honest truth, no one here cares that one of your children went to UCSF, or the other places you name checked. That's for a few reasons. One might be because there are folks here that also attended there. However, another is that most of us on SDN are board eligible/certified. Our academic cachet is equal. The only time people mention the university of their program is something emblematic or idiosyncratic to that program. It's not someone ****ting on another person, because the other person's program didn't have the name recognition or respect as theirs. Now, I know that that is big thing with lawyers - if one guy went to Buffalo or Toledo, that doesn't line up with Harvard or Penn or Boalt Hall, and the lawyers love laying that on the "lesser" lawyer.

It could also be because there are no unaccredited med schools in the US, unlike law schools, and any foreign grads in medicine have a higher hurdle to surpass, and, board certification is the great equalizer. Maybe lawyers ask about someone's LSAT, but docs don't ask about the MCAT, because we don't care.

When you have to name a place that had greater recognition or public perception, it detracts from the point you are trying to make.

And, then, on a different track - you can't have it both ways - deriding one guy for being a " dairy farmer", yet saying that the peanut farmer was more than that. Nunes, unlike Carter, has a master's degree. And, incidentally, I don't think that President Carter graduated from Georgia Tech, although he attended before going to Annapolis.
Click to expand...
You see any US Supreme Court Judges from Toledo-ever? So, it does matter and a lot.

And thanks for the counsel, but I didn’t ask or solicit it from you, so you can keep it to yourself. And as I mentioned, LSAT have direct correlations,so when you get a guy like Jim Jordan, who never passed the bar, from a school that is on the bottom 10 of all law schools, it does speak to the expertise and quality of representation the intelligence committee is providing.
 
DrGasPasser said:
I’m just surprised that someone with BoolaHi’s acumen would find it acceptable that a US President got their degree from Anne Arundel County Vocational Academy. I mean seriously, at least the Army Fight Song wasn’t written by the Village People...

OK, there has to be at least one squid in this thread who is willing to step forward and defend my sister service’s academy. What? Was Carter really that embarrassing? Why wait for December 14th?

All joking aside, calling people a child behind the anonymity of the internet; judging people’s worth by their degree - hmm, yeah.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously saying that between Jim Jordan who went to Capital Law and Schiff, who went to Harvard Law there is not a profound difference ? One has never passed the bar and in fact barely 50% of all their graduates will ever pass the bar, and so yes, as to professional expertise in law, I judge folks as to where they went to school.

Check any top 20 law firm, you will never and I mean never, see an attorney in a school in the bottom half of law schools. There is such profound difference between a Capital and a Harvard, that the prospective employers would not even try to recruit there —ever. And it’s not elitist, the students are just not on the same level, in fact they are several levels apart, and even then, it’s not close. As I mentioned, any LSAT score below has less than a 50% chance of ever passing the bar, and there entire school is 147, which means more than not, over half their graduates will never be lawyers and that is just a joke.

Federal Circuit and District courts do even recruit at schools outside of the top 14 law schools.

So, for law it matters a helluva lot.
 
DrGasPasser said:
I’m just surprised that someone with BoolaHi’s acumen would find it acceptable that a US President got their degree from Anne Arundel County Vocational Academy. I mean seriously, at least the Army Fight Song wasn’t written by the Village People...

OK, there has to be at least one squid in this thread who is willing to step forward and defend my sister service’s academy. What? Was Carter really that embarrassing? Why wait for December 14th?

All joking aside, calling people a child behind the anonymity of the internet; judging people’s worth by their degree - hmm, yeah.
Click to expand...
Child please is a black idiom— said in many black urban communities, look it up and stop getting your butt hurt.
 
BoolaHI said:
You see any US Supreme Court Judges from Toledo-ever? So, it does matter and a lot.

And thanks for the counsel, but I didn’t ask or solicit it from you, so you can keep it to yourself. And as I mentioned, LSAT have direct correlations,so when you get a guy like Jim Jordan, who never passed the bar, from a school that is on the bottom 10 of all law schools, it does speak to the expertise and quality of representation the intelligence committee is providing.
Click to expand...
You are so uncivil and get so butt hurt so quickly. You think that where someone went to school means anything. Among doctors, it doesn't - it's the work one puts in. I didn't insult you, but, you find insult where there isn't any. That is squarely on you.

And you did it again - about the school one attended, and being on the SC.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought, "how could a black minister not be a good guy?" But, you are like two other lawyers that were here on SDN in years past. One was a lawyer that became a doctor, and, before him, there was a guy that couldn't get into med school, so he went to law school. Both of them, just like you, were uncivil, were not willing to just be nice, and there was no desire to "play nice".

So, unlike others, I AM done with you. Every time you mention the schools your kids attended, or who won what award for this or that, or anything else that implies some sort of a patrician clique, I won't say anything, but, just know that, at least for me, I bet you could do better. But, again, that's all on you.

Edit: and, I did not see your use of the term "butt hurt", when I wrote that.
 
Apollyon said:
You are so uncivil and get so butt hurt so quickly. You think that where someone went to school means anything. Among doctors, it doesn't - it's the work one puts in. I didn't insult you, but, you find insult where there isn't any. That is squarely on you.

And you did it again - about the school one attended, and being on the SC.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought, "how could a black minister not be a good guy?" But, you are like two other lawyers that were here on SDN in years past. One was a lawyer that became a doctor, and, before him, there was a guy that couldn't get into med school, so he went to law school. Both of them, just like you, were uncivil, were not willing to just be nice, and there was no desire to "play nice".

So, unlike others, I AM done with you. Every time you mention the schools your kids attended, or who won what award for this or that, or anything else that implies some sort of a patrician clique, I won't say anything, but, just know that, at least for me, I bet you could do better. But, again, that's all on you.

Edit: and, I did not see your use of the term "butt hurt", when I wrote that.
Click to expand...
You make a lot of assumptions. Because one goes to Divinity School it does not mean one pursues pastoral pursuits nor that he/she is even a Christian. In fact, a large percentage of the most recognized academic theologians do not practice religion at all. I’ll leave it at that as I think you have this great imagery of how a black minister should be—but thanks, it’s nice to be thought of as a trope or some monolithic depiction that brings you comfort....
 
Beyond any judgement about Jim Jordan's education or his willingness to downplay a team doctor exposing himself, the bulk of his argument yesterday essentially was that "if I talk really fast, I must be right" and "if I'm too stupid to follow a conversation involving multiple people, then you must be too"

That alone says enough about how qualified he is to conduct an inquiry or hearing.
 
BLADEMDA said:
I have a hard time why any idiot who can add 2 + 2 would ever vote for a person wanting to bankrupt this nation. The fact that he/she doesn't care about the math shows ignorance on a dangerous level. That typre of ignorance was why the founders wanted men of intellect and property to be the one's with the right to vote. The "masses" would be too stupid to elect their leaders.
Click to expand...
For a second, I thought you had changed your allegiances. Because you described T to a T.
 
BoolaHI said:
One, JP is many things, but he is not a trained economist, his is a psychologist.

Two, inequality hurts economic growth, especially high inequality (like ours) in rich nations (like ours).
In 2014 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a collective of the world's 35 wealthiest countries including the United States, found that rising inequality in the United States from 1990 to 2010 knocked about five percentage points off cumulative GDP per capita over that period. Similar effects were seen in other rich countries.

The main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development,” the OECD found. Children from the bottom 40 percent of households (a huge chunk of the population) are missing out on pricey educational opportunities. That makes them less productive employees, which means lower wages, which means lower overall participation in the economy.
While that's obviously bad news for poor families, it also hurts those at the top. If you're a billionaire owner of a retail or manufacturing company, you want people to be able to afford the stuff you're selling. Henry Ford offered his workers high wages not out of any altruistic impulse but because he wanted them to be able to actually buy his own vehicles.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I couldn't care less if JP were just a trained monkey. The man must have a genius-level IQ, and usually refuses to talk about stuff he doesn't know. Unlike some of us, cough FFP cough.
 
DrGasPasser said:
Yeah, the dairy farmer. Kind of like the dim-witted peanut farmer who was President 40 years ago. Remind me, what party was Carter from?
Click to expand...
Why does that matter? Are your trying to prove that Trump wasn't a democrat just by chance?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BLADEMDA said:
I vote for policy not the politician. Trump is probably the most despicable person to occupy the OVAL OFFICE since Nixon. I think Nixon was worse but that is just splitting hairs.

Again, I have to choose between the socialist and the idiot narcissist to run the country. I hate socialism more than the current degenerate in the White House.

All I need as proof that Trump is despicable is his "turnover ratio." Can anyone name any other administration with this much turn over ever? I can look back as far as Jimmy Carter in terms of my life but I doubt there has ever been more people coming and going over 3 years than Trump's first term in office.
Click to expand...
You "hate" socialism. That probably means that:
1. you're rich, and you're fed up with the state stealing money out of your pocket and/or
2. you have never been really poor and/or
2. you've let yourself be brainwashed all your life in hating a word or an idea you have not experienced. Like the xenophobes who hate non-WASP while living in Indiana.

I hate socialism, too, the totalitarian version. Even the Scandinavian one. But I think we should emulate European countries a bit more in protecting our less fortunate (yep, that's the word). What they call social democracy. And, by the way, I hate when they steal money from me, too, and call it taxes. But part of it is the price for CIVILIZATION.
 
BoolaHI said:
Are you seriously saying that between Jim Jordan who went to Capital Law and Schiff, who went to Harvard Law there is not a profound difference ? One has never passed the bar and in fact barely 50% of all their graduates will ever pass the bar, and so yes, as to professional expertise in law, I judge folks as to where they went to school.

Check any top 20 law firm, you will never and I mean never, see an attorney in a school in the bottom half of law schools. There is such profound difference between a Capital and a Harvard, that the prospective employers would not even try to recruit there —ever. And it’s not elitist, the students are just not on the same level, in fact they are several levels apart, and even then, it’s not close. As I mentioned, any LSAT score below has less than a 50% chance of ever passing the bar, and there entire school is 147, which means more than not, over half their graduates will never be lawyers and that is just a joke.

Federal Circuit and District courts do even recruit at schools outside of the top 14 law schools.

So, for law it matters a helluva lot.
Click to expand...
He's actually 100% right here from what this child has read previously.
 
pgg said:
I think what people who oppose estate taxes don't understand is that the modern equivalent of royalty is wealth. Money is power, and money in the $billions is power to nudge or even steer a nation's path. We abhor the idea of hereditary rulership, kings passing on sovereign power to firstborn sons.

Most of us who aren't tabloid addicts feel contempt for that sad little spectacle the British royal family is, and marveled at the Queen's role (however superficially ceremonial) in suspending parliament a few months ago.

But when billionaires leave $billions to their kids, it's not just a hardworking bootstrappy chum giving his beloved child a life free of hunger and worry. It's a king bequeathing national-stage-level power and influence to a prince.

Count me in on supporting confiscatory estate taxes on 8-figure inheritances. It's not about raising tax receipts, it's about not having a multigenerational aristocracy with massive political power.
Click to expand...
The other thing that drives me nuts is the STUPIDITY (sorry, but I cannot avoid arrogance here) of electing "princes" from political families. I mean, if anything is a guarantee for corruption, that's it. Just go ahead and elect the same old boys' club. The Kennedys, the Landrieus, the Cuomos, the Bushes etc. How royally dumb is that? I don't care even if their daddy was Einstein. Also, talent usually skips the next generation.

I want self-made people, not well-connected f-cks who don't even know the prices in the grocery store.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.