PyramidHead
Contributor
I have to admit he did well, and it really throws mud on Liz Warren's pledge to never appear on the network. Two candidates now have shown popular appeal there, and Warren just looks conflict-averse by comparison.
-
Features
Pete Buttigieg
- Thread starter Brian63
- Start date
I have to admit he did well, and it really throws mud on Liz Warren's pledge to never appear on the network. Two candidates now have shown popular appeal there, and Warren just looks conflict-averse by comparison.
zorq
Veteran Member
Trump is even feeling a little bit jealous of the attention Fox News is giving to Dem candidates. One of his recent tweets chastized Fox News for dedicating ANY airtime to the Dems. Apparently Trump thinks FNC should be only Trump all the time. This the sort of insecurity in right wingers that inspired them to dub CNN the "Clinton News Network" back in the 90s.
Derec
Contributor
Derec
Contributor
You wish! I neg repped you because your post was devoid of logic.
Derec
Contributor
What does having a JD degree or not have to with being a smart or stupid leader?
Mayor Pete is obviously smart and well educated. Does him not being a lawyer mean he is stupid, insecure or that he doesn't know how laws are made?
Way to completely miss the point.
Derec
Contributor
You do not have to be a right-winger to think this is a dumb position. People from history cannot be judged by our standards, or nobody could measure up.
I think this was a misstep for Mayor Pete.
Derec
Contributor
But according to the likes of Elixir, Koy and Floof, he is not eumacated[sic] enough because he is not a lawyer.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,288
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
But according to the likes of Elixir, Koy and Floof, he is not eumacated[sic] enough because he is not a lawyer.
Grasping at straws to defend your stupid argument, eh.
No one has said that presidents need to be lawyers, especially anyone in the Democratic party. It's just that the people Democratic voters choose to be their candidates also happen to be lawyers.
PyramidHead
Contributor
But according to the likes of Elixir, Koy and Floof, he is not eumacated[sic] enough because he is not a lawyer.
Grasping at straws to defend your stupid argument, eh.
No one has said that presidents need to be lawyers, especially anyone in the Democratic party. It's just that the people Democratic voters choose to be their candidates also happen to be lawyers.
Democrats lean heavily on legislative solutions and the rule of law, so it makes sense. I think familiarity with the laws of the country is a good thing for a candidate to have, but a candidate who upholds United States law without questioning it is one I will not support.
Elixir
Made in America
But according to the likes of Elixir, Koy and Floof, he is not eumacated[sic] enough because he is not a lawyer.
Liar. I never said anything like that and you know it. Neg rep away, scumbag. (be sure to "neg rep" yourself too, for lack of logic)
And while you're at it, be sure to celebrate the one-note set of Rethuglican non-lawyer candidates whom you consider diverse for their uniform ignorance of the law.
lpetrich
Contributor
Or else that it is mainly lawyers who run for office. Looking at 
List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience, over half of the 44 US presidents had once been lawyers. Also, almost half of recent Congresspeople have law degrees (115th Congress: By the Numbers - DailyNewsGems, other sources).
I also fail to understand why lawyers are supposed to be so villainous.
List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience, over half of the 44 US presidents had once been lawyers. Also, almost half of recent Congresspeople have law degrees (115th Congress: By the Numbers - DailyNewsGems, other sources).I also fail to understand why lawyers are supposed to be so villainous.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Or else that it is mainly lawyers who run for office. Looking at
I also fail to understand why lawyers are supposed to be so villainous.
Oh man, come on, I mean, lawyers, amirite? They're all just such lawyers with all the jokes and lightbulbs and book learnin. And they're jooos, too. And lizard people. Them lawyers are. With all their decades of study and intelligence and thinkin and they's eeleet! And the eeleet's are what git ya.
Derec
Contributor
And no matter how often I show this to be a ridiculous fallacy, you (and a few others like Elixir) keep insisting on lawyer ≡ smart and educated, as if all other professions/degrees are just bumbling fools.
Neither did I say that no lawyers should ever be nominated, but that Democrats should nominate people of more diverse educational backgrounds.
Wrong. There haven't been any Jewish nominees, and the person who came closest (at least in recent history) is NOT a lawyer.
Why do you think a JD requires that much intelligence compared to other advanced degrees like PhD or MD? This is a really silly line of argumentation. I never said Democrats should nominate people who are uneducated. I said they should nominate people with more diverse educational backgrounds. What the fuck is wrong with that?
And this is even sillier being in this particular thread. Pete Buttigieg, a Harvard and Oxford graduate and a Rhodes scholar, is certainly a smart and well-educated man. But he is not a lawyer. So by your silly brand of "logic", he is a dummy who lacks "book learnin[sic]" and "decades of study and intelligence". Give me a fucking break!
Derec
Contributor
Villainy of lawyers may be a separate topic.
But for present discussion it is sufficient to say that lawyers being so over-represented among US politicians (especially Democrats and even more especially Democratic presidential nominees) has a danger of a group-think because of a lack of educational diversity. It can also lead to them passing laws overly favorable to the lawyerly profession. For example we have laws that make filing lawsuits extremely profitable for lawyers because of all the nonsense such as "punitive damages" and "strict liability" that most countries do not have (to their benefit).
Derec
Contributor
Derec
Contributor
Wrong. First of all, my argument wasn't stupid. I pointed out that Democrats rely too much on lawyers as all but one of their presidential candidates in the last 40 years. That point still stands. More educational diversity would be good for the country and I think the Democratic Party as well.
Wrong. I was attacked for the suggestion that Democratic nominees need not necessarily be lawyers. Obviously those people think that Democratic nominees must be lawyers (or else they are uneducated rubes ignorant of the law as per Koy and his imitators)
And why is that I wonder? Why is it nearly impossible for a non-lawyer to become a nominee? Is it really that rank-and-file primary voters clamor for lawyers or is it DNC rigging it that way?
laughing dog
Contributor
My guess is that is most people do not look at the profession of the nominee when voting in the primaries, so your observation is pretty much moot. You might as well ask "Democrats are obsessed with diversity but only nominate people who graduated college".
Derec
Contributor
I agree. I think it is DNC than not the masses who push lawyers to the front. Like DNC rigging the nomination for Hillary.
So is your argument that it is random chance? I very much doubt it.
Elixir
Made in America
Where is the statement that a non-lawyer cannot be sufficiently knowledgeable, Derec? Read for comprehension! Your consideration that a set of candidates that are non-lawyers is somehow more qualified than a set of lawyers, for a job involving laws... is mind-bogglingly silly on its face.
Keep neg-repping me if it makes you feel better, but dude - do some math...
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
Logic fail. The primary winner - who is chosen by the voters not the DNC - gets the nomination. The DNC does not choose the people who run in the primaries.Derec said:
All of the nominees were college graduates. All of the nominees had two ears. All of the nominees had a nose. I suspect I can find lots of characteristics for all of the nominees. There is no reason to focus on one of them to the exclusion of the others.Derec said: