Walz v. Vance VP Debate - Post-Game Thread | Vance now says Trump won in 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 625
  • Views: 16K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
How many Harvard Law grads do you know? Or Columbia or NYU or Berkeley?

I mean, you can't get into Yale unless you have great grades in college, excellent LSAT scores, and if you don't have other accomplishments (e.g. Rhodes Scholar, etc), it's a crapshoot to get in. I did not get accepted to Yale, even with my LSAT. That was fine because it functioned weirdly as a safety school of sorts. I wanted to go to school in Boston, New York, Philly or DC (this was before I realized I hated DC). If I didn't get into the top 10 law schools in those places, I didn't really want to go to law school -- but I thought I'd make an exception for the #1 rated law school. Not that it was likely I'd be accepted there and not elsewhere (the reality was completely opposite; I got in everywhere but Yale), but they waved the application fee so why the hell not?

So obviously there is a certain threshold of academic excellence to get in (unless the standards are lowered, as they likely were for Vance). And a lot of excellence comes out. But every school has duds and weirdos. Yale produces more of the latter than the former, but on occasion there are grads who are both. I think the difference in intelligence, law ability, or any other metric you care to use between the average Yale student and the average Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Stanford student (etc) is close to zero.

Well, that's my experience at least. I worked at WLRK and then the appellate practice at Jones Day and then taught law, so for decades most of my colleagues came from those schools (and also I attended a Top 5 law school), so I have a pretty rich experience.

One thing that always bugged me about Yale grads was their tendency to conflate the sentences "not all X are Y" and "all X are not Y." Yes, that logical error shows up countless times in law review articles, judicial opinions and the like. I find it hard to believe that Yale is teaching that. My guess is that a) the prevalence is about the same, but I first saw that from a Yalie and then primacy bias took over or b) I've been exposed to a sample that skews that way. If there are an infinite number of traits, even a purely random sample will exhibit some of those traits disproportionately. But anyway, in my experience, Yale Law grads are particularly susceptible to that illogic and I really don't understand how or why.
Click to expand...
Inbreeding, perhaps?
Disclaimer: I remained in-state (VA) and didn't apply elsewhere. I was getting married and my bride wanted to be close to her family in Richmond.
 
ZenMode said:
Some see it that way. I see it as not settling, voting out of fear, voting for the lesser of two evils, etc.
Click to expand...
Who was the last candidate you voted for without settling, voted for without fear, and voted for because they were not the lesser of two evils ?
 
Icky Mettle said:
Based on the username, it appears it may be the same poster formerly known as IAmBuckwheat, StageCoachDriver, and JumpCatchDunk. Three words put together, with a capitalization at the beginning of each one.
Click to expand...
Really good catch. I think you are right. His alts always had a specific structure to them.
 
ZenMode said:
Trump has set the record for worst president and worst presidential candidate, but, after watching debate highlights, I think Tim Walz would have a better shot against Trump than Kamala. Walz is more charismatic and comes across, IMO, as more authentic. He's a better debater, better at speaking without a teleprompter. He's not saddled with 3.5 years of economic/immigration issues. He doesn't have the history of significant political flip-flops and he's a "he".

For the record, I'm not voting for Trump or Harris, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
Click to expand...
"I don't have a dog in this fight."

Yes you do.
 
superrific said:
How many Harvard Law grads do you know? Or Columbia or NYU or Berkeley?

I mean, you can't get into Yale unless you have great grades in college, excellent LSAT scores, and if you don't have other accomplishments (e.g. Rhodes Scholar, etc), it's a crapshoot to get in. I did not get accepted to Yale, even with my LSAT. That was fine because it functioned weirdly as a safety school of sorts. I wanted to go to school in Boston, New York, Philly or DC (this was before I realized I hated DC). If I didn't get into the top 10 law schools in those places, I didn't really want to go to law school -- but I thought I'd make an exception for the #1 rated law school. Not that it was likely I'd be accepted there and not elsewhere (the reality was completely opposite; I got in everywhere but Yale), but they waved the application fee so why the hell not?

So obviously there is a certain threshold of academic excellence to get in (unless the standards are lowered, as they likely were for Vance). And a lot of excellence comes out. But every school has duds and weirdos. Yale produces more of the latter than the former, but on occasion there are grads who are both. I think the difference in intelligence, law ability, or any other metric you care to use between the average Yale student and the average Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Stanford student (etc) is close to zero.

Well, that's my experience at least. I worked at WLRK and then the appellate practice at Jones Day and then taught law, so for decades most of my colleagues came from those schools (and also I attended a Top 5 law school), so I have a pretty rich experience.

One thing that always bugged me about Yale grads was their tendency to conflate the sentences "not all X are Y" and "all X are not Y." Yes, that logical error shows up countless times in law review articles, judicial opinions and the like. I find it hard to believe that Yale is teaching that. My guess is that a) the prevalence is about the same, but I first saw that from a Yalie and then primacy bias took over or b) I've been exposed to a sample that skews that way. If there are an infinite number of traits, even a purely random sample will exhibit some of those traits disproportionately. But anyway, in my experience, Yale Law grads are particularly susceptible to that illogic and I really don't understand how or why.
Click to expand...
I know quite a few Harvard and NYU law grads, and a couple Berkeley law grads. One of my partners went to NYU and another went to Berkeley (we’re a smallish firm with 17 lawyers). Not sure about Columbia.

Anyway, I don’t think the fact my former partner went to Yale is what made him sharp and a great lawyer. But the fact he is sharp and had the tools to become a great lawyer are a big part of what got him into Yale. I do like to give him shit about some of his fellow Yale Law alums who have climbed their way to the top of right wing politics.. He’s not proud of that.
 
superrific said:
Yeah, nobody fucking cares whether you settle or not. You're not that special nor that important. There are 150 million of us who vote. None of us really make any difference individually, but you especially make no difference if you vote for a rando, a third party, or don't vote. It's your right and you can do what you want. Just don't pretend that it makes you superior in any way. It just means you have a weird proclivity for wasting your time.
Click to expand...
You seem angry.....
 
Y'all are pickier than me. I feel obligated to vote but not to like or respect politicians. I vote for the ones most likely to kick the can down the road in the general direction I want as long as they aren't too morally reprehensible or complete sellouts. If you wait for a paragon of virtue to vote for you're going to vote for somebody who doesn't know what a politician does.

These days, things seem pretty clear to me. One party wants to have fewer and fewer or maybe even no people able to vote. They want to preserve male privilege and restore an unequal society predicated on old myths told by old men.. The other wants to open up opportunities to vote and share in broadening the possibilities for everybody, even those who have to settle for a little less lopsided share. Seems clear enough to me.
 
ZenMode said:
Some see it that way. I see it as not settling, voting out of fear, voting for the lesser of two evils, etc.
Click to expand...
But you are settling. Your settling for whomever wins and not providing your input.

I don't understand how you see this as voting out of fear?

I also don't agree with lesser of two evils, there is on qualified candidate and one unqualified candidate.
 
Possibly the Libertarian Party is perceived as one that allows more freeform opinions. It might not really be true that three Libertarians will give you four opinions and an equivocation on almost any issue.
 
finesse said:
Possibly the Libertarian Party is perceived as one that allows more freeform opinions. It might not really be true that three Libertarians will give you four opinions and an equivocation on almost any issue.
Click to expand...
???

That's not at all my experience with libertarians. They all give you the same stock answer to every single question.
 
I hadn't had a discussion with one in three decades. Have they actually developed a platform? Back when I would actually discuss politics in person, that was not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top