ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
I reject your assumption that a high percentage of smart people would choose a policy that they knew was worse for most but better for them. Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting that we leave decisions to the ultra smart. It was to ignore those of the ultra dumb.
My assumption is that (mostly) smart people who claw to the top and who are desperate to be rich, famous and powerful, rule selfishly. Not relevant now.
I can think of many things wrong with this, but the first is i see no evidence that there is a problem.
What is your evidence "dumb" people are bad voters?
Do their votes have any influence? What problems are being caused?
Maybe low IQ people are actually kind of shielded from "doing their own research" and getting caught up in crazy ideologies and views.
Assuming we could agree what bad voting is, i doubt intelligence would be the best predictor.
Would you do like civics tests to vote, or IQ tests?
Sleazebag Joe Biden has been involved in campaign finance corruption for decades.
who wasn't on law review. even i was on a law review.
sotomayor was an editor of the YALE law review vs barrett's notre dame. and sotomayor was published in the yale law review.. idk if it's just the racism showing but comparing some religious school called rhodes college in memphis/notre dame to princeton/yale and deciding the former is unquestionably qualified as a top .05% mind and the later as a failure of the court is crazy talk..
e
I find it amusing that lawyers are always so elitist.
And it's probably just showing my ignorance on the subject, but I've never understood why being an editor of (or even on) a schools law review was such a big deal - "Oh look, I was on the school paper!" There are plenty of lawyers here, so I'm sure I'll be educated. We'll see if I buy their arguments.
It’s not just lawyers. Math and finance are similarly elitist. Everyone goes to the same handfull of schools for undergrad and grad school. You’re supposed to work with/for people everyone knows etc. Seems sort of standard.
I find it amusing that lawyers are always so elitist.
And it's probably just showing my ignorance on the subject, but I've never understood why being an editor of (or even on) a schools law review was such a big deal - "Oh look, I was on the school paper!" There are plenty of lawyers here, so I'm sure I'll be educated. We'll see if I buy their arguments.
idk. im the wrong person to ask. im decidedly small time. im comfortable that i will never be Great with a capital G, i just went wherever and as far as my not studying at all would take me.. lol
i joined the law review because i was told it was THE thing to do.. but you just spend all your time doing works cited's for professors' articles where they don't bother to cite anything, not even direct quotes, nor give you any direction. so you end up just having to googlesearch the quotes they are using to find proper citations until 5 in the morning for weeks..
and you also write a 50-100 page article that majority of the time doesn't end up getting published anyway.. mine was never getting published because right after i wrote it the case i wrote it on got remanded and changed and made my article moot. lol
it supposedly shows future employers that you have legal writing skills. but the ones i've heard of including mine you could "grade" onto them by being in the top 5-10%, so it wasn't even a particular application process that took into account your writing skill.
It’s not just lawyers. Math and finance are similarly elitist. Everyone goes to the same handfull of schools for undergrad and grad school. You’re supposed to work with/for people everyone knows etc. Seems sort of standard.
Was talking to a friend with a PhD in philosophy from Iowa. When professors from big time schools visited they would often freely admit that they would never allow an Iowa PhD on their faculty, no matter what they did.
I'm sure these people know that it's possible to be excellent at a job when you're 45, even if you partied a bit at 19 or had a rough home life at 16.
Ethical considerations are purely subjective and we don't share even a shred of a value system so your ethical considerations are worthless to me (and I think the opposite is true).
I am actually inclined to think that if you deeply despise someone for ethics that very probably means he or she is a very good person for my value system.
Same for morals ofc. And btw, anything that isn't objective and shared by the vast majority of adults as a m
I think you are implying that my moral compass is broken and doesn’t count in your mind. You are the disgusting little fascist who has espoused views, or hinted at racial and nationalistic bias, showing you are morally bankrupt, so I certainly think the same about you.
But my point was even though the judges have proper credentials, their character should preclude them from serving. We all know smart people, who are morally bankrupt (you are a fine example) and should not hold the most exalted legal title in the U.S. judicial system.
She was on the SC
Duh, I know who you meant, but she is not on the Supreme Court, nor even in existence. "Was" is the important word here. We were discussing people who are actually alive and on the current court.
who wasn't on law review. even i was on a law review.
sotomayor was an editor of the YALE law review vs barrett's notre dame. and sotomayor was published in the yale law review.. idk if it's just the racism showing but comparing some religious school called rhodes college in memphis/notre dame to princeton/yale and deciding the former is unquestionably qualified as a top .05% mind and the later as a failure of the court is crazy talk..
ed
check Sotomayor LSAT score
For those interested in an error free analysis of the trials
Well isn’t it an error to say allegedly ? He’s been convicted of the crime
From the actual article
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn.
Companies spawned by Kahn have had had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related cas
People don't want to pay high level public employees enough, they have to accept what might appear as corruption (it wasn't imo for RBG nor for Clarence to be clear).
If we want some of the best minds of their generation in key positions in the public sphere, we have to pay salaries competitives with the private sector.
Yes i am talking many millions per year at the very minimum for SCOTUS and the fed, 500k++ for the house, 2-3m for the senate, and golden handshakes/pensions.
Ie top 0.1% people have to know they can get generational wealth from public work at the top level , THEN we can be draconian wrt ethical rules / corruption.
But they never have to worry about money, should be able to easily afford a house in the most expensive neighborhoods of Washington DC, should be able to send children to top in the nation private schools and should be able to retire at 65 with top1% >> passive income (500k+).
If being a car dealer makes more than the house... if being a partner in a median law firm in a random flyover america town makes the same as scotus...
SCOTUS salary is 265k. Average law firm partner in the USA is around 1M. Media at 675k in 2022.
SCOTUS should pay dramatically more than median law firm, several millions.
https://www.clio.com/blog/how-much-do-la...
At that point btw we can ban those people from ever working in the private sector after their tenure (not applicable for SCOTUS but for congress, federal agencies and so on)
At that point btw we can ban those people from ever working in the private sector after their tenure (not applicable for SCOTUS but for congress, federal agencies and so on)
I don't think you've thought this through. Someone serves one term in congress, gets outvoted, and can't ever work again?
I don't think you've thought this through. Someone serves one term in congress, gets outvoted, and can't ever work again?
it can be layered and crafted appropriately depending on the role and the duration; with 2y terms for the house one term might not be enough to trigger the ban in the private sector but could be enough to ban for 5-10 years to work everywhere public money is involved. Or private sector employment ban might be linked to participation in committees and be sectorial.
Remember we have handshakes/retirement and very high salary to compensate. Yes i mean you trigger a lifetime pension with just one term (ofc not a huge one with just one term). We want capable people to never think "omg i am giving up my career if i run for congress, i shouldn't" (not for financial reasons at least). otoh we really really really don't want people to think going to congress will help their career...
And we want all races to matter a lot, when it can't be the general, we basically want primaries to be fought competitevely everywhere if possible, rewards have to be big enough for that to happen
Another possibility is to explicitly allow some % of political donations to be pocketed by the candidate directly, and transparently. Something like 10-20-30%.
People don't want to pay high level public employees enough, they have to accept what might appear as corruption (it wasn't imo for RBG nor for Clarence to be clear).
If we want some of the best minds of their generation in key positions in the public sphere, we have to pay salaries competitives with the private sector.
Yes i am talking many millions per year at the very minimum for SCOTUS and the fed, 500k++ for the house, 2-3m for the senat
It's hard to disagree with any of this. It is always going to be rough being among the most brilliant legal minds, and yet have trouble maintaining a middle-class existence in a place like Washington DC, when people of comparable ability in the legal sector are making 7 and perhaps 8 figures. While that is the case, you are going to inevitably have an issue with some level of corruption.
The question on my mind is whether we are going to take the same stance on all public employees, or just the very top. I have seen first-hand that there is a lot of incompetence in very important, but still low level public sector employees (prosecutors come to mind immediately). It would be trivial to pay each of the supreme court justices an extra million a year, but it is a much different story to pay the 10K prosecutors and 10K public defenders in this country a salary that is sufficient to hire and retain decent-level talent, without breaking the bank. And that is just one very small corner of our criminal justice system, which is just one corner of our government.
On the obligations side, no single stock or bond ownership, not even sectorial, only sp500/russell 2000 indexes allowed , broad corp bond instruments, and treasuries.
And no financial interest in foreign incorporated entities (they work for the country).
If owner of a non listed company, has to put into receivership to run for office.
Strict ban from taking money directly or indirectly from any non american private individual or entity.
It's hard to disagree with any of this. It is always going to be rough being among the most brilliant legal minds, and yet have trouble maintaining a middle-class existence in a place like Washington DC, when people of comparable ability in the legal sector are making 7 and perhaps 8 figures. While that is the case, you are going to inevitably have an issue with some level of corruption.
I would but remember in my model there are far fewer public employees. But for the core functions that government needs to satisfy for the public, salaries must be competitive.
Tbh i think they tend to be for normal public jobs in many areas, if we include the frequent defined benefit pensions and the over average healthcare plans.
Prosecutor salaries should be linked to local lawyer salaries yes.
