|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2012 11:26 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice. Lawyers are specialists in law, not governance. One could just as well argue that economists and philosophers have more of a place in representing the nation's interests and making decisions on our behalf. You might scoff at philosophy, because it deals in abstracts, whereas lawyers study in verifiable absolutes. But governance is often about making decisions that have no clear guidance, or sometimes ignoring the guidance of past decisions for a better, newer path. Lawyers are taught to be completely beholden to past decisions. While I respect the work that goes into earning a law degree, this isn't a prestigious group. Some of them are idiots and criminals. My city of Chicago is full of them. There is nothing so morally or intellectually prestigious about a law degree that suggests people who have them should hold anymore responsibility over other people's lives than someone with a degree in any other field. I also love that you find every opportunity possible to tell people you're a lawyer. Show nested quote +"Lawyers on a whole..."
"...the finer points of government systems and practice." This was a lawyer's grammar after editing himself, while simultaneously pleading for his profession's intellectual superiority as reason to rule over others. I rest my case. I wonder if language arts graduates wouldn't make excellent lawyers. Just like lawyers, they primarily deal with precision in language. Government needs more art school grads. But overall, I actually think we have too much emphasis on credentials altogether. Management skills and integrity - traits I think make for good leadership - aren't properly taught in a classroom, but at home.
Seriously, you're going to knock me for "grammar" instead of content on a web forum? I wasn't editing my grammar, my punctuation, my spelling... I was editing a missed word that changed the meaning of what I meant. If I had to consult the CMS to be taken seriously on this forum, I would never come back. And yes, I mentioned I was a lawyer. That person made a remark that was insulting me directly. So if I write "Lawyers aren't people?" you are content with my phrasing? Whatever.
You didn't even acknowledge my argument. You basically just say "some are bad people". I acknowledged that in my statement ("on a whole"). There is not a single other profession that (1) better understands proposed laws and is able to understand the effect they have on society in a practical manner, and (2) is better versed in representing the interests of their constituents.
Lawyers (generally) make effective representatives in legislatures. While it's healthy to have other professions involved, the suggestion that lawyers are the problem is completely naive. Lawyers often have English, Philosophy, and Political Science degrees. It's not like "Lawyer" is the entirety of their education. They come from all walks of life (including your precious art, philosophy, engineering, and language types). Engineers usually lack social skills. English and art types tend to lack math skills. Nobody is perfect at everything. That is why some other professions being involved is a good idea.
You mistake "Leadership" for "Representation". You think lawyers are bad leaders. But I don't understand why they would be any less effective at it compared to X profession. That's a personal trait, not a professional one. I'll grant you that law tends to attract asshole types, but I don't think it makes them poor leaders.
|
On December 10 2012 11:59 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice. Need more people who are trained to come up with solutions to problems. Need less people who are trained specifically to win arguments and never acknowledge that the other side is right.
Lawyers are trained to come up with solutions (usually legal, sometimes just personal advice) for their clients. That's the core of what any lawyer does.
|
On December 10 2012 12:31 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 11:59 Tarot wrote:On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice. Need more people who are trained to come up with solutions to problems. Need less people who are trained specifically to win arguments and never acknowledge that the other side is right. Lawyers are trained to come up with solutions (usually legal, sometimes just personal advice) for their clients. That's the core of what any lawyer does.
That's fine for those problems. But the proportion of lawyers to other professions in government is nowhere near the proportion of legal problems to other problems that a government faces.
edit: more specifically, there is a severe under-representation of the specialists in other fields who you need to be able to make informed and proper decisions
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Nate Silver:
Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh?
|
On December 10 2012 13:05 Souma wrote:Nate Silver: Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh?
That's because they only release the ones that make them look good. Duh. These are the outliers, and would not be good representations of reliability. I don't think "internal polling" is worse as a whole, since they tend to use the same exact companies that release the public polls.
Also, since I think this is directed at comments I made before the election a month ago, I should clarify that the internal numbers I was referring to aren't "polls" per se as much as they are "databases". This is noteworthy since the database is less capable of tracking shifts in public opinion over time than a flash poll over a few days is capable of doing. On the flip side, it tends to monitor long-term trends far more accurately and has the ability to hold information invaluable in GOTV efforts.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 10 2012 18:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 13:05 Souma wrote:Nate Silver: Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh? That's because they only release the ones that make them look good. Duh. These are the outliers, and would not be good representations of reliability. I don't think "internal polling" is worse as a whole, since they tend to use the same exact companies that release the public polls. Also, since I think this is directed at comments I made before the election a month ago, I should clarify that the internal numbers I was referring to aren't "polls" per se as much as they are "databases". This is noteworthy since the database is less capable of tracking shifts in public opinion over time than a flash poll over a few days is capable of doing. On the flip side, it tends to monitor long-term trends far more accurately and has the ability to hold information invaluable in GOTV efforts.
Except even the "real" internal polls that aren't released to make themselves look good aren't as reliable either.
Per Nate Silver:
But sometimes, internal polls make their way to the public through leaks that are not authorized by the campaigns. Or reporters and analysts may see the “real” numbers, or reasonably explicit characterizations of them, on background, on the condition that they not report them. (I saw some of the Obama campaign’s internal polling in 2008, along with that of some other Republican and Democratic campaigns in a few instances over the years.)
Perhaps these internal polls are more accurate?
My experience has been that these polls can also exaggerate the standing of their candidate, if perhaps not by quite as large a margin as those that are authorized for an on-the-record release. An interesting example of this comes from Noam Scheiber of The New Republic, who says he received data on Mr. Romney’s internal polling in six states from an aide to Mr. Romney’s campaign. In addition, Mr. Romney’s chief pollster, Neil Newhouse, disclosed the campaign’s polling to Mr. Scheiber in a seventh state, Ohio.
On average, the polls had Mr. Obama ahead by just one point between the seven states. They had Mr. Obama trailing in Colorado and New Hampshire and tied with Mr. Romney in Iowa.
|
On December 10 2012 18:31 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 18:02 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 13:05 Souma wrote:Nate Silver: Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh? That's because they only release the ones that make them look good. Duh. These are the outliers, and would not be good representations of reliability. I don't think "internal polling" is worse as a whole, since they tend to use the same exact companies that release the public polls. Also, since I think this is directed at comments I made before the election a month ago, I should clarify that the internal numbers I was referring to aren't "polls" per se as much as they are "databases". This is noteworthy since the database is less capable of tracking shifts in public opinion over time than a flash poll over a few days is capable of doing. On the flip side, it tends to monitor long-term trends far more accurately and has the ability to hold information invaluable in GOTV efforts. Except even the "real" internal polls that aren't released to make themselves look good aren't as reliable either. Per Nate Silver: Show nested quote +But sometimes, internal polls make their way to the public through leaks that are not authorized by the campaigns. Or reporters and analysts may see the “real” numbers, or reasonably explicit characterizations of them, on background, on the condition that they not report them. (I saw some of the Obama campaign’s internal polling in 2008, along with that of some other Republican and Democratic campaigns in a few instances over the years.)
Perhaps these internal polls are more accurate?
My experience has been that these polls can also exaggerate the standing of their candidate, if perhaps not by quite as large a margin as those that are authorized for an on-the-record release. An interesting example of this comes from Noam Scheiber of The New Republic, who says he received data on Mr. Romney’s internal polling in six states from an aide to Mr. Romney’s campaign. In addition, Mr. Romney’s chief pollster, Neil Newhouse, disclosed the campaign’s polling to Mr. Scheiber in a seventh state, Ohio.
On average, the polls had Mr. Obama ahead by just one point between the seven states. They had Mr. Obama trailing in Colorado and New Hampshire and tied with Mr. Romney in Iowa.
I think Mr. Silver is using anecdotal evidence to prove a point that he wants to be true here. I've seen nothing to suggest that the internal polls are significantly different than "independant" polls. Remember that they are often done by the same companies (in my experience). Unless he's alleging that these companies are intentionally manipulating the "private" numbers to provide more favorable results, I highly doubt there is anything more than a bad sample. It is clear that internal GOP numbers were off in the general. However, our internal numbers were dead on in my primary (scary good).
|
On December 10 2012 21:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 18:31 Souma wrote:On December 10 2012 18:02 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 13:05 Souma wrote:Nate Silver: Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh? That's because they only release the ones that make them look good. Duh. These are the outliers, and would not be good representations of reliability. I don't think "internal polling" is worse as a whole, since they tend to use the same exact companies that release the public polls. Also, since I think this is directed at comments I made before the election a month ago, I should clarify that the internal numbers I was referring to aren't "polls" per se as much as they are "databases". This is noteworthy since the database is less capable of tracking shifts in public opinion over time than a flash poll over a few days is capable of doing. On the flip side, it tends to monitor long-term trends far more accurately and has the ability to hold information invaluable in GOTV efforts. Except even the "real" internal polls that aren't released to make themselves look good aren't as reliable either. Per Nate Silver: But sometimes, internal polls make their way to the public through leaks that are not authorized by the campaigns. Or reporters and analysts may see the “real” numbers, or reasonably explicit characterizations of them, on background, on the condition that they not report them. (I saw some of the Obama campaign’s internal polling in 2008, along with that of some other Republican and Democratic campaigns in a few instances over the years.)
Perhaps these internal polls are more accurate?
My experience has been that these polls can also exaggerate the standing of their candidate, if perhaps not by quite as large a margin as those that are authorized for an on-the-record release. An interesting example of this comes from Noam Scheiber of The New Republic, who says he received data on Mr. Romney’s internal polling in six states from an aide to Mr. Romney’s campaign. In addition, Mr. Romney’s chief pollster, Neil Newhouse, disclosed the campaign’s polling to Mr. Scheiber in a seventh state, Ohio.
On average, the polls had Mr. Obama ahead by just one point between the seven states. They had Mr. Obama trailing in Colorado and New Hampshire and tied with Mr. Romney in Iowa. I think Mr. Silver is using anecdotal evidence to prove a point that he wants to be true here. I've seen nothing to suggest that the internal polls are significantly different than "independant" polls. Remember that they are often done by the same companies (in my experience). Unless he's alleging that these companies are intentionally manipulating the "private" numbers to provide more favorable results, I highly doubt there is anything more than a bad sample. It is clear that internal GOP numbers were off in the general. However, our internal numbers were dead on in my primary (scary good).
Well you also have nothing but anecdotal evidence and you are much less reliable source than him.
|
On December 10 2012 21:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 18:31 Souma wrote:On December 10 2012 18:02 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 13:05 Souma wrote:Nate Silver: Internal polling... not so reliable after all, eh? That's because they only release the ones that make them look good. Duh. These are the outliers, and would not be good representations of reliability. I don't think "internal polling" is worse as a whole, since they tend to use the same exact companies that release the public polls. Also, since I think this is directed at comments I made before the election a month ago, I should clarify that the internal numbers I was referring to aren't "polls" per se as much as they are "databases". This is noteworthy since the database is less capable of tracking shifts in public opinion over time than a flash poll over a few days is capable of doing. On the flip side, it tends to monitor long-term trends far more accurately and has the ability to hold information invaluable in GOTV efforts. Except even the "real" internal polls that aren't released to make themselves look good aren't as reliable either. Per Nate Silver: But sometimes, internal polls make their way to the public through leaks that are not authorized by the campaigns. Or reporters and analysts may see the “real” numbers, or reasonably explicit characterizations of them, on background, on the condition that they not report them. (I saw some of the Obama campaign’s internal polling in 2008, along with that of some other Republican and Democratic campaigns in a few instances over the years.)
Perhaps these internal polls are more accurate?
My experience has been that these polls can also exaggerate the standing of their candidate, if perhaps not by quite as large a margin as those that are authorized for an on-the-record release. An interesting example of this comes from Noam Scheiber of The New Republic, who says he received data on Mr. Romney’s internal polling in six states from an aide to Mr. Romney’s campaign. In addition, Mr. Romney’s chief pollster, Neil Newhouse, disclosed the campaign’s polling to Mr. Scheiber in a seventh state, Ohio.
On average, the polls had Mr. Obama ahead by just one point between the seven states. They had Mr. Obama trailing in Colorado and New Hampshire and tied with Mr. Romney in Iowa. I think Mr. Silver is using anecdotal evidence to prove a point that he wants to be true here. I've seen nothing to suggest that the internal polls are significantly different than "independant" polls. Remember that they are often done by the same companies (in my experience). Unless he's alleging that these companies are intentionally manipulating the "private" numbers to provide more favorable results, I highly doubt there is anything more than a bad sample. It is clear that internal GOP numbers were off in the general. However, our internal numbers were dead on in my primary (scary good).
At the very least Romney's internal polls were way off. Otherwise Romney wouldn't have been shocked (and no, him and Ryan being shocked is not some gigantic con). That suggests something to me...
|
On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice.
I suggest you read "The Policymaker and the Intellectual" by Henry Kissinger. He discusses, among other things, how lawyers tend to work in government. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but he puts forward a few interesting arguments to support his case that lawyers do not necessarily tend to make good decisionmakers, notably because they lack creativity (according to him).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well at least we know bluepanther's internal polls were pretty bad.
lawyers can be okay, if they have a well founded outside view of law and its impact. other words, be a legal realist.
|
The problem with lawyers is that they're trained to be "no men." Many (if not most) lawyers see their role as one in which they are to advise their clients of what not to do (ie avoid risks) rather than find creative solutions to meet their clients' needs.
That said, good lawyers are very creative at finding such solutions and incredibly well-rounded individuals given their depth of experience with a variety of problems. More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician.
|
On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician.
(citation needed)
I don't see why lawyers would be more qualified than anyone else to make policy decisions on various issues. Not only are most lawyers qualified for a particular field rather than their entire discipline, their only problem-solving training resides in finding solutions within the law. If anything and according to that reasoning, you'd want them in the bureaucracy, not in the decisionmaker's seat.
|
On December 11 2012 01:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician. (citation needed)
Name me one other profession that has the same potential for getting extensive experience in numerous disciplines and industries.
|
On December 11 2012 01:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:41 kwizach wrote:On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician. (citation needed) Name me one other profession that has the same potential for getting extensive experience in numerous disciplines and industries.
Sociology researcher? Development workers?
|
On December 11 2012 01:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2012 01:41 kwizach wrote:On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician. (citation needed) Name me one other profession that has the same potential for getting extensive experience in numerous disciplines and industries. Sociology researcher? Development workers?
Not even close.
|
On December 11 2012 01:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On December 11 2012 01:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2012 01:41 kwizach wrote:On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician. (citation needed) Name me one other profession that has the same potential for getting extensive experience in numerous disciplines and industries. Sociology researcher? Development workers? Not even close.
To be honest, I would rather have someone who knows a lot about inequalities in society than a lawyer. I don't think that being a jack of all trades kind of person is anything especially sought after for politicians.
|
On December 11 2012 01:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:
More than any other profession, lawyers are better suited to being the type of jack-of-all-trades person that you want to be a politician. (citation needed) I don't see why lawyers would be more qualified than anyone else to make policy decisions on various issues. Not only are most lawyers qualified for a particular field rather than their entire discipline, their only problem-solving training resides in finding solutions within the law. If anything and according to that reasoning, you'd want them in the bureaucracy, not in the decisionmaker's seat.
But what about businessmen...
|
Management consultants!
lol, just kidding
|
Architecture gets pretty damn close, especially once you get into the sub-field of urban planning or just planning in general. Of course, we are talking about 'good / real' architects, not stupid model home designers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
