Page 234 of 1031
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:02 pm
by RedFromMI
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:01 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:14 pm
Or self-perception theory. hmmmm.
Funny, many lawyers have cognitive dissonance and coincidentally presidents are also lawyers. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
Actually only 57%, and a number of them were not graduates of law school, but admitted to the bar after independent study.
Since FDR:
Code: Select all
President Undergraduate Education Graduate Education
Roosevelt Harvard Columbia Law School (withdrew, awarded JD in 2008 for class of 1907)
Truman Spalding's Commercial College (withdrew) Univ. of Kansas City School of Law (withdrew)
Eisenhower USMA US Army Command & General Staff College, Industrial College, War College
Kennedy London School of Econ./Princeton/Harvard Stanford Graduate School of Business (auditor)
Johnson SW Texas State College (Texas State now) Georgetown University Law Center (withdrew)
Nixon Whittier College Duke University School of Law
Ford Michigan Yale Law
Carter GA SW College (xfer)/GA Tech (xfer)/ Union College (Postgraduate Nuclear Physics Course Program)
USNA
Reagan Eureka College (none)
GHW Bush Yale (none)
Clinton Georgetown Oxford (Rhodes Scholar/withdrew), Yale Law
GW Bush Yale Harvard Business School
Obama Occidental (xfer)/Columbia Harvard Law
Trump Fordham (xfer)/Penn (none)
Nixon to present 4 lawyers, 9 presidents
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:09 pm
by youthathletics
My typo and thanks for correcting me. I intended to add the work many......coincidentally "many" presidents
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:38 pm
by MDlaxfan76
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:14 pm
Or self-perception theory. hmmmm.
Funny, many lawyers have cognitive dissonance and coincidentally presidents are also lawyers. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
No sure I even follow you.
What makes you think that lawyers have more cognitive dissonance than anyone else?
Do you actually understand what it is?
You cite self-perception theory, which is certainly an interesting model for thinking about attitudes and behavior, but cognitive dissonance theory has been shown as far more predictive when emotions are high, as they are in this instance.
Again, do you actually understand the difference?
And what does that have to do with lawyers or Presidents?
Maybe I'm just being dense and you have an interesting point we might consider. But what is it?
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:15 pm
by old salt
nomofogo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:06 pm
Have you guys considered that Bandito IS Donald Trump?
The cavalry's on the way.
He'll soon be squelched by a PC algorithm.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:19 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:15 pm
nomofogo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:06 pm
Have you guys considered that Bandito IS Donald Trump?
The cavalry's on the way.
He'll soon be squelched by a PC algorithm.
I hope not.... I like him!
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:19 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:16 am
by youthathletics
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:38 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:14 pm
Or self-perception theory. hmmmm.
Funny, many lawyers have cognitive dissonance and coincidentally presidents are also lawyers. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
No sure I even follow you.
What makes you think that lawyers have more cognitive dissonance than anyone else?
(Who else would defend someone that they clearly know is guilty i.e. A state of tension that occurs when a person simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent)
You cite self-perception theory, which is certainly an interesting model for thinking about attitudes and behavior.
(I mention it because you suggest most 2016 Trump supporters are "cognitive dissonance". And I suggest that those not in the cognitive dissonance category may actually be suffering from self-perception theory.)
And what does that have to do with lawyers or Presidents?
(Because you suggest many 2016 Trump supports have this mental tick which is quite presumptive and judgmental.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:25 am
by MDlaxfan76
youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:16 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:38 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:14 pm
Or self-perception theory. hmmmm.
Funny, many lawyers have cognitive dissonance and coincidentally presidents are also lawyers. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
No sure I even follow you.
What makes you think that lawyers have more cognitive dissonance than anyone else?
(Who else would defend someone that they clearly know is guilty i.e. A state of tension that occurs when a person simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent)
You cite self-perception theory, which is certainly an interesting model for thinking about attitudes and behavior.
(I mention it because you suggest most 2016 Trump supporters are "cognitive dissonance". And I suggest that those not in the cognitive dissonance category may actually be suffering from self-perception theory.)
And what does that have to do with lawyers or Presidents?
(Because you suggest many 2016 Trump supports have this mental tick which is quite presumptive and judgmental.
Ok, but I'd quite disagree that suggesting someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance is 'judgmental'. It's not a pejorative term. It simply explains how people struggle to make sense of information that conflicts with prior assumptions and decisions. There's been quite a lot of research done about how we feel more positively about a product once we've made a decision to buy it, a politician once we've voted. And it's hard to reverse those increased positive perceptions, ie. 'buyer's remorse' as we try to maintain our view that we make good decisions.
As I said, certainly in this case the 'struggle' is positive as it means that the person really wants to think of themselves as not 'racist'. I've suggested that if not experiencing that struggle, then one is just fine with being associated with white supremacists...on that, I'd indeed be 'judgmental'. But not if someone is actually struggling.
But sure, some Trump supporters' behavior may be explained by self-affirmation, self-perception theory. That said, the research appears to suggest that cognitive dissonance is a more apt description in race issues. However, both can be true.
I'm not sure whether "most" Trump 2016 voters are experiencing "cognitive dissonance" (or "self-perception), but I suppose it's something that I hope is the case as it would mean that at least most of those voters aren't actually ok with making common cause with white supremacists. Perhaps it's my own cognitive dissonance at work, as imagining that 40-45% of Americans are actually ok with white supremacists flies so much in the face of my assumptions about most Americans. I
want to think better of my fellow Americans.
And there's some evidence that at least some of those Trump voters are in such a position, having previously voted for Obama over McCain and Romney. And I see McCain and Romney voters who also voted for Trump struggling as well, so my anecdotal basis is at least directional as 'many' if not 'most'.
On the lawyers, I was interested to see what, if any, studies had been done on the cognitive dissonance lawyers may experience when they defend a client known to be guilty, and is this experience greater in that profession than in other professions in which choices need to be made that create tension between their morality and other objectives. I didn't find anything quickly.
I did find some soft references to cognitive dissonance for lawyers and how they can deal with it. EG
https://wholebeinginstitute.com/pursuit-of-happiness/
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:19 am
by Brooklyn
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:28 am
by Brooklyn
Same as it ever was!
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:16 am
by ggait
Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
Youth -- fyi, it is an extremely common practice for bar-admitted lawyers to go onto inactive status. Hundreds of thousands of lawyers are in this bucket along with the Obamas.
If you are not going to actually be working as a practicing lawyer, you don't need to maintain an active state license. And going inactive reduces the amount of time/hassle/expense needed to keep an active license (like continuing legal education requirements). If you want to resume active law practice, then you can easily reinstate.
But let's talk about something more meaningful. What is the strange reason for that tan suit?
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:30 am
by Typical Lax Dad
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:16 am
Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008. Even the Obamas, except "for some strange reason" they both voluntarily changed their registration status to inactive or retired in 2008.
Youth -- fyi, it is an extremely common practice for bar-admitted lawyers to go onto inactive status. Hundreds of thousands of lawyers are in this bucket along with the Obamas.
If you are not going to actually be working as a practicing lawyer, you don't need to maintain an active state license. And going inactive reduces the amount of time/hassle/expense needed to keep an active license (like continuing legal education requirements). If you want to resume active law practice, then you can easily reinstate.
But let's talk about something more meaningful. What is the strange reason for that tan suit?
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:30 pm
by CU77
So un-American. Thank God we now have a Very Stable Genius running the country.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:50 pm
by holmes435
Brooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:28 am
Same as it ever was!
Yeah right, like we should take advice from an alien who entered the country illegally.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:53 pm
by CU88
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:34 pm
by Trinity
Trump says he could win Afghanistan in ten days if he wanted to......
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:43 pm
by foreverlax
Trinity wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:34 pm
Trump says he could win Afghanistan in ten days if he wanted to......
He's got a plan. Saves hundreds of millions of lives. Can't wait.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:50 pm
by ardilla secreta
Trinity wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:34 pm
Trump says he could win Afghanistan in ten days if he wanted to......
Even with bone spurs?
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:28 pm
by LandM
So here you go:
Strap a squad of F16’s with nukes
Strap a squad of B-52’s with nukes
Strap a few B-1’s with nukes as a safety measure
Let em roll. Parking lot in 15 minutes
That is one version of winning
Maybe the Rhodes Scholar, Harvard MBA, and Harvard JD could learn messing around is not fun. Take it seriously. BTW bone spurs if you want to be fair the three mentioned above managed to miss doing their time. Be fair now
. Except GWB managed to strap on an F-4 doing guard duty
Best and glad to be back in the USA
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:34 pm
by holmes435
Yes!!! 30 million civilian deaths is worth #winning. It's not like we'd let any of them immigrate under a merit based system anyway.
