The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Frame Game
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If you are “passionate about social justice issues,” you may well be not quite smart enough to pass the bar exam and therefore wind up stuck with $200k in law school loans but no career.

Fortunately for the Law School Admission Council, luring marginal minds into going to law school is NOT a social justice issue.

Why not?

It just isn’t.

 
Hide 147 CommentsLeave a Comment
147 Comments to "The Frame Game"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. J.Ross says: • Website

    Wasn’t law school already a known scam years ago, letting in as many applicants as possible and giving them loans knowing that there would be a severe performance dropoff? The Mozilo Model is still with us.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  2. iffen says:

    If you are “passionate about social justice issues,” you may well be not quite smart enough to pass the bar exam

    Incorrect.

    • Replies: @Jon
    , @J.Ross
    , @Anonymous
  3. inertial says:

    In corporate speak, ““passionate about X” = “mildly interested in X as a career choice.” And, these days, social justice is a legitimate career choice.

    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
  4. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    This idea of the “first generation” student or lawyer or whatever is just a variation of the witchcraft theories of implicit bias and structural discrimination.

    There are all kinds of weird myths and conspiracy theories about white people and their connections. As a white middle class guy with an engineer father in 1970s Los Angeles I didn’t have any family connections, and I didn’t get any sort of concrete advice from my parents. I didn’t take test prep classes or read test prep books. I didn’t participate in study groups in college. I didn’t have any sort of mentoring in college. I didn’t do the grand tour of Europe or hobnob with people at regattas.

    What my parents gave me was a genome that allowed me to ace the PSAT, the SAT, and the LSAT. And I figured out how things work on my own, and studied and was successful in studying.

    If you want a legal career you simply need to be smart, work your ass off so you understand the material and are prepared in class and prepared to write exams. You take a bar review course for the test — this is the one test prep that everyone needs and takes, because law school doesn’t cover everything. Then you interview for jobs. The school helps you with that. If you don’t get a good job you might want to look at what your grades were and what law school you chose. Law firms decidely do not give out jobs because of connections. I do not see how a “first generation” person who is smart is going to have any trouble at all.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    , @Thea
    , @bomag
    , @GU
  5. a says:

    Do you need to pass the bar exam to work at an activist organization and file lawsuits? I think some people treat law degrees like a pre-activism major.

  6. 216 says:

    Conservatives are the most despised minority in our society.

    We need our own institutions.

    Self-Determination 2020

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Boethiuss
  7. Hail says: • Website

    Am I the only one bothered by the overuse of the word “issues”? This tendency many have today to superfluously tack-on the word “issues” where it’s not needed: “[noun] issues,” they think sounds more sophisticated than “[noun].”

    “Issues” is conveniently vague; doesn’t add value; but does make your statement seem more profound than it is. It’s often a kind of highbrow con-artistry.

    Consider the diff.:

    Are you passionate about social justice issues?

    Are you passionate about social justice?

    To paraphrase a character on The Simpsons, “Isn’t [“issues”] just a buzzword that dumb people use to sound important”?

    • Replies: @newrouter
    , @Neil Templeton
  8. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

  9. newrouter says:
    @Hail

    >Are you passionate about social justice issues/problems?

    You may be able to solve problems. Issues are lifetime employment.

  10. @Hail

    Issues is womanspeak for “this is something important to me, so listen”.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  11. Jon says:
    @iffen

    Yeah, just about anyone is “smart enough” to get through a law school and eventually pass the bar. The problem is finding a job to pay off that mortgage sized student loan debt these people will incur.

  12. Zedrick says:

    Mate of mine is into social justice. He’s 1/64 Abo & rode that baby all the way to teaching career – obviously he’s not that smart.
    Now he teaches all the white piccaninny’s the same game.

  13. J.Ross says: • Website
    @iffen

    We have the example of Harvard Law students who evidently haven’t made it to the lesson about everybody getting representation even if you do not like them.
    You’re “right” but only because Steve specified a fixable test that the government wants stupid people to be able to pass — a better thing there would be our legal and governmental traditions, which loudly and clearly preclude using the State to remake the world.

    • Replies: @Endgame Napoleon
  14. @Jon

    I had a friend who flunked the relatively difficult California bar multiple times.

  15. J.Ross says: • Website
    @216

    Have you seen that tweet speculating that if there were a master race, it would never receive pity or mercy? tldr traditionalists cannot be allowed to have so much as a doormat.

  16. trelane says:

    Three years of law school at Georgetown (a top 15 school) costs about $125,000 (not 200K). And if your dad finances it at zero interest and 15 years to repay, you have a $700 per month burden but you’re already making over $125,000 right out of school so $700 per month is easy to pay back. Plus you’ll get the $700 per month back when dear old dad dies and leaves you your share of his estate. I’ve never understood Gentiles.

  17. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I wonder if Miller is Kushner’s mole in the immigration hawk role.

  18. @trelane

    I dunno, Georgetown estimates about $280k for 3 years:

    https://www.law.georgetown.edu/admissions-aid/financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/

    UPCOMING YEAR 2019-2020
    FULL-TIME JD
    Tuition – $64,548
    + Books – $1,300
    + Room & Board – $22,442
    + Personal Expenses – $3,060
    + Transportation – $3,150
    = Estimated Cost of Attendance – $94,500

  19. @Anon

    “..my parents gave me was a genom…”

    Exactly.

    But you ‘re deliberately trying to forget that Kunta’s epigenic has been severely and permanently scarred, only because he repeatedly failed to remember four letters of his SAT password.

    Y’all can not just ignore for real roots of twelve years four hundred years of chain reaction.

    Hey, Ho- Yo Genome Privilege is next to go.

  20. @Anonymous

    Trump can either make Kobach the DHS chief/Immigration Tzar and give him full reign on immigration including completely rewriting the shit Kushner bill, or he is the biggest traitor and has never had any intention of curbing immigration, illegal or legal.

    If it’s the latter, he will not get my vote in 2020. I will vote for any Democrat over him. Fool me once…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anon
    , @larry lurker
  21. @Steve Sailer

    Steve, you forgot birth control, condoms, the pill, etc. Remember Sandra Fluke (sic) She could afford Georgetown Law but not condoms. Lib poster girl for republican meanness.

  22. Peterike says:
    @trelane

    “And if your dad finances it at zero interest and 15 years to repay… I’ve never understood Gentiles.”

    Yeah, can you even imagine NOT having a father with $125,000 to toss your way? Inconceivable.

  23. Slightly OT, but the Buffalo News had an article today in the print edition about John Urschel, a product of the local Jesuit Prep, Penn State and a former offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. John retired last year after three years as a pro, worried about brain damage. Urschel is now working on his DOCTORATE IN MATH. John is biracial, white dad, black mom. So, there are blacks with doctorates in math. Next problem please.

  24. @Neil Templeton

    “Issues” is women-influenced corporate-speak for “problems”, as Newrouter hinted at. “Problems” sounds too scary. Another corporate-term for “problems” is “challenges”. It’s one thing to say, quite reasonably, “fixing that machine is gonna be a real challenge”, but another to say “I know exactly what that shrill noise is coming from. There are some challenges with those bearings.”

  25. Paul says:

    I am not sure why so many of the recent law school graduates have trouble finding jobs. Perhaps it is Lexis and computers making legal research faster.

    • Replies: @Jon
    , @BenKenobi
    , @Prester John
  26. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s an easy SJW fix for that. Dumb down the Bar exams until anyone with a pulse can pass them. This will flood America with legions of people who are technically lawyers but who aren’t fit to practise, and probably irreparably damage what remains of America’s faith in its legal system, but that’s not the point.

    • Replies: @Jon
  27. The motivation behind a large proportion – perhaps even a majority – of law school students. It was even like that when I was an undergrad 40 years ago, and like most things I’m sure it’s now much worse.

    It’s usually a chick-thing, and a junior high school thing, but some people cling well into supposed adulthood.

  28. Jon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Anyone can fail the bar once (overconfidence, nerves, bad luck, whatever), and the New York and California bars are generally accepted as the most difficult. That said, I passed one of the the two “hard” ones and then practiced for a number of years with others who also did. It’s just not that difficult, certainly not something that even a very average person should be failing multiple times.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  29. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    If you are “passionate about social justice issues,” you may well be not quite smart enough to pass the bar exam

    Incorrect.

    SJCs may be stupid but many are actually high IQ, but disturbed or simply resentful. I think that enough are plain stupid, though, that “may not well be smart enough” is indisputably correct.

    “Social justice” is, of course an oxymoron. Justice is always an individual matter; as Solzhenitsyn said, the line between good and evil “runs through the human heart”. Was Dontrelius getting kicked out of school unjust? Well, we have to ask what he did to get kicked out. Just because Shitavius and LaQueefisha were also kicked out doesn’t nswer that question. If all three were disruptive and obviously neither capable nor interested in learning, their expulsion was just. Disparate impact might mean that the group disparately impacted is disparately enabled. That isn’t anypone’s fault and has nothing to do with justice.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
  30. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tired of Not Winning

    If you are going to throw your vote away, vote third party, it sends a clearer message.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  31. Jon says:
    @trelane

    Here are the actual numbers for Georgetown:

    https://www.lstreports.com/schools/gulc/

    Employment Score
    81.8% (this means any job)

    Large Firm
    56% (these are the jobs paying six-digit starting salaries)

    Under-Employment Score
    11.8% (this means working, but at a job that doesn’t require a JD)

    Non-Discounted Cost
    $347,150 (this is a little higher than what Georgetown self-reports, as mentioned in Steve’s post)

    Even at a good school like Georgetown (top 15 out of around 200 total), you are taking on a huge amount of debt for a bit better than a coin-toss chance of making the big bucks.

    Law school is a much better choice than it was 5-10 years ago, but it’s still a scam for most that go.

  32. Jon says:
    @Anonymous

    They’re on it:

    Frustrated Law Deans Take Bar-Exam Complaints to Lawmakers
    The head of California’s state bar told lawmakers on Tuesday “there’s no good answer” for why the state requires the second-highest bar exam passing score in the nation. The issue has caught the attention of legislators, who devoted three hours Tuesday to studying the complexities of law school admissions and testing—and hearing from frustrated law deans.

    https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202779158816/?slreturn=20190420223754

  33. Jon says:
    @Paul

    I am not sure why so many of the recent law school graduates have trouble finding jobs.

    If you’ve got some time to kill, this blog (written by Paul Campos, a law prof at Boulder) goes into great detail about the whole thing:

    https://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/

    • Replies: @Cortes
  34. anon[273] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tired of Not Winning

    Trump can either make Kobach the DHS chief/Immigration Tzar and give him full reign on immigration including completely rewriting the shit Kushner bill, or he is the biggest traitor and has never had any intention of curbing immigration, illegal or legal.

    i would go with the latter

    he is a lying piece of s….

    • Replies: @Anon
  35. Polymath says:
    @Buffalo Joe

    As a mathematician familiar with Urschel’s work so far, who went to MIT, I can vouch for his quality — he deserves to be there.

  36. Daniel H says:
    @Steve Sailer

    These statistics burn when one understands that ALL of Georgetown’s current law school education material (and more) can be presented gratis through YouTube. Just present the material over the net and have students test through Prometric. All this could be done at 1/50th the cost of law school expense.

  37. @Anonymous

    SJCs may be stupid but many are actually high IQ

    Objection your honor, assumes facts not in evidence!

  38. Does the idea of increasing access across the board inspire you?

    Speaking of increasing access, Charles DeGaulle airport was taken over by hundreds of ‘Black Vest’ migrant protesters demanding open borders and an end to deportations. Their rallying cry?

    ‘France does not belong to the French!’

    “France does not belong to the French! Everyone has a right to be here!” one of the demonstrators shouted into a loudspeaker.


    If there were still some real French people left in France, I bet they’d object.

  39. @Buffalo Joe

    Brady Haran of Numberphile, Periodic Videos, and other YouTube channels did a podcast interview with him recently:

  40. @trelane

    Who-Whom is in your wallet?

    ” And if your dad finances it at zero interest and 15 years to repay…
    ….I’ve never understood Gentiles.”

    Your ability to every.single.time.never.understand Gentiles is well-documented in the long history of humankind.

    The only reason your dad can finance you at zero interest is because your dad finances others at 26.24%.

  41. @Achmed E. Newman

    IOW, something is not working, and you need to fix it, ’cause I’m not interested in figuring out how things work.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. @Mr McKenna

    Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pledged to enact an open border policy on Sunday, saying that she would release all border crossers and any illegal aliens who claim asylum.

    She then elaborated on her ‘full employment for lawyers’ proposal:

    “I wouldn’t keep them in detention at all,” Gillibrand declared. “I wouldn’t, as president of the United States, I wouldn’t use the detention system at all … if someone is seeking asylum, I would assign them a lawyer.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/19/watch-kirsten-gillibrand-pledges-to-release-all-illegal-aliens-claiming-asylum-into-u-s-communities/

    We’re finally going to fix that problem of lawyers rotting in the fields!

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  43. @Anonymous

    I am not sure why so many of the recent law school graduates have trouble finding jobs.

    Wow — those are some amazingly illiterate Leftists!

  44. If you are “passionate about social justice issues,” you may well be not quite smart enough to pass the bar exam and therefore wind up stuck with $200k in law school loans but no career.

    Nonsense. This is a brilliant marketing move. Many idealistic high-IQ young people see law school as selling out. It’s what you do if you aren’t talented/courageous enough to make the sacrifice to become a screenwriter, musician, or tech entrepreneur. Convincing high IQ idealists, especially young women, to go to law school makes sense from the school’s POV. And don’t worry, most of those idealists will end up in high paying corporate law firms in the end.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @KL
  45. @Mr McKenna

    I’m still thinking about this. Kirsten Gillibrand is an also-ran in the sweepstakes just now, and it’s so hard to distinguish oneself with more candidates in the race than there were horses in this year’s Kentucky Derby.

    How to one-up the others on immigration? You’ve already gone Full Open Borders, you’re prepared to feed, clothe, and house anyone who shows up at the Rio Grande (or JFK) and free health care has already been promised as well. How can you go further?

    I’d say the next step is to take a page from NYT op-ed columnists like Bret Stephens and Thomas Friedman, who are forever carping that immigrants are superior to natural-born Americans. So….where to take this?

    Simple: as part of your candidacy, promise to deport natural-born Americans. When you consider that the ones they’re talking about deporting are inevitably white middle-class and working class people, AKA Deplorables, it’s a win-win for the Dems.

    It’ll be a nifty innovation: promise voters that you’ll deport them, and win high office! But given that they’ll be promising to deport The Opposition, I don’t see how they can lose. And the initiative will be so very “Current Year”.

  46. Boethiuss says:
    @216

    Conservatives are the most despised minority in our society.

    We need our own institutions.

    Self-Determination 2020

    That’s exactly right. Unfortunately, the likelihood is we’re being scammed, about the same as our would-be law student.

    Just today the New York Times printed a list of demands of Kris Kobach as part of the negotiations between Kobach and the President or other people in the Trump Administration. The demands include things like 24/7 access to a private jet and a security detail. One the one hand, it looks like a scam. More importantly, given that it’s Trump who’s President, and his lack of loyalty, the demands might actually be pretty reasonable.

    If Kobach had a better reputation than he does, I’d be inclined to give him what he wants. Then again, if he had a better reputation, he probably wouldn’t need to ask.

    Whichever way it is, our tunnel vision and lack of connections to the Establishment is making us vulnerable to getting scammed. Somehow, somewhere over the rainbow, we may end up getting some immigration restrictions. If we do, it will only be after Kris Kobach gets his private jet, after Jared Kushner gets his real estate holdings refinanced, after the Chamber of Commerce gets its tax cut, after the GOP Establishment gets two SCOTUS Justices, etc, etc, etc.

    For me, I’m not seeing much percentage in trying to play this game. Get rid of Trump and we won’t be trying to run into a 50 mph Orange Man Bad headwind.

    • LOL: IHTG
  47. @Peter Akuleyev

    most of those idealists will end up in high paying corporate law firms in the end.

    Cite needed

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  48. @Boethiuss

    The headwind preceded Trump and will be there when he’s gone. Let us know when you’re right about anything involving politics. There’s a first time for everything.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  49. Maybe the Tweet should link to an eipsode of The Good Fight to show the glories of being a minority in law.

  50. @Mike Zwick

    Angela Saini, single-handedly shattering the stereotype that Indians are intelligent…

    • Replies: @LOL
  51. @Anonymous

    If you are going to throw your vote away, vote third party, it sends a clearer message.

    I consider a choice of third party to be casting the first vote in the following election.

  52. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    The headwind preceded Trump and will be there when he’s gone.

    No, that’s just post hoc rationalization for being stupid as a mule. “I couldn’t help it, there was nothing else we could do! Blah blah”

    This is just plain ignorance, and the unwillingness to put some things in the air and hope to catch a break. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, and GOPe will always come down in favor open borders and cheap labor.

    But that’s just straight up bullshit, as anyone with any knowledge as it pertains to the history of immigration ought to know. In 2007(?) I believe, the W Administration was trying to implement one of his immigration liberalization schemes, and it was stopped by the grassroots and the GOPe (there was no Trump then, the entire GOP was GOPe) in the Senate. You couldn’t even call your Congressman or Senator for like a whole week because the lines were jammed by voters.

    We can’t do that now, because we live in a world of Orange Man Bad. And in that world, Americans who might otherwise support restrictions on immigration aren’t going to support anything that looks like the President wins.

    And Orange Man Bad isn’t going to work without an Orange Man.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    , @Desiderius
  53. @inertial

    “Passionate about X” ranks up there with “we take the security of our customers extremely seriously” and is a sure sign that the organization involved is run by idiots.

  54. BenKenobi says:
    @Paul

    I’ve never understood how a lawyer needs to “find a job.” Can any of the several lawyers here at iSteve enlighten me?

    You go to law school, then pass the bar. Can’t you immediately start working for yourself? Set up in a small town and specialize in drunk driving cases or something?

    I understand that the big firms is where the real money is. But if you can’t make that cut, the poorest lawyer should be making more than the richest… well a lot of jobs. Right?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @Jon
  55. @Mr McKenna

    The problem isn’t a lack of “real French people.” There are more people with nationalist/populist views in France than in most European countries, including Italy. However, in the Italian political system, nationalist parties can gradually work their way into power via proportional representation. In France its a winner-takes-all contest, where an outsider populist like Le Pen has to directly challenge a mainstream technocrat like Macron for the presidency. In such a head on contest the underdog is bound to lose.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  56. Dividualist says: • Website

    Steve, please! Being passionate about social justice issues = wanting to be able to enact change = being really power-hungry because change can only be made with power. And there is no law of nature saying smart people cannot be power-hungry.

  57. @Achmed E. Newman

    Lol, problems versus issues… Years ago, an onsite visit to a telecom customer, after some time trying to bring up service, I say well there are a few problems to the nice lady owner, and the veteran pulls me aside later, dont say there are problems, say there are a few issues. I haven’t thought of that in like 15 years. In hindsight, early days of VOIP, I was right. Problems! Big problems.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  58. @unpc downunder

    Thanks. Good point and good information.

  59. @BenKenobi

    The average income for a lawyer was reported as less than $50,000 a couple of years ago.

    • Replies: @Jon
  60. Jon says:
    @BenKenobi

    You go to law school, then pass the bar. Can’t you immediately start working for yourself? Set up in a small town and specialize in drunk driving cases or something?

    You can, and too many try to do just that. It’s simple supply and demand — way too many people coming out of law school for the amount of legal work out there.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. IHTG says:

    Think of social justice-oriented liberalism as the “imperial creed” of modern America. As with any faith, it has fanatics who take it to an unhealthy level – the Imperial Cult. That’s who Steve is thinking about here. But the creed has a much larger group of completely normative “lay believers”, who don’t disagree with the cult in any substantive way.

  62. Jon says:
    @Redneck farmer

    The average income for a lawyer was reported as less than $50,000 a couple of years ago.

    Here is the salary data for 2014:

    Since 2006 NALP has published a graphic illustration of the distribution of starting salaries for new law school graduates, a dramatic bimodal curve illustrating that salaries cluster at either side of the average, and that relatively few salaries are near the average. This year’s curve (below) continues this pattern… Jobs paying $160,000 accounted for about 17% of reported salaries, while jobs paying $40,000-65,000 — the left-hand peak — accounted for about half of reported salaries.

    https://www.nalp.org/class_of_2014_salary_curve

    Law has a bimodal salary curve, with a few lawyers making good money, but most making something like a retail/fast food shift manager’s salary.

  63. Pericles says:
    @Buffalo Joe

    Ayo, there arredy be strong black women wid Doctorate in Math from mafuckin Princeton my man.

    (Cf. https://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2017/05/11/get-out-the-way/ )

  64. @Daniel H

    Also consider that nearly everyone who takes the February bar exam failed the previous June.

  65. @Mr McKenna

    “Black Vest”

    Hmm. I don’t see a lot of black vests.

    Maybe “vest” is now a French euphemism for “skin”?

  66. Dtbb says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Isn’t protesting deportations at an airport pretty stupid?

  67. @Jon

    BTW, that the right side mode is so absurdly tightly clustered around $160,000—virtually no one gets $155,000 or $165,000—is prima facie evidence that the high-end lawyer job market is collusively controlled in a monopolistic manner. All those thousands of newly minted associates at dozens of different laws firms in dozens of different cities and somehow they all get the same $160k offer…

    No worries though, I’m sure one of those virtue signalling big law partners will go pro bono on this case any minute now…

    Hahahahahahaha!

    • Replies: @scrivener3
  68. @Boethiuss

    You’re acting like they only love uncontrolled immigration because they hate Trump. But in fact they’ve made Trump their Enemy #1 because they want to neutralize his threat to rein in the flood of third world dross.

    You have it exactly backwards, and not for the first time. The Republicans have done just about as much as the Democrats to bring our once-great nation to this pretty pass. Who knows, maybe more.

  69. @Jon

    Law has a bimodal salary curve, with a few lawyers making good money, but most making something like a retail/fast food shift manager’s salary.

    Most lawyers are dim (like most people) and most graduated from second- and third-rate law schools. Most live and work in places like Indiana and Arizona, not on Wall Street or in Beverly Hills.

  70. LOL says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Who would have this silly stereotype? Maybe Indians think Indians are smart. It’s not even a issue of genetics. Most of them are starved, many on their own will.

  71. LOL says:
    @Jon

    That is a 2015 chart of the Class of 2014 salaries. It says very little about the long term.

    • Replies: @Jon
  72. TheJester says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Didn’t Hilliary Clinton fail the DC bar exam in 1973, which put an end to her dream of being a social justice lawyer in the “swamp”?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  73. @Jon

    Law school exams and the bar are blind graded. If you are a dope the is no chance to social engineer a bad grade.

    • Replies: @Jon
  74. @Boethiuss

    You know, the Democratic Party seems particularly screwed up right now. Seems like they could really use a man of your unique talents. Maybe once you’re done with them they won’t be so dangerous that we’re stuck with no other option but voting for that awful Trump.

    Give it some thought.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  75. @Almost Missouri

    In NYC cravath sets the going rate. Every other firm that wants to be considered in the same league as cravath matches it even if it squeezes the profit per partner in a way that makes you sigh a little.

    The starting salary is listed on sheets posted in law schools. If you are top school top of the class you naturally look at the top tier firms.
    I’m sure other cities are similar.

    Economics used to be roughly like this: take salary say 160k divide by the 2000 hours they expect you to work, get 80 dollars. triple that, 1/3 to your salary, 1/3 to secretary support staff and office space 40 stories up in Manhattan and 1/3 to the partners. That would give a first year associate a billing rate of 240. Anyone know if that is in the ballpark now

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  76. @J.Ross

    In my government job, my colleagues were hired with the exact opposite criterion. Knowing I was interested in economic-justice issues, someone in the know about government told me that I was not the kind of person working for the government before I applied. I was not just a virtue signaler, but a salesperson in a very different type of work environment where you are reflexively deferential to clients.

    Boy was he right. Most of the people working in the agency were apolitical, with no changing-the-world agenda and no interest in the job, either. Which is a stellar combination, especially combined with a healthy dose of clannishness due to being part of an 80 — 90%-Black majority that chases most whites out of the agency before they get civil servant status.

    My mostly Black colleagues had a lot of mocking skills left over from junior high that were put to use to drive out the whites. But a lot of that taunting skill set was directed at the mostly Black applicants, not so much at the Hispanics. This was pretty shocking to me at the time, but it fits in neatly with Derbyshire’s last article about the way people with similar backgrounds are often the most vicious to each other, spurring some horrific brother-upon-brother wars in the case of groups of “Ice People.”

    My colleagues were from the Black middle class. They were all college educated since the job required it, but the workplace atmosphere was full of the type of open scorn that is not associated with higher education. There was no obligatory attempt to be polite, face-to-face, with the clients, but there was a concern voiced by some to keep the flow of clients there for job security purposes.

    You might attribute the tolerance, if not outright empathy, for the Hispanic illegal alien clients to logical self preservation except for the emotionalism in their open castigation of other Black women, applying for free EBT food and monthly cash assistance. The same women often had access to reduced-cost rent, free electricity and what has grown to a whopping (up to) $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash.

    The thing that really irked my colleagues—and me too after I finally shed my saving-the-world facade—was the evidence of a lot of luxury consumption due to money freed up by the single moms’ government-paid major bills: their salon nail jobs, their designer handbags, their descriptions of beach trips with boyfriends, etc.

    We were barely making enough to cover the rent for a one-room apartment, and to do that, we had to give up every minor luxury. We worked far more hours than our clients. The clients had to keep their work hours down to stay under the earned-income limits for the programs.

    Most of my Black colleagues were nastier in attitude and comments when the client was Black. When the client was white or Hispanic, the resentment over evidence of luxury spending was less heated.

    Illegal aliens with the language barrier often brought in cable bills, thinking they could count that as an expense against their traceable income? You think I had cable in my crappy, one-room apartment. Ugh, no. But I felt obligated to be polite to the “poor” clients, even though their kids sported the earliest versions of smartphones while I carried my dad’s phone since I couldn’t afford one. I felt obligated probably because of the sales background and the lefty politics, but also because I was white, and most of the clients were minorities.

    The tendency of like people to war over small differences might be one reason why welfare consumption among whites is lower by percentage: it is kept down by the knowledge that other whites will condemn their fellow whites, even as many of them take a holier-than-thou pleasure in believing that Blacks and other racial minorities should get welfare.

  77. Jon says:
    @LOL

    That is a 2015 chart of the Class of 2014 salaries. It says very little about the long term.

    It’s a chart of starting salaries. The long term prospects are even worse, as (i) big firms have a pyramid structure with pretty severe cuts each year, so many of those making good money at first will find themselves out the door and working at a small firm/in-house at some point in the next 3-7 years, and (ii) many of the lawyers in the lower hump are sole practitioners, who have a pretty horrible track record, so many of those will find themselves out of the law entirely in the future.

  78. Jon says:
    @scrivener3

    Not sure I understand your response. My point was that you don’t need to social engineer anything because getting through a law school and passing the bar is well within the capabilities of your run-of-the-mill dope. Believe me, I went to school and then later worked with plenty of dopes.

  79. @Neil Templeton

    Yep, exactly, Neil. “Issues” means things to discuss and argue about, not to fix.

  80. @JeremiahJohnbalaya

    People get wise to the euphemisms after a decade or two anyway. I’m glad I’ve not had a boss tell me how to speak like this, but then, it’s customer service, so I get it. Nowadays, if someone says “issues” in that way, I’ll just correct them – “you mean problems, right?”

  81. @Mr McKenna

    Wow, Mr. McKenna, I hadn’t read through your whole comment when I started to think of that next BIG STEP for a D-candidate to stand out from the crowd of deporting white Americans! Right then, I saw the rest of your writing.

    It’ll make for a good blog-post anyway. Thanks for the idea.

    Montevideo, here I come, right back where … something ….

    • LOL: HammerJack
  82. KL says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Business schools had a similar marketing message after the 2007 financial crisis. Applications dropped after finance seemed evil, uncool, and unemployable. Suddenly, deans of top schools were advertising M.B.A.’s usefulness for “social impact”.

    Sailer is right: students with soft hearts also have soft heads, dreadfully bad at math and economics, if not outright hostile. Much of the beneficial curriculum uses basic accounting, statistics, and optimization to teach the students how to get the most output out of limited resources. These students bristle at the idea of constraints. They just want infinite money to save gay whales. Ultimately, many just get normal finance and management consulting jobs.

  83. Thea says:
    @Anon

    This brings into question an overarching Jewish conspiracy as well, then. Maybe Ashkenazis have a genome that causes others to be perpetually suspicious of them.

  84. bomag says:
    @Anon

    This idea of the “first generation” student or lawyer or whatever is just a variation of the witchcraft theories of implicit bias and structural discrimination.

    This elides with the belief in a vast pool of untapped talent that is kept from the levers of power by the various gatekeepers.

  85. @Boethiuss

    You think the Democrats would be better? The median Dem in the House in 2016 got a F+ that term on immigration restriction and that was before the far left Latina and Muslimas were elected in the mid-term in 2018. The Democrats don’t want any borders at all, no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, that’s where there headed and winning would embolden them even further left, that’s how politics works.

    The only thing that would stop or at least pause the Democrats headlong rush to open borders would be not only losing but losing decisively in 2020, although in the long term importing the third world is in their interests. The Dems are ideologically committed to demographic change so they can elect a new people, they are a lost cause.

    • Replies: @IHTG
  86. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    This is a thread about diversity in law school. I already stopped reading any thread about the President because of your leftist diarrhea. Is there any way you could show a modicum of respect for your fellow man and keep your hateful contentless comments confined to the threads that are ACTUALLY ABOUT TRUMP??!! THANKS!!!! Btw you seem like a real winner, basing your whole life on hating another man. THANKS!!!!

  87. IHTG says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    No, Boethiuss is an establishment type who wants to replace Trump with Pence.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  88. @Boethiuss

    “Get rid of Trump and we won’t be trying to run into a 50 mph Orange Man Bad headwind.”

    Being swept along by it hardly seems an improvement. They hate Trump because he refuses to play by the rules that are designed to ensure victory for the donor class. Your proposed adherence to those rules, and the promotion of style over substance, is precisely the strategy the donor class encourages you to endorse.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  89. Cortes says:
    @Jon

    Many thanks for your points on this.

  90. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    You know, the Democratic Party seems particularly screwed up right now. Seems like they could really use a man of your unique talents.

    Heh. If I couldn’t figure out anything relevant to say I’d probably say that too.

    I’d definitely wouldn’t want to think about the reality that DACA would be gone without a trace today if we had President Marco Rubio in office.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Desiderius
  91. @Jon

    I went to a seminar during which the speaker, a partner in a well known law, said that America had an overabundance of lawyers. That was over thirty years ago. I am hearing now about so many lawyers who can’t get jobs.

  92. @Steve Sailer

    I hear that the CA bar is the hardest.

  93. @Paul

    Supply v. Demand. Economics 101. Lots of legal types working as insurance claim supervisors.

  94. Boethiuss says:
    @Ozymandias

    They hate Trump because he refuses to play by the rules that are designed to ensure victory for the donor class.

    You’re confusing yourself who “they” is supposed to be, and as a consequence you’re misinterpreting what our capabilities are.

    It’s convenient for people who want to rationalize their support for Trump in 2016 primaries to believe that anyone who’s trying to do the things Trump is trying to do would be running into Orange Man Bad. But it’s just not true. The strength of Orange Man Bad is due to things particular to Trump, and wouldn’t apply to anyone else.

    Way back in the sands of time where the codes of Hammurabi were written on cunieform tablets, ie 2007, we could shut down the Capitol phone system for a whole week behind populist opposition to immigration liberalization. Now we can’t, because Trump.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  95. @Boethiuss

    I’m dead serious. Please switch your party affiliation. We need you demoralizing the enemy, not us.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  96. GU says:
    @Anon

    “Law firms decidely do not give out jobs because of connections. I do not see how a “first generation” person who is smart is going to have any trouble at all.”

    This is blatantly false, connections definitely help you get a law firm gig. And maybe being smart was all it took to get a foothold in the legal profession in the 1970s, but today, in big cities at least, competition is fierce and making partner is more difficult than ever.

    • Replies: @David
    , @Pirelli
  97. @Boethiuss

    President Marco Rubio

    Seriously man, get some help.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  98. @Desiderius

    I think Botheruss actually IS Marco Rubio. 1) it would explain the one-note piano of “We need to get rid of Trump and go with one of the losers that couldn’t beat Trump, or maybe one of the losers that couldn’t beat the effete black guy in the prior two elections” and 2) it would explain the bewildering references to Marco Rubio as being anything other than a bought-and-paid-for dwarf.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  99. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    I’m equally serious. If you find anything I write to be demoralizing, find something substantive to say about it. Because let’s face it your demoralization thing is stupid, just like the size of Trump’s Inaugural crowds, Trump’s denials regarding Stormy Daniels and all the other Trump propaganda bullshit.

    I won’t say for sure we’re demoralized right now, but a very minimum we’re complacent. Immigration, foreign policy, racial set-asides, to us all those things are about what they do. Trump tries to build the Wall, but then it’s too mean for Ivanka, or he gets distracted by Rosie O’Donnell calling him short hands on Twitter, or Jared gets outmaneuvered by Nancy Pelosi, or the Chamber of Commerce has lobbyists who write a bill to fund the Wall, but increases H1B visas by 5 million etc etc.

    That is demoralizing, what I’m writing is invigorating. What I’m saying is that we should be worrying less about what they do, and more about what we do. And the first, most obvious, most important thing we can do is vote Republican, support Republicans, every office, every election. Let’s get the better of Orange Man Bad, both while Trump is in office, and after.

  100. Boethiuss says:
    @William Badwhite

    Correction:

    Marco Rubio as being anything other than a bought-and-paid-for dwarf who would have gotten rid of DACA on his first day of office.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  101. @Boethiuss

    Come on Little Marco, you couldn’t have beaten Hillary. No chance you’d have carried PA.

    Also I doubt Norman Braman would have let you get rid of DACA.

    Just stick to partnering with Chuck Schumer to help save the GOP.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  102. Boethiuss says:
    @William Badwhite

    Come on Little Marco, you couldn’t have beaten Hillary. No chance you’d have carried PA.

    Also I doubt Norman Braman would have let you get rid of DACA.

    Just keep telling yourself that and after a while you’ll even believe it.

  103. David says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In this context, issue means a point of debate where one can take a for or against position. Issues are things that people discuss, debate, and come to decisions on. That’s the idea, anyway.

    It’s probably an Oxford or Cambridge coinage.

  104. J.Ross says: • Website

    The thing that confirms Boethius (and his variation Boethiuss, both of them) as a troll is not that he advises people to drink poison, but that he has nothing more to say.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  105. @J.Ross

    He has a lot to say about how Trump hurts the GOP brand.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Desiderius
  106. @Boethiuss

    “The strength of Orange Man Bad is due to things particular to Trump, and wouldn’t apply to anyone else.”

    Also particular to Trump is a willingness to represent my interests instead of those of the donor class.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    , @Autochthon
  107. David says:
    @GU

    ♫ Making your way in the world today sure does take a lot! ♫♪

  108. trelane says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Ok, so $280k if your future lawyer (commonly in his mid-late 20s who has already established a career path) is a layabout who doesn’t plan on working and supporting himself while he’s in school for three years.

    Low credibility men aren’t extended credit in the first place and if your kid needs $280k for law school he’s not Georgetown material anyway.

  109. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    Before Trump, they called us Nazis. After Trump, they called us Nazis.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  110. @Steve Sailer

    Considering where the GOP brand was (largely due to nitwits like himself) when Trump arrived, he’s got a pretty large burden of proof to meet for that claim.

    Citing non-substantive D bullshit does nothing to satisfy it.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  111. Pirelli says:
    @GU

    Yeah, connections can definitely be a factor in hiring, but probably not as much as many people think. One seriously incompetent — or seriously dishonest — associate can totally screw up a case, or even a client relationship, and expose the firm to expensive consequences. As a result, most firms make sure their affirmative action / connection hires stick to stuff like attending depositions where they won’t have to ask questions (but make the firm look good / diverse), conferences, business development events, etc. But that means they can only hire so many of those.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  112. @IHTG

    Better yet, Bibi, or Evan.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  113. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    Considering where the GOP brand was (largely due to nitwits like himself) when Trump arrived, he’s got a pretty large burden of proof to meet for that claim.

    That’s preposterous. In fact, the reality that you’re wrong on that point is a good portion of what’s at issue here. 2014, the election before Trump, was a huge Republican success. They won net gain of 9 Senate seats and 13 House seats and had the largest majority in the House since Reconstruction on something.

    2018, after Trump had been in office for two years, the GOP won a couple Senate seats (to get to less than where they were after 2014) and lost almost 40 seats in the House, losing the majority and some margin after that.

    Pay the phuck attention to some basic shit sometimes, like Wikipedia is your friend. If you don’t have any idea of the lay of the land, it’s hard to figure out where you’re actually standing.

  114. Boethiuss says:
    @J.Ross

    Before Trump, they called us Nazis. After Trump, they called us Nazis.

    Yeah, but now they treat us like Nazis and have some actual means to act.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  115. Boethiuss says:
    @Neil Templeton

    Better yet, Bibi, or Evan.

    Tbh, some are better than others but any of them are better than Trump.

  116. Boethiuss says:
    @Ozymandias

    “The strength of Orange Man Bad is due to things particular to Trump, and wouldn’t apply to anyone else.”

    Also particular to Trump is a willingness to represent my interests instead of those of the donor class.

    Great, point to Trump. But do you suppose his presence in office is at this moment doing anything to advance your interests? I don’t think so, and if I had to guess I don’t think that you think so either.

  117. @Pirelli

    What’s more, if you recommend someone for an interview–or, what’s more, for hiring–you run the risk of an albatross ’round your neck if they don’t produce. In fact, they’d better be stellar or it’ll reflect upon you forever after.

    This is another reason why ‘connections’ matter less than most people think. In overweight-lesbian-of-color theory, it’s all about the old-boy network. Frankly that’s something I never saw. ‘Peers’ are more likely to kick the chair out from under those whom they perceive as competitors. Of course, they’ll never do that to ‘protected groups’ or they’ll lose their livelihood if not their freedom.

    So what do we have, in the final analysis? Almost precisely the opposite of how the MSM represents the world of business. IOW: Situation Normal.

  118. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon

    It’s simple supply and demand — way too many people coming out of law school for the amount of legal work out there.

    Yes, this is true but, oddly, every time I’ve needed a lawyer for some minor (non-criminal) matter I had a very hard time finding one willing to help me, even at $200/hr.

  119. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon

    Law has a bimodal salary curve, with a few lawyers making good money, but most making something like a retail/fast food shift manager’s salary

    One of the few smart career decisions I made was when I dropped out of the night program at New England School of Law and went back to work as a software engineer for a large government defense contractor.

  120. @J.Ross

    Just so. Ironically, social justice (however defined) requires that propaganda like the council’s not be allowed to ruin the lives of naïve young persons who may believe it and thereby ruin their lives with the debt and underemployment Mr. Sailer rightly points out.

  121. @Jon

    All true, just don’t tell the former mayor of Los Angeles, Moonbeam Brown, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris…say, I notice a pattern reinforcing Steve’s point. Anyhow, at least with the latter two – and maybe the first, who seems a conniving, handsome gigolo of sorts – there is always a way to get ahead via certain…lateral (as in horizontal) career-moves….

  122. @Anon

    Unless you are in rural Kansas (and maybe even then) your dilemma is the same as that of a man flummoxed because when he is hungry, even for just a hamburger, he cannot find a restaurant willing to serve him one for fifty cents….

    You must understand that, because of the exorbitant costs of entry to the profession and the fixed expenses (insurance, an office, dues, dry cleaning…) even a lawyer desperate for custom cannot work for $200.00 per hour. He is better off spending his time and energy seeking either 1) customers willing and able to pay him a reasonable fee or else 2) another line of work.

    This second option is why most underemployed or unemployed lawyers wind up abandoning law to sell insurance, become realtors, or whatever.

    One cannot practice law for $200.00 an hour any more than one can sell hamburgers for 50¢ each, even in most small towns. If no one will pay him more, the lawyer closes up shop, just as the restauranteur must do. If others will pay more, the guy offering those insufficient amounts gets laughed at or politely declined service, depending upon personalities….

  123. @Mr McKenna

    It’s no trouble: As you pointed out earlier in your long-running exchange with yourself, we Americans can apparently just go to France, which belongs to everyone.

    By the way: Why the weird monologue of so many multiple replies to yourself? The comments work best as a forum; we interact with each other, elaborating on others’ ideas, posing and answering questions, and so on.

    I’m not niggling or purporting to referee Mr. Sailer’s blog, honestly I am not. Your comments are as interesting as any, and more so than some. I just think your modus operandi is weird and I wonder am I missing something?

  124. @Desiderius

    Notice he wrote “[highly intelligent] idealists” – not stupid ones. Most truly brilliant people are not idealists, because their perspicacity and logic make realists of them, but many idealists – especially the young, who may be intelligent but ignorant, especially about stuff like “social justice” in light of their brainwashing and lack of experience with life’s harsh realities – are indeed intelligent, some quite so.

    These persons will indeed, if they fall for the propaganda and become lawyers, be disabused of their naïveté by Sally Mae (or whatever the big usurers are nowadays) in very short order, and then they will indeed take jobs in Big Law, especially if they are clever enough to have taken any initial employment at an ostensibly prestigious and still marketable (despite being socially just and unremunerative) gig (the American Civil Liberties Union, being a lackey for some politician or other, etc.) which won’t taint their résumés.

    Of course, the females will also then promptly bed and breed with Chad Thundercock, a young partner or stellar associate on the rise, then work part-time (“of counsel”), if at all, and change careers yet again, taking on the new job of “I f—k my husband” – at first literally, then, likely as not, metaphorically, via divorce-rape when irrationally displeased by the long hours and hard work which made him so attractive in the first place via his concomitant power and wealth – which latter resource she can now have the government appropriate from him for her while she sleeps with hunky personal trainers….

    You ask for a citation? (Please don’t call a citation a cite, by the way – the latter is a verb.) Sure: I’ve seen this movie with my own eyes a hojillion times. I’ve seen empirical statistics bearing it out, too, but I’m too lazy to insert a snarky “Let me Google that for you…” hyperlink here.

    (Eat your heart out, Paul Harvey.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  125. @Ozymandias

    Ah. Your interests are lower taxes for rich people; unrestricted immigration from Orientals and Hindoos to drive down what few wages are still sufficient for American programmers, engineers, scientists, nurses, and such to raise families; wars in Syria (with warmongering in Iran and Korea); double-talk and inaction about the invading indio and mestizo hordes and the horrors they bring; cowering and complying with blatantly unconstitutional edicts from unhinged judges convinced they are legislators; and making sure anyone interested in salvaging the F.U.S.A. who gets near the cabinet or the White House is turned away outright or fired?

    I can see now, Mr. Veidt, your plan to accelerate ruin and chaos to rebuild a better world upon the resulting ashes is coming along nicely….

  126. @scrivener3

    “In NYC cravath sets the going rate. Every other firm that wants to be considered in the same league as cravath matches it”

    Okay, so collusion confirmed.

    “even if it squeezes the profit per partner … 1/3 to your salary, 1/3 to secretary support staff and office space 40 stories up in Manhattan and 1/3 to the partners.”

    Wait a second. If the partners are getting a dollar for every dollar the associate gets paid, that means that it doesn’t squeeze the partners’ profits at all.

    Collusion reconfirmed.

  127. @Anon

    Agree.

    Depending on your requirements, you might have more luck signing up to a mass market legal services retailer like LegalShield, who are sort of like the AAA of law stuff.

  128. GU says:
    @Anon

    The problem with providing services to a normal non-wealthy person is that they’re likely to be unable or unwilling to pay when the bill comes due. Moreover, lawyers owe an equal duty to all of their clients—you can’t just half-ass it because it’s a small matter. So taking on tiny legal matters often isn’t worth it.

    Short of developing some sort of insurance regime akin to medical insurance, unfortunately most regular people will have a hard time finding competent legal help, especially in big cities.

    Also, $200 an hour is a low rate if you’re in a big city.

  129. @Boethiuss

    Just curious, what is your opinion of Trump? You haven’t really made yourself clear in your 15,000 posts saying the same thing over and over.

    Any chance you can change your handle to Chinese Water Torture? Or Whiskey Jr?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  130. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Boethiuss

    If you were a Republican or a conservative you would know that this was already happening.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  131. @Autochthon

    Verbs want to feel needed too, just like anyone else. Of course it’s just a joke response meaning that I’m dubious of your claim.

    I’m sure the process you’re talking about goes on, but as SJW goes downscale in will do so less frequently. In any case that can’t be the fate of the majority.

  132. Boethiuss says:
    @William Badwhite

    Just curious, what is your opinion of Trump? You haven’t really made yourself clear in your 15,000 posts saying the same thing over and over.

    Heh, point to Badwhite, got me there.

    I will say in my defense that sometimes I get it coming and going. If Jack Hanson were around and I hadn’t commented here for six weeks, he’d say it was because I was scared of him.

  133. Boethiuss says:
    @J.Ross

    If you were a Republican or a conservative you would know that this was already happening.

    It wasn’t before Trump arrived. Short of being an explicit member of the KKK or the like, you could be a conservative, a Republican, a evangelical Fundamentalist and still plausibly attain any social status or any job, admittance to any school or program with very few exceptions. Maybe there’s some grumbling in the background, but you could get by.

    Now, there’s people lodged into organizations we don’t even know about who are explicitly committed to preventing that from happening. And there’s nothing we can do about it. And like it or not, it’s because of Trump.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  134. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    https://www.people-press.org/2015/07/23/gops-favorability-rating-takes-a-negative-turn/

    Are you for real? I can hardly believe it. On the chance that I’m not being trolled, you shouldn’t be taking one poll commissioned at one time and all the methodological and statistical problems that could be associated with that to outweigh elections across two cycles in all 50 states in the House and most of them in the Senate.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  135. @Boethiuss

    Short of being an explicit member of the KKK or the like, you could be a conservative, a Republican, a evangelical Fundamentalist and still plausibly attain any social status or any job, admittance to any school or program with very few exceptions.

    I’m sorry I ever considered taking you seriously. No one under 40 ever will.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
  136. @Boethiuss

    On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States at Trump Tower in Manhattan.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    , @Desiderius
  137. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    I’m sorry I ever considered taking you seriously. No one under 40 ever will.

    What are you getting at? Do you really not believe that the nomination and election of Trump hasn’t changed things, in terms of the antagonism the other side has for us? If so, I really wonder how old you are and what field you work in.

    Five years ago, you didn’t have people at say, Dartmouth Medical School, google, Two Sigma, Winston & Strawn, VCs, private equity, who would say, “I don’t ever want to be a colleague of anyone who voted for Romney” And for a couple of cranky bastards who would, they could get fired.

    Now, you have people who are associated with those kinds of organizations who will willingly and publicly say that they don’t want anyone who voted for Trump in their organization. At the end of the day they may not completely accomplish that, but there is never any negative consequences for trying. And in a world of Orange Man Bad, there’s nothing we can do about it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  138. Boethiuss says:
    @Desiderius

    On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States at Trump Tower in Manhattan.

    Did you even read the comment you’re responding to? It’s one poll by one organization at one time taken being conclusively outweighed by election results in all 50 states.

  139. @Desiderius

    The election six months prior, after which R favorability utterly cratered due to the fecklessness of your favorites, opening the way for Trump.

  140. @Boethiuss

    The radicalization of American institutions has been going on for two generations and absolutely was already virulent before Trump. At my management training retreat for GE in 1993, an auditorium full of new hires (top. men. and women) were asked for a show of hands of who would support government dictation of all production methods for environmental reasons. Nearly every hand went up. In 1993. I was fresh off seeing the Velvet Revolution first-hand so was dumbstruck.

    Your being asleep at the swtich while all this was happening is no argument for your credibilty.

  141. Boethiuss says:

    At my management training retreat for GE in 1993, an auditorium full of new hires (top. men. and women) were asked for a show of hands of who would support government dictation of all production methods for environmental reasons.

    And if you were at GE in 1993 and somebody asked you who you voted for President and you said Pat Buchanan, it’s very likely they would have laughed, or eyerolled you, or looked at you funny. But you wouldn’t have gotten fired. And anybody tried on that account, the adverse consequences would have come back to them, not you.

    Now, if you’re at google (or GE), and you say you voted for Trump, a number of your colleagues may straight up try to get rid of you. And whether they can or can’t, they’re not going to suffer for the attempt.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  142. @Boethiuss

    Your solution to dealing with people that would have you fired or “straight up” gotten rid of for supporting a political candidate with entirely mainstream views is to surrender. Since you’re a GOPe shill, this doesn’t surprise anyone in the slightest.

    The problem for people like you is that people like me know that expecting cowards to fight for us is silly. You keep rehashing the same tired names of useless, timid GOP(e) cowards. You are like Kevin Bacon’s character at the end of Animal House: “remain calm! All is well!”

    you say you voted for Trump, a number of your colleagues may straight up try to get rid of you. And whether they can or can’t, they’re not going to suffer for the attempt.

    They should be made to suffer for the attempt. Your list of recycled GOP(e) losers aren’t going to make any suffer. As such I will not support them. If this means the collapse comes a bit sooner that’s fine – I’d prefer to have the fight while we still have the numbers.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?