HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Politics (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/politics-16/)
-   -   Lawyer Presidents back to 1980 (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/politics/399952-lawyer-presidents-back-1980-a.html)

CalHunter 06-26-2015 08:46 PM

Lawyer Presidents back to 1980
 
Kind of makes you wonder..... :s4:



Democratic Presidential & Vice Presidential Candidates Since 1980


Democrats
Lawyers (92%)
Obama
Biden
Kerry
Edwards
Lieberman
Clinton
Dukakis
Bentsen
Mondale
Ferarro
*Gore—Started law school but didn’t finish.

Non-Lawyers
Carter


Republicans
Lawyers (22%)
Dole
Quayle


Non-Lawyers
McCain
Palin
Bush43
Cheney
Bush 41
Reagan

nodog 06-27-2015 02:56 AM

If you look you'll find and even larger group that all have one thing in common, they all have higher educations in history while the vast majority of people haven't even an elementary education in it.

It all starts inside the person with their core beliefs and a will to live by it. 2 types of people can understand the need to know history and learn it. Both diametrically opposed in one thing that is a law the creation was formed around, how we treat others. One person uses history to benefit themselves, the other uses it to benefit mankind. The first will use it knowing how people will react and given that their reaction will trigger government power, that is their objective. The other will use it knowing that their actions will cause others to ruin themselves and refuses to use it in that manner for personal gain.

I can boil it down to one person wanting another to sin and tempts them to do it and the other has no desire to see another sin. The discourse between satan and Christ in the wilderness is a perfect example of this, both knew history better than anyone. One used it to feed himself and the other to feed man. One hated and one loved...the Lord their God.

Doesn't matter what a politician is, they only have power when the people sin. It's a fail safe this creation was created under to keep man from totally destroying himself.

sachiko 06-27-2015 04:08 AM

I think lawyers naturally gravitate towards politics because of the way they work. I've watched my husband and other lawyers in action and have been impressed by the way they can argue seriously for one position or another and then discuss non-legal matters congenially once the hearing is over. A lawyer can engage in serous criticism of another lawyer's argument, but they are not permitted to insult each other or a witness. And most legal cases are settled by compromise, even criminal cases.

I think any decently competent politician knows that he is probably not going to get strictly his own way on any political issue. He can't really get emotionally involved to the extent where he loses the ability to negotiate in favor of his position. Life is mostly compromise.

flags 06-27-2015 05:39 AM

Lawyers, due to all the trouble they cause, were specifically banned during the first couple of trips by the original colonists. There was a reason they did that. Most problems in society, in my humble opinion, can be traced to lawyers.

NeverWill 06-29-2015 06:00 AM

Lawyers are some of the smartest people I know personally. Not surprised that they lean toward the Dem side.

...Deleted by CalHunter...while having nothing but bad data and opinions forced upon them by their leaders. Goes back to the thread here that was all about people wanting too much education in their life. Of course a strong GOP guy would start that. Only dummies can be led by their noses the way the GOP does.

flags 06-29-2015 06:19 AM


Originally Posted by NeverWill (Post 4204138)
Lawyers are some of the smartest people I know personally.

Then you don't know very many people from varied backgrounds.

Not surprised that they lean toward the Dem side.

Lawyers and DEMs are both pimps. That's why they're on the same side.

Dummies make up SH&^ while having nothing but bad data and opinions forced upon them by their leaders.

So you're admitting the "leaders", that would be OBozo and HildaBeast by the way, have forced bad data and opinions on the rest of us? Since you claim them as "leaders" doesn't your comments above claim that you make up ...Deleted by CalHunter...? Didn't think I'd see you admit that.

Goes back to the thread here that was all about people wanting too much education in their life. Of course a strong GOP guy would start that.

The GOP did try to get more education into people. Ever hear of the voucher program that was designed to get poorer students into better schools? Guess who tried to stop it? Yep, the DEMs and the teacher's unions. They want to keep kids in failing schools so they can keep them ignorant.

Only dummies can be led by their noses the way the GOP does.

Since you happily admit voting for the DEMs 100% of the time, I'd say that is proof that you're the one being led by the nose since the individual candidate and their position mean nothing to you. ...Deleted by CalHunter... Go back to my comment about DEMs being pimps. You're selling your ...Deleted by CalHunter... every day of your life by blindly supporting any politician 100% of the time..

You can't possibly believe the B.S. you post and be in the position you claim to be in.

ipscshooter 06-29-2015 07:38 AM


Originally Posted by NeverWill
Lawyers are some of the smartest people I know personally.

Then you don't know very many people from varied backgrounds.

Wait a sec... NW finally posted something I agree with. Don't rebut him just for the sake of rebutting him. He says plenty of stuff that is patently absurd. No need to knee-jerk a response. :) By saying "some of," he allows for the fact that there are smart people in other professions and lines of work.


Not surprised that they lean toward the Dem side.

Lawyers and DEMs are both pimps. That's why they're on the same side.

Be nice. Over-generalizing is never a good thing. I know a lot of lawyers who aren't "pimps."



As they say at the end of every episode of TMZ... "I'm a lawyer." :rock:

CalHunter 06-29-2015 08:38 AM

This is too hard to pass up. :D


Originally Posted by NeverWill
Lawyers are some of the smartest people I know personally.

Then you don't know very many people from varied backgrounds.

Wait a sec... NW finally posted something I agree with. Don't rebut him just for the sake of rebutting him. He says plenty of stuff that is patently absurd. No need to knee-jerk a response. :) By saying "some of," he allows for the fact that there are smart people in other professions and lines of work.

Now that I've had to find another color to differentiate the actual quotes and text, I agree with IPSC's analysis and also with Flags.

On a semantic type of level, NW's claim would allow for there to be some really dumb lawyers as well as incredibly bright ones. That dichotomy of IQ or "smartness"
is prevalent in just about any occupation that you could examine. I've known a few mechanics who are simply brilliant and plenty of ones who were just mediocre. When i was in the Marines, I met some brilliant people in all of the services and unfortunately several who were more towards the cannon fodder end of the scale. In my career as a cop, I have worked with many lawyers and judges--some of them were incredibly brilliant but many of them were just average to above average in smarts.

I think you can find truly brilliant people in just about any vocation as well as really smart people, mediocre people and unfortunately sometimes really dumb people.


Not surprised that they lean toward the Dem side.

Lawyers and DEMs are both pimps. That's why they're on the same side.

Be nice. Over-generalizing is never a good thing. I know a lot of lawyers who aren't "pimps."

Yes and no. Probably more lawyers are Dems than Republicans (obviously in Presidents elected in the OP post) but that "lean" could better be explained by who those people are internally or their core positions, likely developed long before they became a lawyer but often at least a substantial part of why they became a lawyer. And for the record, I have found some incredibly ethical lawyers and judges in my career as well as some who weren't. The ethical ones outweighed the unethical ones by a vast majority but that's a spread you would expect in many professions (most people at least want to do what's right).



Originally Posted by ipscshooter (Post 4204158)


As they say at the end of every episode of TMZ... "I'm a lawyer." :rock:

IPSC, you had me until that last humorous quote. That is not a very good (winning) argument to make, even though it was tongue in cheek. :s4::s4::s4::happy0001:

Going back to NW's extremely narrow focus on my OP post, he seemed to miss the obvious point. The Dems tend to elect way more lawyers as Presidents than the Republicans. Since some of the smartest candidates tend to fall by the wayside in both parties, I don't think it's necessarily an IQ issue (they're all smart but the brilliant ones quickly fade away, often before the primaries are even finished).

Lawyers argue points of law and why they think their position is closer to the law than their opponents. Lawyers frequently win on technicalities although obviously they often win simply when they're right and their opponent is wrong. These technicalities can be degraded in wisdom if enough case law has been established that waters down the original intent of a law with "gotcha" rulings that often seem to be at odds with that original intent.

Compare this "technicalities" approach that the Dems seem to have gravitated towards with their preference for lawyer Presidents against the Republicans preference for non-lawyers (Note--I edited the formatting of my OP post for clarity).

IN NeverWill's world, it would simply be something to make denigrating aspersions and comments about. But that would be simply scratching the surface in a sort of late night comedy show superficial attempt at humor or in his case, putdowns.

So Dems prefer lawyer Presidents and candidates by a super-majority (something like 92% of the time).

Republicans seem to prefer Presidents and candidates that have been Governor's (Bush 43, Palin, Reagan) or were in the military (Dole, McCain, Bush 41, etc.) and are non-lawyers by an equal super-majority of the time (around 92% also).

It's an interesting dichotomy. So why do Dems and Republicans prefer DIFFERENT types of Presidents and candidates? Hint, it's not something as superficial as IQ as NW suggests. It's actually a lot smarter than that. :s4:

cr422 06-29-2015 08:49 AM

I'll take the lawyer bashing with good humor. Sticks & stones, etc.

What sachiko says is pretty much right on. Compromise is an important part in the settlement of many cases, civil or criminal. And compromise it essential to politics. I've never seen a party platform or a candidate position with which I was in complete agreement. The only reasonable thing to do, as I see it, is to pick the party or candidate whose views and program come closest to your own. We don't know what the future might bring, but currently, we know that in just about every case, the winner will be a Democrat or a Republican. So, unless you want to be left standing out in the rain all by yourself, (figuratively speaking, of course) you toss your vote one way or the other.

Had John McCain been elected, we can be sure we would not have Obamacare. We can't be sure about the Supreme Court. Both of the justices who retired during Obama's term are still alive and might have hung in there, voting the same way as Kagan and Sotomayor.

This brings up the thought that Republican presidents will have to be more careful about their Supreme Court appointments. Both Souter and Stevens, reliable liberals on the court, were appointed by Republican presidents.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.