Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - loki13

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 55
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 17, 2016, 07:07:21 AM »

So here's my question:

Let's assume that HRC wins. If she beats Trump, who is anathema to so many voters, by only say, five points, does that mean that a less Trump-y type of anti-establishment candidate would have smoked her? I mean, when you look at Trump it's hard to believe that she's not ahead by 25 (which could happen, maybe).

Further, and more importantly, does that mean that the Democrats now have to find a way to deal with the fact that nearly half the electorate is willing to go for something radically different? I think it legitimately calls into question the assumption of a permanent Democratic majority based on future demographics.

Great questions, and if I had the answers, then I'd already know the future. And I'd be buying lottery tickets instead of commenting here!

I think that we can both overestimate and underestimate what current trends "mean." For example, Trump could actually (to borrow the old phrase) get caught with a dead girl or a live boy, and he still wouldn't get completely blown out by Clinton. The reason why? Because there's so much polarization. There is a large well of people that would vote for the GOP (or anti-Democrat) if the Democrats were running George Washington reincarnated, and the GOP was running Osama Bin Laden's brain-eating zombie corpse. It's just the way it is (and in reverse, as well).

What's more interesting (to me) is that Trump exploited a core demographic in the GOP that had previously fallen into line- a large portion of which is racist, a large portion of which is populist, and a large portion of which doesn't fall into the strong "moral values" category AND is opposed to the libertarian think-tanky ideas that animate the GOP elite. That was his floor - and it was a floor within the GOP that no other candidate had. More importantly (from my perspective) is that the GOP has used a scorch earth strategy for so long in devaluing political norms, in devaluing intellectual opinion, in devaluing media and journalism, in propagating bizarre conspiracy theories (or, at least, not denouncing them), and in devaluing their own party leaders ... that when it came time to try and put some type of authority into the arena ... they couldn't. I mean, seriously, when the party has to turn to Ted "Shut Down Gummint, and Everyone Hates Me" Cruz as a savior, you know things have gone seriously wrong.

Which leads me to three final observations-

1. I never believed in a permanent majority for either party. The two party system is an artifact of first-past the post and our legislative/Presidential system, and as long as we have it, we'll have two parties. As long as there are two parties, one can attain temporary supremacy, and then the other will adapt and change. It always happens.

2. I'm more curious about what happens to the GOP. This is unprecedented. It would be nice to see them react to this by returning to more moderate positions in order to compete. But .... we'll see. Thing is, the 2010 (census) election entrenched them to such as extent in the House and at the state-level, they may view this as an anomaly and just double down.

3. The Democratic primary was unsurprising. The Clinton moderation (from 1992) has run its course. At a certain point, you have to expect some pull to the left. In addition, the Democratic party (thanks to GOP abdication) is now occupying the whole range from middle to extreme left. Assuming Clinton wins, it will be interesting to see what happens in 2020 - will someone run against her?

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 16, 2016, 02:47:43 PM »

And many of us will vote for jill stein...also, anti establishment.

Doesn't some other village need an idiot?

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 16, 2016, 09:59:04 AM »
...and I would add that it's, well, amusing that someone keeps finding the same topic "popcorn worthy" in this election (remember- he had the popcorn ready for the Benghazi hearing), while ignoring a pretty amazing election that includes, inter alia-

1. A party's prior nominee in open warfare against their current nominee. Seriously, how amazing is the Romney/Trump split (putting Utah ... UTAH!!!! in play).

2. A sitting GOP senator saying that the GOP nominee is too bigoted and racist to be President (??? that's from Kirk, today).

3. The first-ever female presidential nominee from one of the big-two parties.

4. Having both candidates have unfavorable ratings that have never been recorded (seriously- Clinton would have serious difficulties, but for Trump).

5. The continuing and open question as to whether the GOP will revolt prior to, or during, Cleveland.

6. The open question as to whether events (the economy-Brexit, a terror attack, etc.) could substantially upset the race and ... we could actually have a President Trump.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 16, 2016, 09:24:56 AM »

BTW, the meeting between Sanders and Clinton the other day was essentially him dropping out.

As opposed to Clinton having a lead of 400 pledged delegates (that's without counting the 530 "super"delegate lead).
As opposed to the Sanders/Obama meeting, wherein Sanders exited saying that he'd help fight Trump, and Obama exited saying, "I'm with Hillary."
As opposed to the very few Democratic backers of Sanders now saying they are supporting Clinton?
As opposed to Sanders laying off more than half of his campaign staff?
As opposed to Clinton now running general election ads, and Sanders ... not?

But, sure, I guess we can look to what Jill Stein is saying.

This is why you can't engage with Cinnamon Troll. Normal people make rational observations based on facts, and then change them as the facts change. For example, I thought it was highly unlikely that Trump would win the GOP nomination, because I thought the GOP would unite against him. I began to change this opinion after South Carolina. As facts change, my opinion changes. It's called wearing big boy pants.

Others ... well, I am quite sure that if Clinton prevails in November, Cinnamon Troll will still be posting that he's hanging out in his underoos with popcorn ... just waiting for some shoe to drop because Nixon, or something.

2.95 gpa. 146 credits. 3.3 for last two years. I have psi chi honors. LSAT practice was 149. The actual thing maybe just that. Degree in psychology and paralegal studies. I have a misdemeanor. I have been expelled from one university. I have an impressive personal statement. I have two LORs. Also is there a chance I could get a full scholarship at Charlotte law? Or Cooley?

Let's break this down into separate components-

1. How much weight should you give your personal statement and letters of recommendation? Almost none. Really. Your admissions chances will be almost entirely based on your uGPA (undergrad GPA) + LSAT score. To determine how likely you are to get admission to various schools, look at lawschooltransparency ("LST") and lawschoolnumbers ("LSN"). LST will give you percentiles for admitted students. LSN will give you some numbers from students who were admitted/rejected (anecdotal information).

2. The misdemeanor and expulsion will be red flags. Depending on the misdemeanor, reason for expulsion, and jurisdiction of the school, these may be reasons to automatically deny you. But not necessarily- and you should look carefully at the admissions policies of both the school, and the Bar (Florida, for example, tends to be much more restrictive on these types of issues). Regardless, please make sure you have a rationale for these, which includes taking responsibility.

3. I, personally, would not recommend going to either Charlotte or Cooley. Look at the numbers at LSN for those schools. In addition, if you do get a scholarship, please make sure you look at the conditions- many schools in the tier you are looking are notorious for offering scholarships that seem reasonable (maintain a 3.0) without telling you that they set the class rank well below the number required to maintain the scholarship.

4. My best advice? Work on improving that LSAT. I am of the belief that, for many people, you cannot achieve giant improvements in your LSAT (I don't think you're going to score a 165). But your chances will improve immensely, both for admissions, and for a scholarship, with every single point you get on the LSAT.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 14, 2016, 07:54:09 AM »
which has jack to do with Hillary.................tell the truth, you are a 1L who is dead center in class rankings ain't ya there boy??

You're kidding, right? Cinnamon Troll is some old guy who has probably been banned from numerous newspaper comment sections, and is too dumb to be allowed to comment on youtube and espn. 

Source- a periodical.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 09, 2016, 12:35:30 PM » the Valerie plame case--but this time-- we know the culpable parties already.😉😊

Breaking news! Dumb troll still unable to see the obvious; doesn't realize that people are laughing at, not with, him.

Source- A periodical.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 08, 2016, 09:37:12 AM »
After a year of trolling, and being wrong, I take comfort in knowing that CS will continue to troll and be wrong.

Seriously- look at his posting history. He's never been right, and every single time, he doubles down on being wrong. Please, go to a website where everyone doesn't already know what a pathetic loser you are.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: May 10, 2016, 07:44:25 AM »
As usual, you don't let pesky facts get in the way of your wishful thinking.

1) Polls indicate that Clinton will obliterate Trump in November. One poll, ONE, by Rasmussen shows Trump ahead by 2 points. Every other poll ever conducted shows Clinton ahead by as much as 13 points.

No matter how unpopular HRC is, Trump is doomed with women and minorities. He can't win without them, thus he can't win. You cannot provide data to refute that fact, can you?

2) Abedin has not even been questioned.
3) No date has been set for HRC to be questioned. You're making stuff up again.

Dude, he's always making stuff up. The only thing you know for sure is that if he says it, it will be wrong.

Source- a periodical.

Stop feeding the troll.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Improvement
« on: May 02, 2016, 08:34:24 AM »

I just wanted to pose a question (which I'm sure has been asked a million times) as to how much you all were able to improve your LSAT scores from your first practice test to the real deal.

I finally made, and solidified the decision to attend law school, and decided it was time to begin prepping.
Tonight, I took my first "cold" test, without any preparation. I scored a 149. I realize this is not a score that will get me into Law School.

My question to you all, is what was your first score, and how much did you improve over the months between that test and the true LSAT? I'm shooting for no less than a 170 on my final LSAT Exam.

Let me start with the short, simple, easy-to-understand answer to your question. If you scored a 149 on your first practice test, then you will not score a 170 on your final LSAT exam. I would bet significant amounts of money on that. Now, allow me to provide the longer answer.

Is it possible? Sure, anything is *possible*. It is possible that you will win the powerball lottery tomorrow. But this type of thinking is a common fallacy with 0Ls (people before they go to Law School)- it's the old, "95% of incoming students think they will finish in the top 10% of the class."

A 170, percentile ranked, is over the 97th percentile. Which means that to score that, you are doing better than over 97% of all people taking the LSAT. Now, remember that this isn't the population at large- it's the test takers. The majority of people taking the LSAT are type-As, driven, did well in UG, and believe that getting an "A" in a class is their right as a human being.

The LSAT is, theoretically, an aptitude test. Does that mean that preparation doesn't matter? No. You can learn basic skills (how to take tests, how to manage your time, how the LSAT is scored). Certain sections (the analytical reasoning/logic games section) can see improvement by learning some techniques in dealing with a class of problems. But there are limits - because it's not like one of those AP tests, where you can just study the information and regurgitate it.

Circling back, you can improve. You will. But if 149 was your actual score on your first exam, then it would be unrealistic to believe that you will score a 170 with practice. But it's not impossible- just unlikely. And your improvement will also depend on what you are weakest at- reading comprehension tends to be hard to improve at, logic games can improve with practice.

It could also be that your first diagnostic wasn't representative of your ability.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 55