Buttigieg the smartest, Trump the dumbest

[_Gunnar]

It's outrageous that subby trashes and disparages a woman like Elizabeth Warren, based only on baseless innuendo and lies invented about her by her political opponents, and who has lived a blameless, well documented lifetime dedicated to her family, public service and outstanding academic achievement, while at the same time subby sycophantically supports and praises a narcissistic bully like Trump with a long, well documented record of pathological dishonesty, fraud and racism.

And don't bother to demand CFR on this, subby. The corruption and dishonesty of Trump is so well known by now that you would have to have deliberately blinded yourself to fail to see it. Much of the evidence of that comes inadvertently from Trump's own stupid mouth and actions!

[_canpakes]

And don't bother to demand CFR on this, subby.

Heck, he has trouble enough thinking that Warren has to be a practicing bankruptcy lawyer in order to understand bankruptcy law.

Don’t ask him to read any of the readily available information regarding her background or education. That’ll just force his mendacity further out into the open. ; )

[_subgenius]

that's cool, i realize you can't offer much else in support of EAs odd claims, so just come at me bro (stick with what ya know amiright)

She was one of the most cited law professors in the field within the decade.

again, CFR

Not understanding the difference between this and serving as a legal representative in bankruptcy cases, you demanded to know the latter. The answer to that is mid-2000's, but that has nothing to do with the claim I made.

none of your post actually supports your claim and it just becomes another in a long line of your self-aggrandizing writings that refuse to meet the challenge of making your claim look like more than just armchair speculation.

[_Gunnar]

Heck, he has trouble enough thinking that Warren has to be a practicing bankruptcy lawyer in order to understand bankruptcy law.

Don’t ask him to read any of the readily available information regarding her background or education. That’ll just force his mendacity further out into the open. ; )

As is often the case with him, the only one subby has managed to discredit in this thread is himself. I don't know for sure if he is simply too stupid to realize that, or if he is just a troll who couldn't care less whether anything he says makes any sense as long he succeeds in provoking a response from us.

[_canpakes]

She was one of the most cited law professors in the field within the decade.

again, CFR

Not understanding the difference between this and serving as a legal representative in bankruptcy cases, you demanded to know the latter. The answer to that is mid-2000's, but that has nothing to do with the claim I made.

none of your post actually supports your claim and it just becomes another in a long line of your self-aggrandizing writings that refuse to meet the challenge of making your claim look like more than just armchair speculation.

Hey, Bright Eyes -

Here you go. This took all of three seconds to find:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?us ... T3IC&hl=en

Feel free to present your own list of folks that have been more widely cited. Otherwise, consider your CFR more than satisfied.

[_EAllusion]

again, CFR

Your CFR's are consistently done in bad faith. Anyone who responds to them understanding them to be anything other than an attempt to be a burden rather than an honest request to learn information is sadly unfamiliar with you or gullible. That said, this one was already cited in this thread and you chose to ignore it. Again, that's because you aren't interested in learning whether this is true or not. It does not matter one wit to you.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2010_ ... pact.shtml

In the years 2004-2010, Warren was tied for 3rd as the most cited scholar in commercial/bankruptcy law according to Leiter scholarly impact rankings. That's a prestigious accomplishment. If you spent a second with google and knew how to look up citations, you'd find that she continues to be a heavily cited scholar. It's one of many things that belies your false assertion that she accomplished nothing besides getting a Harvard gig on false pretenses. Every aspect of that statement outside of the fact that she got a Harvard professorship is false.

Moreover, your demand to know when she last served as counsel for a bankruptcy case to justify my use of "recent" shows you cannot tell the difference between being a published expert in a field and doing legal work for clients.

So when you write this:

none of your post actually supports your claim and it just becomes another in a long line of your self-aggrandizing writings that refuse to meet the challenge of making your claim look like more than just armchair speculation.

It's weapon-grade projection.

[_canpakes]

Heck, he has trouble enough thinking that Warren has to be a practicing bankruptcy lawyer in order to understand bankruptcy law.

Don’t ask him to read any of the readily available information regarding her background or education. That’ll just force his mendacity further out into the open. ; )

As is often the case with him, the only one subby has managed to discredit in this thread is himself. I don't know for sure if he is simply too stupid to realize that, or if he is just a troll who couldn't care less whether anything he says makes any sense as long he succeeds in provoking a response from us.

I’m pretty sure that it’s always about being Option #2. But the problem for him with that is that he ends up becoming the poster boy for either disingenuousness or idiocy. For me, forcing that outcome is usually too irresistibly fun to ignore. : )

[_Gunnar]

For me, forcing that outcome is usually too irresistibly fun to ignore. : )

I thank you for your service in forcing that noble outcome!

[_subgenius]

Hey, Bright Eyes -

Here you go. This took all of three seconds to find:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?us ... T3IC&hl=en

Feel free to present your own list of folks that have been more widely cited. Otherwise, consider your CFR more than satisfied.

One example is Robert E. Scott of Columbia University who has almost twice the citations over same time period as Warren (and the bulk of Warren's are her as a co-author and not lead author)...but that is cool...she has a hella citations and obviously those are the stats that EA(and you?) was "struck by" as to exclaim her "the most intelligent candidate running".
But that does not justify EA's claim(s) and, as stated before, EA had absolutely no knowledge of how many citations her articles received etc.
But if EA (and you?) want to hang your hat on your claim *hella citations on co-authored bankruptcy articles during a 4 year period* as the hook for her intelligence...then you stand proud on that....wrote a bunch of articles on a specific topic and some of those were cited a whole bunch, sooo... must be hella smart - got it!

[_subgenius]

In the years 2004-2010, Warren was tied for 3rd as the most cited scholar in commercial/bankruptcy law according to Leiter scholarly impact rankings. That's a prestigious accomplishment. If you spent a second with google and knew how to look up citations, you'd find that she continues to be a heavily cited scholar. It's one of many things that belies your false assertion that she accomplished nothing besides getting a Harvard gig on false pretenses. Every aspect of that statement outside of the fact that she got a Harvard professorship is false.

Moreover, your demand to know when she last served as counsel for a bankruptcy case to justify my use of "recent" shows you cannot tell the difference between being a published expert in a field and doing legal work for clients.

I can tell the difference, and that difference is manifest in your claim. But please, explain how some number of citations, specific to 1 topic, from 2004 to 2009 establish Warren as (1)an expert; (2) intelligent.

You confuse prolific with "expertise", by which case we can assume that Trump having waay more successful business dealings than unsuccessful dealings must surely be a presitguous and expert business man....and because of that - "intelligent"!