怎这样呢 发表于 2016-7-27 00:47
楼主要弃楼了
我前几天在瑞士，这几天在威尼斯，美国大选的新闻没怎么关注。再过几个星期我可能会评论一下。
海天 发表于 2016-3-7 05:39
如果提升到这样的高度（第六政党系统的终结），那还真值得好好关注一下初选
加拿大这里喜欢川普的看起 ...
刚看到的
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/a-fundamental-decency-the-difference-between-rob-ford-and-donald-trump/494075/
Many people have noted the campaign-style similarities between Donald Trump and Rob Ford, the late mayor of Toronto. John Spragge, who lives in Toronto, says that the Capt. Khan episode points out an important difference:
I am the Canadian systems analyst who sometimes writes you from Toronto. Earlier in this campaign, I compared Donald Trump to the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
I still believe Mr. Ford drew much of his support from people who feel alienated and left out, and I believe getting elected mayor had dire personal consequences for Mr. Ford, just as I believe attaining the presidency might have serious consequences for Mr. Trump. However, over the past week I have come to see important distinctions between Mr. Ford and Mr. Trump; I think Mr. Ford’s greater skill at retail politics speaks to a fundamental decency. As I put it in a web log post :
When I asked myself how Rob Ford would have responded to Khizr Khan’s speech, it occurred to me: Rob Ford would have called the Khans. He would have talked to them. Rob always called people who disagreed with him. He would have listened the he Khans. He would have expressed sympathy with their sacrifice. He would probably not have changed any of his positions, but he would have given the Khans the courtesy of a hearing.
All Rob Ford’s most vehement opponents, which some times included me, acknowledged his ability as a retail politician. He listened to people, and whether he agreed with us or not he gave the impression he cared what we thought. I think he genuinely did; I think he had a real desire to help and connect with people, and unlike Donald Trump, he did not respond to opposition with the fury of wounded vanity.
Rob Ford was diagnosed with cancer during the last election and has since died. Since the emergence of Mr. Trump, many Toronto residents have seen the parallels between the social forces that gave rise to his candidacy and Mr. Trump’s. I think we owe it to his memory to acknowledge that nothing in his record suggests he would have treated the Khans the way Trump did.
刚看到的，挺有意思。作者David Frum是保守派，当过小布什的speechwriter，但是这次大选反对Trump。
Why Trump Supporters Think He'll Win
DAVID FRUMJUL 29, 2016
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/backing-donald-trump/493619/
Perhaps the hardest thing to do in contemporary American politics is to imagine how the world looks from the other side. I’ve made no secret of why, as a Republican, I oppose Donald Trump and what he stands for. But I’ve also been talking to his supporters and advisors, trying to understand how they see and hear the same things that I do, and draw such very different conclusions. What follows isn’t a transcription—it’s a synthesis of the conversations I’ve had, and the insights I’ve gleaned, presented in the voice of an imagined Trump supporter.
“You people in the Acela corridor aren’t getting it. Again. You think Donald Trump is screwing up because he keeps saying things that you find offensive or off-the-wall. But he’s not talking to you. You’re not his audience, you never were, and you never will be. He’s playing this game in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen. And he’s winning too, in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen.
“Our convention worked. Donald—I’m not on the payroll, I can call him that—Donald energized his voters: people who are afraid of crime and worried about the mass immigration that’s transforming their country and displacing them. We talk a lot about polls, but you ignore the polls that don’t show what you expect to see.
“Here’s what’s going to happen. We’re going to run up vote totals like you’ve never seen in places you’ve never been. Not just coal country, either. No, we don’t have what you’d call a proper campaign. What do we need it for? Campaigns spend most of their money on TV ads that do nothing except entertain you on YouTube on your lunch hour—oh, and pay huge commissions to the consultants who make them. It’s all a waste and rip-off. If our message is exciting, our voters will get to the polls on their own. And you have to admit: Our message is exciting!
“You think it’s crazy when Donald goes after Ted Cruz about the unanswered questions in his life. It’s crazy like a fox. Trump is forcing people in the party—a lot of them already don't like Ted, you know that, right?—he’s forcing those people to think about whether they’re really going to let this guy posture as the keeper of the party conscience. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Ted: You know that, way beyond the Kennedy assassination. Donald's showing: Nobody backstabs him without paying a price. He’s the boss of the party now, he’s going to be treated like the boss, and if you don’t respect him, he’s going to bring down the hammer. That’s a good lesson for everybody else—and look how quiet and respectful all those Republicans are now. Donald knows that Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and even Mike Pence want nothing better than to lay him low. But every time they bite their tongues as he takes off the head of Ted or whomever … he makes it that much more impossible for them ever to say, ‘Oh Donald? No, I had nothing to with him.’ They all wear the Trump logo now—and they always will wear that logo, whatever happens in November.
“The Putin thing. You think you’ve really nailed Donald with the Putin thing. Get it through your head: Our people are done fighting wars for your New World Order. We fought the Cold War to stop the Communists from taking over America, not to protect Estonia. We went to Iraq because you said it was better to fight them over there than fight them over here. Then you invited them over here anyway! Then you said that we had to keep inviting them over here if we wanted to win over there. And we figured out: You care a lot more about the “inviting" part than the “winning" part. So no more. Not until we face a real threat, and have a real president who’ll do whatever it takes to win. Whatever it takes.
"That’s another way you don’t understand Donald. When you squawk: 'Oh, it’s so horrible, he’ll waterboard prisoners, he won’t ask our troops to risk their lives so as to protect a terrorist’s mother-in-law …' when you talk like that, what our people hear is that you are a lot clearer about what you won’t do to protect the American people than what you will do.
“Tom Kean/Tim Kaine? So, so sorry we got the name of your latest precious progressive New South governor a little mixed up. Just kidding: not even a little bit sorry. What you need to take on board is how profoundly so many Americans do not give a … oh yeah, you still live in a country where people don’t use language like that when they talk about politics. Come visit Reddit sometime and see how the other half lives. But I’ll spare your feelings. They like that Donald doesn’t know any of that sh …. Oops. Sorry again.
"You Acela people live in a beautiful country where everything works. You believe in institutions because they work for you. So it bothers you that Donald doesn’t seem to know what the OECD does or who’s in charge of the FDIC. But our people don’t believe in institutions any more. The institutions they do still care about—the military and the cops—you use for props when you need them, and as dumping grounds when you don’t. I noticed that when Tim Kaine took a bow for his son’s military service, he pointed out that he was a Marine—because we all know that what you’ve done to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Yeah, they’re just as lethal as Obama and Hillary said. When you spend as much as the rest of the planet combined, you can make a lot of things go boom—even if the soldiers can’t do chin ups any more and the sailors get pregnant when they decide their tours of duty have gone on too long. And the cops! One minute you’re calling them murderers, the next you’re slobbering all over them. Our voters are cops. They know who’s on their side. Not you.
“You loved the Democratic convention didn’t you? Soaring rhetoric, we’re all together in just one big beautiful rainbow quilt: illegal aliens and billionaires, all together. And the flags? So many flags. You wave the flag one day every four years, and you think it means you’ve taken America from us. You haven’t, not yet—and that’s another thing our voters will be wanting to say on Election Day. Lots of ideas too: free this, free that, more investment in this, higher taxes on that, and ‘common sense gun laws.’ I bet you don’t own a gun. I bet you’ve never had a DUI either. So it wouldn’t worry you that you could lose the first if you get the second. But it worries our voters. Their lives are kind of messed up. They get into trouble. That’s why they want guns for themselves, and not just for Mayor Bloomberg’s bodyguards.
“Here’s the bottom line. You live in an America that’s still a lot like your parents’ America. It’s mostly white. Nobody’s displacing and replacing you. It’s pretty safe too. You can read about rising crime—you don’t live it. In your America, you worry about how there aren’t enough women making Hollywood films or sitting on corporate boards. In our America, the gender gap closed a long time ago—and then went into reverse. Obama in the Oval Office was humiliating enough. But Hillary will be worse: We’re going to lose any idea at all that leadership is a man’s job.
“You’ve been building up to this for a long time. No more Superheroes rescuing women in the movies. The girl always has to throw the last punch herself. In the commercials, Dad’s either an idiot—or he’s doing the housework with his boyfriend.
"And you know what? It’s not just our hillbilly voters who are going to vote ‘no’ to all that. A lot of men you never imagined will vote for us. Trump’s going to do better with Latino men than you expect—probably no worse than Romney. He’s going to do better with black men than Romney ever did. And his numbers with white men will be out of sight. Every time you demand that Donald show respect to Hillary—while laughing as Hillary disrespects Donald—you push those numbers up.
“You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you. Donald's a scam artist, you tell me. You’re from The Atlantic? Read that great book by one of your former colleagues, Jack Beatty, about Boston’s Mayor Curley, The Rascal King. Curley was a scam artist. The Boston Irish loved him for it—even when he scammed them, too—because Curley pissed off the people the Boston Irish hated and who hated them. (I can still say ‘pissed off,’ right?) It’s going to be just that way with Donald. I mean, Mr. Trump. I mean, President Trump.”
今天Trump对他的竞选班子进行了调整，很大程度上削弱了他之前的campaign manager，Paul Manafort的权力。这也从侧面说明就是Trump自己都意识到了现在形势相当不利，就像球队一样，赢球的时候是很少有换教练的。但是他这次换上来的这两个人还是让我摇头，Stephen Bannon是极右网站，整天散布阴谋理论的Breitbart News的老板，而且没有任何以前搞过竞选的经历，我很难相信他能有挽狂澜于既倒的能力，而且这也表明Trump不会pivot，变得更presidential，而是会沿着最近几个星期的路走下去。希拉里方面应该对Trump的这个调整挺满意。
最近几个星期的poll，不管pollster意识形态的倾向是什么，在national poll里Trump就没有领先的。在各州的民意调查里，希拉里在所有的摇摆州里都领先，而且像一直到2012年时都非常接近的州，Virginia，Colorado优势很明显，基本上可以被归到已经拿下的那个类别。Trump获胜的路径变得越来越窄。连Arizona，Georgia这些以前的铁杆红州现在都变得希拉里稍占优势。Nate Silver模型的预测，Trump的获胜概率降到了11%，已经离5%小概率事件的定义不远了。另外Trump在各州ground operation也就是在选举日把他的支持者动员出来投票的组织人员几乎没有，完全依靠共和党全国委员会，但他在几个星期前还在向共和党的establishment像Paul Ryan，John Kasich等开火，我很怀疑这些人能愿意给Trump出什么力，尤其是Ohio对Trump至关重要，目前的形势，如果丢了Ohio，很难看出他怎么能够取得electoral college的多数。而Kasich是Ohio的州长，因此怎么看，Trump的形势都很不乐观。
现在Trump一个可能翻身的机会是9月底同希拉里的辩论。不过希拉里这个人的个人魅力尽管不怎么样，从08年和这次的表现来看，辩论的能力还是很不错的。再考虑到Trump在政策问题上知识的极端贫乏，以及喜欢大嘴乱喷的习惯，我觉得辩论时他能扯平不失分就不错了。他和他的团队不能寄希望于这个。如果未来2个多月发生超大规模的恐怖主义袭击事件，或许会是他翻盘的机会。但是前几个月美国国内和国际上也发生了好几次大规模恐怖事件，结果好像并没有多大帮助，一个原因是Trump管不住自己的大嘴，我不觉得他在这个方面能有什么改变。还有的可能突发事件是Wikileaks可能会公布一些希拉里的电子邮件，但这得是极其的damning才行，否则的话，她untrustworthy的形象其实已经在她民意调查的数字里体现出来了，小的丑闻我不觉得对她的支持带来多大的损害。但这可能Trump能赢的最现实的希望了。
上个星期Trump的竞选班子换人后，他似乎在pivot。发表讲话对以前的一些言论表示有些后悔。到Baton Rouge救助灾民显得更presidential。发表讲话似乎在寻求黑人选民的支持，尽管那是在白人区，下面的听众绝大多数都是白人，看着让人觉得别扭。甚至他最新的campaign manager在周末暗示他关于非法移民的政策都有可能松动。这pivot的效果究竟怎样我们还需要等几个星期才能完全确定，我个人是觉得这来的太晚了点。如果他5月份就这么干的话，他现在的形势很可能会和希拉里拉近很多，甚至都有可能领先。而且Trump也确实是管不住自己，忍了几天不乱说话，今天就又发了这么条tweet
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2016/08/Mike/d51cd18e8.png
我觉得就是Trump真觉得pivot是对的，也没有这个自我控制能力能坚持到11月8日。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-8 00:07 编辑
南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-6-28 11:54
伯爵的这个论述很透彻，把英国去留的利害关系分析得还是挺清楚的。
英国就算这么做，也没有什么不好的。 ...
Taco Trucks and the Soul of America
MOLLY BALLSEP 6, 2016
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/taco-trucks-and-the-soul-of-america/498845/
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/09/RTR205WU/lead_960.jpg?1473193981
When Marco Gutierrez, the founder of Latinos for Trump, warned last week that increased immigration could lead to “taco trucks on every corner,” he was widely and understandably mocked. Commentators lined up to sing the praises of mobile Mexican food, from conservatives lauding free enterprise to liberals decrying xenophobia. Given the deliciousness of tacos, many opined, “Taco Trucks on Every Corner” would make a compelling platform for a politician; the Arizona Democratic Party changed its marquee to use the phrase.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrXlrS3VYAAKtML.jpg
But it was clear enough what Gutierrez meant. Plenty of Americans do see the increasing prevalence of foreign cultures in the U.S., including Hispanic culture, as an unwelcome invasion. They resent having to press 1 for English when they call customer service; or they worry that yoga encourages satanism, or that women in headscarves mean creeping sharia. Trump’s campaign appeals powerfully to these people, with his assertion that “we don’t have a country anymore” and his nostalgic vow to make America great again, presumably by returning it to a time before Taco Bell, Univision, and the George Lopez show.
Is this what Americans want? In the U.K., the surprising result of the June Brexit vote revealed a larger than anticipated grassroots revolt against the culture of diverse, immigrant-friendly cities. Is there a Brexit-like silent majority in the United States, too, of Americans so unsettled by diversity and multiculturalism that they want to banish taco trucks?
I don’t know the answer to that. But I keep thinking about a remarkable chart that I came across in July, the visualization of a Pew Research Center poll about attitudes toward diversity in the U.S. and 10 different European countries. The respondents were asked whether increasing diversity made their country a better or a worse place to live. The disparity in the results between the U.S. and the Europeans is shocking:
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2016/09/FT_16.07.11_EU_USdiversity_overall/8036f804b.png
A large majority of Americans, nearly 3 in 5, say increasing diversity improves their nation. But all the European countries sharply disagree; in none of the other countries is this a majority view, with the pro-diversity faction ranging from a high of 36 percent in Sweden to a low of just 10 percent of Greeks.
Just as notably, very few Americans believe diversity is actually worsening the country. Only a small fraction, 7 percent, hold this view, while the remaining one-third are simply indifferent. That’s another sharp contrast with Europe, where at least one-fifth of all the countries surveyed felt diversity was making their country a worse place to live. More than half of Italians, and nearly two-thirds of Greeks, believe this.
There are differences between Americans of different political persuasions: About half of conservatives are pro-diversity, compared to three-fourths of self-described liberals. The pro-diversity attitude is also more common among Americans with post-secondary education (64 percent) than those with a high-school education or less (48 percent).
Supporters of Hillary Clinton, a subsequent Pew breakdown showed, were more likely than Trump supporters to favor increased diversity, 72 percent to 40 percet. But most Trump supporters were merely indifferent; just 16 percent of Trump voters said diversity was making America worse. Contrast that with the Europeans: In the U.K., for example, diversity is favored by a bare majority of liberals and a quarter of conservatives.
This, to me, is the real American exceptionalism. Americans aren’t perfect, especially where race is concerned. But we embrace pluralism like no other country on earth. This is the soul of America, and it’s solidly pro-taco truck.
伯爵对昨天的迷你辩论怎么看？
感觉西太内容不少，可是也被迫处于守势，为她的TRACKRECORDS辩解。老床内容单薄，但是没有包袱，可以到处出击。
估计正式辩论也会是这种态势。
他这么说有宪法基础吗？作为总统这么说是否在影响美国的宪法基础？
Barack Obama has sensationally told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he will NOTvacate the Oval office if Donald J. Trump is elected the 45th President ofthe United States.
The current president claims he is “fully prepared” to ignore the popularvote if it means stopping Trump, having found what he believes is a littleknown loophole that would allow him to remain in charge until a re-electionis called.
“As president, I must do what I feel is in the best interests of our nation,” he explained. “If the American people elected ‘the Donald’ then Iwill be forced to take whatever actions I deem necessary.”
When asked by the CNN anchor if he would remain in charge, Obama’s responsewas firm. “I am not standing down as president if it means four years ofPresident Trump,” he said categorically.
The president was asked what exact lengths he would go to, to prevent thebillionaire from being sworn in on January, 20th, 2017. “I am prepared tofile a motion of ‘no confidence’ in our citizens thereby taking their voteaway from them,” he confessed.
“Wait, you’re willing to impeach the American people as voters?” apossibly stunned Blitzer asked. “Yes, if necessary,” the Presidentresponded. “I cannot allow him into this chair, with his finger so close tothe button. The power would go to his head immediately.” Obama even suggested he will barricade himself and his family inside theWhite House if it means stopping the Trump family from taking up residencythere. “I’ve instructed the Secret Service to use full force in defendingthe White House from the Trump family. Joe has already expressed hiswillingness to die multiple times in order to keep them out of here.”
When questioned by Howard Stern, Trump seemed unconcerned by the President’s stance. “Don’t worry, we’ll get some of the second amendment people tosort him out pretty quickly.”
fish97 发表于 2016-9-8 23:19
他这么说有宪法基础吗？作为总统这么说是否在影响美国的宪法基础？
All burrardstreetjournal.com, FM News or FM Football News articles are satirical and entirely fabricated.
那个网站出来的所谓新闻不要相信。
cadgn 发表于 2016-9-8 11:39
伯爵对昨天的迷你辩论怎么看？
感觉西太内容不少，可是也被迫处于守势，为她的TRACKRECORDS辩解。老床内容 ...
内容不少都太假了。
cadgn 发表于 2016-9-9 00:39
伯爵对昨天的迷你辩论怎么看？
感觉西太内容不少，可是也被迫处于守势，为她的TRACKRECORDS辩解。老床内容 ...
辩论我没看，看到一些评论，觉得两个人表现都一般。希拉里对电子邮件还是没准备出令人满意的回答，Trump对普京的赞扬说将军们在Obama任内被reduced to rubble，也招来不少批评。我觉得算平局吧。过去几个星期尽管Trump在民意调查上追上不少，现在落后还是挺多。历史上过去半个世纪，劳动节过后，差距象现在这么大的11月翻盘的只有1980年一次。因此如果9月底开始的三次辩论是平局的话，对Trump会是坏消息。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-9 22:34 编辑
fish97 发表于 2016-9-9 12:19
他这么说有宪法基础吗？作为总统这么说是否在影响美国的宪法基础？
明年1月20日之后，Obama肯定就不是美国总统了，签署的任何命令都没有法律效力，就是他赖在白宫不走也没用，要是真那么干的话是自取其辱，Obama在芝加哥大学教过美国宪法，不会说出这种傻话。因此这新闻一看就是假的。如果出现特殊情况，比如1月20日之前当选的总统副总统都被暗杀，或者2000年佛罗里达那一幕重演，最高法院又没介入，1月20日还不知道究竟是谁获胜的话，根据法律，就任的总统或者是代总统的会是这时的众议院议长，照目前的形势很可能会是Paul Ryan，也没Obama什么事。
冰蚁 发表于 2016-9-9 14:03
内容不少都太假了。
真假，在这个LEVEL是很难判断的。
但是，这个可能不重要，选民基本上是VOTE WITH THEIR GUTS。
Dracula 发表于 2016-9-9 22:20
辩论我没看，看到一些评论，觉得两个人表现都一般。希拉里对电子邮件还是没准备出令人满意的回答，Trump ...
我也没看电视，只读了TRANSCRIPT。从纸面上看，在政策层面H比T要有料的多。这个不SURPRISE。
但是，H不得不DEFEND她的很多负面业绩，也很明显。
T基本上是轻装上阵，有很多机会上位。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-10 00:20 编辑
cadgn 发表于 2016-9-9 23:37
我也没看电视，只读了TRANSCRIPT。从纸面上看，在政策层面H比T要有料的多。这个不SURPRISE。
但是，H不 ...
我看到的评论，对这次辩论的moderator，NBC的Matt Lauer批评不少，有的还挺严厉。当Trump说他在伊拉克战争前就反对出兵（这没有任何事实根据）时，Matt Lauer没有及时指出Trump引的他在2004年在Esquire发表的那篇文章根本不支持他的说法，2004年时战争爆发已经一年多了。这对希拉里可能会是好消息，3次正式的辩论，moderator可能会对Trump查的更严。
John Kasich确实毕竟讨人喜欢，反正只要不是希拉里那个婊子当选就好。
Dracula 发表于 2016-9-9 11:18
我看到的评论，对这次辩论的moderator，NBC的Matt Lauer批评不少，有的还挺严厉。当Trump说他在伊拉克战 ...
Lauer 好象指出了吧。trump 用那时候没有想从政盖过去了。 Lauer 没有进一步追问。
希拉里的耳机是怎么回事，还得好好查查。正式辩论如果搞出这种事，那也是不要选了。
冰蚁 发表于 2016-9-10 02:25
Lauer 好象指出了吧。trump 用那时候没有想从政盖过去了。 Lauer 没有进一步追问。
希拉里的耳机是怎么 ...
我读的报道和原文，Lauer并没有指出Trump现在的言论和当年的事实并不符合。自由派的报纸象纽约时报对他非常的不满，批评的很厉害。而且2002年Trump接受Howard Stern节目采访的时候，表态他支持对伊拉克出兵，直到2004年伊拉克形势已经很不好以后，Trump才改变论调，变为反对出兵。他现在吹嘘自己当年就反对出兵，judgement多么好，脸皮确实挺厚。Matt Lauer也没提到Trump在2002年那次采访，对他直接进行fact check。有可能正式辩论的moderator看到Lauer现在受到的批评，会对Trump的信口开河把关更严，这对希拉里会是个好消息。
Dracula 发表于 2016-9-10 03:03
我读的报道和原文，Lauer并没有指出Trump现在的言论和当年的事实并不符合。自由派的报纸象纽约时报对他非 ...
这个我倒有不同意见。左派的说法，基本上站不住。
首先，当年TRUMP不HOLD POWER，所以他也不应该被HOLD RESPONSIBLE AS MUCH。
肯定不能跟总统，内阁，和参议员们相同对待。
其次，TRUMP可以DEFEND他的POSITION，他可以说，作为一个平民，我没有信息；他还可以说，作为一个平民，虽然有疑虑，但当时觉得需要支持总统和军队；等等。。。
而且，TRUMP２００４和STERN的谈话，照我读来他是很有保留的＂I GUESS。。。＂
今年在初选，他也是第一个在共和方面否定伊战的。这个，比他平民时的态度，更有说服力。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-10 11:47 编辑
cadgn 发表于 2016-9-10 09:57
这个我倒有不同意见。左派的说法，基本上站不住。
首先，当年TRUMP不HOLD POWER，所以他也不应该被HOLD...
没有人说要让Trump为伊拉克、利比亚、ISIS负责。但是Trump吹嘘说他的judgement特别的好，不仅比Obama、希拉里强，比现在的将军也都强，总得有些根据吧。不能都是事后马后炮，这个谁不会啊，包括我也能做到，但是我不觉得自己有制定美国外交政策的能力。Trump如果只是批评Obama、希拉里的外交政策当然可以，但是他偏要吹牛说在各个问题上他有先见之明，可是能找到的事实证据却证明是相反，左派当然觉得是不服，要fact check他了。