爱吱声

标题: Trump上任100天简评 [打印本页]
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-28 18:10
标题: Trump上任100天简评
到明天Trump上任就到了100天。这几天，美国各大媒体、记者、评论员都纷纷对这100天打分评论。我也凑凑热闹，简单写几句。


1.        Trump上任的最初2个星期，大张旗鼓、声势很盛。Steve Bannon为他写的American Carnage的那篇就职演说，把美国描述成布满了像墓碑一样废弃工厂的人间地狱，尽管在主流媒体那儿的评价很不怎么样，但确实是给人一种新气象。他的施政方向好像确实是要兑现他做出的那些同极右nationalist挺接近的竞选许诺。用著名政治学家Stephen Skowronek的术语来说，Trump像是真要成为一个Reconstructive的总统，会对美国政治、经济、社会进行激进、全面的变革。接下来的几天，从退出TPP开始，Trump签署的executive order满天飞，他的支持者base欢欣鼓舞，反对他的包括自由派则是忧心忡忡，。尤其是第一个穆斯林禁令的签署，不仅是兑现了他最重要的一个竞选承诺，而且把已经人在美国持合法签证、乃至持绿卡的人都包括在内。好像是为了要维护在意识形态上的纯洁性，特意要严惩来自穆斯林国家的移民。那些警告Trump会把美国带向法西斯主义的预言也显得不是那么危言耸听了

但是今天来看，第一个穆斯林禁令的签署可能就是Trump政府任期的最高点。从那以后，他的政府基本上就是一直在走下坡路，失败是一个接着一个。穆斯林禁令被判违宪，Michael Flynn干了不到1个月就被迫辞职，废除Obamacare的法案连个投票都没有就无疾而终，最近几天又表明大选时喊得最凶的修墙的口号就是废纸一张。现在已经几乎没有什么人认为Trump会是开拓美国政治全新局面罗斯福、里根式的Reconstructive类型的总统了，更多的是把他同卡特这种Disjunctive类型的总统相类比。卡特在1976年当选后也是雄心勃勃，称自己为outsider，要对罗斯福以来一直被广泛接受的新政共识进行改变。但他的任内却基本上可以说是一事无成，经济停滞，通货膨胀高涨，外交上因为伊朗人质事件灰头土脸。今天保守派基本上把他归类为美国历史上最差的总统，就是自由派对他任期的评价也不怎么样。在不到100天的时间里，对Trump任期的期待就从Reconstructive变为Disjunctive，这个速度也是够快的。

2.        在人事问题上，Trump刚上任的那几天，他的女婿Jared Kushner忙着在华盛顿找房子，安排子女入学，让Steve Bannon钻了空子，基本上是由他控制了Trump政府的agenda，各项政策好像都是在往nationalist、极右的那个方向走，Bannon自己都能忽悠着Trump，破例进了National Security Council。但是好景不长，不仅是Bannon主持的穆斯林禁令那件事办的很不怎么样，那几天他还上了时代杂志的封面，被人视为Trump政府里的真正决策者，风头太盛，甚至都有点压过老板，让Trump很不爽。Kushner忙完了家事后，有了时间和精力，很快就在权力斗争中搬了回来，完全压倒了Bannon那派。现在Kushner在Trump政府中基本上等于总理的角色，内政外交各种权力是一把抓。他是纽约人，属于elite阶层，政治上的立场经济问题上是属于establishment，社会问题上其实是接近于自由派。比如他和Ivanka就主动向媒体泄露，是由于他们的干预，Trump才没签署限制同性恋权利的命令。他把Bannon挤掉后的最近几个星期，Trump政府的大政方针和共和党的establishment派比如Jeb Bush等实际上也没多大区别。他在各个问题上纷纷转向，墙也不修了，中国也不是操纵汇率了，北约也不是obsolete的，连Export-Import Bank也变得有道理了。当然Trump这个人变脸特别容易也特别快，几个月后可能会再变回去也说不定。

3.        Trump在这最初的100天里，也有一些政绩。顺利任命保守派的Gorsuch到最高法院是最重要的。再就是Trump那些反移民的言论和命令尽管是雷声大雨点小，同Obama政府相比实际的政策变化并不是有多大，很小时候随父母偷渡到美国的dreamers仍然是保护对象。但是确实是吓跑了很多可能的非法移民，最近几个月从墨西哥非法越境的人数有大幅度降低。不过这个趋势是不是会保持下去，我觉得还不好说。对我个人来说，对他竞选时的那套nationalist的agenda很厌恶，他在最初的100天里，基本上是一事无成，对我来说反而是件好事，对美国的利益虽然没有什么促进的地方，但至少他没做成多少恶。打分的话，我会给他50分，比较差，但接近及格。

4.        Trump在这100天里表现出来的能力实在是不怎么样。我本来就知道他在内政外交各项问题上的知识都很贫乏。而且他发财靠的是成为reality TV的明星，从来就没有什么管理大型组织的经验。他的白宫运作表现出来的混乱，对我来说也是意料之中。但是去年11月份大选结束的时候，我觉得他在deal making方面确实可能是有一手。一方面他不是传统的共和党，好多政策同民主党有交集，用好了可以牵制共和党内的Freedom Caucus那些激进派，打破传统的政治分野。另一方面，Obama在联络国会议员私人感情这方面，公认是很差的。Trump这方面好像很在行，而且他做生意有很多交易，还专门写过Art of the Deal这么本书，他会出奇兵，打破华盛顿最近10几年的gridlock政治僵局好像是有可能的。但是最近这100天表明，Trump在deal making方面甚至可能连Obama都不如。Obama再不济，民主党都还是团结在他的周围，而不是像Trump连共和党内都搞不定。Trump在医疗改革通过失败的时候才想到或许可以利用民主党作为同Freedom Caucus谈判的筹码。但是他从大选之后就一直在twitter上发一些很出格的言论，以攻击民主党自由派让他们特别愤怒为乐。现在才想起联络民主党实在是太晚了。而且Trump谈判的手法，好像是喜欢说大话威胁吓唬人。像医疗改革的时候，威胁要到投反对票的共和党议员的选区rally把他们搞下去。还有前几天威胁民主党不支持修墙的话，就宁可让政府关门。但都只是过嘴瘾，一点实际的行动都没有，几天就把做出的威胁忘到脑后。到现在他的这套把戏已经让人给看穿了，威胁的狠话对方根本都是当耳边风。像墨西哥政府本来对Trump上台如临大敌，经过这几个月的观察，现在放松了很多，认为他基本上就是个纸老虎。前几天Trump在twitter上还吹嘘他特别flexible。我觉得不坚守一个立场，灵活性强很多时候是个优点，不会一条道走到黑。但是太flexible了，一点立场都没有，稍有一点困难就让步的话，其实就是个pushover。Trump在最近几个月建立起的这个名声，对他未来几年无论国内还是国际问题施政上都会有负面影响。

5.        在外交政策上，Trump在竞选时的口号是America First，属于孤立主义。认为美国应该甩掉维护全球安全稳定的包袱，不要被牵扯进外国的战争中去。但是在这100天中，他在这个问题上是180度大转弯。变为支持北约，而且不仅是下令导弹袭击叙利亚，在采访中还提出要建设一个更美好的世界。这一方面是因为Bannon那派失势，Kushner那派信奉的是传统共和党国际主义的外交政策。另一方面是Trump在国内政策上频频受挫，而在外交军事政策上美国总统的权力要大很多，空袭叙利亚带来的广泛赞扬和民调支持率上升，让他很兴奋。我看他接受采访，描述初尝使用武力权力的那一刻显得特别high。我现在担心的就是他在内政方面什么也做不成，为了有政绩，会在外交军事政策上冒险。朝鲜问题上现在是剑拔弩张，我希望这不要是他为了创造政绩的突破口。

6.        最后展望一下未来。Trump最重要的施政纲领是医疗改革、税制改革、在墨西哥边境修墙和基础设施建设。现在来看，医疗改革和修墙已经是不可能。税制改革方案到现在还只是一张A4纸，什么细节也没有，离成为一个法案远的很。财政部部长Steven Mnuchin 说8月份法案草稿会出台，我觉得太乐观了一些。而且民主党的口号是只要Trump不公布他的税表，他们没法得知他本人在税制改革中获益多少，就会投反对票。民主党在这个问题上会很团结。共和党在国会两院的多数margin并不多，参议院是2席，众议院是24席。在税制改革中会有众多受到损害的利益集团，面对强大的利益集团lobby的压力，好多人我觉得会顶不住。比如废除州税的deduction，高税率州的居民会损失比较大。而只要纽约加利福尼亚这几个高税率蓝州的共和党众议员都反水投反对票的话，这个法案就通不过。再加上Trump的方案会让美国联邦赤字极度膨胀，违反了共和党保守派的信条。我现在对它能通过真正成为法律是很不看好。关于基础设施建设，因为会增加赤字共和党内没什么热情，Trump想要通过的话需要联合民主党。但是以现在民主党的base对Trump的愤怒和仇恨来看，我是不觉得他们会有动力和Trump合作。而且基础设施建设Trump自己最近都很少提。今年肯定不是在议事议程上。明年临近中期选举，国会更无暇顾及这个。至少这两年是不太可能实现的。

Trump的第一个100天政绩贫乏，而且各种丑闻正义不断，民调支持率相对很低。相应的，国会的共和党也被他拖累。最近的几次特别选举，民主党的结果都不错。本来11月份大选结束民主党大败的时候，很多人对民主党的前景很悲观。但是政治这个东西确实是fickle，短短几个月之后，在2018年中期选举，民主党会在时隔8年后夺回众议院就已经变得是希望挺大的了。对Trump本人来说，丢掉众议院不仅意味着他在接下来的任期内更会一事无成。而且民主党拿到国会的调查权后，会将他和俄罗斯的关系，以及他各种ethics violation乃至腐败的问题查个底朝天。他的日子会非常难过。那时他的处境可能连伊朗人质危机时的卡特都会不如。


[groupid=149]酒庄[/groupid]
作者: 王不留    时间: 2017-4-28 20:58
顺利任命保守派的Gorsuch到最高法院是最重要的。


对大多数群众来说，只这一条就证明了川普的胜利。这已经足够了。
而且，川普没取得多少成绩，但是这正好说明民主党和共和党内的反对顽固分子的反动，扯皮和不作为。这些人是为了反对而反对。完全不顾米帝群众的利益啊。

川普没取得多少成绩，也没造成多少损失啊。就算换上女克林顿，也一样是不会取得任何成绩。我是不信女克上台就能把医疗问题解决，把经济问题解决，把移民问题解决。外交上女克林顿会跟朝鲜的三胖缓和跟天朝亲热？没准女克上台早就撸袖子在南海大搞特稿，在日本韩国搞小动作。在叙利亚铁定的要开片哪。。

所以说，取得成绩与否，还得对比。现在米帝不怎么动作，搞自己的小生意，比民主党上台不知道要强多少倍哪。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-28 21:14
上面提到的Stephen Skowronek对总统分类的术语，来自他的书The Politics Presidents Make, 很有名。里面他把总统分为四类。

Reconstructive 总统是开创性的，对美国的政治、社会有革命性的改变，之后几十年的美国政治运行的轨道，基本上都是在他们创立的框架内。这一类的总统有杰弗逊，林肯，富兰克林罗斯福，里根等。

Articulative 总统是在追随Reconstructive 总统的基础上，对其革命进行扩展、深化。比如林登约翰逊。他基本上继承了罗斯福新政的理念。但又进一步扩展，通过了民权法案，建立Medicare、Medicaid等等。

Preemptive 总统在一定程度上是对Reconstructive总统革命的反动。像尼克松，是在民主党自由派统治美国政治多年之后被选上了台，很大程度上是选民对新政以来国家过分干预经济有很多厌倦，包括对约翰逊Great Society的反动。但是他们发动新的革命，建立新的paradigm的时机还不成熟。原有政治框架还是有很大的活力，挺广泛的支持，他们还是跳不出原有的圈子。像尼克松在石油危机的时候，进行物价管制，建立EPA，甚至考虑建立加拿大式的全民医疗保险体系，按今天的标准比很多自由派还偏左。还有克林顿1993年上台以后，基本上是延续了里根革命的政策，也属于Preemptive类型的总统。Preemptive类的总统容易被弹劾，Andrew Johnson，尼克松和克林顿都是这种情况。

最后一类是Disjunctive总统。Reconstructive总统建立那套paradigm到这时已经走到尽头。Disjuncive总统也意识到这一点，试图进行变革，但是可能是因为能力有限，可能是因为时机还不是完全成熟，他们的努力都是没有什么结果，甚至有时是情况是越搞越糟。典型的例子是Herbert Hoover。大萧条爆发后，他也试图摆脱传统的自由放任的教条。做过各种努力，但是决心力度不够大，他也没有后来FDR的charisma，loved by none, hated by all。这一类总统一般在总统排名中都很靠后，除了胡佛，卡特以外，还有美国内战爆发前的Franklin Pierce。就目前的发展来看，Trump将来可能也会被归到这一类。Disjunctive总统尽管自己没什么成就，但一定程度上也是为接下来的Reconstructive型总统铺平了道路。像接着我提到的这几个接下来就就是林肯，罗斯福和里根。


作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-28 21:24
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-4-28 21:37 编辑
王不留 发表于 2017-4-28 20:58
对大多数群众来说，只这一条就证明了川普的胜利。这已经足够了。
而且，川普没取得多少成绩，但是这正好 ...


Trump最近几个星期的政策，其实和希拉里差别已经不大了。像在外交问题上，他在大选中攻击希拉里是鹰派，会把美国带进战争，但他现在和希拉里的主张其实基本上是一样了。但是在competence上，希拉里会比Trump目前的表现强很多，至少不会像Trump一样，从澳大利亚到德国到韩国，得罪一圈的盟友。

长远一点看，Trump在未来几年如果继续现在的表现，乃至更差一点的话，对民主党会是很不错的利好。现在他们已经对2018年中期选举摩拳擦掌了，而几个月以前还很悲观。如果Trump类似于胡佛、卡特那样的话，可能会带来美国政治新一轮的革命，Bernie Sanders那派崛起都有可能。我的政治观点中间偏右，并不觉得这是好事。

作者: leekai    时间: 2017-4-28 22:18
本来我还有点担心川普会不会脑子一热在朝鲜搞点事，看伯爵这样说我就放心了。伯爵有知识有情怀，但对厚黑当道的政治圈的判断是图样图森破，很多时候反着看更好
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 22:33
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-28 09:54 编辑
王不留 发表于 2017-4-28 07:58
对大多数群众来说，只这一条就证明了川普的胜利。这已经足够了。
而且，川普没取得多少成绩，但是这正好 ...


前100天，能从菜鸟到略有所悟，稳定行政团队，已经是进步明显。这100天里，前大概有50天，还得堵白宫里的漏洞。白宫那会儿漏得和筛子一样，极不正常。

经济上床铺这100天，股市是大涨的。原来最不被看好的科技股结果涨势最凶。100天内已经有将近3100起企业并购。有13起超过50亿美元的超大型并购，而跨境并购数目创下历史新高。79％的美国企业高管期望在未来12个月内积极推进企业并购，远高于47％的长期平均水平，同比激增22%。54%的高管认为床铺政府正在创造更多的并购机会。可以说企业界对床铺的经济政策解读非常积极。

外交上和中国达成某种秘密协议。事实上中国已经把朝，叙都卖了。这个是比较少见的。和所谓盟友关系紧张也谈不上。一轮嘴炮就能把人都得罪了也忒小看盟友了。政客们哪里会这么天真的。政治从来讲利益，而不是嘴炮。嘴炮最多是造势，保持点压力，增加点谈判筹码。

税改上，企业税下降已经势在必行。其它条文可以砍，企业税已经不是是否下降，而是下降多少的问题。床铺大嘴一开，要价15%，心理价位可能是20%。

美国现在这么分裂，奥黑可以说居功至伟。床铺只能算是把分裂摊到桌面上了。换个建制派的共和党总统，除了不提修墙，其它的事情一件不会少干。床铺这100天充分反映出其商人特性。脑子转弯很快，这个方向不行，就立刻转换，绝不拖泥带水。没有通常政客的瞻前顾后。床铺这100天进行了很多试错摸底。很好。现在试错还是在人们容忍期内。我给他的分目前不低。可以有80分。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-28 22:35
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-4-28 22:40 编辑
leekai 发表于 2017-4-28 22:18
本来我还有点担心川普会不会脑子一热在朝鲜搞点事，看伯爵这样说我就放心了。伯爵有知识有情怀，但对厚黑当 ...


我没说Trump要在朝鲜大搞。从Trump这几个月的表现来看，他就是个纸老虎，放话很狠，但不会兑现的。像我上面提到的，墨西哥政府现在已经放松不少了。我就是看到他采访的时候，描述空袭叙利亚特别的兴奋，有点担心他会使用武力上了瘾。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 22:42
leekai 发表于 2017-4-28 09:18
本来我还有点担心川普会不会脑子一热在朝鲜搞点事，看伯爵这样说我就放心了。伯爵有知识有情怀，但对厚黑当 ...

朝鲜的事情要看三胖。中国估计是默许美国进行手术打击，定点清除朝核设施。而床铺的策略就是保持军事压力，鼓动中国加强制裁。这个是北棒最后的机会。一意孤行的话，战斧导弹肯定会招呼了。
作者: tanis    时间: 2017-4-28 22:57
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 22:42
朝鲜的事情要看三胖。中国估计是默许美国进行手术打击，定点清除朝核设施。而床铺的策略就是保持军事压力 ...

如果手术之后，北棒万炮起发火海汉城怎么办？
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 23:00
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-28 10:02 编辑
tanis 发表于 2017-4-28 09:57
如果手术之后，北棒万炮起发火海汉城怎么办？


那南棒军真得过三八线了。然后中国军队卷入。三胖估计还是得被抓。南棒退回三八线。三胖有点脑子为自己小命着想的话，还是悠着点吧。
作者: tanis    时间: 2017-4-28 23:13
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:00
那南棒军真得过三八线了。然后中国军队卷入。三胖估计还是得被抓。南棒退回三八线。三胖有点脑子为自己小 ...

不敢选冰姨做总统~~~~
作者: 猫元帅    时间: 2017-4-28 23:13
我到现在也是这个观点，如果为美国好，应该选女克。别看不起官僚，官僚是政治这行的专家。女克这个不行那个不行。但是治理国家还是要靠行政专家。

特朗普所谓的善变，其实就是商人的一个特点。发现这次交易有亏本的可能，马上收兵。但是政治不能这么搞。特别是作为一国领导人，这么变来变去，没有一以贯之的思路和政策，首先就把自己人搞散了。

而且特朗普这个人可能比较喜欢搞小动作。比如在白宫晚宴上告诉习近平袭击叙利亚这种事，真的是太小气了。真的是脱口秀演员的水平。这不是说相声抖包袱。会晤一开始就搞的双方缺乏信任对美国有什么好处？
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 23:16
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-28 10:19 编辑
tanis 发表于 2017-4-28 10:13
不敢选冰姨做总统~~~~


这叫 打得一拳开 免得百拳来。已经仁至义尽，该动手就动手，不要瞻前顾后。或者说现在已经是死结，一剑把结砍了就行。纠结来纠结去的，成本会越来越高。朝鲜平定了，越南这些屁国也会收敛一点。南海会太平不少。何乐不为。
作者: 猫元帅    时间: 2017-4-28 23:20
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 22:42
朝鲜的事情要看三胖。中国估计是默许美国进行手术打击，定点清除朝核设施。而床铺的策略就是保持军事压力 ...

这么希望打朝鲜啊。

打完了呢？朝鲜忍了。然后呢？你用什么保证朝鲜不再造核武器？再打？把朝鲜搞成伊拉克那样？

朝鲜要是不忍呢？进攻韩国？然后美韩联军反推到鸭绿江边？中国是把朝鲜半岛让给美国呢还是出兵占领北朝鲜呢？

假如朝鲜的核导弹是真的。你美国的战斧能保证一次全部摧毁？如果不能。朝鲜汉城扔一个东京扔一个。然后呢？核平朝鲜，消灭金三。爽啦？
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 23:23
猫元帅 发表于 2017-4-28 10:13
我到现在也是这个观点，如果为美国好，应该选女克。别看不起官僚，官僚是政治这行的专家。女克这个不行那个 ...

美国的选举从来都是经济为主角。其它都是末节。床铺只要能把经济搞上去，连任都是必然的。
作者: 天狼星    时间: 2017-4-28 23:29
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 22:42
朝鲜的事情要看三胖。中国估计是默许美国进行手术打击，定点清除朝核设施。而床铺的策略就是保持军事压力 ...

哈？中国有这么脑残？这是戈尔巴乔夫式的行为方式。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 23:37
猫元帅 发表于 2017-4-28 10:20
这么希望打朝鲜啊。

打完了呢？朝鲜忍了。然后呢？你用什么保证朝鲜不再造核武器？再打？把朝鲜搞成伊拉 ...

朝鲜哪里有二次反击能力。太看得起朝鲜了。美韩联军也估计不可能。美国最多派参谋。真打肯定是南棒的兵。如果开战，前面说了，我预计中国肯定出兵。

手术清除朝鲜的核设施，北朝鲜会无力再造核武器。且得一些年头才能恢复。如果中国同时加强制裁，基本就无力再恢复。如果朝鲜被逼回谈判桌，签了协议，核查组肯定要进朝鲜核查。如同以前联合国核查组一样。估计残余核设施会确保被废掉，资料销毁，应该可能都是会发生的。伊拉克那样不会发生。伊拉克问题里有太多宗教历史遗留问题。北棒没有。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-28 23:40
天狼星 发表于 2017-4-28 10:29
哈？中国有这么脑残？这是戈尔巴乔夫式的行为方式。

中国的底线是无核，中朝已经近乎翻脸，朝鲜就差指着中国鼻子点名道姓的骂。中国现在指望加强制裁了压迫朝鲜回谈判桌。三胖这厮不吃点苦头，他会回谈判桌？你准备咋办？
作者: 曹师傅    时间: 2017-4-28 23:55
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:40
中国的底线是无核，中朝已经近乎翻脸，朝鲜就差指着中国鼻子点名道姓的骂。中国现在指望加强制裁了压迫朝 ...

制裁？外交部都明说朝鲜煤炭卸货不是进口了，你还能指望什么
我看中国的真实底线是半岛不能乱，其他都是说说的
作者: 猫元帅    时间: 2017-4-29 00:04
曹师傅 发表于 2017-4-28 23:55
制裁？外交部都明说朝鲜煤炭卸货不是进口了，你还能指望什么
我看中国的真实底线是半岛不能乱，其他 ...

前几年中国跟着美国制裁朝鲜。结果制裁出一个萨德。现在不能说后悔，可能也有点嘀咕。再一想当年自己当了裤子搞两弹一星，现在单靠制裁能让朝鲜搞不出核武器吗？又一琢磨，朝鲜和美国，哪一个更可信？
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 00:09
猫元帅 发表于 2017-4-28 11:04
前几年中国跟着美国制裁朝鲜。结果制裁出一个萨德。现在不能说后悔，可能也有点嘀咕。再一想当年自己当了 ...

美朝都不可信。但是放任朝鲜核武器发展，以后核武器小型化成功，导弹技术完善，能够直接一导弹打北京，萨德真是小意思了。
作者: MacArthur    时间: 2017-4-29 00:12
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 09:33
前100天，能从菜鸟到略有所悟，稳定行政团队，已经是进步明显。这100天里，前大概有50天，还得堵白宫里的 ...

今天早晨刚刚听了NPR对TRex的采访，话讲得非常稳健，对局势理解得相当透彻。尤其是对于中国在这其中的地位，没有不切实际的想法。。。 我都有点儿小惊讶了。。。

当然这不代表床铺就会“稳健”行事。。。 但至少说明美国政府里还是有能人的，眼光、能力都不缺。

作者: MacArthur    时间: 2017-4-29 00:13
Dracula 发表于 2017-4-28 08:24
Trump最近几个星期的政策，其实和希拉里差别已经不大了。像在外交问题上，他在大选中攻击希拉里是鹰派， ...
但是在competence上，希拉里会比Trump目前的表现强很多，至少不会像Trump一样，从澳大利亚到德国到韩国，得罪一圈的盟友。

都现在了，还是这么铁杆挺希大妈呵。。。



作者: holycow    时间: 2017-4-29 00:14
这是十一月大选最好的结果，establishment遭到当头一棒，上来一个局外人啥都干不成，最高法院回到4:4:1僵局，50:50的美国接着等下次选举

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 00:19
MacArthur 发表于 2017-4-29 00:13
都现在了，还是这么铁杆挺希大妈呵。。。

我以前就说过的，我的政治观点是中间偏右，从来不是希拉里的铁杆。

至于你引得那一句，我觉得我说的是事实。你觉得希拉里上任的话，会摔澳大利亚总理电话，拒绝和Merkel握手，说韩国在历史上是中国的领土吗？
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 00:21
Dracula 发表于 2017-4-28 11:19
我以前就说过的，我的政治观点是中间偏右，从来不是希拉里的铁杆。

至于你引得那一句，我觉得我说的是事 ...

会摔澳大利亚总理电话，拒绝和Merkel握手，说韩国在历史上是中国的领土吗？

so what???  这些国家的政客们就不和美国打交道了？
作者: 猫元帅    时间: 2017-4-29 00:22
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 00:09
美朝都不可信。但是放任朝鲜核武器发展，以后核武器小型化成功，导弹技术完善，能够直接一导弹打北京，萨 ...

俺们帝都众从生下来脑袋上就顶着四大流氓上百颗核弹头，说实话多朝鲜一个也不算啥。
作者: 猫元帅    时间: 2017-4-29 00:22
MacArthur 发表于 2017-4-29 00:12
今天早晨刚刚听了NPR对TRex的采访，话讲得非常稳健，对局势理解得相当透彻。尤其是对于中国在这其中的地 ...

当然了啊，否则美国也走不到今天啊。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 00:27
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 00:21
会摔澳大利亚总理电话，拒绝和Merkel握手，说韩国在历史上是中国的领土吗？

so what???  这些国家的政客 ...

我觉得你对Trump的态度，已经是cultish了。他无论做什么都是对的，你都能找到理由给他辩护，乃至证明他多么英明伟大。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 00:29
猫元帅 发表于 2017-4-28 11:22
俺们帝都众从生下来脑袋上就顶着四大流氓上百颗核弹头，说实话多朝鲜一个也不算啥。 ...

四大流氓。  哈哈。

那些个核弹还至少是距离远，还有预警时间。朝鲜真发展成了，这个威胁就太大，短程导弹就够了。预警时间太少，数量还可以很多。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 00:31
holycow 发表于 2017-4-29 00:14
这是十一月大选最好的结果，establishment遭到当头一棒，上来一个局外人啥都干不成，最高法院回到4:4:1僵局 ...

Trump有些政策还是有些道理的，比如基础设施建设，现在看来也都很可能搞不成了。照历史类推的话，如果Trump等于卡特，那么可以类比Bernie Sanders=里根。我对Sanders也没多少好感，要是往那个方向发展也不是件好事。

作者: 曹师傅    时间: 2017-4-29 00:34
Dracula 发表于 2017-4-29 00:27
我觉得你对Trump的态度，已经是cultish了。他无论做什么都是对的，你都能找到理由给他辩护，乃至证明他多 ...

本来就是这样啊...
NYT的采访，各种民调都显示那些trump被抗议被抗议被嘲笑的破事反而使trump voter更支持他了...
撕裂到这种地步，愁人
作者: holycow    时间: 2017-4-29 00:35
Dracula 发表于 2017-4-28 08:31
Trump有些政策还是有些道理的，比如基础设施建设，现在看来也都很可能搞不成了。照历史类推的话，如果Tru ...

Sanders也是卡特，不会因为DNC把他搞掉就变成里根了。里根好歹还挺到RNC最后，好多代表投完福特之后还buyer's remorse发作呢...
作者: 天狼星    时间: 2017-4-29 00:44
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:40
中国的底线是无核，中朝已经近乎翻脸，朝鲜就差指着中国鼻子点名道姓的骂。中国现在指望加强制裁了压迫朝 ...

真是的，连美国佬都懂得“那家伙就是个SOB，但是是我们的SOB”，公知和南方系所宣传刻画出来的金三和朝鲜再不堪，客观上也替牢牢的把美韩军事力量挡在400公里外。你倒是不把美韩当外人，可人家把你当一家人吗？“想当赵家人，你也配？！”

当老大的没两分忍功，那还叫大流氓吗？骂两句算个屁啊，又掉不了一根毛，当初中苏翻脸都开骂战了，也没见勃烈日列夫给北京来一个突击，说实话，当年苏联看北京的实力差距，跟今天北京看朝鲜的实力差距差不多，可能还更大！

倒是金一南曾提到过，北朝鲜曾想带枪投美，可是美国不理他，指望朝鲜自己垮台。呵呵，这本来是能给中国带来最大伤害的北朝鲜解决方案，天佑中华！美国人犯了大错，错过时间点，朝鲜算是认识到靠山山倒靠人人走，下决心自己撑了。

当初是美国一而再再二三的在谈判桌上耍赖，一再撕毁朝核协议，美国的信用就是一张擦屁股纸，你还要朝鲜回到谈判桌上？把谁当傻瓜呢！毛主席当年就总结过： “美帝国主义者很傲慢,凡是可以不讲理的地方就一定不讲理,要是讲一点理的话,那是被逼得不得已了。” 中国吃过亏，上过当，从此对美国有了比较清醒认识。朝鲜大概是没听过毛主席的教导，非要自己用亲身经历碰个头破血流才领悟到这个道理。可你现在居然要朝鲜回头去吃那团热屎，朝鲜不骂你骂谁？
作者: 李根    时间: 2017-4-29 01:07
看来创普当选之后，你的心理调适，还需要再走一个疗程啊。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 01:24
李根 发表于 2017-4-29 01:07
看来创普当选之后，你的心理调适，还需要再走一个疗程啊。

...

我不需要什么调适。我上面说了，Trump最近几个星期的政策，其实和共和党的主流派乃至希拉里已经差别不大了。而且他在这100天的表现，表明他能力挺有限，就是想作恶也没多大的破坏能量。他如果和卡特一样，一事无成的话，对我来说不是个多么坏的结果。因此我上面给他打了50分，不算太差。（Obama我可能会打65到70分）
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 02:23
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:23
美国的选举从来都是经济为主角。其它都是末节。床铺只要能把经济搞上去，连任都是必然的。 ...

U.S. Economy Grew 0.7% in First Quarter, Slowest in Three Years

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/a ... pace-in-three-years

总统对美国经济其实没有多大控制力，因此就是美国经济有些坏消息，我也不觉得是Trump的责任。但是美国经济，就业市场已经连续增长了6年多，未来几年出现衰退可能性不是很小的。Trump要想把3年多后再次当选的宝压在经济特别繁荣上不靠谱。

作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 02:52
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-28 15:06 编辑
天狼星 发表于 2017-4-28 11:44
真是的，连美国佬都懂得“那家伙就是个SOB，但是是我们的SOB”，公知和南方系所宣传刻画出来的金三和朝鲜 ...


苏联没突击那是看了美国的面子。你以为苏联不想核打击啊。老毛那会儿大搞三线，疏散，你以为是心血来潮么。

而且你别以为朝鲜在挡美国。朝鲜现在已经都在赤裸裸地打中国脸了。这个和什么公知南方系一点关系都没有。难道朝鲜的官方喉舌们都被南方系收买了嘛？
作者: leekai    时间: 2017-4-29 07:57
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 22:42
朝鲜的事情要看三胖。中国估计是默许美国进行手术打击，定点清除朝核设施。而床铺的策略就是保持军事压力 ...

中国不会让美国军事打击朝鲜的！否则就会像对越反击战一样，中国打了越南、让全世界看到了苏联的色厉内荏、外强中干，后果不堪设想。
作者: leekai    时间: 2017-4-29 08:03
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:16
这叫 打得一拳开 免得百拳来。已经仁至义尽，该动手就动手，不要瞻前顾后。或者说现在已经是死结，一剑把 ...

大流氓不会这么想。全世界都认为朝鲜是中国的狗，不管它是不是、既然大家都认为它是、中国就得认，我家的狗即使咬了人、也得我来管，不能让别人到我家门口把我的狗打一顿！
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 08:18
leekai 发表于 2017-4-28 19:03
大流氓不会这么想。全世界都认为朝鲜是中国的狗，不管它是不是、既然大家都认为它是、中国就得认，我家的 ...

你这也太小看大流氓了。六方会谈搞不下去的时候，中国有多少影响力早已经一目了然了。
作者: 天狼星    时间: 2017-4-29 09:26
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 02:52
苏联没突击那是看了美国的面子。你以为苏联不想核打击啊。老毛那会儿大搞三线，疏散，你以为是心血来潮么 ...

你没发现你仍然在用公和南方系的谎言和逻辑来回复我吗？这些观点漏洞太多，我真不知道从何驳起。。。

作者: kkilo    时间: 2017-4-29 10:13
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 02:52
苏联没突击那是看了美国的面子。你以为苏联不想核打击啊。老毛那会儿大搞三线，疏散，你以为是心血来潮么 ...

讲一句难听点的话，你对对历史和国际政治的认识为零。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-29 10:59
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-28 23:53 编辑
天狼星 发表于 2017-4-28 20:26
你没发现你仍然在用公和南方系的谎言和逻辑来回复我吗？这些观点漏洞太多，我真不知道从何驳起。。。

...


备战备荒，大三线，苏联核打击威胁都是事实的东西。这些和中苏交恶也是直接挂钩的。和南方系有什么关系。这些都是在南方系存在之前的事实罢了。另外，想驳就好好说话，乱贴标签没意思。
作者: 方恨少    时间: 2017-4-29 19:18
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-28 23:00
那南棒军真得过三八线了。然后中国军队卷入。三胖估计还是得被抓。南棒退回三八线。三胖有点脑子为自己小 ...

中国会允许这样的情况发生么？中国的底线就是朝鲜是我的，核不核，乱不乱是次要的，打朝鲜就是打我脸，定点清除和全面进攻是一样的。
作者: 方恨少    时间: 2017-4-29 19:27
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 00:09
美朝都不可信。但是放任朝鲜核武器发展，以后核武器小型化成功，导弹技术完善，能够直接一导弹打北京，萨 ...

三胖攻击韩日还能跑到中国来留条命。攻击中国那就是亡国灭种了，连带的韩国都完蛋了。就算三胖不怕让老金家绝户也得看看别人愿不愿意跟着绝种。
作者: zilewang    时间: 2017-4-29 20:09
本帖最后由 zilewang 于 2017-4-29 20:11 编辑
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 10:59
备战备荒，大三线，苏联核打击威胁都是事实的东西。这些和中苏交恶也是直接挂钩的。和南方系有什么关系。 ...


中国允许美国斩首或外科手术核武器，先抛开政治，说说几个技术问题：
1，为什么中国自己不亲自动手？只有美国有这个军事实力吗？如果中国有这个实力，为什么不是美国配合，中国执行。
2，如果美国发起打击，朝鲜对汉城发起报复攻击，美韩联军是否会越过38线？越过38线，中国怎么办？
3，如果美国以清除逃跑的核设施为由，出去地面部队，中国怎么办？
4，如果美国扩大打击范围，以朝鲜的指挥中枢为重点攻击目标，中国怎么办？
5，如果朝鲜判断顶不住美国的攻势，学萨达姆或卡扎菲跑路，朝鲜陷入混乱，中国怎么办？
6，美韩借此以维持秩序或人道主义灾难为由，美韩联军全面接管朝鲜全境，中国怎么办？
……
这么多如果，任何一个如果都足以将中国卷入战争，而中国现在最怕的事情是什么：战争！
结论就是，从一开始就杜绝任何一个如果发生，中国最简单粗暴的方法是，坚决反对美国军事打击朝鲜，一颗炸弹都不可以掉到朝鲜境内。
作者: 常挨揍    时间: 2017-4-29 21:11
MacArthur 发表于 2017-4-29 00:12
今天早晨刚刚听了NPR对TRex的采访，话讲得非常稳健，对局势理解得相当透彻。尤其是对于中国在这其中的地 ...

普京和安倍会谈也捎带上半岛局势，但总给俺一个只是“显示存在”的感觉，似乎海湖庄园会的那俩准备甩了这俩？
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-29 22:23
Trump税改方案出台记

http://www.politico.com/story/20 ... day-deadline-237781

President Donald Trump has dismissed the idea of measuring the success of his first 100 days in office as “ridiculous.” But the president and his top officials have made a number of startling moves this week with the deadline in mind, and Trump has privately obsessed over getting a win before the cutoff.

The last-minute moves have frustrated some of Trump’s allies, caused a scramble across his government and proved once again that decisions are made by one man on his whims — and often with an eye to his media coverage.

To his supporters, it looks like the kind of action Trump promised as a candidate. “That’s how a CEO makes decisions,” said Rep. Chris Collins, a New York Republican.

Trump’s promise last Friday to deliver a tax plan within five days startled no one more than Gary Cohn, his chief economic adviser writing the plan. Not a single word of a plan was on paper, several administration officials said, and Treasury officials worked all weekend to draft a one-page summary of his principles with a news conference the president demanding the action.

“The reason your head is spinning on this is that the plan isn’t even written yet,” one senior White House official said this week as conflicting details emerged about what would be in the plan. “This was all about doing something in the first 100 days and really it’s doing the process backwards.”

When White House officials demanded last week a health care vote by the 100-day mark, Speaker Paul Ryan was traveling in Europe and taken aback. The leader of the House of Representatives wasn’t in on the plan, had no desire to vote this week and feared it wasn’t even possible. No one even knew what the bill would say because the language had not been written.

“It was totally insane,” one senior GOP aide said. “It made no sense. There was no reason to say a vote was happening this week.”

A number of White House officials only learned of the president’s plan to sign an executive order removing the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement — and tout it during a 100-day rally in Pennsylvania — after it appeared in news reports. It was going to be “another accomplishment of our 100 days,” a senior official said. “The president wanted to do it this week.”

The looming 100-day marker has sent the White House into overdrive this week. Senior administration officials — chief of staff Reince Priebus, son-in-law Jared Kushner, legislative affairs head Marc Short, chief strategist Steve Bannon and Cohn — have held late-night sessions with reporters to sell the 100 days. Trump repeatedly asked aides for ideas with the marker in mind and has demanded plans for the event and lists of his accomplishments to highlight every single day of the week, administration officials said.

Trump ordered an event with Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin based on the 100-day marker, a person familiar with the planning said, leaving staff to rush and make it happen. It often takes weeks to plan an event.

The fear inside the West Wing, these people said, was that bad news coverage could lead to a staff shake-up, and many live with varying degrees of fear of losing their jobs. Priebus, several administration officials say, has been particularly concerned about the marker and the resulting news coverage.

The White House, which didn’t respond for comment, has tried to depict a busy and impatient president who is popular to his supporters because he promised to demand results. While the tax plan is nowhere near ready, the health care vote didn’t happen and Trump ended the week on NAFTA where he began, the president received news coverage of a busy week — and was talking about policies that were potentially moving instead of congressional failures or investigations into ties between Russia and Trump campaign officials.

“I think the paper-pushers may have a system, but he will override the system,” said Trump adviser Roger Stone. “He’s the decision maker.”

Still, aides described the lead-up as mad-dash, even by the typical Trump White House standards, with more focus on optics than substance.

In the case of NAFTA repeal, director of the White House National Trade Council Peter Navarro submitted the Executive Order to the staff secretary on Tuesday. The staff secretary traditionally circulates the policy for review to relevant decision makers including cabinet secretaries and others within the White House who want to weigh in, according to a White House official.

While it’s typical for the staff secretary to kick off the final stages of the decision making process, the process moved at rapid speed, with the President intent on signing the Executive Order just four days later on his 100th day, giving his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross little time to weigh in. Eventually, Trump was talked out of the move by nervous advisers and foreign leaders, who described the basics of the problem if he ended it.

“I was going to terminate NAFTA two or three days from now,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday.

Over on Capitol Hill this week, moderate Republicans and conservatives worried about legislative text — and feared even more would lose their health care coverage, which could cost them their seats. The Congressional Budget Office hadn’t scored the proposal — it previously said 24 million would lose health care coverage — and this plan was likely to be worse, legislators worried.

Priebus, who publicly said it was unfair to expect the administration to vote quickly, repeatedly told aides there needed to be a quick vote, administration officials say, even though Ryan was not in a similar hurry. Some West Wing officials even pondered the idea of having the vote on Saturday — a signature accomplishment on the 100-day mark. Legislators tend to head home on the weekends.

“Their order was vote, vote, vote,” one Republican legislator said. A senior administration official, asked why the White House was rushing the vote, responded: “ I can’t wait for the 100-day shit to be over.”

Senior officials in the White House and Treasury wanted to keep working behind the scenes to create a more fully-baked tax plan that would get support from Capitol Hill Republicans. Then early this summer they could roll-out a detailed blueprint that would address concerns from House Speaker Paul Ryan and other fiscal conservatives worried about blowing up the deficit.

“Nobody wanted to do this now. We weren’t ready to do this now. But we weren’t given any choice,” said a second senior official close to the tax reform process.

Repeatedly peppered for details on how they would avoid blowing up the deficit, what income brackets the new individual rates would apply to and what rate they would charge companies to bring money back to the U.S., Cohn and Mnuchin had no answers. Instead they repeatedly promised more details to come at a later time.

Cohn even wound up snapping at a reporter for pressing for “micro-details” and not accepting the broad brush statements of aspirational goals. The result was widespread dismissal of the entire event by economic commentators.

Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, said the rollout out was the exact opposite of the way the previous administration put out pages worth of details on the Affordable Care Act, taking some of the pressure off Congress.

“The one pager the White House did was about as useful to the tax reform process as some random summer project of a Capitol Hill intern,” Furman said. “This is doing the process backwards with the White House doing the easy part and leaving the hard part all to Congress. And it makes it even less likely that anything ever gets done.”

Even Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, seen in the administration as one of the president’s staunchest defenders, was irritated, according to a person who spoke with him. Mnuchin had planned a trip to California this week, a White House official said, and left on Thursday, one day after the plan was announced.

A spokesman for Mnuchin said: ”The Secretary was very pleased that the President agreed to let us announce the plan this week.”

作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-4-30 04:50
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2017-4-29 15:55 编辑
zilewang 发表于 2017-4-29 07:09
中国允许美国斩首或外科手术核武器，先抛开政治，说说几个技术问题：
1，为什么中国自己不亲自动手？只有 ...


你的问题前面我回过一些，以前其它的帖子里也提过。
1） 中国不主动承担独自全部解决朝鲜问题成本，也没必要主动去撕毁中朝盟约。
3）4）6）应该是不允许。中国的话还是管点用的。
5）长期混乱不可能。朝鲜和伊拉克，利比亚非常不同。
2）那只有中国迅速出兵，在战事扩大化之前消弭战事。我以前在另外一个帖子里提过，火中取栗。关键就是要快。还有就是，通常你越怕什么，什么就越来搞你。中国是要发展，要和平环境，但是不要因为这个就搞得处处热点，这个要学老毛。金胖家族早已和中国离心离德，成为死敌。没必要维护。


这个话题就先这样吧。不如静看发展。中国政府提的双暂停是不会有人听的。脸更是被三胖打得啪啪的。从目前表现看，金三对美国的定点清除颇有点顾忌。这种人也就是值得大棒伺候。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-4-30 21:58
South Korea says U.S. reaffirms it will pay THAAD costs

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-idUSKBN17W04T

我上面说了，这就是Trump的谈判风格。表面上很咋呼，净放狠话，对方稍微一强硬，接着就退缩让步。他这招让人识破以后，无论是国内还是国际问题都越来越难办事。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-1 20:17
tanis 发表于 2017-4-28 23:13
不敢选冰姨做总统~~~~

刚看到新闻，最新通过的预算，NIH的funding增加了20亿。你该高兴了吧。

现在看来，至少在国内政策，Trump就是瞎咋呼，连共和党都不把他的话当回事。
作者: tanis    时间: 2017-5-1 22:11
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-1 20:17
刚看到新闻，最新通过的预算，NIH的funding增加了20亿。你该高兴了吧。

现在看来，至少在国内政策，Trum ...

送了一口气。搜了一下，nsf貌似没有多提。我估计没变化。

貌似Trump提议的削减nih，EPA之类的都被当做空气了。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-1 23:10
tanis 发表于 2017-5-1 22:11
送了一口气。搜了一下，nsf貌似没有多提。我估计没变化。

貌似Trump提议的削减nih，EPA之类的都被当做 ...

我查了一下，NSF的funding是7.5 billion，比2016年多900万，基本上不变。

https://appropriations.house.gov ... ience_-_summary.pdf
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-1 23:47
tanis 发表于 2017-5-1 22:11
送了一口气。搜了一下，nsf貌似没有多提。我估计没变化。

貌似Trump提议的削减nih，EPA之类的都被当做 ...

这是华盛顿邮报对预算的报道

https://www.washingtonpost.com/n ... _term=.9496de60902c

民主党这次得到的之多，他们自己都有点不敢想象。就是希拉里上台，我估计预算也就是这样了。

作者: holycow    时间: 2017-5-2 00:32
Dracula 发表于 2017-4-30 05:58
South Korea says U.S. reaffirms it will pay THAAD costs

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkore ...

"What I told our South Korean counterpart is until any renegotiation, that the deals in place, we’ll adhere to our word," McMaster told “Fox News Sunday.”

他出来诈唬已经不够了，需要国家安全顾问接着出来诈唬
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-2 01:35
holycow 发表于 2017-5-2 00:32
"What I told our South Korean counterpart is until any renegotiation, that the deals in place, we ...

我觉得这是McMaster给Trump台阶下。什么时候再次谈判都根本没期呢，更不要说有结果了。几个星期以后，大家就把这件事给忘了，不会有人追究Trump的威胁有没有兑现。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-2 23:01
挺不错的一篇文章。

Think Trump is an authoritarian? Look at his actions, not his words

Corey Robin

https://www.theguardian.com/comm ... -actions-not-words?



A wise psychoanalyst once told me, “Stop looking at what you’re saying, look at what you’re doing.” If only journalists applied the same rule to Donald Trump.

On Friday night, Trump complained that he was being stymied by “archaic rules” in the House of Representatives and the Senate and warned “maybe at some point we’re going to have to take those rules on.”

Aaron Blake, a journalist at The Washington Post, was quick to diagnose the statement:

Now Trump is talking about consolidating his power…Whether this is just him [Trump] blowing off steam or signaling what lies ahead, it’s significant. Because it suggests a president, yet again, who doesn’t agree with his own powers being limited or even questioned. Remember when senior policy adviser Stephen Miller declared “the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned?” This is more of that kind of attitude. He wants more power — and he wants it quickly. It’s not difficult to connect this to his past admiration for authoritarian leaders, and these comments are likely to give Democrats (and even some in the GOP establishment) plenty of heartburn. This is a demonstrated pattern for him, for all the reasons listed at the top of this post.


This kind of narrative of Trump the authoritarian is popular among journalists like Vox’s Ezra Klein and academics like Yale historian Timothy Snyder. It’s the background mood music of a lot of liberal commentary in the US. But it depends on paying almost exclusive attention to what Trump says rather than what he does.

If Trump were actually serious about consolidating his power, he might start by, oh, I don’t know, consolidating his power. Instead, this is what he’s been doing, or not doing, since he’s been in office:

The Senate has confirmed 26 of Trump’s picks for his Cabinet and other top posts. But for 530 other vacant senior-level jobs requiring Senate confirmation, the president has advanced just 37 nominees...


Trump, in other words, has failed to fill 85% of the positions in the executive branch that he needs to fill in order to run the government to his specifications. It’s a strange kind of authoritarian who fails, as the first order of business, to seize control of the state apparatus: not because there’s been pushback from the Senate but because, in most instances, he hasn’t even tried.

Ah, but Trump’s liberal and left critics will respond, that failure to fill key positions is all part of the White House’s master plan. Back in February, Steve Bannon, Trump’s top strategist whose star lately has fallen, claimed that the administration’s goal was “the deconstruction of the administrative state.” As Bannon made clear, that was just a fancy way of describing the longstanding Republican goal of gutting rules and regulations the business class hates. What better way to do that than simply not staffing the agencies that are tasked with enforcing those rules and regulations?

There are two problems with this theory. First, Trump has failed to fill positions in departments and agencies he actually wishes to empower and expand. He’s only filled one out of 53 positions in the Pentagon, two out of 14 in the Department of Homeland Security, one out of 7 positions in the intelligence agencies, one of out 28 positions in the Treasury Department, and almost none of the key positions in the Justice Department having to do with terrorism, drug crime prosecution, and the like.

Second, many of those positions are not empty. Until Trump appoints someone to fill them, they will remain mostly occupied by holdovers from the Obama Administration – who will continue to enforce the thousands of rules and regulations Obama passed and Trump hates.

Though Trump has had limited success overturning some of Obama’s rules through an obscure piece of legislation, the real work of deregulation and undoing Obama-era rules will require a much heavier lift that Trump is not yet in a position to execute.

Despite the fact that Trump, whose party is in control of all the elected branches of the federal government, has lost virtually every legislative battle he’s waged, and backed down from virtually every bluff he’s made, the faith in Trump’s power – not in his probity or purposes but in his ability to dominate the political scene – dies hard. And nowhere harder, it seems, than on the left.

In March, I was on a panel of liberal scholars and writers where it was the universal consensus that Trump had an almost intuitive grasp of and control over public opinion. As evidenced by his tweets, which were held to be the invisible puppet strings of the American mind. This was not long after Trump’s travel ban had been overturned by the courts and Trump had responded by tweeting his contempt for and hostility to the judges involved.

It seemed like the classic demagogue’s move – whipping up the masses against elite judges – so there was some nervousness on the panel about what Trump might do to bring these recalcitrant judges to heel. (Trump has since repeated that charge against the judiciary, and his critics have repeated their concerns: now, Snyder says, “it’s pretty much inevitable” that Trump will declare a state of emergency and try to seize full control of the government.)

As I pointed out to my co-panelists, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rebuffed by the judiciary, he tried to overhaul the Supreme Court with his infamous Court-packing scheme. Now that was an assertion of executive power. In the face of judges frustrating his agenda, all Trump managed was to emit a plaintive tweet promising to appeal their ruling: “I’ll see you in court.” Even that, Trump couldn’t be bothered, in the end, to do. Instead, he withdrew his appeal, revised his travel ban, and found his ban back in court. Where it remains.

But even more important, Trump’s Svengali-like control of American public opinion is belied by the fact that most of America has disapproved of him for most for most of the time he’s been in office. In March, moreover, Trump saw precipitous drops in support from his base: Republicans, white people, and men.

With every day he’s in office, fewer and fewer people believe that he’ll keep his promises, that he’s strong and decisive, and that he can bring about the changes the country needs. And as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, despite Trump’s consistent opposition to immigration and free trade, public support for those positions has gotten consistently stronger – record highs in the case of free trade, and in the case of immigration, the highest it’s been in over a decade – since Trump came into office.

There’s little doubt that Trump’s administration has pursued policies designed to make life crueler and harder for immigrants, people of color and women. There’s also little doubt that some in his administration, particularly his Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, will be successful in doing so.

But with the exception of immigration, most of these aims are longstanding Republican goals. They reflect no peculiar authoritarianism on Trump’s part; they’re just the revanchist stock-in-trade of the American right, which any Republican president would pursue.

When it comes to advancing the singular potency of the presidency – whether that means controlling public opinion, consolidating the power of the executive branch, or dominating Congress – Trump has been an abject failure. Whatever fantasies he (or the media or his critics) may have about the presidency abound, the last 100 days have shown that Trump has no realistic agenda for, or steady interest in, consolidating power.

“Strong leader” is a slogan for Trump, a rhetoric, a performance, but that’s about it. Trump has always thought his words were more real than reality. He’s always believed his own bullshit. It’s time his liberal critics stopped believing it too.

作者: 海天    时间: 2017-5-2 23:31
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-1 12:35
我觉得这是McMaster给Trump台阶下。什么时候再次谈判都根本没期呢，更不要说有结果了。几个星期以后，大 ...

有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉......
作者: natasa    时间: 2017-5-2 23:40
海天 发表于 2017-5-2 23:35
有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉...... ...

撤不掉，不过能和朝鲜缓和关系的话，对中国时间上就有利多了。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-2 23:50
海天 发表于 2017-5-2 23:35
有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉...... ...

我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国政府的印象很坏。从Rex Tillerson到韩国访问的时候谢绝晚宴，到Trump嘴上吹嘘说派航空母舰驶往朝鲜，事实上却是往反方向走的闹剧，到传出来的Trump的韩国曾经是中国领土的言论，以及这次威胁韩国支付Thaad的费用。让韩国政府非常不满。而且我看到的报道，Thaad对韩国本身的安全防御没有多少帮助，三八线的大炮就能毁掉首尔，不需要导弹。真正得益的是日本和美国。因此要是Trump坚持让韩国出钱的话，是可能韩国干脆就把Thaad撤掉。
作者: 中华如龙    时间: 2017-5-3 00:07
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 23:50
我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国 ...

作为一条狗
它们想法太多了
这是要被烹的先兆
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-3 00:17
中华如龙 发表于 2017-5-3 00:07
作为一条狗
它们想法太多了
这是要被烹的先兆

也没有你说的那么极端。在支付Thaad费用的问题上，Trump政府这不已经是完全让步了吗？
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-3 00:56
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-5-3 01:23 编辑
海天 发表于 2017-5-2 23:35
有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉...... ...


刚看到的，来自The Onion，挺好笑的。

Trump Voter Feels Betrayed By President After Reading 800 Pages Of Queer Feminist Theory

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500

你家的领导是不是曾经学过里面提到的这些左派女权主义的革命理论？



作者: 海天    时间: 2017-5-3 01:05
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 10:50
我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国 ...

哦，俺不是军迷，对于可以在？？分钟内把汉城变成一片火海的远程火炮
和thaad 的性能和弱点都不是太清楚。

不懂韩文，以下印象源于中文和英文新闻：
本次大选提前举行是因为朴的丑闻，丑闻一出，执政党分裂，民调也
大大落后，看起来对在野党文在寅非常有利。

一段时间另一在野党的安哲秀一度追平甚至稍稍反超文在寅，
但现在这股劲头已经下去了，文重新获得明显的优势。

有意思的是现执政党候选人的支持率近期反而有上升趋势，许是支持者
从安那里“归队”了？

文以前是卢武铉的人，和卢一样也是人权律师出身（据称卢是前些年
大热的电影辩护者的原型），所以他上台有可能重复卢的亲北政策。

就thaad 来说，文和安原来都是反对阵营的，选战开跑以后却都有一定的
变化，可能是为了拉住中间派……

前不久看了文和美国某刊物的专访，有些问题他也在含糊其辞，具体怎么样
得等上台以后再说了吧。
作者: 海天    时间: 2017-5-3 01:27
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 11:56
刚看到的，来自The Onion，挺好笑的。

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500

哈哈，洋葱这个视频挺逗......学院左派的梦境吧

女权主义可以让领导吓一跳但还不算难读，真正费劲儿
的还是福柯同志……现在她学位到手了，这些玩意儿都可以扔了……
作者: 老汉憨憨    时间: 2017-5-3 02:05
leekai 发表于 2017-4-29 07:57
中国不会让美国军事打击朝鲜的！否则就会像对越反击战一样，中国打了越南、让全世界看到了苏联的色厉内荏 ...

兄台那你有没有考虑过，说越南，假设当初北越有了核武，之后的对越反击战中国怎么搞？另外谁能保证中国一直强，半岛南北不统一？一个拥核的，躺在东北大粮仓旁边的半岛对中国有啥好处？中国政府已经说的很清楚了，无核化，反对动武。双反
作者: leekai    时间: 2017-5-3 11:13
老汉憨憨 发表于 2017-5-3 02:05
兄台那你有没有考虑过，说越南，假设当初北越有了核武，之后的对越反击战中国怎么搞？另外谁能保证中国一 ...

中国不会让朝鲜真正拥核的；但与此同时，中国也不会允许美国武力打击朝鲜。
作者: zhanghaifeng    时间: 2017-5-3 23:21
我记得楼主原来预测川普没法当选总统吧？
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-4 00:32
zhanghaifeng 发表于 2017-5-3 23:21
我记得楼主原来预测川普没法当选总统吧？

是的。那次预测惨败。

不过这个贴里，我也是吸取了教训，除了最后一节以外，没有多少预测，文章的内容主要是对过去100天的总结。最后一节里，关于像Trump的医疗改革现在看来已经是不可能，这一点算是共识，过去几天的也是这么发展的。那里稍微大胆一点的预测是Trump的税制改革希望不大。过去几天的发展像最新预算的通过后，我觉得我那个预测里对Trump还是乐观了。现在我觉得那张A4纸就是废纸一张，就是税制改革能通过的话，也会是国会共和党自己的全新的方案，和那张A4纸不会有任何关系。

另外文章里关于Trump谈判风格的评论，前几天通过的预算对它是很好的印证。

作者: sumigdai    时间: 2017-5-4 06:28
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 00:32
是的。那次预测惨败。

不过这个贴里，我也是吸取了教训，除了最后一节以外，没有多少预测，文章的内容主 ...

希拉里这种人没当选，奥巴马的‘legacy’被清算，这个就够了，Trump的很多政策流产最好，不然沉默的中间派还得纠结。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-4 07:03
sumigdai 发表于 2017-5-4 06:28
希拉里这种人没当选，奥巴马的‘legacy’被清算，这个就够了，Trump的很多政策流产最好，不然沉默的中间 ...

Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对dreamers的保护都还在。同伊朗的核协议，Trump竞选时攻击的非常厉害，现在则表示会继续执行。连退出气候变暖协议Paris Agreement这种保守派内很受欢迎，还不需要国会批准的事，也都还没有实现。
作者: hansens    时间: 2017-5-4 10:02
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 00:29
四大流氓。  哈哈。

那些个核弹还至少是距离远，还有预警时间。朝鲜真发展成了，这个威胁就太大，短程导 ...

从60年代开始，美帝有了北极星导弹，就拥有了从第一岛链抵进射击，10-15分钟落地的能力。
苏修嘛，真要想从贝加尔方向突袭也就是10-15分钟落地的事情。
10-15分钟的发射-落地时间，实际上，中国到现在可能都不具备有效的预警能力。
这么短的时间，预警和疏散都是空话。
作者: 冰蚁    时间: 2017-5-4 10:17
hansens 发表于 2017-5-3 21:02
从60年代开始，美帝有了北极星导弹，就拥有了从第一岛链抵进射击，10-15分钟落地的能力。
苏修嘛，真要想 ...

预警能力可以发展，但预警时间不会无限制降下去。朝鲜这个预警时间太短了。
作者: 中华如龙    时间: 2017-5-4 10:24
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-3 00:17
也没有你说的那么极端。在支付Thaad费用的问题上，Trump政府这不已经是完全让步了吗？ ...

没
棒子在讨价还价上完全是棋子

这次事件后棒子就是左右开弓被打脸的对象了
本质上这事有点像菜在ww上台

中方不再送钱了
但美帝却会趁机调高保护费
作者: sumigdai    时间: 2017-5-5 02:47
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 07:03
Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对 ...

还有四年嘛，这些要是100天都实现了那还得了？
作者: bbceve    时间: 2017-5-8 13:38
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 07:03
Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对 ...

这两天不是说新医保投票过了众议院？CNN天天头条
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-8 18:25
bbceve 发表于 2017-5-8 13:38
这两天不是说新医保投票过了众议院？CNN天天头条

一般对共和党的医疗改革还是不看好。参议院已经表示他们不会对众议院通过的那个议案表决。未来几个月会推出自己的医改方案。首先这件事可能在参议院会无疾而终，几个月后就没了音讯。2009年民主党在众议院通过了对carbon的cap and trade，但这个措施在美国普通民众那儿其实并不怎么受欢迎。参议院的民主党连个票都没投就让这个法案死掉。众议院的这个医疗改革法案可能会有同样的命运。而且就算是参议院能通过自己的医改方案，他们做的改变众议院的共和党不见得会接受。这次在众议院通过优势只有2票。非常的precarious。参众两院的共和党能达成妥协的可能性不是很大。而且众议院的这个方案在美国人那儿非常不受欢迎。各种interest group也都反对。现在在摇摆选区的共和党同他们选区选民见面town hall的时候已经遇到很激烈的抗议。接下来几个月会更多。他们有的可能在参众两院conference的时候会变卦，而且只需要两三个人就能让这个法案最终通不过。因此共和党医疗改革最终能通过的前景就是现在也还是很不好。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-9 00:46
Washington Loves General McMaster, But Trump Doesn't

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/a ... r-but-trump-doesn-t



For the Washington establishment, President Donald Trump's decision to make General H.R. McMaster his national security adviser in February was a masterstroke. Here is a well-respected defense intellectual, praised by both parties, lending a steady hand to a chaotic White House. The grown-ups are back.

But inside the White House, the McMaster pick has not gone over well with the one man who matters most. White House officials tell me Trump himself has clashed with McMaster in front of his staff.

On policy, the faction of the White House loyal to senior strategist Steve Bannon is convinced McMaster is trying to trick the president into the kind of nation building that Trump campaigned against. Meanwhile the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, is blocking McMaster on a key appointment.

McMaster's allies and adversaries inside the White House tell me that Trump is disillusioned with him. This professional military officer has failed to read the president  -- by not giving him a chance to ask questions during briefings, at times even lecturing Trump.

Presented with the evidence of this buyer's remorse, the White House on Sunday evening issued a statement from Trump: "I couldn't be happier with H.R. He's doing a terrific job."

Other White House officials however tell me this is not the sentiment the president has expressed recently in private. Trump was livid, according to three White House officials, after reading in the Wall Street Journal that McMaster had called his South Korean counterpart to assure him that the president's threat to make that country pay for a new missile defense system was not official policy. These officials say Trump screamed at McMaster on a phone call, accusing him of undercutting efforts to get South Korea to pay its fair share.

This was not an isolated incident. Trump has complained in front of McMaster in intelligence briefings about "the general undermining my policy," according to two White House officials. The president has given McMaster less face time. McMaster's requests to brief the president before some press interviews have been declined. Over the weekend, McMaster did not accompany Trump to meet with Australia's prime minister; the outgoing deputy national security adviser, K.T. McFarland, attended instead.   

Even McMaster's critics acknowledge that he has professionalized the national security policy process and is a formidable strategist in his own right. Trump credits McMaster with coming up with the plan to strike a Syrian air base last month, which won bipartisan support in Washington.

At the same time, White House officials tell me that in recent weeks, Trump has privately expressed regret for choosing McMaster. Last Monday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who was a finalist for McMaster's job, met with Trump to discuss a range of issues with the National Security Council. White House officials tell me the two discussed the prospect of Bolton coming in as McMaster's deputy, but eventually agreed it was not a good fit.

The roots of the McMaster-Trump tensions begin in February, when the general was hired after his first meeting with the president. McMaster replaced another general, Michael Flynn. Both Vice President Mike Pence and Priebus supported getting rid of Flynn, after they alleged he misled his colleagues about conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Trump himself has defended Flynn publicly. The two shared a bond from the campaign trail, where they often discussed sports and movies during long evenings on the road. For a president who puts so much value in personal relationships and loyalty, Flynn's departure was a blow.

In this sense, McMaster came into the job with one strike against him. He has accumulated more. The first conflict between McMaster and Trump was about the major speech the president delivered at the end of February to a joint session of Congress. McMaster pleaded with the president not to use phrase "radical Islamic terrorism." He sent memos throughout the government complaining about a draft of that speech that included the phrase. But the phrase remained. When Trump delivered the speech, he echoed his campaign rhetoric by emphasizing each word: "Radical." "Islamic." "Terrorism."

Then Trump's inner circle began clashing with McMaster over personnel. This began with Ezra Cohen Watnick, who remains the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council. McMaster initially sided with the CIA and wanted to remove this Flynn appointee from his position, but eventually McMaster changed his mind under pressure from Bannon and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

That dispute was followed by a bigger one. Bannon and Trump, according to White House officials, pressed McMaster to fire a list of Obama holdovers at the National Security Council who were suspected of leaking to the press. The list of names was compiled by Derek Harvey, a former Defense Intelligence Agency colonel who was initially hired by Flynn. McMaster balked. He refused to fire anyone on the list and asserted that he had the authority to fire and hire National Security Council staff. He also argued that many of these appointees would be ending their rotation at the White House soon enough.

And finally, the White House chief of staff himself blocked McMaster this month from hiring Brigadier General Ricky Waddell as his deputy, complaining that McMaster failed to seek approval for that pick. McMaster had asked his inherited deputy to leave by May 10; she is now expected to stay on for the time being.

For now the White House is saying the president and his national security adviser are in sync. Trump said in his statement to me that he couldn't be happier with the general. Of course, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway assured the public in February that Trump had full confidence in McMaster's predecessor. Only a few hours later, he was forced to resign.

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-9 15:22
This Isn’t Realpolitik. This Is Amateur Hour.

The Trump administration’s Asia policy is the worst of all possible worlds.



To a casual observer, Donald Trump’s invitation to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to visit the White House might appear to be a classic example of hard-nosed realpolitik. Never mind Duterte’s murderous anti-drug campaign, his boasting of having personally killed alleged criminals, or his other questionable statements, all of which have alarmed human rights advocates. The more important issue, some might think, is that Duterte is the leader of an important U.S. ally. From this perspective, it looks like Trump is simply subordinating moral concerns to strategic imperatives (as all of his predecessors have done) and pursuing an essentially realist policy toward this critical region.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

For realists, the key to U.S. security is maintaining dominance in the Western Hemisphere and preventing any peer competitor from dominating the vital power centers of Europe or Asia or controlling key energy resources in the Persian Gulf. Apart from the United States itself, there is only one potential “regional hegemon” in the world today: China.

Accordingly, a realist policy in Asia would first and foremost seek to prevent China from consolidating a dominant position in Asia and eventually persuading its neighbors to abandon their present security ties with the United States. Were that to occur, the United States would be unable to sustain a major military presence in the Western Pacific or Southeast Asia, and China would be a de facto regional hegemon. Over time, China would be increasingly free to project power into other areas of the world, much as America does today, and maybe even try to establish security ties here in the Western Hemisphere.

It follows that a realist approach in Asia calls for the United States to keep a wary eye on China and manage a sometimes delicate balancing coalition of Asian partners. This task is a tricky one that requires consistency, prudent judgment, and smart diplomacy, as well as credible military power. The latter quality is still abundant; the former, not so much.

Consider what Trump has done so far. He started out by taking an imprudent congratulatory phone call from the president of Taiwan and questioning the well-established “One China” policy, only to backtrack a few days later. He abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his third day in office, thereby destroying a key institution that would have bound a number of Asian countries more tightly to the United States and undermining local leaders who had spent political capital of their own in order to reach an agreement. He berated Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on a “get-acquainted” phone call, reinforcing growing Australian doubts about the merits of their long association with the United States.

On the Korean Peninsula, Trump has jeopardized relations with another key ally by saying South Korea would have to pay for the controversial THAAD anti-missile defense system that is now being deployed there and by suggesting the existing free trade deal between the two countries has to be renegotiated or abrogated. The Defense Department quickly corrected him and said the United States would pay for THAAD as agreed, but these episodes hardly reinforced confidence in Washington’s consistency or judgment. Trump has also raised the prospect of war with North Korea — which could have disastrous effects on the South — yet followed that up by suggesting, bizarrely, that he would be “honored” to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Coming on the heels of that misplaced aircraft carrier, is it any wonder South Koreans have doubts about following the U.S. lead (whatever it might turn out to be)?

It gets worse: Instead of seeing China as a peer competitor whose rising power needs to be checked, Trump has been kissing up to Beijing in the hope of securing its help on North Korea and a number of issues. There’s nothing inherently wrong with collaborating with Beijing when our national interests (as opposed to Trump’s business interests) align, but such an approach inevitably raises doubts in the minds of China’s neighbors. It also reinforces the perception that Beijing is calling the shots in Asia. If that were in fact the case, why would anyone there want to remain closely tied to the United States?

Even Trump’s impulsive outreach to Duterte shows that it is still amateur hour at the White House. One can make a pragmatic case for trying to smooth a strained relationship with a key ally; the problem is that Trump did not consult anyone about it and didn’t know if Duterte was likely to accept when he extended the invitation. Here’s a pro tip: An invitation to visit the White House is a serious matter that needs to be vetted beforehand and agreed to by both parties before it is made public. As it happens, Duterte responded by saying he might be too busy to pay a visit, thereby making Trump look foolish and desperate.

Needless to say, this entire approach is the antithesis of foreign-policy realism. Realists sees international politics as a deadly serious business, especially when dealing with critical regions and potential peer competitors. Realism focuses on preserving favorable balances of power, managing critical alliances adroitly, and above all acting in ways that allow both friends and foes to tailor their actions to ours. A country whose leader understood this wouldn’t be relying on an understaffed State Department, an unqualified first daughter and son-in-law, and wouldn’t be trying to manage key relations via an uncensored Twitter account. Trump’s approach to foreign policy would make a great sitcom, opéra bouffe, or a Marx Brothers movie, but it is both disastrous and demeaning for the United States.

Where we seem to be headed, alas, is the worst of all possible worlds. Trump is gradually being captured, co-opted, and contained by the foreign-policy establishment (aka the “Blob), and the radical restructuring he promised during the campaign is gradually being discarded along with goofballs like Michael Flynn and Sebastian Gorka. The result? The United States will continue to pursue an overly ambitious foreign policy and continue to try to manage events in nearly every corner of the world, much as we have for the past 25 years. But instead of having serious people in charge, we’ll now be doing it with an inexperienced, impulsive, and inept skipper at the helm.

This unhappy situation may give people like me plenty to write about, but it isn’t good for the country and it sure as hell ain’t realism. Those who wish America ill could hardly ask for more.

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-9 15:40
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-5-9 15:57 编辑

The Kushner Project Touted in China Is in Trouble at Home

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/a ... -in-trouble-at-home

看来Jared Kushner不要说掌管美国的内政外交政策，就是经商的能力都很一般。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-11 06:37
Trump Confirms His Autocratic Instincts. And His Ineptitude.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/a ... -and-his-ineptitude



What happened to James Comey is not particularly unusual in Washington: When a political scandal explodes at your agency, you are expected to protect the president by risking your own reputation and, possibly, your job. And yet, the particulars of the case make it deeply troubling.

Start with the reason Comey was fired. Coming from the man who basked in chants of “Lock her up!” at his campaign rallies, firing someone for mishandling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails does no more than provoke helpless laughter, liberally mixed with tears. Politico’s reporting offers a much more plausible explanation: Trump was frustrated by the investigation into his campaign’s Russia connections, and wants it to go away. So he fired the guy at the head of the agency that’s conducting it.

This is not the behavior of an American president; it is the behavior of a tinpot autocrat who thinks that the government exists to serve him, rather than the country. And it’s almost as troubling that Trump seems unaware that he is not a tinpot autocrat; he is the head of a state with a long (if perhaps somewhat checkered) democratic tradition.

This is also the behavior of an ineffective president, since the best way to ensure that this investigation grinds along to its inexorable conclusion is to summarily fire the man in charge of it. Comey’s replacement will not dare to shut it down, for fear of looking like the president’s water-carrier. And if that replacement, incredibly, actually does try to interfere, they are likely to face open revolt from the FBI’s rank-and-file, who are, unsurprisingly, already quite unhappy about what was done to Comey.

Had Trump put more effort into preparing himself for the job of president, he might have learned about an old adage, one dating back to Watergate: “It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.” The investigation into Russian connections has made for some bad news cycles for the president, but my expectation had been that eventually it would wind up with nothing very damaging -- perhaps tainting a few advisors who could be thrown off the back of the sled to feed the wolves running behind. Now, however, Trump has made sure that the FBI will pursue this thing to the last lead, the press will keep it pinned to the front pages, and a lot of voters will ask themselves why the president was so desperate to suppress it.

If all this weren’t sufficiently troubling, there’s also the way the firing was carried out. Perhaps if he hadn’t been so secretive about intending to fire Comey, Trump’s advisers would have had time to explain that this was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea. According to Politico’s reporting, at least one person did try to explain this: Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. Trump, “taken aback”, ignored his sound advice. Shortly after the firing was announced, Schumer was in front of reporters doing exactly what any moderately politically savvy person would have predicted: suggesting a cover up and calling for a special prosecutor.

Comey, meanwhile, apparently learned that he’d been sacked from the television, while visiting an FBI office out of town. This flagrant gesture of contempt will ensure that the FBI is really thoroughly enraged as they settle down to investigating the president’s campaign.

In theory, of course, our law enforcement is splendidly unbiased, interested only in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In reality, of course, it is run by human beings, who cannot help but have human emotions when they are abused. Which is why we all know the foolishness of making cops gratuitously angry during a traffic stop. And why the president should have known better than to make open war on the FBI -- if not out of respect for America’s civic traditions, then out of simple self-interest.

This is an ugly moment in America’s political history. And yet I suspect it will end up being somewhat soothing for those who fear that Trump will mark the end of American democracy and the beginnings of an authoritarian regime. Not because the president’s actions are benign: like many other commentators this morning, I see this move as betraying exactly the sort of authoritarian instincts, precisely the disrespect for American civic norms, of which his critics accuse him. But rather, because I doubt it’s going to work -- even if the Republican party rolls over, and even if they help him appoint a more pliant successor. There are a lot of sources of political power in the American system, and those civic institutions will fiercely resist any attempt to remake them into hand-crafted tools of Dear Leader’s whims.

I can certainly see futures in which America betrays its heritage and abandons its ideals. But carrying it out would likely require a stealth attack by someone of political genius and strategic cunning, not this ham-handed, thumb-fingered, thoroughly inept assault on an institution that was, until now, probably considerably more Trump-friendly than most of the federal bureaucracy. The brazen violation of our civic norms should worry everyone. But the stunning incompetence of it should give us hope that our worries won’t become reality.

作者: 云淡风轻    时间: 2017-5-11 11:31
tanis 发表于 2017-4-28 22:57
如果手术之后，北棒万炮起发火海汉城怎么办？

那又如何？ who care？
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-11 20:35
时代杂志挺有意思的一篇文章。篇幅挺长，我就不全文转贴过来了。只摘抄我觉得最有意思的两段。

http://time.com/donald-trump-after-hours/

Nearly a dozen senior aides stand in the Oval Office, crowding behind couches or near door-length windows. This is the way he likes to work, more often than not: in a crowd. He sits behind his desk finishing the tasks of the day, which have included watching new Senate testimony about Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election, by signing orders in red folders with a black Sharpie.

When he held the job, Barack Obama tended to treat the Oval Office like a sanctum sanctorum, accessible only for a small circle of advisers to break its silence on a tightly regulated schedule. For Trump, the room functions as something like a royal court or meeting hall, with open doors that senior aides and ­distinguished visitors flock through when he is in the building.

The waiters know well Trump’s personal preferences. As he settles down, they bring him a Diet Coke, while the rest of us are served water, with the Vice President sitting at one end of the table. With the salad course, Trump is served what appears to be Thousand Island dressing instead of the creamy vinaigrette for his guests. When the chicken arrives, he is the only one given an extra dish of sauce. At the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, instead of the single scoop for everyone else. The tastes of Pence are also tended to. Instead of the pie, he gets a fruit plate.


作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-11 22:40
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-5-11 22:59 编辑

这是上个星期Economist对Trump的采访，主要内容是关于Trump的经济政策。读来挺有意思。twitter上大家议论的最多的是据Trump说，Priming the pump（指财政政策刺激）这个说法是2天前，Trump自己发明的。
(据Merriam-Webster Dictionary，priming the pump这个词是19世纪初最早出现的，用来比喻财政政策刺激他们能找到最早的例子是1933年。不过Trump可能掌握的是更高层次的真理)。

关于Trump和习近平见面的那段可能大家更感兴趣，我摘抄一下。

http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

Some people think this is a negotiating tactic—that you say very dramatic things but actually you would settle for some very small changes. Is that right?

No, it’s not, really not a negotiation. It’s really not. No, will I settle for less than I go in with? Yes, I mean who wouldn’t? Nobody, you know, I always use the word flexibility, I have flexibility. [Goes off the record.] [Our] relationship with China is long. Of course by China standards, it’s very short [laughter], you know when I’m with [Xi Jinping], because he’s great, when I’m with him, he’s a great guy. He was telling me, you know they go back 8,000 years, we have 1776 is like modern history. They consider 1776 like yesterday and they, you know, go back a long time. They talk about the different wars, it was very interesting. We got along great. So I told them, I said, “We have a problem and we’re going to solve that problem.” But he wants to help us solve that problem.

Now then you never know what’s going to happen. But they said to me that on the currency manipulation, “Donald Trump has failed to call China a currency manipulator”. Now I have to understand something. I’m dealing with a man, I think I like him a lot. I think he likes me a lot. We were supposed to meet for ten minutes and they go to 40-person meetings, OK, in Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach. And the ten minutes turned out to be three hours, alone, the two of us. The next day it was supposed to be ten minutes and then we go to our 40-person meeting. That, too, he was, no…because you guys were waiting for a long time. That ten minute meeting turned out to be three hours. Dinner turned out to be three hours. I mean, he’s a great guy.

Now, with that in mind, he’s representing China and he wants what’s best for China. But so far, you know, he’s been, he’s been very good. But, so they talk about why haven’t you called him a currency manipulator? Now think of this. I say, “Jinping. Please help us, let’s make a deal. Help us with North Korea, and by the way we’re announcing tomorrow that you’re a currency manipulator, OK?” They never say that, you know the fake media, they never put them together, they always say, he didn’t call him a currency [manipulator], number one. Number two, they’re actually not a currency [manipulator]. You know, since I’ve been talking about currency manipulation with respect to them and other countries, they stopped.

Mr Mnuchin: Right, as soon as the president got elected they went the other way.


作者: 晨枫    时间: 2017-5-11 23:23
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-11 08:40
这是上个星期Economist对Trump的采访，主要内容是关于Trump的经济政策。读来挺有意思。twitter上大家议论的 ...

这个特朗普很啰嗦啊，老年啰嗦？两句话就说得清楚的事情，啰嗦了半天，难怪10分钟变成3小时。
作者: holycow    时间: 2017-5-12 00:31
晨枫 发表于 2017-5-11 07:23
这个特朗普很啰嗦啊，老年啰嗦？两句话就说得清楚的事情，啰嗦了半天，难怪10分钟变成3小时。 ...

我觉得他是Attention Deficit Disorder
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-12 12:42
晨枫 发表于 2017-5-11 23:23
这个特朗普很啰嗦啊，老年啰嗦？两句话就说得清楚的事情，啰嗦了半天，难怪10分钟变成3小时。 ...


这是在prime the pump这个问题上，Trump和Economist记者的交换。

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll…you understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.

We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

Trump觉得自己发明的prime the pump这个词非常好听，迫不及待的要向记者显示一下。

作者: 晨枫    时间: 2017-5-12 13:03
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-11 22:42
这是在prime the pump这个问题上，Trump和Economist记者的交换。

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax  ...

他应该发明Trumping the pump
作者: 石工    时间: 2017-5-13 02:30
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-11 22:40
这是上个星期Economist对Trump的采访，主要内容是关于Trump的经济政策。读来挺有意思。twitter上大家议论的 ...

我把川总谈习总这段放到网易最近猛推的号称专业八级水平的有道翻译官里，结果如下，没有改动一个字，只是根据原文把段落分得清楚一点。

看完这个翻译和原文，我的感觉是：要不然有道翻译官真的有八级（），要不然就是川总的英语实在是平易近人，海湖庄园里俩人聊天可能真不用翻译。

有些人认为这是一种谈判策略——你说的很有戏剧性，但实际上你会接受一些非常小的变化。是这样吗?

不，这不是谈判。这真的不是。不，我能满足于比我更少的钱吗?是的，我是说谁不会呢?没有人，你知道，我总是用弹性这个词，我有灵活性。(去备案。我们与中国的关系很长。当然，以中国的标准来看，这是非常短暂的(笑)，你知道当我和习近平在一起的时候，因为他很棒，当我和他在一起时，他是一个很好的人。他告诉我，你知道，他们可以追溯到八千年前，我们有1776年就像现代史。他们把1776年看作是昨天，他们，你知道，要追溯到很久以前。他们谈论不同的战争，非常有趣。我们相处很好。我告诉他们，我说:“我们有个问题，我们要解决这个问题。”但他想帮助我们解决这个问题。

现在你永远不知道会发生什么。但他们对我说，在汇率操纵方面，“唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)没有把中国称为汇率操纵国”。现在我必须了解一些东西。我和一个男人打交道，我觉得我很喜欢他。我觉得他很喜欢我。我们应该见面十分钟，然后他们去参加40人的会议，好吧，在玛拉-拉古，棕榈滩。十分钟变成了三个小时，一个人，我们两个。第二天应该是10分钟，然后我们去参加40人的会议。,他不…因为你们正在等待很长时间。那十分钟的会议结果是三个小时。晚餐结果是三个小时。我是说，他是个很棒的人。

现在，考虑到这一点，他代表中国，他希望对中国最好。但到目前为止，你知道，他一直都很好。但是，他们说为什么你不把他叫做货币操纵者?现在想想这个。我说,“习近平。请帮助我们，我们做个交易吧。帮助我们和朝鲜，顺便说一下我们明天宣布你是货币操纵国，好吗?“他们从来不说，你知道虚假的媒体，他们从不把他们放在一起，他们总是说，他不叫他货币(操纵国)，第一。”第二，他们实际上不是货币[操纵国]。你知道，因为我一直在谈论汇率操纵对他们和其他国家的影响，他们停止了。

Mnuchin先生:是的，总统一当选，他们就走了另一条路。
作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-13 19:13
石工 发表于 2017-5-13 02:30
我把川总谈习总这段放到网易最近猛推的号称专业八级水平的有道翻译官里，结果如下，没有改动一个字，只是 ...

Trump的词汇量确实挺低。不论是他在rally上鼓动他的支持者的演讲，还是接受采访，使用的词汇都很简单。他用的词汇基本上都来自外国人学英语需要掌握的最基本的那2000个单词。几乎从来看不到他使用GRE水平的那种文绉绉的词。他的句子的语法结构也都很简单。有人分析过，认为他的词汇和语法复杂程度基本上就是小学5，6年纪的水平（大选时其他竞争者的复杂程度能到初二初三的水平，太复杂高深了会让不少选民产生反感）。好多教育程度低的白人支持他的热情特别高，这应该也是一个因素，让他们觉得他特别平易近人，说的都是他们的话。

作者: Dracula    时间: 2017-5-17 03:23
At a Besieged White House, Tempers Flare and Confusion Swirls

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html?_r=3

The disclosure that President Trump divulged classified intelligence to two high-ranking Russian officials was a new blow to an already dispirited and besieged White House staff still recovering from the uproar and recriminations from the president’s firing of James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.

Mr. Trump’s appetite for chaos, coupled with his disregard for the self-protective conventions of the presidency, have left his staff confused and squabbling. And his own mood, according to two advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity, has become sour and dark, turning against most of his aides — even his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — and describing them in a fury as “incompetent,” according to one of those advisers.

Even before the latest bombshell dropped, reports swirled in the White House that the president was about to embark on a major shake-up, probably starting with the dismissal or reassignment of Sean Spicer, the press secretary.

Mr. Trump’s rattled staff kept close tabs on a meeting early Monday in which the president summoned Mr. Spicer; the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders; and the communications director, Michael Dubke, to lecture them on the need “to get on the same page,” according to a person briefed on the meeting. Even as Mr. Trump reassured advisers like Mr. Spicer that their jobs were safe at the morning meeting, he told other advisers he knew he needed to make big changes but did not know which direction to go in, or who to select.

Later, reporters could hear senior aides shouting from behind closed doors as they discussed a defense after Washington Post reporters informed them of an article they were writing that first reported the news about the president’s divulging of intelligence.

As they struggled to limit the fallout on Monday, Mr. Spicer and other Trump aides decided to send Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser, to serve as a surrogate.

They realized that selecting such a high official would in some ways validate the story, but they wanted to establish a credible witness account exonerating the president from wrongdoing — before the barrage of Twitter posts they knew would be coming from Mr. Trump on Tuesday morning.

The White House counsel’s office worked with the Army general on framing language, producing a clipped sound bite: “The story that came out tonight as reported is false.”

As he was working on his statement, General McMaster — a former combat commander who appeared uncomfortable in a civilian suit and black-framed glasses — nearly ran into reporters staking out Mr. Spicer’s office.

“This is the last place in the world I wanted to be,” he said, perhaps in jest.

As the general approached microphones on the blacktop in front of the West Wing, one of his deputies responsible for coping with the fallout, Dina Powell, could be seen peering behind the reporter pack to see how her boss’s statement was being received.

On Capitol Hill, there were signs that Republicans, who mostly held the line after Mr. Comey’s ouster, were growing alarmed by and impatient with Mr. Trump’s White House operation.

“There need to be serious changes at the White House, immediately,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who wants Mr. Trump to appoint a Democrat to head the F.B.I. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called on Mr. Trump to operate with “less drama” on Tuesday.

In his comments to reporters on Monday, Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican close to some in the White House, was explicit about the situation.

“They are in a downward spiral right now,” he said, “and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening.”

A dozen of Mr. Trump’s aides and associates, while echoing Mr. Trump’s defiance, privately agreed with Mr. Corker’s view. They spoke candidly, in a way they were unwilling to do just weeks ago, about the damage that was being done to the administration’s standing and the fatigue that was setting in after months of having to defend the president’s missteps, Twitter posts and unpredictable actions.

The latest crisis comes at the worst possible time for Mr. Trump’s team. His national security and foreign policy staffs have been spending much of their time planning for his coming eight-day trip to the Middle East and Europe — his first major overseas trip as president, and an opportunity, they thought, to reset the narrative of his presidency after the lingering controversy of Mr. Comey’s sudden dismissal last week.

There is a growing sense that Mr. Trump seems unwilling or unable to do the things necessary to keep himself out of trouble, and that the presidency has done little to tame a shoot-from-the-hip-into-his-own-foot style that characterized his campaign.

There is a fear among some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers about leaving him alone in meetings with foreign leaders out of concern he might speak out of turn. General McMaster, in particular, has tried to insert caveats or gentle corrections into conversations when he believes the president is straying off topic or onto boggy diplomatic ground.

This has, at times, chafed the president, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation. Mr. Trump, who still openly laments having to dismiss his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, has groused that General McMaster talks too much in meetings, and the president has referred to him as “a pain,” according to one of the officials.

In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.





欢迎光临 爱吱声 (http://129.226.69.186/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2