隴山隴西郡
寧靜純我心 感得事物人 寫樸實清新. 閑書閑話養閑心,閑筆閑寫記閑人;人生無虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。
正文
lesser of two evils: if you want to vote, you gotta decide. So, all personal attack from Trump is distracting as we know what characters they're. Both are "pay for play" - superb in trading/exchanging for money, power, favor, fame - all up on sale, fair play, well known. Don't claim either side got a better human being - you don't. You may shout out loud: That's evil ! but what can you do? Ha? lesser of two evils ! You have no choice. man !
Then what? What's wrong with that? It's well known fact. When old Bush's President, his sons did those "conflict of interest" trading to acquire money and fame and power - even now they're doing it. Donald Trump, publically said he paid for access to politicians. Trump's so creepy that he just attacked himself - pay for play. Cut the crap! Trump got boggled down to details - his policy narratives, specific milestones with time table and measurable matrix.
Being a dirty businessman, Trump can't claim "innocent" "pure" or "clean." Dirt digging, you can't go any where! You can't be cleaner than Clintons. Trump just wastes our time by attacking the same old Clintons stuff, so old that it's stinct to Trump himself - digging feces shows he's so low, so cheap, so deep, so desperate, that he can't come up with something noble, fresh, creative. Sad ! Sadden, bloody sad! I thought he can do better than digging dirt - he disappointed us so bad that we can't side with him, not quite there yet ! He needs to work harder than what he shouts attacks of full force - disguisting!
5) Patch to blacks/latinos in white community audience - absurd.
6) didn't release his tax return - without showing his tax return, no matter what Trump says, useless. (creepy) cover your own before attacking
7) Scare tactics. (dictator style)
He gotta construct and conjure up hope, how, specifically, he can lead to be better! Cut off the bullsxxx attacks - can't go any where, can't move anyone ! Dumping dirt is bad for everyone ! So sick of those same things again, again, and again.
As for voters, we want to ask "what's in it for me?" "Can you deliver what you promise to me?" For those fans for either: Don't add your own interpretation of wishfu thinking - you're dumped as you're too blind, too die-hard, to ignore his or her flaws. Wake up!
For Trump, he got something for me, but he gotta come up with specifics how to deliver those promises for me. Where is his plan? No. He doesn't do that. Heared his rally, I'm so sick of his "sloganeering" "yelling" "attacking" - none of these with any plans to get what I want from him. No vote!
"choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." God bless America!
lesser of two evils: if you want to vote, you gotta decide. So, all personal attack from Trump is distracting as we know what characters they're. Both are "pay for play" - superb in trading for money, power, favor, fame - all up on sale, fair play, well known. (That's evil, but what can you do? Ha? lesser of two evils ! You have no choice. man !
Then what? Donald Trump, publically said he paid for access to politicians. Trump's so creepy that he just attacked himself - pay for play. What's wrong with that? It's well known fact. When old Bush's President, his sons did those "conflict of interest" trading to acquire money and fame and power - even now they're doing it.
Being a dirty businessman, Trump can't claim "innocent" "pure" or "clean." Dirt digging, you can't go any where! You can't be cleaner than Clintons. Trump jsut wasts our time by attacking the same old Clintons stuff, so old that it's stinct to Trump himself - digging feces shows he's so low, so cheap, so deep, that he can't come up with something noble. Sad ! I thought he can do better than digging dirt.
As for voters, we want to ask "what's in it for me?"
For Trump, he got something for me, but he gotta come up with specifics how to deliver those promises for me. Where is his plan? No. He doesn't do that. Heared his rally, I'm so sick of his "sloganeering" "yelling" "attacking" - none of these with any plans to get what I want from him. No vote!
~~
~~
| See realtime coverage |
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton is sidestepping new questions about nearly 15,000 recently discovered emails or her family's charitable foundation - a stay-the-course strategy sure to be tested in the sprint to Election Day.
|
There are a lot of Republicans who are not exactly enthusiastic about their party's nominee. A recent Gallup poll found that only 46 percent of Republicans are happy with Trump; 52 percent wished the party had nominated someone else for the presidency.
看看川普的政策團隊 美國人和中國人都別再對他抱幻想文章來源: 網易 於 - 新聞取自各大新聞媒體，新聞內容並不代表本網立場！
打印本新聞 (被閱讀 15039 次)
 隨著十一月逐漸臨近，兩黨候選人的政策措施逐漸明晰。作為建製派候選人，克林頓的施政理念和具體政策措施早已為人們所熟知；而“大嘴”特朗普早期的競選基本是放嘴炮，其政策理念和具體措施隨著近日一係列政策團隊的出爐才逐漸明朗——就是個災難。
很少有人會讓華爾街金融巨頭和自己的大金主組成自己的政策團隊，但特朗普就是這麽幹的。 進入到八月，特朗普分兩批公布了自己的經濟政策智囊團。8月5日，特朗普公布了第一批由14名白人男性組成的經濟谘詢委員會（economic advisory council）。這一團隊中包括負責為Trump競選總統籌款的Steven Mnuchin，兩個共和黨背景的經濟專家Dan Kowalski和David Malpass，九個華爾街的金融、地產巨頭，和在加州大學爾灣分校任教的Peter Navarro。拋開背景不說，單一性別、單一人種的委員會組成首先成為了眾矢之的。似乎是對外界強烈不滿的一個回應，Trump隨後在8月12日公布了8名女性智囊和1名男性智囊：大部分成員仍集中在華爾街，隻有一個憲法學者Betsy McCaughey和兩個來自德州公共政策基金會的專家Brookes Rollins和Kathleen White。特朗普的經濟智囊團的選擇已經說明了他在經濟政策上采取的立場。 首先說說這批經濟政策智囊背景。事實上，特朗普的經濟政策智囊們，恰恰是他的大金主。Cerberus資本的首席執行官Steven Feinberg就是其中之一：他為特朗普和共和黨的聯合籌款賬戶Trump Victory貢獻了33萬9400美元，他的妻子也貢獻了同樣數額的捐款。而Beal Bank的董事長Andy Beal則通過捐款44萬9400美元為自己謀得一席之地：這一數額是特朗普的籌款賬戶在法律範圍內所能接受的最大單筆捐款。除此之外，Beal在2015年還為特朗普的超級政治行動委員會the Make America Great Again捐贈了10萬美元。Beal和特朗普的另一個超級政治行動委員會the Great America也有公開關聯，但捐款金額不明。 第二批增加的女性“經濟顧問”們一樣是大金主的背景。比如Carla Sands，幫特朗普籌備了南加州的籌款活動，籌款規模也是上百萬。Diane Hendricks更直接，是特朗普籌款賬戶Trump Victory的副主席。同樣的還有第二批經濟顧問中的Liz Uihlein——她和她的丈夫都是特朗普的支持者，她本人也是特朗普超級政治行動委員會的副主席。 反觀之前的總統競選者，很少有人會讓華爾街金融巨頭和自己的大金主組成自己的政策團隊。奧巴馬2008年競選時的經濟政策團隊包括芝加哥大學經濟學教授Austan Goolsbee、美國頂尖智庫布魯金斯學會的研究員Jason Furman、哈佛大學肯尼迪政府學院的教授Jeffrey Liebman、哈佛大學經濟學教授David Cutler、喬治城大學經濟學教授Daniel Tarullo等人，無一不是深諳相關政策的專家。共和黨2012年的總統候選人羅姆尼的經濟政策團隊更是包括大名鼎鼎的經濟學家曼昆和頂尖智庫美國企業研究院的研究員Kevin Hassett，也有異曲同工的意味。 特朗普團隊中唯一的經濟學教授是堅定的反華派，但這位教授聲稱沒見過特朗普。 當然，有的人會說，特朗普公布的第一批經濟團隊中好歹有一個（唯一一個）經濟學教授Peter Navarro。那我們就來聊聊這個Navarro。Navarro是哈佛大學畢業的經濟學博士，現在任教於加州大學爾灣分校。作為著名的反全球化鬥士，Navarro長期以來認為“中美關係尤其是經貿往來於美國有害”，曾著有《Death by China（死於中國之手）》一書並將其拍成電影，渲染中美貿易對美國的損害。 一個受過正規學術訓練的政治學者寫文章時可以有情緒，但對於學術著作的評價，應該相對審慎、專業。在《Death by China》的第一章，Peter Navarro一開頭就為讀者描繪了一個“駭人聽聞”的所謂“現狀”：中國出口到全球的產品“殺人於無形”，要麽致癌、要麽易燃、要麽有毒、要麽致命；兒童首飾都含鉛、玩具都易燃；中國出口到美國的藥品不是救人而是殺人；如果你“又餓又想死”（原文為“if you're both hungry and suicidal”），你就去吃中國進口的魚、水果、蔬菜，裏麵還有各種各樣被禁的抗生素、腐敗的細菌、重金屬或者是不合法的殺蟲劑（詳見Navarro, Peter. Death by China, PearsonEducation, New Jersey, 2011）。 Peter Navarro說的問題中國有嗎？有。汙染、不合格產品、假貨確實是中國無法回避的問題。但是情況像Navarro描述的這麽嚴重嗎？顯然不是。作為一個接受過正規教育的經濟學學者，Navarro能把一本“non-fiction”的嚴肅類讀物寫出科幻的味道，通過毫無嚴謹性的誇張描寫誤導讀者，簡直是“前無古人，後無來者”：縱觀全書，缺少像樣的實地調查、缺少經濟學理論支撐、缺少係統的數據分析和事實分析，隻是在堆砌各種有關中國的“駭人聽聞”的新聞，擇其惡者用以支持、渲染其中國威脅論的觀點。 這樣一個從邏輯到結論都透著荒謬的所謂“經濟學家”，居然是特朗普經濟顧問團隊中唯一的學院派——可以想見，如果特朗普執政，中美關係將會走向何方。唯一值得慶幸的是，Navarro並非特朗普的嫡係，甚至連靠邊站的資格都沒有：Navarro本人也承認，二者從未見麵，甚至都沒有電話交流——“(Navarro) has never met Trump in person. And asfor speaking with him by phone, he acknowledges, “I have never had thepleasure.” 與其說Navarro是特朗普的顧問，不如說特朗普需要一個在經濟學領域有一定名聲的堅定反華派為自己站台，和自己滿嘴跑火車的經濟、外交政策產生“共鳴”。 特朗普的經濟政策概括成兩個關鍵詞，就是“減稅”和“保護主義”。 一群華爾街的金融家和地產商外加嚴重反華傾向的學者組成了特朗普的經濟顧問團隊，特朗普的經濟政策也好不到哪去。 特朗普的經濟政策概括成兩個關鍵詞，就是“減稅”和“保護主義”。在稅收方麵，特朗普在底特律的演講中公布了裏根以來最大規模的減稅計劃，放棄之前主張的四檔稅率，向共和黨的三檔稅率靠攏，將富人階層的最高個人所得稅從現有的40%降至33%，將企業收入稅從35%降至15%，通過降低稅率為企業減負。在貿易層麵，特朗普強調“保護主義”和“美國至上”，一方麵反對TPP（跨太平洋夥伴協議）和NAFTA（北美自貿協議），甚至威脅退出WTO；另一方麵，特朗普宣稱要把美國人失去的就業機會奪回來，不惜與中國展開貿易戰。 乍一看上去，特朗普的經濟政策完全回應了長期以來美國工薪階層的訴求：去全球化、美國至上、保護主義。但是這樣的經濟政策能解決問題嗎？首先，減稅將使美國的聯邦收入大幅下降，財政將麵臨更嚴重的虧空。以破產的方式強行進行債務重組，也會給實體經濟帶來巨大的損害。其次，雖然貿易保護主義乃至民族主義聽上去非常美妙，但貿易壁壘更重要的意義在於其給國際貿易帶來的巨大的不確定性。對不確定性和潛在的中美關稅戰、貿易戰的預期將迫使跨國企業做出規避風險的舉動，這不僅將影響到中美兩國自身的經濟，更會給全球經濟金融帶來深遠的、負麵的影響。 當前在G-0世界的大環境下，歐美傳統強國都在收縮，英國脫歐就是最好的證明。在這樣的大背景下，美國作為世界第一大國采取保護主義的經濟政策外加上特朗普本人“獨裁”式的作風，其一旦上台，將大大加劇美國經濟和貿易政策的不確定性。對商業信心的摧毀將是特朗普能給美國經濟帶來最大的傷害。 除此之外，貿易的繁榮以及經濟的增長取決於良好的地緣環境。中國長期以來的“韜光養晦”和“通過外交創造良好的周邊環境為經濟增長服務”並不是一拍腦門子想出來的，而是有其根深蒂固的地緣政治脈絡。在這樣的前提下，特朗普全麵收縮的外交政策，不僅將放任地緣威脅肆意滋長，更將加劇部分地區緊張局勢，從而影響到美國的整體地緣政治環境。在這樣的大背景下，美國經濟不可能獨善其身。 接下來會發生什麽？ 近日一個甚囂塵上的說法是，共和黨可能會放棄特朗普。這絕不是空穴來風——一方麵，共和黨建製派的領袖和黨內初選時的一些候選人早就公開宣布不會支持特朗普，特朗普在全國大會後針對陣亡將士家庭的表態也激怒了許多共和黨人，其起初宣布不支持眾議院議長Paul Ryan和參議院資深共和黨議員John McCain競選連任更是使很多支持他的共和黨人寒心；另一方麵，國會共和黨議員要想連任首先要考慮的不是與特朗普同進退，而是照顧到自己選區選民的訴求，這也使得他們選擇和特朗普“保持距離”。 最重要的是，特朗普根本就不是一個共和黨候選人——共和黨雖然不見得反對特朗普成為總統，但到現在可以明確的是，特朗普上台絕對不會全盤接受共和黨的政治綱領。 如很多分析指出的一樣，本次大選更為重要的意義在於“三管齊下”——在最高法院大法官Scalia去世空出一個位置後，現任總統奧巴馬提名的Garland在共和黨多數的國會一直未獲通過，原因就在於共和黨希望通過大選一舉拿下白宮和國會，從而再一錘定音、選一個保守派大法官，扭轉最高法院的“乾坤”，讓保守派在接下來相當長的一段時間決定美國的司法走勢。 然而隨著特朗普四處“作死”、民調急轉直下，共和黨麵臨的是兩個選擇：一者，繼續和特朗普捆綁，一榮俱榮、一損俱損，但最後的結果很可能是雞飛蛋打、賠了夫人又折兵，總統、國會都保不住，最高法院自然也就失守了。另一個選擇就是“壯士斷腕”、及時止損，及時和特朗普切斷一切關係，將共和黨的重心轉移到國會選舉，爭取確保國會多數，哪怕克林頓上台，也可以通過對國會的控製來實現本黨的政治意圖。對於共和黨而言，後者顯然是更為理性的選擇。 當然，這個決定並不好做：一來，共和黨高層做出這個決定無異於大嘴巴子掄圓了往自己臉上抽，打臉打得不忍直視；二來，這種出爾反爾的決定會不會招致劇烈反彈仍然是一個未知數。但是如果考慮到綁定特朗普的情況下可能失去總統、失去國會多數進而失去對最高法院法官提名的控製，這個犧牲對於共和黨建製派而言甚至不是可能，而是必須。而隨著選舉日逐漸臨近，共和黨內部則需要盡快做出決定了。 |
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
That's the key lesson from former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino, who is on a rampage against conservative poll truthers who are foolishly insisting that polls that show Donald Trump losing must be bogus.
"Making excuses for the numbers will not change them," Perino wrote. "It would be a disservice to the candidate and his supporters to say otherwise."
Many of us learned this lesson in 2012, when so many Republicans insisted polls were "skewed" against Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, the lessons of 2008 have clouded the issue, because Republicans and conservatives misunderstood the basis of Barack Obama's sweeping victory. That led to serious miscalculations on the right in 2012, and myths that continue to this day.
Republicans viewed Obama's victory in 2008 as a triumph of mass marketing, rally-based campaigning, and no small amount of media manipulation. They saw the Obama campaign's forays into social media strictly as vehicles for national messaging. In 2012, the Mitt Romney campaign oriented its efforts along the same lines, while insisting that polling was biased based on turnout models that favored Democrats. Pundits on the right followed suit with "unskewing" efforts that showed Romney leading in alternate turnout models.
What this missed was the ground organization put together by the man Republicans derided as the "community organizer in chief." The 2008 campaign used social media not merely as a channel for national messaging, but to identify potential supporters in neighborhoods in every key swing area. They turned these people into ambassadors, learned how national issues played in each community, and skillfully tailored messaging and issue priorities to build emotional bonds with these voters. The prodigious fundraising of Barack Obama allowed his team to build a vast peer-to-peer model of voter engagement for exactly that purpose.
Those emotional bonds — plus a deep investment in get-out-the-vote resources — produced a significantly new turnout model in the 2008 presidential election. Four years later, even with President Obama enjoying much less popularity than before, the same campaign apparatus easily reconnected those emotional ties to people who saw their 2008 vote as a personal commitment that defined who they are. That drove the turnout model in Obama's favor; despite a lower overall turnout, the demographics turned out to be remarkably similar to 2008.
Republicans lost a winnable presidential election in 2012 because they learned the wrong lessons in 2008. Unfortunately, the myth of rallies being more reliable than polls still has not faded. Donald Trump's rallies are far more impressive than Hillary Clinton's. Clinton is also stomping Trump in nearly every important poll. Both of these things are true. Only when Republicans accept this can they hope to beat Clinton.
And remember: Poor polling in August isn't the end of the world. The general election campaign still has another 11 weeks to go, and both candidates have low likability numbers and are vulnerable to emerging negative narratives. Polling isn't an exact science, either, as the 2014 midterm cycle proved when polls seriously underestimated Republican strength in gubernatorial and Senate races. This weekend, the encyclopedic Michael Barone noted some irregularities between "key state" polling and national numbers that might suggest that the latter may be missing some Trump strength. Voter registration numbers in swing states show momentum and could still change in Republicans' favor.
So what's the lesson? Remain focused on evidence rather than anecdotes. Gain a proper understanding of how that evidence played out in the recent past. Perino is correct, although it might be better put by quoting The Who: "We won't get fooled again." If we do allow ourselves to get fooled into thinking that rallies are indicative of turnout and support, well … meet the old boss, same as the new boss.
神砍之二：美國的大選
已有 90 次閱讀 2016-8-24 15:25 |係統分類:海外觀察 推薦到群組
美國大選，跌宕起伏。一個誰也不了解的特朗普，居然就成了共和黨推舉總統候選人。而且，在開始階段，民調顯示，他比民主黨的總統候選人希拉裏還要領先。現在情況又出現了變化，因為特郎普的口無遮攔，他的民調數字開始落後了，據說比希拉裏落後10個百分點，達到了兩位數。
美國總統選舉曆來貓兒匿不少。2000年，小布什與戈爾競爭，從投票的總票數來看，明顯戈爾領先。但因為所謂選舉人的製度，最後戈爾還是落敗。關鍵是那個弗吉尼亞州投票的詭異。
這次，特郎普剛一出頭，輿論大嘩。因為沒人知道他是誰。而且作為商人，他與美國培養係統所培育出來的精英們明顯不同。他不單信口開河，而且東一榔頭，西一棒子，精英階層根本不知道他想幹什麽。其實精英們也不傻。精英們知道，特朗普跟他們不是一夥兒的。特朗普的所作所為肯定與精英們有點不一樣，雖然未必大相徑庭，但也差別不小。
特朗普的觀點得到美國社會中白人下層勞動者的歡迎。這麽多年來，美國工業製造業嚴重萎縮，白人下層勞動者失業嚴重，收入下降。他們對精英階層的政策非常不滿。所以特朗普的政策有點類似於美國早年的孤立主義政策，即不管或者少管美國以外的閑事，什麽歐洲的、中東的、亞洲的，所有這些閑事都跟美國沒什麽關係，美國根本沒必要操這份閑心。美國主要是應該把國內的經濟搞好，讓就業率和老百姓的收入不斷提高就行了。
估計特朗普也是看到了這部分選民的訴求，所以他才認為他出來競選是有希望獲勝的。當然，作為商人，他自己是不是真的為這部分低收入者的利益考慮，那是另外的問題。但至少他可以拿這樣的情況說事，能拿到不少的選票。
但是美國壟斷資本，是國際壟斷資產階級的代表。他們可不是這樣想的。美國壟斷資產階級要從全球化的進程中獲取更多更大的利潤，這才是最關鍵的。美國壟斷資產階級與是國際金融資產階級的代表。搞金融來錢多快呀，誰還那麽費勁巴拉地弄什麽製造業，再把製造出來的商品拚命推銷出去，再從其中賺那麽一點辛苦錢。這太麻煩了。而搞金融，坐在電腦前，手指頭劈嚦叭啦一動，就萬事大吉了。成千上萬的銀子嘩嘩地往華爾街流動過來，那是多爽的一件事啊。
而希拉裏，就是國際壟斷資產階級的精英培育係統培養起來的職業政客。她熟悉國際壟斷資產階級的想法和利益，她也熟悉整個體係動作的那一套。所以美國大資產階級一定要也一定會支持希拉裏。雖然希拉裏的“郵件門”弄得她有點灰頭土臉，但在大資產階級的支持下，這點小麻煩算得了什麽。雖然美國選民很重視總統候選人的誠實程度，可是在大資產階級的金錢拚命向媒體上砸下去的過程中，普通選民也不會再把什麽“郵件門”當成什麽不可饒恕的過錯。現在，美國大資產階級不光向媒體砸錢，更少不了為希拉裏的競選宣傳與公關砸錢。這份金錢攻勢，估計特朗普有點頂不住。所以到了十一月大選的那一天，特朗普不是輸得很難看就算不錯了。
當然，事情也不是絕對的。雖然現在看來，特朗普的勝算不太高，但並不是完全沒有。美國的大資產階級也不是鐵板一塊，有些利益集團是希望特朗普獲勝的。所以最後鹿死誰手現在還不能最後判定。不過，有一點也是可以確實的。即使特朗普戰勝了希拉裏，上台當上了美國總統，他在競選時的那些言論，其實有很大一部分就可能不算數了。因為在美國大資產階級的壓力與利誘之下，特朗普是不可能為所欲為的。他不可能嚴重脫離壟斷資產階級的利益而獨來獨往。他的屈服和妥協幾乎是完全可以肯定的了。
盡管現在看起來特朗普的形勢不是太妙，但別忘了，美國的共和黨和民主黨不過是美國壟斷資產階級的左右手。右手幹得累了，換左手幹。左手幹累了，再換右手。多年來的美國政治不過就是如此。特朗普即使當上了美國總統，他再想怎麽興風作浪，也不過是如來佛掌中的孫猴子，逃不過如來的手掌心。
不難設想，如果希拉裏獲勝，那就什麽也不必說了。如果特朗普獲勝，那麽特朗普可能會有某些方麵有點微小的調整，但在總的方麵，既不可能把美軍基地從日本撤出來，也不可能在南海問題上跟中國握手言和。奧巴馬時期的很多政策都會在特朗普手裏繼承下來。所以，從本質上說，特朗普當總統與希拉裏當總統沒有本質的不同。
轉載本文請聯係原作者獲取授權，同時請注明本文來自胡懋仁科學網博客。
鏈接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-678176-998519.html