Dracula 发表于 2016-3-3 02:19
这还是把Trump当一个传统政客来对待，嘴上说当选后会大幅度提高对中国的关税，真正上任后会听从专家的建 ...
中国现在没那么在乎面子了。骂两句没什么，老习可以忍受奥黑的冷遇，和几个企业家和过气领导谈笑风声就是一个例子。
zilewang 发表于 2016-3-4 10:13
难怪我天朝现在儒学盛行，意图再弄一个董仲舒出来，搞一个天人三策！
这可不是俺的原创，而是听某说有感。
我想现代新儒生们一定会很乐意的，只可惜坐金銮殿的不信神啊。
qyangroo 发表于 2016-3-4 07:05
看看两次大战，在世界经济普遍不景气下，内部矛盾通过战争转移外国是标准做法。
希拉里背后是金融加军火 ...
问题是今天的美国金融集团的利益核心是什么？是石油啊。要是跟中国开打，是不是要赌一下油价能跌到多少？
军火集团还以为自己是上世纪九十年代天下无敌的时代么。作为全球化的代价，有多少东西是自己生产的，有多少是二道贩子弄回来的？从兔子那里搞来的零部件有多少？
打容易，但收拾难。
水风 发表于 2016-3-4 19:27
问题是今天的美国金融集团的利益核心是什么？是石油啊。要是跟中国开打，是不是要赌一下油价能跌到多少？ ...
其实不管哪个总统上台，围堵遏制中国都是她/他的本职工作。只希望新总统不要太激进，在这一轮全球经济不景气中维持个斗而不破的局面。大家各自还是以种田和科技为主流，搞个大的技术突破（生物、新能源、人工智能）出来，又能带来新一轮全球化和繁荣。
通过热战解决问题对人类是越来越危险了。
zilewang 发表于 2016-3-3 21:28
应该是说中帝的政权。前面美国的”政体“，不知道是否指美国政体在面临危机时的优势，既有总统负责制，又 ...
即使是中国的政权，中国历史上也没有出现过战犯所说的那种情况。
水风 发表于 2016-3-4 06:27
问题是今天的美国金融集团的利益核心是什么？是石油啊。要是跟中国开打，是不是要赌一下油价能跌到多少？ ...
其实打也不容易的，核大国之间只能玩冷战平衡，真打起来很难控制程度的。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-5 02:37 编辑
刚看到的
Donald Trump's Very Human Failing
By Megan McArdle
http://bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-04/donald-trump-s-very-human-failing
Poor Donald Trump.
Those aren’t words that one normally hears about the presidential candidate. But they were what floated through my mind during Thursday night’s Republican debate when Fox News's Chris Wallace began grilling him about the details of his plan to cut taxes by about a trillion dollars a year, then make up for it by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” Asked where, specifically, he mumbled through some agencies, at which point Wallace dryly said, “Please put up full screen number four.”
“Full screen number four,” as you might already have guessed, had numbers on it. And those numbers showed what everyone paying attention already knew: Trump’s numbers were arrant nonsense. Trump, looking a trifle dazed, said, “Let me explain something,” and launched into a tirade about saving hundreds of billions of dollars by negotiating the sweet deals that pharmaceutical firms are getting from their congressional hirelings. Wallace’s eyes assumed the delighted gleam of an apex predator smelling blood in the crisp autumn air. “Let’s put up full screen number two,” he said.
I don’t really have to tell you what was on “full screen number two,” do I? Oh, heck, I will anyway. The U.S. government spends $78 billion a year on pharmaceuticals, not the $300 billion Trump claims. Apparently, The Donald is such a great negotiator that drug companies are going to be paying us to use their products. Which is, I suppose, one way to create jobs.
It is a columnist’s privilege to conjure up mental dialogue for candidates at such moments. And what I imagined Donald Trump to be thinking was this: “You didn’t tell me there’d be math on this test. Everyone said there was no math!” And that was a perfectly fair inference to draw from the quadrennial Republican tradition of promising completely unrealistic tax plans without having a way to pay for them.
But it’s hard to feel too sorry for him. Trump is the front-runner, and he has reached that location with some rather loathsome tactics, on the debate stage and off. One of the hallmarks of his campaign has been an utter refusal to do the basic homework that a candidate needs to do, such as familiarize himself with the details of some policy areas and, indeed, the details of his own plans. So far Trump hasn’t bothered, nor found advisers who could help him with his term papers -- which is worrying, given that there are no makeups for the pop quizzes with which reality routinely peppers our nation’s presidents.
Instead, he has displayed a penchant for making up numbers on the fly. Most candidates are afraid to do this; they prefer to make up numbers only after long deliberation, carefully handcrafting artisanal figures designed to please the eye while being, however tenuously, connected to reality. There are some benefits to the more spontaneous approach embraced by Donald Trump, most notably that you get numbers that are much more convincing to an audience that doesn’t know what the real numbers are (read: 99 percent of the voting public).
But there are some drawbacks, too, and those came out in force Thursday night. As Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz relentlessly attacked, Trump kept trying to repeat his favorite standbys: He’s employed tens of thousands of people, his polls are great, everyone tells him how great he is, Marco Rubio is short. That was enough when there were 10 people on the stage and you only heard it every 20 minutes or so. But with just four people there, it began to fall flat, and he knew it. There wasn’t enough time between the last time he’d told you he’d created tens of thousands of jobs and the current iteration, so it acquired the plaintive ring of your great-uncle telling you, yet again, how popular he was with the nurses during World War II. And then the moderators had the gall to actually force him to look at his own imaginary numbers and try to defend the indefensible.
It is not news that Donald Trump has no interest in, or command of, policy. But as the moderators kept asking him about details, I became fascinated by how he gets his numbers. How, for example, did he decide that he could save the U.S. government $300 billion a year on its prescription drug spending? It’s such a specific figure, and not what you would necessarily come up with off the top of your head, because made-up numbers, in my experience, tend to come in fives and tens. (People wildly guessing at numbers they don’t know tend to count like this: 5 million, 10 million, 25 million, 100 million, 150 million, 500 million.)
Actually, I think I know where he got it. Americans spend about $300 billion a year on retail prescription drugs. Now, I cannot say for certain that this is where the number came from, but they are awfully close. And I think we can trace a plausible chain of events:
1. Donald Trump reads somewhere that “America spends almost $300 billion a year on prescription drugs.”
2. In his head, “America” turns into “the U.S. government.”
3. An incipient sound bite is born: “America spends $300 billion a year on prescription drugs. I can negotiate and knock that down by .”
4. Time passes without using the sound bite. In his memory, it is compressed into “I could save $300 billion a year on drugs by negotiating.” This is the sound bite that he eventually utters in public.
5. A Fox News debate moderator asks him about it.
This is part of a pattern with Trump’s pronouncements, at least on health care, the area I’m most familiar with. He lazily grabs a sound bite here and there, but because he doesn’t do the boring, necessary work of actually learning what they mean -- much less formulating a plan -- these sound bites have a tendency to mutate. Eventually, enough mutations occur that his monsters take on a life of their own and turn on their master, as they did in Thursday’s debate.
Lest you think that I am being unduly harsh on Mr. Trump, let me point out that this is a very common human failing. Everyone who reads has a half-remembered collection of statistics that they haul out in conversation. It is particularly noticeable if you happen to be in my line of work, both because I have to check my own collection carefully to eliminate the mutations before I can write them down, and because spending so much time on various policy areas means that I notice a lot of the ones emitted by other people.
But those other people have an excuse that Mr. Trump cannot offer: They have other things to do. They are busy doing their day jobs, raising families, keeping up the house and yard, and hopefully getting a little rest and fun in between. It’s not their job to understand every issue and remember the numbers correctly.
Unfortunately, that’s the job Mr. Trump is running for. To be sure, he’d have a lot of help -- at least, if he can find any advisers willing to work with him. But he’s going to have to do a lot of long, hard, boring work before and after their briefings, understanding the details of the situations he’s faced with and the policies he is proposing to address them. The man in charge of the world’s largest military, its biggest nuclear arsenal, its most productive economy, cannot get by like a Boy Scout in the wilderness, building a fire by rubbing two statistics together. Particularly not if they’re both rotten.
And before you say, “Well, he’s not president yet,” remember that the other candidates left on stage have been doing this for months -- years, really. They know their issues. They know their policy plans. They have answers that aren’t just made up on the spot. You might not like the answers they give, but at least they’ve shown they’re willing to do the work it takes to become president. Trump isn’t. He hasn’t shown us that he’s capable of it.
I started this column by saying “Poor Donald Trump.” But the folks we should really be feeling sorry for are the American people, who might end up having their country run by someone who can’t be bothered to find out what’s happening in it.
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-4 10:32
刚看到的
Donald Trump's Very Human Failing
我现在相信他那句去时代广场杀个人也不会影响支持率的话并不是胡说八道{:217:}
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-5 02:32
刚看到的
Donald Trump's Very Human Failing
这个怎么看怎么像希拉里团队推出的广告。
水风 发表于 2016-3-5 07:54
这个怎么看怎么像希拉里团队推出的广告。
这篇文章的作者Megan Mcardle的政治观点属于共和党温和派，比如她反对Obamacare。
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-2 23:48
现在看来共和党要想阻止Trump成为他们的候选人，最大的希望已经不是Rubio一对一击败他，而是Rubio，Cruz ...
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上，Trump就无法多数~
他之前不就说么，如果共和党不选他，他就自己独立参选~ 天助希阿姨啊~
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2016-3-6 00:00 编辑
tanis 发表于 2016-3-5 23:30
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上 ...
目前形势，我估计trump 拿稳多数的可能性大。
本帖最后由 holycow 于 2016-3-5 21:34 编辑
tanis 发表于 2016-3-5 20:30
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上 ...
到现在为止都是比例分配的州，下面赢家通吃的州要出来了。川普直接拿下多数和被狙击的可能性都存在，还是很刺激的。
由于拉下川普的唯一机会在于代表大会协商，另外那三个人现在谁都不会退选了。只要还在战团里面，到时候谁都可能做当代林肯，哪怕卡西奇都有机会{:191:}
tanis 发表于 2016-3-6 12:30
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上 ...
俺记得是川普跟共和党有协议，如果没选上共和党候选人也不以独立候选人参选
tanis 发表于 2016-3-5 22:30
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上 ...
退选的人在之前那些州里的的票怎么处理 不计入总票数 还是大伙按比例分？
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-6 15:23 编辑
常挨揍 发表于 2016-3-6 14:48
俺记得是川普跟共和党有协议，如果没选上共和党候选人也不以独立候选人参选 ...
那个协议没有任何法律效力，Trump现在在各个问题上的立场都是一天一变，那个协议不会对他有任何约束。而且如果他赢得的代表最多，却因为幕后交易在代表大会上失利的话，换成是我，都会很愤愤不平。在那种情况下，Trump会以第三党身份参选的可能性非常大。
澹泊敬诚 发表于 2016-3-6 15:00
退选的人在之前那些州里的的票怎么处理 不计入总票数 还是大伙按比例分？ ...
在代表大会投票第一轮上，退选的人的代表也还是必须投他们的票。第二轮以后，所有的代表都不受任何约束，那时候就会有很多幕后交易。1972年以前，两党的代表基本上不是选民选出来的，候选人都是这么产生的。1972年以后primary制度建立起来以后，这种情况还没发生过。如果发生的话，那两天共和党代表大会的电视直播会收视率非常高。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-6 15:32 编辑
tanis 发表于 2016-3-6 12:30
感觉真有可能等到全国代表大会~ 现在除了Trump，其他人快有400张票了。 然后快500张票如果到了其他人手上 ...
Trump昨天得了大约33%的票，比以前一直挺稳定的35%还稍有下降，说明过去几天对他的攻击可能有点奏效。而且他在辩论的时候吹嘘自己阴茎大的那些话，有点太vulgar了，就是以他的标准都有些过度，可能对他有些损害。Cruz能赢Maine，我觉得是反对Trump的选民里可能在进行tactical voting。如果tactical voting普遍的话，对Trump是个很坏的消息。现在我估计Kasich能赢下Ohio，但是Rubio在Florida有点悬。估计需要寄希望于tactical voting。他们两个人能赢下这两个州的话，全国代表大会来决定的可能性非常大。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-7 02:03 编辑
澹泊敬诚 发表于 2016-3-6 15:00
退选的人在之前那些州里的的票怎么处理 不计入总票数 还是大伙按比例分？ ...
那退选的人还有可能在第二轮复活？
第二轮以后不仅是退选的人，就是没参选的人都可能加入战局。现在有时提到的名字是众议院议长Paul Ryan。电视剧The West Wing中有一集就是关于brokered convention，里面的一个州长在Iowa之前就退选，但是代表大会的时候重新加入。
2012年共和党新加了一个规定，叫做rule 40，是说只有赢了8个州的才能成为候选人。当时加这个规定是为了保证在大会上推举Romney顺利进行，防止Ron Paul生事。目前满足这个条件的只有Trump，Cruz刚赢了这两个州以后也接近了，但是这两个人共和党的establishment都不喜欢。很有可能在这次代表大会之前把这个规定废除掉。
另外brokered convention自1972年采用primary制度后就没出现过，到时候可能发生什么很难预测。
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-6 11:58
第二轮以后不仅是退选的人，就是没参选的人都可能加入战局。现在有时提到的名字是众议院议长Paul Ryan ...
选到一半 改掉rule 40 就是让Trump上梁山单干啊 还白送一批同情票 象党药丸的节奏