设为首页收藏本站

爱吱声

 找回密码
 注册
搜索
楼主: Dracula
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[时事热点] 美国总统候选人简评

  [复制链接]
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    121#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-9 22:33:17 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-9 22:34 编辑
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-9 12:19
    他这么说有宪法基础吗?作为总统这么说是否在影响美国的宪法基础?


    明年1月20日之后,Obama肯定就不是美国总统了,签署的任何命令都没有法律效力,就是他赖在白宫不走也没用,要是真那么干的话是自取其辱,Obama在芝加哥大学教过美国宪法,不会说出这种傻话。因此这新闻一看就是假的。如果出现特殊情况,比如1月20日之前当选的总统副总统都被暗杀,或者2000年佛罗里达那一幕重演,最高法院又没介入,1月20日还不知道究竟是谁获胜的话,根据法律,就任的总统或者是代总统的会是这时的众议院议长,照目前的形势很可能会是Paul Ryan,也没Obama什么事。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    122#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-10 00:18:22 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-10 00:20 编辑
    cadgn 发表于 2016-9-9 23:37
    我也没看电视,只读了TRANSCRIPT。从纸面上看,在政策层面H比T要有料的多。这个不SURPRISE。

    但是,H不 ...


    我看到的评论,对这次辩论的moderator,NBC的Matt Lauer批评不少,有的还挺严厉。当Trump说他在伊拉克战争前就反对出兵(这没有任何事实根据)时,Matt Lauer没有及时指出Trump引的他在2004年在Esquire发表的那篇文章根本不支持他的说法,2004年时战争爆发已经一年多了。这对希拉里可能会是好消息,3次正式的辩论,moderator可能会对Trump查的更严。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    123#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-10 03:03:07 | 显示全部楼层
    冰蚁 发表于 2016-9-10 02:25
    Lauer 好象指出了吧。trump 用那时候没有想从政盖过去了。 Lauer 没有进一步追问。

    希拉里的耳机是怎么 ...

    我读的报道和原文,Lauer并没有指出Trump现在的言论和当年的事实并不符合。自由派的报纸象纽约时报对他非常的不满,批评的很厉害。而且2002年Trump接受Howard Stern节目采访的时候,表态他支持对伊拉克出兵,直到2004年伊拉克形势已经很不好以后,Trump才改变论调,变为反对出兵。他现在吹嘘自己当年就反对出兵,judgement多么好,脸皮确实挺厚。Matt Lauer也没提到Trump在2002年那次采访,对他直接进行fact check。有可能正式辩论的moderator看到Lauer现在受到的批评,会对Trump的信口开河把关更严,这对希拉里会是个好消息。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    124#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-10 10:35:48 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-10 11:47 编辑
    cadgn 发表于 2016-9-10 09:57
    这个我倒有不同意见。左派的说法,基本上站不住。

    首先,当年TRUMP不HOLD POWER,所以他也不应该被HOLD  ...


    没有人说要让Trump为伊拉克、利比亚、ISIS负责。但是Trump吹嘘说他的judgement特别的好,不仅比Obama、希拉里强,比现在的将军也都强,总得有些根据吧。不能都是事后马后炮,这个谁不会啊,包括我也能做到,但是我不觉得自己有制定美国外交政策的能力。Trump如果只是批评Obama、希拉里的外交政策当然可以,但是他偏要吹牛说在各个问题上他有先见之明,可是能找到的事实证据却证明是相反,左派当然觉得是不服,要fact check他了。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    125#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-12 11:37:29 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-12 11:48 编辑
    老财迷 发表于 2016-9-12 10:49
    请教一下,如果最近希因病退选,按照米国法律,后续会如何进行?总不能让川普自动当选吧 ...


    爱坛里对希拉里生病的消息这么兴奋,看来这儿支持Trump的是绝对主流。

    如果希拉里真的是肺炎,休息几天就没事的话,我觉得对大选影响不大。希拉里的unfavorable非常高,就是比Trump低一些。会给她投票的大多数并不是多么喜欢她,而是更讨厌Trump。她就是身体不太好,也不影响这个计算。而且好多偏共和党的人对她有特别的仇恨,如果知道Tim Kaine可能早接班的话,投民主党票的心理上的阻碍说不定还会变小。我刚才查了一下betting market,过去24小时,Trump获胜的可能性只增加了1.8%。

    关于你提到的问题,如果希拉里现在退选的话,根据民主党的规定,民主党全国委员会会立刻召开紧急会议,选择代替她的人。我觉得最大的可能是Tim Kaine,但是其他人包括Sanders,Biden的可能性也不能排除。民主党会面临的最大的障碍是美国的总统大选是各州自己组织。各州对各政党提供他们的候选人然后certify他们有一个截止日期。现在大多数州的截止日期已经过了。因此民主党的新推出的候选人要想上所有50个州的选票会挺麻烦。主要政党总统候选人退出美国历史上没有发生过,没有先例可以遵循。我估计民主党控制的州应该没问题,会开特例,放宽截止日期。红州可能阻力会比较大,但是对大选结果没有影响。在摇摆州可能需要打官司,经过法院。我读到的一些评论是,其它的选举类似的事情发生过,法官一般是选择让两党的候选人都上选票,给选民一个选择。因此最大的可能是这个问题不会是致命。但是两党在这个问题上肯定会在全国各地同时打很多官司,对两党的律师是个很好的消息。如果Tim Kaine是新的候选人,而且这个问题解决了的话,我到觉得他没有希拉里那么些baggage,大选赢的可能性甚至可能还会更大。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    126#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-16 00:30:17 | 显示全部楼层
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-15 17:18
    想问一下,媒体和與调公司有没有可能为了他们自己认为正确的候选人做有偏向性甚至欺骗性的报道? ...

    我不太清楚你这个问题的意思。媒体是由一个个人组成的。像我们每个人都有倾向性和偏见一样,每份报纸,电视台等即使他们主观上追求客观公正和中立,不自觉的倾向性和偏见也都是不可避免的。当然绝对的客观公正这个标准不可能达到,并不意味着这个理想状态不能被接近。更不意味着天下乌鸦一般黑。大报和造谣的小报在这一点的质量上还是有很大区别的。大报还是强调媒体的职业道德,在事实上的报道每一点都要有根据,明显欺骗性伪造事实的事例很少,被人揭发出来是严重的丑闻,发文章的记者会一辈子身败名裂。它们在事实方面都还是比较可靠的。当然在对事实的分析和解读,以及对什么事实上进行强调这些方面,没有什么客观的标准,即使是大报有时的倾向性也会挺明显。

    我几个月前读了一本关于历史学方法论的书,在哲学上对这个问题讲得很透彻。你要是对这个问题感兴趣的话,我可以推荐一下。

    具体到polling,报纸电视台等媒体本身并不真正搞民意调查,而是花钱雇专业干这行的公司。这些公司的收入主要是来自为商业公司在消费者心理,产品销路等方面进行调查。大选的民意调查只是副业。因此他们也是有声誉要进行维护的。如果大选调查结果太离谱的话,对其声誉的损害可能会拖累其挣钱的主业。因此声誉比较好的公司直接造假的可能性我觉得极小。当然在survey方法统计方法的设计上需要很多judgement call。因此具体的每一个poll,可能是都有偏这个或那个候选人的bias,但是平均起来这些bias应该是会相互抵消掉很多,准确度会高不少。

    而且即使某家报纸对某个候选人有偏爱,甘愿冒风险在polling的结果上动手脚,也不是很清楚应该在哪个方向动。比如这次大选纽约时报支持希拉里,大家好像都是认为他们当然的会倾向于夸张希拉里的获胜可能,包括在polling上对Trump的优势。但我觉得未必。实际上,希拉里的好多支持者对她的热情很低,甚至不少持负面意见,他们支持她是因为对Trump更厌恶。如果确信希拉里肯定会赢的话,有不少人会投第三党的票,或者干脆在家休息。因此偏希拉里的媒体也有动机故意把形势说的很接近,来保证她的支持者的投票率。我觉得在polling这个问题上,多琢磨媒体偏见乃至一些阴谋理论的话,脑子会出问题的。每一个具体的poll要谨慎对待,但是像FiveThirtyEight或者Real Clear Politics这些综合的结果还是比较可靠的。

    评分

    参与人数 2爱元 +8 收起 理由
    煮酒正熟 + 6
    黑洞的颜色 + 2 涨姿势

    查看全部评分

    回复 支持 1 反对 0

    使用道具 举报

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    127#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-16 00:53:59 | 显示全部楼层
    cadgn 发表于 2016-9-15 14:20
    The latest CNN polls showing T is leading several "battle-ground" states. HRC is really in serious ...

    最近两天的Ohio和Florida的结果确实对希拉里是很坏的消息。但是目前来说,她还是有一些优势。Colorado和Virginia她的优势现在也还是挺大,而且demographics上也对她有利。我觉得她是应该能拿下。Pennsylvania她在费城极其周围地区的优势很大,目前看来是能够抵消Trump在西宾夕法尼亚低收入白人中的优势。Trump赢会很难。而只要能守住宾夕法尼亚,加上弗吉尼亚和科罗拉多,基本上就能够保证希拉里获胜。现在各种预测模型还有预测市场还都是认为希拉里获胜的可能性大,大约是三分之二。当然Trump的形势要比几个星期以前好很多。

    你转的文章的第二部分关于turnout。我记得几个月前就有人研究过,primary的turnout和大选的结果没有多大关系。因此文章的那部分不怎么靠谱,尤其是希拉里在primary的总得票数好像还超过Trump。在voter turnout的问题上希拉里在组织上有优势。在摇摆州开的办公室和人员是Trump的好几倍。Trump在这个问题上完全是依靠共和党全国委员会也就是共和党的establishment。但他和establishment的关系其实很不好,像John Kasich明确表示不支持Trump,他是Ohio的州长,共和党在Ohio的组织掌握着很大一部分。我看过纽约时报的一篇报道,他的亲信都拒绝为Trump工作。不过Trump的支持者好像热情要高一些。因此我预测希拉里会在voter turnout上有些优势,但是不太确定。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    128#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-16 01:20:53 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-16 01:22 编辑
    cadgn 发表于 2016-9-16 01:00
    Talking about the negative feelings for HRC. Here's the top review comment in amazon for her new b ...


    希拉里的unfavorable非常高,自从有polling以来,历史上两党总统候选人的unfavorable rating除了一个人以外都比她低,但这个人就是Trump。我估计你还有爱坛的大多数人去支持Trump的网站多,对希拉里负面的言论接触的多。如果你去一些偏左的网站,像纽约时报,乃至偏右但是接近于精英立场的华尔街时报,里面对Trump负面的读者评论的强度不比这低。我对希拉里其实也没多大好感,但是从推测双方支持度的角度来说,这一段不说明什么问题。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    129#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-16 01:53:13 | 显示全部楼层
    黑洞的颜色 发表于 2016-9-16 01:36
    请问是哪一本关于历史学方法论的书?

    In Defense of History, 作者Richard J. Evans。这本书是对后现代主义历史观的回击。海天提到过这本书国内和台湾都出版过中文译本。你要是不想读英文的话,也可以找中译本来看,不过我不清楚翻译的质量怎么样。

    评分

    参与人数 2爱元 +4 收起 理由
    黑洞的颜色 + 2 谢谢分享
    tanis + 2 谢谢分享

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    130#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-27 19:57:45 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-9-27 20:00 编辑

    我刚才查了一下,昨晚总统大选第一次辩论,媒体评论,不管是偏左的纽约时报、华盛顿邮报,还是偏右的华尔街时报、Fox News,都是认为希拉里获胜。其它的指标,CNN的辩论之后即时的调查,希拉里以62%对27%大胜。预测市场,希拉里获胜的概率也增加了5个百分点。因此说希拉里昨晚取得胜利没有什么异议。Trump的主要问题是事前过分自信,不像希拉里两个月之前就投入大量时间练习,而且他在具体政策上的知识本来就很贫乏,又懒得学习补课。像席琳说的,他前20分钟表现还行。但他就那么几句口号,喊完了以后,剩下的70分钟就没话说了,现场现凑的话很多条例混乱,也没抓住希拉里的要害进行攻击。后半段时间基本上都是被动挨打。最近1个多月,希拉里在民意调查里的数字一直是下滑,现在只有挺微弱的优势,让民主党人非常紧张。昨晚的辩论结果对她的支持者是个很好的消息。下两次辩论是10月9日和19日。Trump就是现在临时抱佛脚补课也有些来不及了。应该也还是希拉里会占优势。6个星期后的大选,还是她的形势更好一些。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    131#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-28 06:20:01 | 显示全部楼层
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-27 23:10
    伯爵,如何看不同的媒体对统计结果的不同?你能不能从读者的组成和媒体的控制人角度来讨论讨论你和马丁的 ...

    老马丁引的是网上的投票,不是正规的polling。参与网上投票的人不是个random sample,还有可能作弊,不说明什么问题。另外Trump的重要支持者纽约市前市长Rudy Giuliani建议他不参加下次辩论这也很说明问题。下面是Wall Street Journal的文章,因为要注册,我下面转贴一下。Fox News对辩论的评论,你可以到网站上去看。

    Undecided Voters React Coolly to Donald Trump During Debate

    Republican Donald Trump’s performance in the first presidential debate on Monday night was likely to bolster his supporters, but risked turning others off, interviews with undecided voters and experts in both parties said.

    “I feel that the way he talks to other people, the way that he addresses other people, can be extremely rude and extremely disrespectful, and I don’t think that’s the temperament we should be looking for in a president,” said Garrett Thacker, 30 years old, of Galloway, Ohio, who has voted for presidential candidates in both parties.

    Still, neither Mr. Thacker—nor any of the other undecided voters who participated in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll interviewed—said the debate had persuaded them to back either candidate. It was unclear whether the much-anticipated debate would fundamentally alter the course of the tight race.

    Mr. Thacker, a Republican who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, said he still doesn’t fully trust Democrat Hillary Clinton. “I honestly don’t know at this point,” he said.

    Chris Kofinis, a Democratic consultant, conducted a focus group of undecided voters in Cleveland, and at the end of the debate, 11 people said Mrs. Clinton won, no one said Mr. Trump won, and 17 people said neither candidate won.

    “After 90 minutes, they did an incredibly effective job of moving no voters,” Mr. Kofinis said. He said Mr. Trump did better in the beginning of the debate, but lost people when he began personally attacking Mrs. Clinton. “It was worse than the fact that she beat him. He beat himself,” Mr. Kofinis said.

    But the results from another focus group of undecided voters, in Pennsylvania, found 16 participants saying Mrs. Clinton impacted their vote more, with just six saying the same about Mr. Trump. When the moderator, Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, asked them a word or phrase to describe Mr. Trump, answers included “strong start, weak finish,” “bombastic,” “not presidential” and “sloppy.” When asked for the same about Mrs. Clinton, they offered “prepared,” “firm,” “powerful” and “same old, same old.”

    Scott Ratcliff, 31, a Republican who participated in the recent Journal poll, said he isn’t likely to vote for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, but was more impressed with her.

    Some of the experts agreed with that assessment. “Trump’s lack of preparation seemed to catch up with him as the debate wore on,” said Republican consultant Kevin Madden, an adviser to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

    Still, Mr. Madden suspects the debate did little to change minds. “These debates are usually defined by big and memorable moments, but this debate didn’t create many of those. The few moments that did stand out aren’t likely to move the needle in a big way with undecided voters.”

    Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary under President George W. Bush and a backer of Mr. Trump, said that Mr. Trump’s interruptions and outbursts may not have served him well.

    “Those for Trump are still for him, and those for Hillary are still for her.  The undecided are probably still undecided,” he said. “I would add, however, that Hillary stayed calm and cool, and I thought Trump was too hot too often.”

    “If it’s possible, Trump has probably invigorated his supporters even more,” said Democratic consultant Bill Burton. But he said that is nowhere near enough and that he likely turned off other voters he needs to win. “The path to 270 electoral votes does not run through the sputtering, angry, agitated performance we saw from him.”

    Ben Robinson, 33, a project manager in Houston, said the debate was the heated argument he expected it to be, with Mrs. Clinton keeping her composure better than Mr. Trump. He said he thought Mr. Trump was struggling.

    “He doesn’t seem like the standard political misdirection—not answering the question,” said Mr. Robinson, an independent. “He just seems like he doesn’t have any answers to it.”

    He said he could “absolutely not” see himself voting for either candidate, and would like to see Libertarian Gary Johnson at the next debate.

    Yolanda Grimes, 40, a small-business owner from Norcross, Ga., said that at the start of the debate she was undecided and frustrated with both candidates, and by the end she was even more so.

    Ms. Grimes describes herself as a Democrat but said the debate convinced her Mrs. Clinton can’t be trusted to stand by her word. “She contradicts herself,” Ms. Grimes said.

    Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said it was a “good night for Hillary Clinton,” adding that Mr. Trump was “rambling” and “seemed in the first part of the debate to be overcaffeinated.”

    Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, said he was struck by how different the two candidates came across, and said they both likely connected with voters.

    He said Mr. Trump did well channeling voter anger, but that Mrs. Clinton got the better of the argument about his failure to release his tax returns.

    “Trump didn’t lose votes from those who turned on the debate supporting him,” he said. “Clinton might have motivated her base and brought some undecideds her way with her composed answers.”


    http://www.wsj.com/articles/unde ... g-debate-1474947738

    评分

    参与人数 3爱元 +10 收起 理由
    如若 + 2
    煮酒正熟 + 6
    tanis + 2 谢谢分享

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    132#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-28 08:22:32 | 显示全部楼层
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-28 07:50
    按你的说法,另外18个老马丁方上媒体的投票都具有倾向性。而只有正规的投票才据有可信性。进一步得到结论 ...

    我是说这不是从likely voters那儿取的一个random sample。参与这种投票的大多数是双方的铁杆支持者,从这能得到的结论就是Trump支持者的热情更高。但是同普通选民的看法没有太大的关系。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    133#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-28 19:36:25 | 显示全部楼层
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-28 13:36
    你这个回答有两个逻辑漏洞,第一个是我们上面所有的推论都是从统计学的角度看双方的热情是不应该有区别的 ...

    我什么地方否认希拉里失败的可能性了。我那个帖子里不是说了吗,希拉里现在的优势已经变得挺微弱的,让很多民主党人非常紧张。另外我那个帖子里说希拉里辩论获胜提到了好几个方面的依据,并不仅是polling,而且辩论获胜同大选获胜是两回事,2012年第一次辩论媒体和polling也都一致显示Romney获胜,但他在大选还是输了。我不知道你干嘛对希拉里是这次辩论的获胜者这一点如此耿耿于怀。

    我的政治立场是中间偏右,这次大选我最欣赏的候选人是John Kasich,其次是Jeb Bush,对希拉里并不喜欢。我在爱坛发过两篇关于克林顿夫妇的文章,一篇是希拉里的活牛期货,一篇是克林顿伪证案涉及了90年代克林顿夫妇的各种丑闻,都挺负面的。对克林顿夫妇的各种丑闻我觉得我比爱坛大多数人知道的还要多一些。我就是对Trump非常厌恶,认为如果他获胜不仅是对美国,对整个世界都是个灾难。

    我以前在回复老马丁的一个帖子里提到,一个候选人支持者的热情高并不必然意味着支持他的人数量多,不然的话这次民主党初选的获胜者就应该是Bernie Sanders,而不是希拉里了。历史上这种例子还挺多的,像Barry Goldwater,George McGovern同样都是支持者热情非常高,但都输的很惨。Trump支持者的热情高其实在现在的polling里已经体现出来了。我们现在看到的Trump同希拉里非常接近或者稍稍领先的poll都是从likely voters里取的样本。在registered voters里,希拉里的优势要大不少。这里的差距就是Trump的支持者在回答问题的时候显示他们热情更高,更有可能投票。但是希拉里的ground operation要比Trump强很多。在voter turnout方面其实她也有潜在的优势。

    点评

    希拉里胜过Bernie是因为超级代表选票拿的多,单数人头应是Bernie胜出。  发表于 2016-9-29 09:08

    评分

    参与人数 1爱元 +2 收起 理由
    tanis + 2 谢谢!有你,爱坛更精彩

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    134#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-28 21:32:58 | 显示全部楼层
    lintian18 发表于 2016-9-28 21:02
    可能的问题是现在的你倾向于哪个候选人?因为基本上是二选一,也许你自己都没有太在意,但是你文中的情绪 ...

    我是对Trump很厌恶,但这有什么可引发争议的?爱坛里骂希拉里的帖子比我写的要难听的多,乃至因为我认为希拉里获胜的可能性大,好几次都直接骂到我身上了,好像也没人抱怨过,看来爱坛的政治正确是在支持Trump的一派。我就是提到希拉里在民意调查上一直都是领先,到现在也还是有一些优势。像FiveThirtyEight等根据polling的预测模型还是挺准的,希拉里获胜的可能性现在来看还是挺大,这和我对两个人的偏好没什么关系,但就是这个在爱坛看来也是很不受欢迎,成为很有争议性的言论了。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    135#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-28 23:04:50 | 显示全部楼层
    挺有意思的一篇文章

    In Texas, Even Trump Supporters Hate the Border Wall

    By Leonid Bershidsky

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/a ... ate-the-border-wall



    "Nobody likes the wall," says Tony Martinez, mayor of Brownsville, a city in the southeastern corner of Texas across the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico. He's the son of Mexican immigrants and a Democrat, but he's not exaggerating: Even Donald Trump supporters in the town hate the border fence that has been here since 2008.

    "Build that wall, build that wall!" I have heard people chant at Trump rallies in the small towns of Iowa and New Hampshire, far from the Mexican border. Trump promises to build a wall that will be "impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful."

    The fence in Brownsville is 18 feet tall and made from rusty iron bars. I could climb it in about 15 seconds. "Our record is eight," says Michael Seifert, an organizer for the Equal Voice Network, a coalition of civic groups in the Rio Grande Valley.

    It has cost more than $6 million per mile to build, and it runs through farmers' fields and townspeople's backyards. The local consensus is that it hasn't helped anyone except contractors and drug cartels.

    The fence stretches across private lands as far as two miles from the Rio Grande, the natural border between Texas and Mexico. It doesn't quite reach the Gulf of Mexico. There are gaps for every county road and gates for farmers to move between parts of their bisected properties. The gates have electronic code locks. Bonnie Albert, whose family owns the Loop Farms at the southeastern edge of Brownsville -- a sizable operation that grows vegetables and citrus fruits -- says the locks freeze from time to time. Farmers have to call the Border Patrol to unlock them.

    It's common for farmers to live on the south side of the fence: It went up north of some houses because of terrain peculiarities and administrative problems. "The government is selective about whom it protects with this wall," says Eloisa Tamez, a nursing professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, who knows all about the wall because it runs through her yard. She has to walk around it to get to the southern part of her property.

    Albert doesn't think the fence protects anyone at all. "In places, you can see scuff marks on it where they climb over," she says. "And there are so many gaps."

    Nor does Cuban Monsees, a 68-year-old known as Rusty who lives alone with his dog on a 21-acre ranch at the end of a road that bears his family's name. He says the wall's concrete foundations have shut off water to wells along the border, requiring them to get costly permits to dig deeper.

    But people still get across, including people paid by the cartels to deliver drugs or run errands like smuggling in Central American refugees. According to Border Patrol statistics, only slightly more than half of the undocumented immigrants apprehended last year were Mexicans. Most of the others came from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

    Monsees says people from a cartel have been offering him money for the use of his rather overgrown property, but he has rejected the advances. Albert says the cartels run everything south of the border, but she is reluctant to talk about the specifics. "We have to live here," she says.

    "The wall has created a pressure cooker," says Seifert, a former Catholic priest who has lived on the border for 29 years. "Before it was built, people crossed to pick peaches or lay roofing and came back. Then suddenly it became hard to do. The human smugglers loved it."

    Albert and Monsees aren't bleeding hearts. "We must enforce immigration laws," says Albert, who says that faced with a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, she'll vote for Trump. "It's expensive even to take care of your own family, and the people who come over need taking care of. But they will keep coming if there are no consequences to it, wall or no wall."

    Monsees, who says he suffers from two forms of cancer and survives on Social Security, let it be known in 2014 that he needed help staying safe. The call spread on social networks and gun-toting locals and out-of-staters turned up to form a kind of militia on his property. "Some of them were good people, but others were here to play Rambo," Monsees says. "It was a vacation thing for them."

    They shot their AR-15 rifles and hunted illegal crossers. Fortunately for everyone, no deaths ensued. Two of the militiamen turned out to be convicted felons who had no right to possess firearms. They went to jail, and local police told Monsees, a former highway patrolman, that they didn't like the company he kept. Monsees says he sent his "helpers" home.

    Despite this history and his support for Trump, Monsees believes in increasing border patrol numbers more than he does in fences, ugly or "beautiful." I didn't notice any lack of personnel -- as we talked on the tailgate of Monsees's shabby truck on the south side of the wall, a patrolman passed back and forth no less than three times, waving to us in a friendly way -- but Monsees doesn't feel protected. He'd like to sell or lease his ranch and go away.

    Brownsville is in fact extremely safe. It is last of the 24 Texas metro areas in violent crime. Matamoros is another matter. There is a State Department warning for Americans to "delay all non-essential travel" there because of robberies and kidnappings.

    "The cartel violence in Matamoros is the real wall on the other side," says Seifert, who used to cross the border every weekend but no longer does. "There used to be a great atmosphere there, but no more."

    It's not the wall that's keeping the violence out of Brownsville. "The criminal enterprises are like corporate America in a way," Mayor Martinez says. "They don't want any part of the U.S. judicial process; problems are the last thing they want."

    In Mexico, the cartels fight their wars. In the U.S., they do business. They have captured the heroin and fentanyl market from South Asian suppliers, and they don't want to lose it by attracting too much attention.

    Rather than keep down crime and illegal immigration, the fence ended up hurting ordinary Americans who lost their land under eminent domain. "I got raped on the deal," Monsees said. "An acre went for $10,000 back then, but they offered me $1,500 for three acres and said if I didn't take it, they'd just take the land. So I took it." Albert said the compensation Loop Farms received was adequate for the land itself, but not for the disruption of the business.

    Eloisa Tamez, who fought the partition of her property in court and forced the government to consult with her on the placement of the fence, was paid $56,000 in compensation for less than half an acre on which the fence went up in 24 hours after she lost the last appeal. She has established a scholarship fund for nursing students. But she grew up on the property and the trauma hasn't quite healed. "If they could get away with that, what else could they do to me?" she says. "I never felt so lost as during that time. I was not treated as a citizen."

    That psychological effect is perhaps the wall's biggest wound to Brownsville, a community with a 91 percent Hispanic population. "Before the fence went up, we used to travel between Brownsville and Matamoros in a pretty liquid fashion," Mayor Martinez says. "We all have relatives on the other side."

    Many locals are angry at Trump. I watched Monday night's debate with a group of mostly Spanish-speaking people at a local law office, and one woman showed up in a T-shirt with a Spanish vulgarism under the Republican candidate's picture. "To be categorized as rapists and undesirables is extremely hurtful and unwelcome," Martinez says.

    The disappointment runs deeper, however. Tamez, who is a registered Democrat, doubts that she's going to vote for Clinton. Like many people here, she remembers that the militarization of the border began under President Bill Clinton. The decisions to build the fence and appropriate land for it were made under President George W. Bush, and Tamez's unsuccessful legal battle took place under President Barack Obama. Tamez, who met Obama and hoped he would stop the construction, now worries that democracy no longer works at all.

    Others in Brownsville believe the system's inefficiency is their shield from worse problems with Trump's wall. "I don't think he can build it," Albert says. "It's one thing to talk about it in New Hampshire where you heard it and another thing to actually try to do it here. There are all these little regulations to stick to."

    "Look how unfinished it is," Mayor Martinez says. "It's impossible to do in the four years that these guys get in the White House. Trump is just offering people who don't know better a quick fix. And it's not as if this fellow has never failed."

    Martinez hopes the existing wall will eventually come down. He points to the first private space launch pad in the U.S. that Elon Musk's SpaceX is building near Brownsville. "We are about to become an interplanetary civilization," he says. "And here we are talking about a wall separating what is essentially the same community."
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    136#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-29 03:21:36 | 显示全部楼层
    fish97 发表于 2016-9-28 07:50
    按你的说法,另外18个老马丁方上媒体的投票都具有倾向性。而只有正规的投票才据有可信性。进一步得到结论 ...

    Memo: Fox News VP reminds staff that online debate polls 'do not meet our editorial standards'

    A Fox News executive sent a memo to television producers and the politics team on Tuesday afternoon reminding employees that unscientific online polls "do not meet our editorial standards."

    Dana Blanton, the vice president of public-opinion research at Fox News, explained in the memo obtained by Business Insider that "online 'polls' like the one on Drudge, Time, etc. where people can opt-in or self-select … are really just for fun."

    "As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can't be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate," Blanton wrote.


    全文在

    http://www.businessinsider.com/f ... S&IR=T&IR=T
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    137#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-29 04:30:59 | 显示全部楼层
    海天 发表于 2016-9-29 03:20
    昨天中午吃饭的时候,边上一群老印满心欢喜的谈总统辩论,
    黑川普的话那是一车接一车

    Trump的经济方案是一方面大规模减税,这是共和党的传统政策,一方面增加开支包括基础设施建设,对social security等福利则许诺完全不动,这是他特别的populist的地方,其实是接近传统民主党的立场,但同时又攻击在Obama任内赤字大幅度上升。因此在基本的算术上就完全不通。不过我对这个还不是很在意,总统候选人的经济方案在算术上严谨的就几乎没有。Trump的方案是完全不现实,但比较起来也不是那么特别。

    你提到的经济学家的公开信不知道是不是这个

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits ... intons-policies-are

    他们的信我看了,就是传统的共和党减税,自由市场,自由贸易的政策。接受过经济学教育的人,在本能上都会更倾向于自由市场,因此在美国大学里经济学教授的政治立场同其它的社会科学专业相比要偏右不少。我个人在经济问题上的观点也偏右,但是在减税的问题上对减税却不会大幅度增加赤字这一点很怀疑。希拉里本来是继承了克林顿在90年代的第三条道路,属于中间偏左,对自由市场、自由贸易挺支持,但是在民主党初选Bernie Sanders的压力下向左移了不少,现在也主张大幅度提高最低工资,公立大学学费很大程度上免费。我都不太喜欢。

    Trump在自由贸易问题上,完全同共和党的传统背道而驰,也跟这封公开信里反对希拉里的这些经济学家的主张相反。而且这好像也不是他为了这次大选在演戏,Economist杂志提到20多年以前他就发表过文章,反对自由贸易,这一点他好像是真的相信。我个人还是认为经济学课本传统的支持自由贸易的论证仍然很有说服力,这对贸易双方都是互利。而且美国停止同中国的贸易,不仅对中国经济会有很大伤害,给国际政治带来很大不稳定性,而且那些需要的教育程度低但收入却挺高的制造业工作也不会回到美国,反而是自动化机器人会得到更快更广泛的使用。因此尽管自由贸易或许是加剧了美国的贫富收入差距,但是在这个问题上也只能接受现实。希拉里的真正看法我觉得和这接近,但是这话选民,尤其是教育程度低的选民好像很不爱听。

    在经济问题上,Trump最让我觉得可怕的倒不是这些问题,而是今年4月份在接受采访的时候提到美国政府国债的default也不是多么大的问题。Trump破产过多次(企业破产是我研究的领域之一,我还阅读过很多企业报表手工收集过一个数据库,里面好几个data point就是Trump提供的),他的经验是破产不是坏事,反而你欠钱的银行,会来求你,这样需要偿还的债务会被减掉不少等于从银行那儿白拿钱花。但是他好像没有意识到他的这个经验在国债问题上根本不适用。美国国债作为无风险资产,是全球金融市场的基石,是银行等金融机构安全资产最重要的组成部分,如果美国国债default的话,整个全球金融市场就会立刻垮掉,比2008年金融危机带来的冲击不知要大多少倍。因此Trump这种人要能当上总统的话,让我觉得非常可怕。而且美国国债default这种话不仅不能干,嘴上也不能乱说,如果市场真的认为这个可能性实际存在的话,为了补偿这个风险,要求的利率立刻就会直线上升。财政部的利息支出马上会大幅度增加,而这又会加大default的可能性,甚至会形成self fulfilling prophecy。美国自建国开始汉密尔顿建立的美国国债金字招牌的信用会毁于一旦。Trump的那番话还有给日本韩国核武器这些话,实在让我觉得他对具体政策的知识太过肤浅,而且还不愿意下功夫学习。希拉里在经济政策上尽管和我的立场有很多相左的地方,但是比他还是强的太多。

    点评

    涨姿势: 5.0
    涨姿势: 5
      发表于 2016-9-29 04:41

    评分

    参与人数 2爱元 +8 收起 理由
    煮酒正熟 + 6
    tanis + 2 涨姿势

    查看全部评分

    回复 支持 1 反对 0

    使用道具 举报

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    138#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-29 05:37:50 | 显示全部楼层
    tanis 发表于 2016-9-29 04:51
    昨天听广播,貌似有人替Trump算了,按他的政策,米国政府会债台高筑~

    你现在在开公司吗?怎么对公司税这么感兴趣。

    降公司利润税,我也觉得挺有道理,尤其是美国现在的公司税率接近于世界最高。但就是Trump的支持者在这个问题上populist的情绪都很高,政治上阻力太大。就是Trump上台我觉得也不太可能实现。

    个人收入税要降的话,要么需要把那些deduction,像房贷利息,医疗保险等去掉,要么得开征新的税种像VAT,但是在政治上也都很不受欢迎。就是Trump上台也不会降很多。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    139#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-29 18:08:09 | 显示全部楼层

    qyangroo
    希拉里胜过Bernie是因为超级代表选票拿的多,单数人头应是Bernie胜出


    @qyangroo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De ... chedule_and_results

    今年民主党初选,得票数希拉里是55.2%,Bernie Sanders是43.1%。Pledged delegates的数量,希拉里是2205,Sanders是1846。怎么数都是希拉里获胜。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    140#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-9-29 18:24:04 | 显示全部楼层
    tanis 发表于 2016-9-29 09:23
    公司税一降,股市应该会大涨吧~~~那些在海外有一大堆现金的公司尤其会涨?

    个人收入税能降到小布什时期 ...

    你的收入很高啊。2012年底Obama加税,只是个人收入40万美元,夫妻收入45万美元以上的marginal rate从35%升到39.6%。这要是严重影响到你的话,那你家是非常富的了。

    就长期来说,随着美国社会老龄化的进程,social security和Medicare的负担会越来越重。收入税能不升就不错了,不要期待着会降。而且将来很可能会开辟新的税源,比如征收联邦消费税VAT。

    手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|网站错误报告|爱吱声   

    GMT+8, 2024-6-2 01:06 , Processed in 0.055930 second(s), 19 queries , Gzip On.

    Powered by Discuz! X3.2

    © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

    快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表