陇山陇西郡

宁静纯我心 感得事物人 写朴实清新. 闲书闲话养闲心,闲笔闲写记闲人;人生无虞懂珍惜,以沫相濡字字真。
个人资料
  • 博客访问:
文章分类
归档
正文

Love dictator?

(2016-10-09 22:25:59) 下一个

It's shocking to read some Chinese applauding "jail Hillary," - if you like dictator, why come here?

######

Taking a page straight out of the Kremlin political playbook, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if elected he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, prosecute and jail his political opponent Hillary Clinton. The threat violates virtually every more of American politics and democracy hearkening to brutal dictatorships like Russia.

The threat came as part of his response on her so-called email scandal (a faux scandal in which Republicans in Congress have completely exonerated Clinton of any wrongdoing).

Trump said:

If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. There has never been so many lies, so much exception.There has never been anything like it. We will have a special prosecutor. I go out and speak and the people of this country are furious. The long time workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this with emails. You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails and acid wash them or bleach them. An expensive process. We will get a special prosecutor and look into it. You know what, people have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. You should be ashamed.

When allowed to respond, Clinton said:

Everything he said is absolutely false. It would be impossible to be fact checking Donald all the time. I would never get to talk and make lives better for people. Once again, go to Hillaryclinton.com. You can fact check Trump in realtime. Last time at the first debate we had millions of people fact checking and we will have millions more fact checking. It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

To which Trump threatened, “Because you would be in jail.”

This is the point we’ve reached as a nation where a political candidate threatens – during an active election cycle – to jail his opposition.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his abhorrence of the comments on Twitter saying, “So will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit.”

Threatening to jail a political opponent who has not committed or been convicted of a crime is a direct assault on democracy, full stop. More frighteningly, it aligns with his earlier statements threatening to take other unconstitutional actions including gutting the First Amendment to censor the press.

Moreover, Putin actually engaged in this exact sort of political maneuver in Ukraine after installing a new president and having his political opponent jailed.

As Zack Beauchamp at Vox succinctly put it:

This is everything we feared about Donald Trump. His long history of trying to silence critics with lawsuits, his inability to let personal slights go, his pettiness: The nightmare scenario is that these would incline him to use the power of the presidency to forcibly silence his critics and opponents. That’s what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe. That’s what happens in countries where peaceful transitions of power are the exception, not the rule.

Donald Trump just threatened to bring that to America.

Once again Trump has shown us just how much he admires Putin. He admires him so much he’d turn the United States into a hard line dictatorship that jails political opposition – an act that would literally begin the dissolution of our democracy.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/10/trump-jail-clinton-25192.html

 

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (5)
评论
TJKCB 回复 悄悄话 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/trump-twitter-loved-it
TJKCB 回复 悄悄话 Federal prosecutors have enormous power, none greater than their unfettered ability to conduct criminal investigations and to pursue criminal charges. The decision to prosecute can destroy lives, even when charges are later dismissed or when a jury acquits the defendant. Even the existence of a criminal investigation and the threat of criminal prosecution can irreparably damage reputations.

For that reason, there are few principles more sacred to the rule of law than the understanding that we should never politicize criminal prosecution and never deploy criminal charges as a political weapon. It is shocking that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom were United States attorneys, have argued as surrogates for Mr. Trump that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted. As former prosecutors, they know better.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/vengeance
TJKCB 回复 悄悄话 to be a rambling, swaggering bully. Listening to him for an hour and a half is like being hit on the head constantly by a rubber hammer — or listening to a classic tavern drunk, full of bluster and bluff, plentiful exclamations and very few facts. To saddle this barstool blatherer up with the full force of the greatest military in the history of the world is to beg for one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words: “disaster.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/the-barroom-brawl-in-st-louis
TJKCB 回复 悄悄话 您的位置: 文学城 ? 博客 ?美国大选年谈政治正确。

美国大选年谈政治正确。

2016-10-10 12:33:58



东方明月-


东方明月-

生于美丽的杭州。小时爱在西湖边上赏月纳凉,品茶夜谈。好诗词,小说,和数学。1989年人在北京,那一天,那些人,那些事,从此改变了我。风花雪月随岁月远去,政治,历史成为了我的新宠。

首页 文章列表 博文目录

给我悄悄话


打印
(被阅读 256次)












Share





东方明月



最近中文媒体一阵风开始批判“政治正确”,但有多少人知道什么是政治正确?---政治正确就是大部分人类公认的社会价值。所以需要选票的政治家讲话必须政治正确,否则就会流失选票。但对非政治家,政治正确根本没有什么约束力,像歌手YG唱“如何抢中国人”,牧师直指黑人根本不懂这个世界。其他人抗议半天也拿他们没辙,他们不犯法!



政治正确本身没有错,大部分时候,反对政治正确其实就是反人类。错的是某些政治家为了其政治利益,把政治正确推向极端,或利用政治正确谋私利。我们反对的是以政治正确为名弯曲事实的各种极端主义想想。



比如,歧视黑人无可辩驳是错的,但不去就事论事追究事实真相,在警民冲突中永远支持黑人,就是政治正确的副作用了。争取华人权益是政治正确,但把李文和这样盗窃雇主机密为私用的人作为人权勇士就成笑话了。保护少数民族是政治正确,但在民族纠纷中,不管三七二十一偏袒少数民族就是极端“政治正确”了。



Hillary是政治正确的代表,在许多时候为了选票,她不惜歪曲事实把政治正确推向极端。她像个博士生,老奸巨猾,让人无法信任。其纲领没有新意,当选就是保持现状,长远来说经济上会拖垮美国。



Trump是反政治正确的代表,正是因为那些政治家把政治正确演绎到了极端,使Trump有了深厚的民意基础。他的大方向对美国长远发展有利,但他政纲像个小学生作业,自以为是纸上谈兵,一旦落实的话破坏性远大于建设性。其主张搞好美国的可能性很小,砸锅的几率比小孩子烧糊饭菜的可能性还大。



比如减税,这肯定是好事,但如何减才是关键。作为一个以消费主导的社会,对消费主体减税才能刺激经济,而不是对大企业、大富翁。事实上大企业大富翁对此并不感冒,反而大多数反对Trump 不靠谱的经济政策。因为影响投资决定的不是减多少税,而是是否有值得投资的项目。有利的投资借钱也投,无利的减税送钱也不能干。



再比如反全球化,Trump抓到了问题的关键,是许多国家无视贸易协定,在汇率,关税等问题上弄虚作假,导致巨额贸易逆差。但那种弄虚作假的相关国家都不承认,在世贸组织打多少年官司都不一定有结果。而Trump的许多主张是却明目张胆违反贸易协定,马上就会输掉官司。如果按他方法强硬执行,即使成功,也会使美国陪上百年来树立起来的信誉,长远损失无可估量。



最后再谈一种华人心目中的政治正确,那就是希望选出一位好总统,因此面对这两个烂人让许多华人无所适从。古人都知道人无完人,政治家更是最不可信任的群体之一。“青天老爷”从来只是童话中才出现的事情,现实中不可能。所以选举其实就是比烂游戏。没错,真正的选举就是把候选人的问题暴露在阳光下,让我们选最不烂的。只有独裁选举的候选人才是完美的,敢说它们不好的都进监狱了。



有人说没一个候选人能代表大多数人民的利益。你能说清楚什么是人民的利益吗?事实是每一个人心中的"人民利益"都是不同的。你只能根据你个人的利益,两害相权取其轻,选那个在主要议题上和你有较多共同点的候选人。只有独裁者才能代表绝大多数人民的利益。因为和它们利益不同的都已经被打成人民的敌人了。



美国的成功不在于他们有伟大的总统,而在于他们有可以制衡流氓的制度。当初建国的那一群流氓因为承认自己是流氓,所以建立了互相防范的制衡制度,以保证了政府的流氓习性不会损害自己。美国的经济成就与总统的关系真的不大,只要总统不捣蛋,经济发展的主力是企业家和他们的员工。



美国历史上,美国的军队也开枪射杀过示威游行的群众(1877年铁路工人大罢工),美国也有过野蛮的强制拆迁 (1830年代开始实施的印第安人迁徙法 ),美国煤矿工人也遭受过层出不穷的矿难,美国19世纪末也存在普遍的买官卖官现象,到1950年代初,黑人竟然还必须把公车前面的座位让给白人。但由于制衡体制把这些罪恶都暴露在阳光下,使得这些丑恶的历史不会再重演。这就是政治正确的作用,虽然这让某些洁癖感觉不适。


如果美国也有和谐但没有制衡,那么美国历史就会变得光辉灿烂:所有的总统都伟大,所有的成就都辉煌,所有的能量都是正正正......可是黑人依然是奴隶,腐败依然泛滥.....





文取心 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:16:35

一辆车搁在悬崖边上,奥巴马是驾驶员,希拉里是那个坐在副驾驶座的,而川普是个站在外面的旁观者,手上正好有一条钢索——反对‘政治正确。你选谁来拯救这辆车?
如果你承认美国在下滑,那就只能选川普。

老北京炸酱面 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:58:43

选总统就是选大方向:如果你不喜欢美国边境任由外来偷渡人侵入,担心穆斯林渗透,注意到日趋激烈的警民冲突,甚至讨厌男人随意进女厕所,那么选川普;如果你认为美国左得还不够那么选希拉蕊。

其余的都是噪音,用来混淆视听而已。
TJKCB 回复 悄悄话 雅美之途:川普在辩论中声称将会把希拉里投入监狱

2016-10-10 08:48:38



雅美之途


雅美之途

教育,人文,社会

首页 文章列表 博文目录

给我悄悄话


打印
(被阅读 1556次)












Share







欧洲同学问我对昨晚美国总统辩论的评价,昨晚因为看到了美国最为低下的总统辩论,完全没心情去写川普在圣路易斯华盛顿大学的丑陋表演,他再次触及了美国立国之本的底线。

希拉里昨天发挥正常,但是川普的表现远比上次强。在开场关于他的淫荡录音的尴尬场面过后,川普越讲越好,充满攻击性,他可以完全忽视主持人念出的美国民众的提问。川普使用简单的语句,然后加强语气重复,让上过小学的人都可以激动,这次此策略仍然有效。但是川普的策略把克林顿的以往的情妇都请出来坐在自己家人旁边,而克林顿完全不在选票上,川普只有攻击别人太太的德行,如此行为很有可能backfires。川普公开不同意他的副总统候选人彭斯在叙利亚的立场,也会有进一步的问题, 并且川普说他没有与彭斯通话。虽然CNN自己承认样本偏民主党,但是他们的民调以57%比34%声称希拉里胜。网上随机民调完全不能相信,那是水军的假象,第一次也说川普大胜。

在辩论中川普要把希拉里放进监狱,这为在政治层面上创下美国之低的言论。川普在辩论时至少说过一次希拉里应该进监狱,他说如果他当选,他会让自己的司法部长设立独立检察官调查希拉里,然后把希拉里投入监狱。如果不是总统竞选,希拉里那电邮的事情或川普的淫荡录音,nobody cares, 但是政治报复把对手放监狱,则完全是三流国家的做法。川普以前也说过他当选后将更改美国诽谤法规,然后会控告那么可能揭露他完全不交税的媒体,这已经直接威胁美国宪法修正案第一条关于言论自由的立国之本,这次在全国辩论中声称当选后要将对手采取文革式的报复手段,令人难以置信。川普先生,没有媒体你会昨晚公开承认没交联邦税吗?美国政治游戏从来不是这样的,1992年被克林顿击败只做了一任美国总统的老布什,这次可以转向支持希拉里。

我们应该懂点使得美国如此强大的宪法修正案。美国宪法签署后有人不满,认为联邦(Federal) 权力过大, 普通百姓的权力没有保障。那群以杰弗逊为代表的反对派又称反联邦人士(Anti-Federalist) ,他们担心联邦权力过大后,总统可能变成另外性质的国王。所以他们希望限制联邦的权力,甚至曾经威胁要另外起草新宪法,这样才有政治妥协后的宪法修正案。

根据第五条修正案的规定,被告不能作为证人,也不能利用被告的言论为被告自己定罪,所以被告说话可以尽可能少或拒绝回答问题,以免对自己不利。修正案是这样陈述的:“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”

如果起诉官控告一位杀人犯,第一次庭审时因为证据等原因没有成功,被告被释放;但是被告出狱后,DNA等证据明确证明他真杀了人,即使这样检查官也永远不能在犯罪法庭(criminal court) 再次起诉他了,也就是说被告不能以同一杀人罪名被再次审判,他象鸟一样自由。但是原告可以通过民事诉讼(civil court) 从被告那里寻求经济损失。

美国人通常说的禁止“double jeopardy "就是对第五条修正案的通俗易懂的说明。为了防止政府无限制地寻找证据起诉个人,因为政府的权力和资源永远都是远强大于民众的,如果无限制起诉会造成权力滥用。这也是我长期反对中国现任高官对退休官员采取法律行动,特别是对退任国家元首级领导人的起诉,像释皇帝对江元首可能的抓捕,官官的相互报复会使中国变成三流国家。



昨晚去华大校园停留和拍照,从CNN到Foxnews,所有谈论的焦点都是川普的录音。倒数第二张照片的男孩相当可怜,川普支持者在这里很孤单,我去安慰他,他说自己从伊利诺州南部来。我说我刚从乡下Potosi,Missouri 开车回来,那里是川普的世界,他接着说:“是啊,这里是大学!”。最后一张照片里的白色标志写着:“用手摸妇女不是淫荡而是性侵!”







阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:38:28

Which claim? :) Grammar or political views?

文取心 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:34:30

楼主有没有正视这个事实——在国会质询已经传达的情况下,希拉里删除三万三千条包含极端机密的电邮,是绝对可以进监狱的。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:32:56

请您注意,那个“As”开头的就是分句哟。。。没有这个“as"可就不行了。:)

我下面的留言已经说了“一句一个主语”不准确,但增加主语确实是需要分句或分号的。您开始那样逗号到底肯定是不对的。不信可以请您的美国同事看看。。

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:30:28

回复 '阿留' 的评论 : What you claimed here was wrong, period.

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:28:53

回复 '阿留' 的评论 : How can you say that "英语一句只有一个主语,增加主语必须用分句、分号或句号。"? Please read this sentence that I copied from the web, there were certainly two subjects, one for the first half and another one for the second half of the sentence:

"As Donald Trump's campaign reels over tapes of the presidential candidate's sexually aggressive comments about women in 2005, the Republican nominee now trails Hillary Clinton by double digits among likely voters, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-after-trump-tape-revelation-clinton-s-lead-double-digits-n663691

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:23:21

"I am a very tolerant person".

Please add "a" here. Thanks. 我说“一句一个主语”有点不准确,但多个主语在同一句时确实需要用分句(clause)或者分号,不能逗号到底。

文以止戈 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:15:50

好文章!

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:13:56

Although I welcome diverse messages for the discussions here, but those posts with insulting words, phrases or sentences will be deleted immediately. I am very tolerant person. It's my obligation to clean up my backyard.

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:08:58

Your English needs improvement. : ) You cannot use so many "," as you do in Chinese. Just a friendly reminder to save the reviewers/editors more time in the future.

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 14:06:14

回复 '阿留' 的评论 : What you said here was not right at all: "英语一句只有一个主语,增加主语必须用分句、分号或句号。"

老北京炸酱面 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:59:30

选总统就是选大方向:如果你不喜欢美国边境任由外来偷渡人侵入,担心穆斯林渗透,注意到日趋激烈的警民冲突,甚至讨厌男人随意进女厕所,那么选川普;如果你认为美国左得还不够那么选希拉蕊。

其余的都是噪音,用来混淆视听而已。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:57:24

另外给您指出一个语法上的小错误:
“wrong, my interpretation ..."这里的逗号换成分号或句号都对,但用成逗号就不对了。这是中国人写英语文章常犯的错误之一。英语一句只有一个主语,增加主语必须用分句、分号或句号。

有点可惜 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:51:57

像喜来莉这样自恃身处主流/上层阶级, 张嘴就是自己都不相信的官话套话,出手就是致人死地的狠毒手段,跟共产党的做法简直是如出一辙。

有点可惜 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:43:43

====
但是““double jeopardy "”这一点并不适用Trump昨晚说要任命一个特别检察官一说,因为Hilary并不是已经被起诉过又被盘无罪。
====

that is the point!

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:23:53


雅美兄提第五修正案的事情,初衷无非就是想让大家不要对希拉里的丑闻纠缠下去,为此找个“法律依据”,可是这根本不是一回事嘛。第五修正案限制的是司法部门的权力,而老百姓要求调查希拉里是人民的权力。本质区别也。不可偏袒哟。:)

做科研的人,看事情要客观,不能因为支持某人就对其问题视而不见。

春妮18 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:12:10

川普把克林顿的旧情人带到会场,是针对希拉里的,希拉里对这些女人恐吓威胁,毁了她们。黄段子臭弹是希拉里发出的,川普只是要用四棵核弹finished it。在丑闻上,希拉里是发起者和失败者。还有,川普列举希拉里的罪行条条正确,民愤所在,他只是要将她绳之以法,用法律给她定罪,与其他无关,不要在此误导读者。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:11:34

回复 '雅美之途' 的评论 :

I have given you a real example below. :) So clearly you haven't read it.

One cannot propose to enjail his/her political opponent only because of the differences in political views. However, one could propose to prosecute that person because of his/her crime. In this debate, it is the latter case.

At the Republican Convention many were shouting "Put her in jail". That's also freedom of speech. : )



comeback 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:09:42

回复:雅美之途
没觉得有什么威胁和不妥啊。希就是有犯罪嫌疑,为了掩盖自己的失职导致包括大使在内的4个美国人的死亡,而删掉email。这是干扰司法调查, 罪上加罪的嫌疑。如果被判有罪而进Jail不是很合理吗?哪轮得到你搞个哗众取宠的标题

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 13:06:17

回复 '阿留' 的评论 : Your understanding on fifth amendment was wrong, my interpretation was accurate.

Although they are not exactly the same between Trump's comments and double jeopardy, I was more focusing on Trump's behavior to abuse his potential executive power, this was exactly the founding fathers' intention to prevent from happening.

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:55:26

回复 'comeback' 的评论 : You should do your homework before you put anything here: http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-threatens-jail-hillary-clinton/

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Donald Trump Was Wrong to Threaten Hillary Clinton With Jail

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:55:05

再来科普一下第五修正案与retrial的事情。楼主的理解是有偏颇的。控方可以"误判“的理由再次提起诉讼。所以您说的有确凿新证据的情况,显然是可以重判的。

“Prosecution after mistrial

The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith," i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.[77]

If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[78] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.

Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiques dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (after three mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie omits the first three murder trials).”


comeback 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:45:54

川普说的"Because you'd be in jail",根据上下文来看,就是一虚拟语气。作者就这一烂英文水平,还成天在这里指点江山,自以为进入了主流社会

swimming2016 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:44:32

你根本没听明白川普在说什么。

看你每天上串下跳为民主党呐喊,天天在网上混, 真觉得美国快完了。

你有时间还不如多学点英语,尤其是听力, 好多了解一下美国社会, 行吗?

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:41:48

您还有一个逻辑错误:希拉里作为公职人员,人民有权质疑和推动对她失职行为的调查,绝不是"nobody cares"。

关于第五修正案,滥用法律和没有法律的效果是一样的。您举的杀人犯的例子,恰恰彰显了其重大缺陷。法律最终要求的是正义,否则就无法“法网恢恢,疏而不漏”。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 12:08:58

回复 '闻达' 的评论 :

说的好。言行不一,说的比唱的好听,这是新世纪民主党的特色之一。:)

拜托开始的一问,总统辩论立马变成R级的了。嘴上说要go high,一上来就go low,毒害小盆友啊!

闻达 发表评论于 2016-10-10 11:53:06

昨天晚上的辩论,那位Anderson Cooper的第一个问题居然就是让川普交代十年前的那番“黄色”讲话。看来民主党的媒体认为总统最重要的资格是由他是否讲色情决定的。果真如此,当年比尔 克林顿就应该因为做的远超于川普说的而被弹劾了。可当初就是因为民主党们的力保才使克林顿立于不倒。可见民主党们并不认为这类行为应当影响做总统的资格。既然如此,何以今天他们对川普发难,仅仅因言就要取消川普做总统的资格。
轮到希拉里讲话时,上来就讲:they go low,we go high。结果她立马开始评论川普的讲话,刚说了她要go high,分明就冲着川普的low去了。她对她的丈夫的low 并无深恶痛绝,非但不认为应当影响他做总统的资格,也不认为应当影响做她丈夫的资格,却对川普言论如此难以容忍,分明是利益驱使的双重标准。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 11:39:58

"这也是我长期反对中国现任高官对退休官员采取法律行动,特别是对退任国家元首级领导人的起诉,像释皇帝对江元首可能的抓捕,官官的相互报复会使中国变成三流国家。"

您这句让我大跌眼镜,不像是在美国生活多年的人说的话。这样做的结果,就是大家都知道只要当官就可以豁免,因此在任时可以为所欲为、肆无忌惮,从而让国内的官本位更加严重。犯了法,该查就得查,否则正义何在,“平等”何在??!!

ahhhh 发表评论于 2016-10-10 11:24:03

你们听了辩论吗?听到观众欢呼吗?看到主持人慌张吗?民心不可违。

阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 11:19:29

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/clinton-wins-debate-but-trump-exceeds-expectations/

“Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate."


阿留 发表评论于 2016-10-10 11:12:58

雅美兄,搞科研的人,写文章要有点科学精神。CNN自己的网站上明确说受调查者本身就是58%支持民主党,所以这个57%认为希拉里获胜的结果是有水分的。样本本身有bias,结果就谈不上准确了。如果一定要说点啥,只能说大部分人看了辩论后意见不变;川普也许convert了1%的人,但在误差范围以内,不能下结论。:)

“水军”,我跟您讲过,这个要有明确证据才好说出来。您这样写,投稿科技期刊是要被打回来的。博文虽然不是论文,但也不可信口开河。

再说“送入监狱”,希拉里这个事情遮遮掩掩,有蹊跷,能不让人怀疑吗?自己删了那么多email,这在科技界早就足以引发调查了,数据几乎必定有造假嫌疑。

要我说,两人都够呛,但川普的错误属于“不拘小节”,希拉里的政治错误属于“大义有亏”。希拉里如果上台,和天朝的“带病提拔”是一样的,会开一个很坏的先例,会让政客们更加肆无忌惮。



jialiseng 发表评论于 2016-10-10 10:56:39

很正常,如果政府部门不是掌握在民主党人手里,希拉里就是应该蹲监狱。

大号蚂蚁 发表评论于 2016-10-10 10:33:45

拜托。川朴说这话的意思是,希拉里的电邮,大使,封口,卖国都是有严重嫌疑的。如果核实,足够蹲大狱的。只不过现在建制派护着她,不立案调查而已。川普无非是私下说话不检点,根本不触犯法律,更谈不上国家利益。再者,也不是希拉里直接爆料,更谈不上诬陷,川普想打架报复也够不着。是你自己一点法律常识和政治常识都没有的瞎联系。

compact 发表评论于 2016-10-10 10:12:25

回"古龙":

请不要用什么"川粉". 支持Trump的就是"粉", 不思考吗?
还"可悲". 你老兄哪这么多悲天悯人?

我周围很多支持Trump的原意很简单:美国不能一直左下去了. 你能明白吗?还说别人是"粉"

一师是个好学校 发表评论于 2016-10-10 09:49:43

但是““double jeopardy "”这一点并不适用Trump昨晚说要任命一个特别检察官一说,因为Hilary并不是已经被起诉过又被盘无罪。用这一点引用到牵涉贪腐的中国大陆退休官员,更是风马牛不相及

古龙 发表评论于 2016-10-10 09:49:12

可悲的很多华人川粉都是受过大学教育的

cuteyeve 发表评论于 2016-10-10 09:08:46

丑闻不说,Trump昨晚的言语充分说明了他根本不知道,也不在乎美国的宪法和法律程序,外交上更是像Sarah Palin一样,整个就是一bully. 只是谁把他当个鸟啊!
登录后才可评论.