如果trump这样argue自然可以。说实话,如果今年共和党候选人是一个说话正常的,赢得大选的胜算比现在大多了。我看了trump的一些采访,几句话重复来重复去,然后believe me, believe me。我想believe you啊,可是说了半天,什么build a wall, bring jobs back from china, ban muslim,可是这些口号谁都会喊。。。
Donald Trump’s appeal should be a call to arms Trump’s nomination as Republican presidential candidate is a reminder that scientific progress has not benefited all Americans, says Daniel Sarewitz.
If, as the French counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote in 1811, every nation gets the government it deserves, what might the United States have done to deserve Donald Trump?
A well-functioning democracy should undercut the appeal of blustering, xenophobic demagogues by ensuring that most citizens have a stake in government and hope for the future. And although no single cause or problem can explain Trump’s appeal to a large part of the American electorate, his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate should be cause for serious reflection about what is going wrong in America. For many Americans, one thing that has gone wrong is that the promise of scientific and technological progress has not been fulfilled.
This promise is at the heart of the American identity: it is anchored by founding fathers Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, scientists and inventors both, extolled by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 masterwork Democracy in America, embodied in the inventions of Thomas Edison, and codified in its modern form in Science, The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush’s famous 1945 science-policy report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which laid out the still-powerful argument for government sponsorship of basic science.
Indeed, Bush’s linking of the frontier metaphor to the promise of scientific progress was a distinctively American flourish. And his formula was simple: three factors — “the free play of initiative of a vigorous people under democracy, the heritage of great natural wealth, and the advance of science and its application” — would deliver to all Americans full employment and rising standards of living, improved health, and military security. Government investment in science, especially research carried out at the nation’s elite universities, would prime the pump of continual progress.
Not everyone, however, was buying Bush’s story. Starting in the early 1940s, Senator Harley Kilgore, a Democrat from West Virginia, championed a different national approach to science policy, one in which government investment would focus research and development directly on social goals and economic growth. A six-year political battle between Kilgore and Bush followed, to control not just US science policy itself, but, equally importantly, the rhetoric of science and progress. Bush, who had much of the leadership of academic and industrial science on his side, and who saw Kilgore as a threat to the independence of both elite academic science and the economic marketplace, became the decisive winner on both fronts: the 1950 bill creating the National Science Foundation gave scientists primary responsibility for determining the agency’s research agenda.
“The promise of scientific and technological progress has not been fulfilled.” Over the subsequent 65 years, scientists and science advocates have not shirked from parroting Bush’s Endless Frontier vision of scientific knowledge, flowing from “the free play of free intellects”, as an unalloyed good from which all citizens would benefit through the ever-expanding economic opportunities created by science-based innovation. It has been an appealingly non-ideological view of progress, adopted across the political spectrum. As Nobel-prizewinning physicist Leon Lederman put it in 1992: “What’s good for American science … is good for America.”
Maybe not. Although Trump supporters are by no means a homogeneous lot, a clever analysis in The New York Times in March showed that they can most reliably be characterized by two attributes. First, they identify their ancestral heritage as American, rather than any particular ethnic or religious stock. And second, they live in regions of the country that have not only failed to benefit economically from innovation, but have been harmed by it.
Mainstream media analysis of the Trump phenomenon almost never links it to the science and technology policies pursued by the nation since the Second World War. Yet technological revolutions arising from these policies have contributed to more than 40 years of wealth inequality, disappearing middle-class jobs and eviscerated manufacturing communities in the places where support for Trump is strongest. Indeed, economic theory throws aside these millions of people as the inevitable losers in the ‘creative destruction’ that science catalyses, as if ruined cities and livelihoods are just side effects of the strong medicine of science-based innovation. These people are the cost of the prevailing myth of progress, and, given their core identity as ‘Americans’, it is no wonder they are susceptible to Trump’s jingoistic populism.
No one remembers Harley Kilgore any more, and it’s impossible to know whether his socially oriented vision of science policy might have contributed to a more equitable linking between scientific advance and economic benefit. But it is more than simply ironic that Kilgore’s home state of West Virginia — whose per capita income ranks 49th out of the 50 states — is now Trump’s strongest supporter.
Having claimed for more than a half a century that science-based innovation would be good for everyone, science advocates and scientists who have benefited so greatly from this line of argument can hardly now say, “Oh, but it’s not our fault, these are problems of trade and labour and economic policy”. Trump’s ascendance should rekindle the Bush–Kilgore debates, and policymakers should seriously consider what a system of socially responsible and responsive science would look like. The current system has failed the test.
他是最先受到攻击的,很遗憾他的回击方式你不喜欢
至于你说谁站在他背后,FB上他有超过千万的粉丝。
你可以搞清全过程再发言吗?别人先攻击Trump,他回击,但是媒体只强调他回击的部分。Ted Cruz先攻击Trump太太,贴Trump太太做模特时候的裸照,说话很侮辱。拜托,模特是人家的职业。Trump反击,是正常人的做法。然后RNC大会上Cruz不肯endorse Trump,理由是Trump攻击他老婆和父亲,但是他从来没有为先侮辱Trump太太道歉过。Cruz把个人私怨置于政党利益之上,是非常不光明磊落的做法。他如果日后再出来竞选总统,这些都是污点。
呵呵。小孩子三年级打架么?贴人家老婆的丑照片,暗示人家有多少情妇?还有说人家爸爸暗杀?cruz本人我不评价,但大家看到的就是一个总统候选人不能hold自己,有temperamental problem.
你如果喜欢政客政治正确说话滴水不漏谁也不得罪,可是什么实事也做不出来,这就是奥巴马希拉里啊。我没觉得Trump不能hold自己,人都有defend自己的权利,说明他不是职业政客。
我可以把话放在这里,如果公平选举,合法公民一人一票,trump一定当选,而且至少高希拉里十个百分点。当然民主党现在已经开始闹着投票不能差id了,死在希拉里手下的人也有一串了,所以我不知道民主党会出什么阴招,结果如何谁也不知道。
同觉得怎么赢就会怎么输。。。 现在连辩论都要推迟
一定会的
他的对手真的不需要做什么,他会自己给自己挖个深坑,义无反顾地跳下去的
我也遇到了,自己说谎圆不了的只能转头骂人
这话从何说起?
我可以把话放在这里,如果公平选举,合法公民一人一票,trump一定当选,而且至少高希拉里十个百分点。当然民主党现在已经开始闹着投票不能差id了,死在希拉里手下的人也有一串了,所以我不知道民主党会出什么阴招,结果如何谁也不知道。
投票不查ID不是今年才有的,“民主党要靠这个作弊”,想象出来的当事实讲也有点可笑了。我就不信要是民主党真的就打算靠这个赢了,共和党会一点措施都不采取,还等得到由屁民们来操心?
如果投票的时候,可以记录一下,那些票是show id的人投的,哪些是没show id的人投的,投trump 和 hillary各多少百分比,也是很有意思的数据
别的帖子里回的,贴过来看看,不是叫嚣,而是已经不查ID了
深蓝州。
这周给registration office打电话被告知,Registration form 填的内容没有人核实,交表时也不需要提供任何资料证明表上所填信息属实否,比如,姓名,是否公民,ID number。收集表的只负责把表上的信息输进计算机系统里,到十月份 ballots 会按照注册表填的姓名地址邮出来。
投票,也是mail in or drop off, no booth,直接邮寄回去,或者drop off 再制定的地点,不查ID,不查是否有公民身份。
我的理解,因为没人核实,所有信息都可以是假的,除了地址需要valid,否则收不到选票。任何人都可以投票,不存在的人也可以投票。一个人可以伪造很多注册表,表用真名,注册表上说填表人实公民就好。
知道这个以后,一直在震惊中。这么重要的事,居然什么也不查,也不需要人到场,直接一封信就可以了,完全就是给作弊提供各种便利条件啊
Ruth 发表于 7/28/2016 4:31:15 PM
自从知道了这个州的选举程序后,这两天一直在想这个问题。
真心做假的,注册表上哪里会用自己名字,哪里会用自己的证件号。什么也不查的程序,除非查 ballots上面的DNA货字迹,或指纹,如何证明是谁假冒投票,怎么抓,谁去抓,抓得过来嘛。更何况记票时还会经好几个人手,就算有forensic evidence,也都被破坏了,所以做假投票完全没有后果啊
just want to share with this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/politics/obama-to-leave-the-white-house-a-nerdier-place-than-he-found-it.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Obama to Leave the White House a Nerdier Place Than He Found It
A nice read.
Any one read this? Published in Nature
Donald Trump’s appeal should be a call to arms
Trump’s nomination as Republican presidential candidate is a reminder that scientific progress has not benefited all Americans, says Daniel Sarewitz.
If, as the French counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote in 1811, every nation gets the government it deserves, what might the United States have done to deserve Donald Trump?
A well-functioning democracy should undercut the appeal of blustering, xenophobic demagogues by ensuring that most citizens have a stake in government and hope for the future. And although no single cause or problem can explain Trump’s appeal to a large part of the American electorate, his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate should be cause for serious reflection about what is going wrong in America. For many Americans, one thing that has gone wrong is that the promise of scientific and technological progress has not been fulfilled.
This promise is at the heart of the American identity: it is anchored by founding fathers Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, scientists and inventors both, extolled by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 masterwork Democracy in America, embodied in the inventions of Thomas Edison, and codified in its modern form in Science, The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush’s famous 1945 science-policy report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which laid out the still-powerful argument for government sponsorship of basic science.
Indeed, Bush’s linking of the frontier metaphor to the promise of scientific progress was a distinctively American flourish. And his formula was simple: three factors — “the free play of initiative of a vigorous people under democracy, the heritage of great natural wealth, and the advance of science and its application” — would deliver to all Americans full employment and rising standards of living, improved health, and military security. Government investment in science, especially research carried out at the nation’s elite universities, would prime the pump of continual progress.
Not everyone, however, was buying Bush’s story. Starting in the early 1940s, Senator Harley Kilgore, a Democrat from West Virginia, championed a different national approach to science policy, one in which government investment would focus research and development directly on social goals and economic growth. A six-year political battle between Kilgore and Bush followed, to control not just US science policy itself, but, equally importantly, the rhetoric of science and progress. Bush, who had much of the leadership of academic and industrial science on his side, and who saw Kilgore as a threat to the independence of both elite academic science and the economic marketplace, became the decisive winner on both fronts: the 1950 bill creating the National Science Foundation gave scientists primary responsibility for determining the agency’s research agenda.
“The promise of scientific and technological progress has not been fulfilled.”
Over the subsequent 65 years, scientists and science advocates have not shirked from parroting Bush’s Endless Frontier vision of scientific knowledge, flowing from “the free play of free intellects”, as an unalloyed good from which all citizens would benefit through the ever-expanding economic opportunities created by science-based innovation. It has been an appealingly non-ideological view of progress, adopted across the political spectrum. As Nobel-prizewinning physicist Leon Lederman put it in 1992: “What’s good for American science … is good for America.”
Maybe not. Although Trump supporters are by no means a homogeneous lot, a clever analysis in The New York Times in March showed that they can most reliably be characterized by two attributes. First, they identify their ancestral heritage as American, rather than any particular ethnic or religious stock. And second, they live in regions of the country that have not only failed to benefit economically from innovation, but have been harmed by it.
Mainstream media analysis of the Trump phenomenon almost never links it to the science and technology policies pursued by the nation since the Second World War. Yet technological revolutions arising from these policies have contributed to more than 40 years of wealth inequality, disappearing middle-class jobs and eviscerated manufacturing communities in the places where support for Trump is strongest. Indeed, economic theory throws aside these millions of people as the inevitable losers in the ‘creative destruction’ that science catalyses, as if ruined cities and livelihoods are just side effects of the strong medicine of science-based innovation. These people are the cost of the prevailing myth of progress, and, given their core identity as ‘Americans’, it is no wonder they are susceptible to Trump’s jingoistic populism.
No one remembers Harley Kilgore any more, and it’s impossible to know whether his socially oriented vision of science policy might have contributed to a more equitable linking between scientific advance and economic benefit. But it is more than simply ironic that Kilgore’s home state of West Virginia — whose per capita income ranks 49th out of the 50 states — is now Trump’s strongest supporter.
Having claimed for more than a half a century that science-based innovation would be good for everyone, science advocates and scientists who have benefited so greatly from this line of argument can hardly now say, “Oh, but it’s not our fault, these are problems of trade and labour and economic policy”. Trump’s ascendance should rekindle the Bush–Kilgore debates, and policymakers should seriously consider what a system of socially responsible and responsive science would look like. The current system has failed the test.