The New York Times: "Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena."
Los Angeles Times: "Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents."
The Baltimore Sun: "One candidate stands in the broad tradition of American leadership that has made this the greatest, most powerful and most prosperous nation in history. The other would have us trade that legacy for a cult of personality. The choice is clear."
New York Daily News: "Heaven help America were, unthinkably, Clinton to fail. She is all that stands between the United States of America and never-before-seen proof that the Founding Fathers weren't all that they've been cracked up to be."
The Dallas Morning News: "We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections."
The Cincinnati Enquirer: "The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century ... But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. ... We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst."
The Arizona Republic: "This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified. That's why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
San Francisco Chronicle: "[This election] is a test of whether American voters have the wisdom to identify and dispel a demagogue with authoritarian instincts who is treating a run for the presidency as if it were a reality TV show where outlandishness is the coin of the realm."
San Diego Union-Tribune: "This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton. She's the safe choice for the US and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike."
Corpus Christi Caller-Times: "She is not, as has been sold, a mere lesser of two evils. Her experience and intellect would make her a standout in any group of candidates."
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
尤其还要发什么 ny times , nbc 的洗脑文。 我开始关注trump是初选时候把他的语录剪辑当娱乐节目看的。开始支持他只是因为他是共和党的。 后期看了那些主流媒体一天几十个版本刷屏播放攻击trump的新闻，只要听过trump原话就知道好多是断章取义，稍微有点主见和独立判断的怎么能接受这种把别人当傻瓜的洗脑。 再后来发现trump很多政策理念都很好，完全不像媒体抹黑的那样。
调查说明，床迷大多是白男人没有大学学历。 想不到这帮没有大学学历的白男人都渗入华人论坛啦。真是佩服他们 Clinton wins the college-educated segment by 25 percentage points, 59 percent to 34 percent. Trump’s edge among those without a college education is 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent. Trump’s lead is 4-to-1 among white men with less than a college degree, 76 percent to 19 percent. Clinton’s advantage with college-educated women is 64 percent to 31 percent.
调查说明，床迷大多是白男人没有大学学历。 想不到这帮没有大学学历的白男人都渗入华人论坛啦。真是佩服他们 Clinton wins the college-educated segment by 25 percentage points, 59 percent to 34 percent. Trump’s edge among those without a college education is 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent. Trump’s lead is 4-to-1 among white men with less than a college degree, 76 percent to 19 percent. Clinton’s advantage with college-educated women is 64 percent to 31 percent.
The Crook Versus the Monster Posted October 21st, 2016 by scott Adams @ 10:25am in #Trump #Clinton
Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you. As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.
Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.
The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do. Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.
Likewise, Trump supporters know what they are getting. They know he’s offensive. They know he’s under-informed on policies. They know he pays as little in taxes as possible. They know he uses bankruptcy laws when needed. They know he ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message. They just don’t care. They want to push the monster into Washington D.C., close the door, and let him break everything that needs to be broken. Demolition is usually the first step of building something new. And Trump also knows how to build things when he isn’t in monster mode.
Clinton’s team of persuaders have successfully crafted Trump’s offensive language and hyperbole into an illusion that he’s a sexist/racist in some special way that is different from the average citizen. The reality is that everyone is a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. We’re all wired that way. There’s no escape if you are human. Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, but not good ones. That’s what gets us in trouble. We see patterns where none exist. None of us are exempt from that. But we can use our limited sense of reason to see past it.
Clinton’s persuaders have taken advantage of the public’s faulty pattern recognition to build an illusion about Trump that he is a horrible monster who hates people because of their genitalia, their skin pigmentation, and their sexual preferences. I don’t believe Trump holds any of those views in 2016. But there is plenty of confirmation bias to make us think he does, thanks to Team Clinton’s persuasion efforts. For example…
There was the time Trump said we need good border control with Mexico, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.
There was the time Trump said we need to try harder to keep out terrorists who want to kill us, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.
There was the time that Trump said a judge with Mexican heritage might be biased against him because 90% of American citizens with Mexican heritage are biased against him. Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way Trump worded it.
There was the time that Trump didn’t need much sleep one night and decided to fire off a few thoughts on Twitter about one of his accusers. But because it was late at night, Clinton framed that as some sort of “meltdown” to prove Trump is unstable. I realize I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster who hates people with different genitalia and with skin pigmentation that is far superior to his own pasty-orange covering. To me, those illusions about Trump are ridiculous on face value. I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster. So instead I will make you a promise.
My promise: If Trump gets elected, and he does anything that looks even slightly Hitler-ish in office, I will join the resistance movement and help kill him. That’s an easy promise to make, and I hope my fellow citizens would use their Second Amendment rights to rise up and help me kill any Hitler-type person who rose to the top job in this country, no matter who it is.
As I often say, Democrats generally use guns to commit crimes. Republican use guns for sport and for self-defense. If you are a Republican gun-owner, and you value the principles of the Constitution, I’m confident you would join me in the resistance movement and help kill any leader that exhibited genuine animosity toward people because of their genitalia, sexual preference, or skin pigmentation.
In other words, I’m willing to bet my life that the “monster” view of Trump is an illusion.
That said, I also don’t know which candidate has the best policies. I wouldn’t risk my life for any of their tax plans or ISIS-fighting strategies. I’m only interested in helping the public see past their hallucinations about the monster under the bed. You’re on your own to decide who has the best policies.
The New York Times: "Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena."
Los Angeles Times: "Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents."
The Baltimore Sun: "One candidate stands in the broad tradition of American leadership that has made this the greatest, most powerful and most prosperous nation in history. The other would have us trade that legacy for a cult of personality. The choice is clear."
New York Daily News: "Heaven help America were, unthinkably, Clinton to fail. She is all that stands between the United States of America and never-before-seen proof that the Founding Fathers weren't all that they've been cracked up to be."
The Dallas Morning News: "We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections."
The Cincinnati Enquirer: "The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century ... But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. ... We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst."
The Arizona Republic: "This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified. That's why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
San Francisco Chronicle: "[This election] is a test of whether American voters have the wisdom to identify and dispel a demagogue with authoritarian instincts who is treating a run for the presidency as if it were a reality TV show where outlandishness is the coin of the realm."
San Diego Union-Tribune: "This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton. She's the safe choice for the US and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike."
Corpus Christi Caller-Times: "She is not, as has been sold, a mere lesser of two evils. Her experience and intellect would make her a standout in any group of candidates."
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
还有更多的楼主有心就自己看，独立判断
很多人很怀念男克林顿的好时光，以为他治国有一套，希望重复奇迹再出现。岂不知道狂印美元刺激经济那一套一开始效果很好，现在是全球经济的末期， 造成的大量债务以成负担和危机。
觉得川普的为人太漏，看不起非精英人士，岂不知道现在需要一场革命，带头人必须是不拿说客钱的非政客，而此人非川普莫属。
孩子大了也根本不惧怕厕所法案。
就说人家的实力可以随便伪善， 美国变差了人家去哪养老都行，没那个实力的选的时候想想如果美国满地难民恐怖新常态的时候自己有后路没
如果顾虑到父母保险退休，孩子出路的话，正要选希拉里
床铺上台，种族主义，白人至上主义，女性歧视一搞起来，华人什么都没有啦
有女儿的倒是想想大量非法移民和难民吧！
别说犯法的会遣返， 任何一个遣返的人都是以他们对正直守法的人犯罪为前提的
看 这页http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=2079899&page=277
http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=2079899&page=276
http://www.columbia.edu/content/seven-myths-about-affirmative-action-universities.html
楼主mm可以去这个帖子有兴趣了解反川普一方的观点，可以去这个楼里看一下，大概二百七八十页，有几位mm说的比较有代表性：
http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=2079899&page=273
我开始关注trump是初选时候把他的语录剪辑当娱乐节目看的。开始支持他只是因为他是共和党的。
后期看了那些主流媒体一天几十个版本刷屏播放攻击trump的新闻，只要听过trump原话就知道好多是断章取义，稍微有点主见和独立判断的怎么能接受这种把别人当傻瓜的洗脑。 再后来发现trump很多政策理念都很好，完全不像媒体抹黑的那样。
他的岳父母今年支持trump，他说他觉得很embarrassed，说跟他老婆相处都有点为难了。
混饭吃，一辈子就那样了，寄希望于小孩的，投trump. 这类人往往不明白为什么赚50万的老中经理投hillary. 这类人也不明白为什么烙印总裁投Hillary. 所以这类人升不了。
而且投希拉里的竟然都是能升职的？ 弄了多大的样本搞出的结论呢？
我们公司来说， 从md到下面， 除了几个做技术支持的，都支持希拉里。 这里面中国移民也有，外国移民也有。 我觉得挣钱多了不是很在乎多交点税， 我直接的老板还支持bernie呢。
当然可能她极端女权，就是不想找事业上和自己匹配或者更好的。
唯一原因就是Trump is unfit for any public office.
想不到这帮没有大学学历的白男人都渗入华人论坛啦。真是佩服他们
Clinton wins the college-educated segment by 25 percentage points, 59 percent to 34 percent. Trump’s edge among those without a college education is 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent. Trump’s lead is 4-to-1 among white men with less than a college degree, 76 percent to 19 percent. Clinton’s advantage with college-educated women is 64 percent to 31 percent.
你说的，不就是“一家”老中么
就连华人街吃救济的，也肯定会有支持Trump
谁知道共和党民主党任何一方能帮我们解决问题了？华人保守勤劳守法， 我们希望law and order能保护我们， 省得有人传视频说我们是有钱的大肥羊教大家怎么打劫我们。我们不想要和平教， 不想连去个商场游乐场都提心吊胆，trump能做到这些我们就选他。
更别说民主党还要亚裔细分还要aa
不知道Scott Adam的人，他是dilbert's 作者。
不劳而获和圣母情怀的绝配一般都是成对出现，底层需要更多福利，上层做善人内心更充实，这些都是可以理解的。
问题在于不是每个上层收入的人都是善人，底层的也不全是知足长乐的感恩之众，最后就是上下齐心一起榨干中产阶级。
我们最关心的是难民问题， 连生命安全都不能保障了 谁还在乎税率？
我知道这里很多人根本不会想上升，混混日子挺好。也没啥，只不过那个楼主发的帖子就说明她不懂。
记住一点，能升上去的，没有一个是傻子，人比你精着那。
另外，这里床粉很多是掩耳盗铃的主，喜欢label别人龙虾，其实自己内心软弱，不想，也不愿意看到那么多比自己能力强的支持民主党。
以前我也超级讨厌川普 觉得他超级没体态 身为完美主义的我 绝不能容忍如此粗鄙的人当总统
虽然希拉里也优雅不到哪里去 起码人家能表面上看起来雷打不动 永远不会恼羞成怒
很多上中产 是自认为自己属于优雅人群的 绝对看不上川普的做派
好在后来我看了川普年轻时候的视频 洗洗眼 决定在真小人和伪君子中 选前者
The Crook Versus the Monster
Posted October 21st, 2016 by scott Adams @ 10:25am in #Trump #Clinton
Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you. As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.
Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.
The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do. Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.
Likewise, Trump supporters know what they are getting. They know he’s offensive. They know he’s under-informed on policies. They know he pays as little in taxes as possible. They know he uses bankruptcy laws when needed. They know he ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message. They just don’t care. They want to push the monster into Washington D.C., close the door, and let him break everything that needs to be broken. Demolition is usually the first step of building something new. And Trump also knows how to build things when he isn’t in monster mode.
Clinton’s team of persuaders have successfully crafted Trump’s offensive language and hyperbole into an illusion that he’s a sexist/racist in some special way that is different from the average citizen. The reality is that everyone is a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. We’re all wired that way. There’s no escape if you are human. Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, but not good ones. That’s what gets us in trouble. We see patterns where none exist. None of us are exempt from that. But we can use our limited sense of reason to see past it.
Clinton’s persuaders have taken advantage of the public’s faulty pattern recognition to build an illusion about Trump that he is a horrible monster who hates people because of their genitalia, their skin pigmentation, and their sexual preferences. I don’t believe Trump holds any of those views in 2016. But there is plenty of confirmation bias to make us think he does, thanks to Team Clinton’s persuasion efforts. For example…
There was the time Trump said we need good border control with Mexico, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.
There was the time Trump said we need to try harder to keep out terrorists who want to kill us, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.
There was the time that Trump said a judge with Mexican heritage might be biased against him because 90% of American citizens with Mexican heritage are biased against him. Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way Trump worded it.
There was the time that Trump didn’t need much sleep one night and decided to fire off a few thoughts on Twitter about one of his accusers. But because it was late at night, Clinton framed that as some sort of “meltdown” to prove Trump is unstable.
I realize I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster who hates people with different genitalia and with skin pigmentation that is far superior to his own pasty-orange covering. To me, those illusions about Trump are ridiculous on face value. I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster. So instead I will make you a promise.
My promise: If Trump gets elected, and he does anything that looks even slightly Hitler-ish in office, I will join the resistance movement and help kill him. That’s an easy promise to make, and I hope my fellow citizens would use their Second Amendment rights to rise up and help me kill any Hitler-type person who rose to the top job in this country, no matter who it is.
As I often say, Democrats generally use guns to commit crimes. Republican use guns for sport and for self-defense. If you are a Republican gun-owner, and you value the principles of the Constitution, I’m confident you would join me in the resistance movement and help kill any leader that exhibited genuine animosity toward people because of their genitalia, sexual preference, or skin pigmentation.
In other words, I’m willing to bet my life that the “monster” view of Trump is an illusion.
That said, I also don’t know which candidate has the best policies. I wouldn’t risk my life for any of their tax plans or ISIS-fighting strategies. I’m only interested in helping the public see past their hallucinations about the monster under the bed. You’re on your own to decide who has the best policies.
QE和零利率导致资产价格高，很多人是从中受益。泡沫吗，就是利率一旦升高就要破，具体到行业和公司影响大小不一样，看看美国政府的地方债务。其实我家也有受益，但我觉得这东西时间玩长了，玩出火来，要打仗的，所以我肯定是选川普。
我以前不了解人性本恶的时候 也会希望美国跟欧洲一样 帮助难民和底层人
后来遭遇一些事情 我终于看清了人性的本质 （不怕你笑 我确实收留过无家可归的人 供养吃喝 但后来下场很丑陋） 所以我终于明白了 凡事都要有底线 帮助别人更是要有底线
否则 升米恩 斗米仇
没有底线的圣母情怀 就是农夫与蛇的故事啊
------------
凉心
2016-10-22 10:47
回复
不劳而获和圣母情怀的绝配一般都是成对出现，底层需要更多福利，上层做善人内心更充实，这些都是可以理解的。
问题在于不是每个上层收入的人都是善人，底层的也不全是知足长乐的感恩之众，最后就是上下齐心一起榨干中产阶级。
不用深思也知道，那是因为经济好的州吸引了大量吃福利的人，变成了蓝州.你这因果关系倒了，是因为经济好，变成了蓝州，不是因为是蓝州，所以经济好。加州这么能赚钱的州，税那么高，还把自己搞破产了，公立学区一塌糊涂，你也深思一下，咋回事啊？
川普上台双方监制排都不挺他，或许他不会有大的建树，但是至少能在下坡路上踩脚刹车，或许还有turn around的希望。
谢谢，蛇和农夫的故事讲了几百年，可惜很多人不到被咬的那一秒都不会醒悟