Just for your reference, Hillary won the popular vote. Probably you don't even understand what I was talking about. Either having a pathetic vocabulary or simply you just don't follow the election statistics.
I broke out in laughter, literally. Knowing Robert's rule demonstrates your unfathomably deep understanding of democracy and proves sociology professors are elites? It is astonishing how quickly you admitted that you will always despise everyday american people who are the very foundation of the democracy. You are an epitome of the DEM voters living in an aquarium and feeding on every flaky news piece dropped by mainstream media, shocked by reality, degrading into full angst and bitter denial.
I refuse to believe that you represent sociology as a discipline, but you successfully move the needle on my scale in terms of believing that there often is a coupled rock-bottom competence and sky-high arrogance in some self-claimed elites in humanities.
I have to say you are pathetic for what you did and said. You know what I am talking about here. You and your like-minded people exactly represent the kind of characters you people are being despised for. Trump's character and his people's :)
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 I broke out in laughter, literally. Knowing Robert's rule demonstrates your unfathomably deep understanding of democracy and proves sociology professors are elites? It is astonishing how quickly you admitted that you will always despise everyday american people who are the very foundation of the democracy. You are an epitome of the DEM voters living in an aquarium and : feeding on every flaky news piece dropped by mainstream media, shocked by : reality, degrading into full angst and bitter denial. I refuse to believe that you represent sociology as a discipline, but you : successfully move the needle on my scale in terms of believing that there : often is a coupled rock-bottom competence and sky-high arrogance in some ...................
By the way, don't try to use those big words to prove I am wrong. You are exactly showing how narrow-minded you are and care so much about my criticism while moving away from the fact that Trump is a crook and not a member of gentry who will never be accepted. I am bursting into laughter while I am typing these words.
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 I broke out in laughter, literally. Knowing Robert's rule demonstrates your unfathomably deep understanding of democracy and proves sociology professors are elites? It is astonishing how quickly you admitted that you will always despise everyday american people who are the very foundation of the democracy. You are an epitome of the DEM voters living in an aquarium and : feeding on every flaky news piece dropped by mainstream media, shocked by : reality, degrading into full angst and bitter denial. I refuse to believe that you represent sociology as a discipline, but you : successfully move the needle on my scale in terms of believing that there : often is a coupled rock-bottom competence and sky-high arrogance in some ...................
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 By the way, don't try to use those big words to prove I am wrong. You are : exactly showing how narrow-minded you are and care so much about my criticism while moving away from the fact that Trump is a crook and not a : member of gentry who will never be accepted. I am bursting into laughter while I am typing these words. your professors always
This is not funny any more. Let's review the conversation:
1. You called me "narrow-minded", while you think only American born academics know the "truth", not regular American people not foreign born academics. ---"You are exactly showing how narrow-minded" ---"我当然不是指这儿的华人教授了。我指的是土生土长的，"
2. You think you are not biased, while hinting red-necks are not worthy of a debate. ---"无偏见不等同于人人都一样。" ---"教授可以和红脖辩论吗，这是鸡同鸭讲"
3. You think you know better about democracy, while telling us the president-elect and half of the nation should be despised and will never be accepted.---"你清楚啥叫民主吗" ---"You and your like-minded people exactly represent the kind of characters you people are being despised for. Trump's character and his people's :)" ---"Trump is a crook and not a member of gentry who will never be accepted"
4. You postulate about my "pathetic vocabulary", followed by criticizing me using "big words" to distract from facts. So I numbered them 1-4 to make the facts slightly more self-explaining. ---"don't try to use those big words to prove I am wrong" ---"Either having a pathetic vocabulary or simply you j"
P.S. I do take criticism seriously. Although I honestly do not know which words used in my previous post were below or above your comfort zone, but I swear I am trying my best to speak plainly in this one. Please do not repeat my line nearly verbatim, because that's draining my last bit of interest in replying.
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 By the way, don't try to use those big words to prove I am wrong. You are : exactly showing how narrow-minded you are and care so much about my criticism while moving away from the fact that Trump is a crook and not a : member of gentry who will never be accepted. I am bursting into laughter while I am typing these words. your professors always
I don't think this is getting any where funny either. You said in your original post that Hillary lost both (popular and electoral). This is simply wrong. So my assumption is either you don't know what is popular vote as part of your vocabulary repertoire or you don't follow the news. Am I right on this account? Then you got offended, and started to use those "big," " assuming" and long words strings to prove that's not true. You have have high self-esteem :) Well, see my responses below
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 This is not funny any more. Let's review the conversation: 1. You called me "narrow-minded", while you think only American born academics know the "truth", not regular American people not foreign born academics. Already responded and you know what I was referring to. Low and base.... 2. You think you are not biased, while hinting red-necks are not worthy of a debate. I never said red-necks are not worthy of a debate, but simply the fact that they don't have much education and a natural progression from that assumption then would be they are more likely to err 3. You think you know better about democracy, while telling us the president -elect and half of the nation should be despised and will never be accepted. Clearly incorrect. The turn-out rate is around 55%, all time low in the last 20 years since 1996; plus, plus, yes there is a plus among these 55%, more than half voted Hillary Clinton (because she won the popular vote as a fact). She did lose on electoral votes, that I admit. 4. You postulate about my "pathetic vocabulary", followed by criticizing me using "big words" to distract from facts. So I numbered them 1-4 to make the ................... Already responded at the beginning. This would be my easist R&R memo ever written :)
This never happened in the history of America, where academic elites are supposed to stay quiet without exposing their collective preferences before any presidential election. But they did. Why? Because he "trumped" the democratic foundation of this country in serious ways (see my previous post).
This is not about democratic or republican victory or AA and anti-AA, uni- sex bathroom, which many Chinese view it is. It is about having a crooked president or an alternative.
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 I disagree. See below: Political Scientist https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7l0lh4nmE3OSkpCWjJJNGVoNXc/view Economists http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/ This never happened in the history of America, where academic elites are supposed to stay quiet without exposing their collective preferences before any presidential election. But they did. Why? Because he "trumped" the democratic foundation of this country in serious ways (see my previous post).
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 I disagree. See below: Political Scientist https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7l0lh4nmE3OSkpCWjJJNGVoNXc/view Economists http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/ This never happened in the history of America, where academic elites are supposed to stay quiet without exposing their collective preferences before any presidential election. But they did. Why? Because he "trumped" the democratic foundation of this country in serious ways (see my previous post).
The mainstream media declared H won popular votes with large number of ballots uncounted. Given their all time failure in predicting anything in this election, I doubted it. there are some twits from couple days ago claiming T actually won the popular votes. but after digging a little more, you are likely correct about popular votes, although the final counts are not out yet. I jumped to conclusion too early about that.
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 I don't think this is getting any where funny either. You said in your original post that Hillary lost both (popular and electoral). This is simply wrong. So my assumption is either you don't know what is popular vote as : part of your vocabulary repertoire or you don't follow the news. Am I right on this account? Then you got offended, and started to use those "big," " assuming" and long words strings to prove that's not true. You have have high self-esteem :) Well, see my responses below Already responded and you know what I was referring to. Low and base.... a I never said red-necks are not worthy of a debate, but simply the fact that ...................
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 The mainstream media declared H won popular votes with large number of ballots uncounted. Given their all time failure in predicting anything in : this election, I doubted it. there are some twits from couple days ago claiming T actually won the popular votes. but after digging a little more, you are likely correct about popular votes, although the final counts are not out yet. I : jumped to conclusion too early about that. simply right that
I found it amusing again. I had no idea what you are tying to achieve in this thread. Now I know. you are role-playing as Hillary to recreate the epic loss of her campaign.
You are dissing and belittling Chinese on a Chinese bbs and somehow hoping to win the argument, just like calling her own voter deplorable.
You are hyping issues that won't resonate with the audience, feeling compassionate and victorious without realizing the level of inconsistency and hypocrisy between your stance and arguments. Calling T crooked is just like Hillary calling Trump puppet in a debate.
you don't even know where the goal is in a discussion like this, but feeling you are scoring so many points. Just like after debate, Hillary yelling: why am I not up by 15%.
You were and still are bathing in the mainstream media Disneyland, just Hillary waiting for a landslide win on election night.
you probably studied sociology for years but failed to understand the election, just like Hillary lost the game with 30 years of experience in politics.
The degree of similarity between H and her supporters is breathtaking. They don't really want to know how the world works. They do things mostly to massage their ideology and ego, in a bubble, and still cannot stop doing so even after the bubble popped. Friendly reminder the election is over.
This is legitimately hilarious.
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 This is not about democratic or republican victory or AA and anti-AA, uni-: sex bathroom, which many Chinese view it is. It is about having a crooked : president or an alternative. before post).
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 I disagree. See below: Political Scientist https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7l0lh4nmE3OSkpCWjJJNGVoNXc/view Economists http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/ This never happened in the history of America, where academic elites are supposed to stay quiet without exposing their collective preferences before any presidential election. But they did. Why? Because he "trumped" the democratic foundation of this country in serious ways (see my previous post).
Sigh, I got the feeling of sitting in a committee and watching two colleagues kill the time in an artistic manner.
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 I found it amusing again. I had no idea what you are tying to achieve in this thread. Now I know. you are role-playing as Hillary to recreate the epic loss of her campaign. You are dissing and belittling Chinese on a Chinese bbs and somehow hoping to win the argument, just like calling her own voter deplorable. You are hyping issues that won't resonate with the audience, feeling compassionate and victorious without realizing the level of inconsistency : and hypocrisy between your stance and arguments. Calling T crooked is just like Hillary calling Trump puppet in a debate. you don't even know where the goal is in a discussion like this, but ...................
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 I found it amusing again. I had no idea what you are tying to achieve in this thread. Now I know. you are role-playing as Hillary to recreate the epic loss of her campaign. You are dissing and belittling Chinese on a Chinese bbs and somehow hoping to win the argument, just like calling her own voter deplorable. You are hyping issues that won't resonate with the audience, feeling compassionate and victorious without realizing the level of inconsistency : and hypocrisy between your stance and arguments. Calling T crooked is just like Hillary calling Trump puppet in a debate. you don't even know where the goal is in a discussion like this, but ...................
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 Just for your reference, Hillary won the popular vote. Probably you don't : even understand what I was talking about. Either having a pathetic vocabulary or simply you just don't follow the election statistics.
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 Hillary won the popular vote plus the turn-out rate is rather low. Can the Trump's victory represent the whole electorate? Clearly no. Procedurally, : yes Trump did win. There is another term, probably you never hear of, it's called tyranny of the majority. 还有一点，这个国家都是文科生统治的， 没你的 份。请分清文科和社会科学不是一回事。
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 Hillary won the popular vote plus the turn-out rate is rather low. Can the Trump's victory represent the whole electorate? Clearly no. Procedurally, : yes Trump did win. There is another term, probably you never hear of, it's called tyranny of the majority. 还有一点，这个国家都是文科生统治的， 没你的 份。请分清文科和社会科学不是一回事。
Just a correction to your again incorrect wild guess, I spent 80% of my time in graduate school studying mathematics and statistics. Sorry on another account.
【 在 buckshot000 () 的大作中提到: 】 I found it amusing again. I had no idea what you are tying to achieve in this thread. Now I know. you are role-playing as Hillary to recreate the epic loss of her campaign. You are dissing and belittling Chinese on a Chinese bbs and somehow hoping to win the argument, just like calling her own voter deplorable. You are hyping issues that won't resonate with the audience, feeling compassionate and victorious without realizing the level of inconsistency : and hypocrisy between your stance and arguments. Calling T crooked is just like Hillary calling Trump puppet in a debate. you don't even know where the goal is in a discussion like this, but ...................
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Sunday told his supporters to stop harassing minorities, in his first televised sit-down interview since becoming President-elect.
"I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, 'Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: 'Stop it.'"
【 在 digua (姚之FAN) 的大作中提到: 】 两边的激进份子都差不多吧... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Sunday told his supporters to stop harassing minorities, in his first televised sit-down interview since becoming President-elect. "I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes " when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, ' Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: 'Stop it.'" 票。
【 在 bigbull (bigbull) 的大作中提到: 】 Just a correction to your again incorrect wild guess, I spent 80% of my time in graduate school studying mathematics and statistics. Sorry on another : account.
【 在 digua (姚之FAN) 的大作中提到: 】 两边的激进份子都差不多吧... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Sunday told his supporters to stop harassing minorities, in his first televised sit-down interview since becoming President-elect. "I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes " when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, ' Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: 'Stop it.'" 票。
This will be my last response in this thread since we are all busy people. To be honest, I am not in a position to adjudicate between the two sides since I don't have sufficient expertise on either; nor do I have time to read both the article and the book for an in-depth understand of the problem. But it looks like the mathematician criticizes the "so-claimed" proved mathematical theorem as a total sham whereas the two psychologists refute that the mathematician missed a condition that they laid out in their book. I have to admit that math used outside the discipline of mathematics is kind of loose in one way or another, probably even including that in physics. In social sciences, proofs or derivations usually come with assumptions, and sometimes even very strong assumptions. Maybe the mathematician missed something here. Who knows? It is probably an overstatement that "diversity is always a good thing even without the theorem." But in many cases/examples across a wide array of disciplines, this is simply a fact that's been proven/observed many many times. Is the relationship causal? Not sure. To extrapolate across the board? Well there is always exception.
【 在 nonpareil (一失足成千古恨，再回头已百年身) 的大作中提到: 】 我无意争论，只想听听您对这个学术争议的看法： 有几个搞社会科学的教授声称从数学上证明了 Diversity Trumps Ability， 写成了文章发在PNAS上，后来还写了书。但是UC Davis的一个数学教授发现了那个 所谓的证明里面的错误，写了一片稿子 Does Diversity Trump Ability? 发在Notices of the American Mathematical Society 上，然后就踩了那几个人的 尾巴，在后来的一期Notices of AMS上吵了起来。 http://www.ams.org/notices/201409/rnoti-p1024.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201501/rnoti-p9.pdf ...................
discretional spending，甚至以government shutdown 来要挟？现在床普上台加上共
和党国会，真的只能说呵呵了
GOP比较看重传统工业，但是这部分基本都是敏感专业，一水白人（犹太）天下，连老
印都看不见几个
行）重镇支持川普吗？
不好吗？
口口声声知识界，是想说知识界对国家现状的认识高过经济界工业界，政治界，还是高过普通老百姓？一边要求各种平等一边内心各种偏见。一边号称有知识，一边避谈独立的基于事实的具体观点，顶个知识界的头衔就要求别人接受你的结论？
我们这儿有吗？是的话， 网都不怎么上， 有时间来废话吗。你看人Donald Kruth 连
电子邮件都不用。无偏见不等同于人人都一样。知识界理论上对事物的认识高于一般人，否则怎么教别人呢。如果教授不是社会的精英， 难道是红脖吗。为了辩论甘愿自贬
。但这并不说知识界就高于别人， 而不尊重别人。我从没强迫别人接受我的意见， 但我可以有说的权利， 蔑视别人的权利。教授可以和红脖辩论吗，这是鸡同鸭讲。说不
好听， 你清楚啥叫民主吗，什么是民主的局限性吗，三权分立的来历吗，什么事
Robert's Rule of Order 吗。 别知道个三权分立，选举人制就了不起，这是美国小学的社会课内容。你知道为啥搞选举人制吗。先去读几本书，别老上Wikipedia搞知识快
餐。社会科学没你想象的那么简单。
even understand what I was talking about. Either having a pathetic
vocabulary or simply you just don't follow the election statistics.
democracy. You are an epitome of the DEM voters living in an aquarium and
feeding on every flaky news piece dropped by mainstream media, shocked by
reality, degrading into full angst and bitter denial.
I refuse to believe that you represent sociology as a discipline, but you
successfully move the needle on my scale in terms of believing that there
often is a coupled rock-bottom competence and sky-high arrogance in some
self-claimed elites in humanities.
kind of characters you people are being despised for. Trump's character and his people's :)
exactly showing how narrow-minded you are and care so much about my
criticism while moving away from the fact that Trump is a crook and not a
member of gentry who will never be accepted. I am bursting into laughter
while I am typing these words.
1. You called me "narrow-minded", while you think only American born
academics know the "truth", not regular American people not foreign born
academics.
---"You are exactly showing how narrow-minded"
---"我当然不是指这儿的华人教授了。我指的是土生土长的，"
2. You think you are not biased, while hinting red-necks are not worthy of a debate.
---"无偏见不等同于人人都一样。"
---"教授可以和红脖辩论吗，这是鸡同鸭讲"
3. You think you know better about democracy, while telling us the president-elect and half of the nation should be despised and will never be accepted.---"你清楚啥叫民主吗"
---"You and your like-minded people exactly represent the
kind of characters you people are being despised for. Trump's character and his people's :)"
---"Trump is a crook and not a member of gentry who will never be accepted"
4. You postulate about my "pathetic vocabulary", followed by criticizing me using "big words" to distract from facts. So I numbered them 1-4 to make the facts slightly more self-explaining.
---"don't try to use those big words to prove I am wrong"
---"Either having a pathetic vocabulary or simply you j"
P.S. I do take criticism seriously. Although I honestly do not know which
words used in my previous post were below or above your comfort zone, but I swear I am trying my best to speak plainly in this one. Please do not repeat my line nearly verbatim, because that's draining my last bit of interest in replying.
民主党做了八年，也就那样，经济毫无起色就算了，还搞了一大堆不属于大众胃口的法律，同性婚姻合法化，男女共用厕所，少数民族有优先权，非法移民合法化。全民医保。最后还要来一个之前败给奥巴马的希拉里，奥巴马都只是如此，难道人们还要再次选希拉里，让未来的日子一眼望到边？
共和党好不好谁也不知道，这次选民只是对民主党失去了信心，如果共和党真的不行，民主党四年之后可以卷土重来！
original post that Hillary lost both (popular and electoral). This is simply wrong. So my assumption is either you don't know what is popular vote as
part of your vocabulary repertoire or you don't follow the news. Am I right on this account? Then you got offended, and started to use those "big," "
assuming" and long words strings to prove that's not true. You have have
high self-esteem :) Well, see my responses below
select的。精英们真的该意识到，沉默的大多数是真实存在。
不过有一点我同意你：想要发自内心地支持川普，很难。这次川普能当选，最大的功臣是希拉里；换了拜登，川普一点希望都没有。
Political Scientisthttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7l0lh4nmE3OSkpCWjJJNGVoNXc/view
Economistshttp://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/
This never happened in the history of America, where academic elites are
supposed to stay quiet without exposing their collective preferences before any presidential election. But they did. Why? Because he "trumped" the
democratic foundation of this country in serious ways (see my previous post).
sex bathroom, which many Chinese view it is. It is about having a crooked
president or an alternative.
ballots uncounted. Given their all time failure in predicting anything in
this election, I doubted it. there are some twits from couple days ago
claiming T actually
won the popular votes. but after digging a little more, you are likely
correct about popular votes, although the final counts are not out yet. I
jumped to conclusion too early about that.
在加州赢了275万票，在纽约州赢了150万票。
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/
民主党牺牲亚裔的利益大力推行AA难道是对亚裔好，不排外？民主党要放非法移民的水，难道不是在冲击合法移民的利益？连基本事实都搞不清楚，书是读到屁股里面去了。
交税这个事情，其实还真没有多少人关心，一年就是千把块钱的区别而已。但是民主党搞的政策是交税的人还要对领救济的人低三下四，各种打着反对歧视旗号进行明目张胆，瞠目结舌的逆向歧视。这些你都看不到的话，你真是病得不轻。
川普不是什么好人，但是正是因为民主党，尤其是希拉里肯定坏，很多华人才不得不投川普的票。投希拉里，那是往更深的泥潭里面陷，投川普，至少因为他的不确定性，还是一个合理的赌博。
不要随便说人家心存黑暗，我看反倒是你的心理有问题，不仅如此，脑子也有很大问题。
this thread. Now I know. you are role-playing as Hillary to recreate the
epic loss of her campaign.
You are dissing and belittling Chinese on a Chinese bbs and somehow hoping
to win the argument, just like calling her own voter deplorable.
You are hyping issues that won't resonate with the audience, feeling
compassionate and victorious without realizing the level of inconsistency
and hypocrisy between your stance and arguments. Calling T crooked is just
like Hillary calling Trump puppet in a debate.
you don't even know where the goal is in a discussion like this, but
feeling
you are scoring so many points. Just like after debate, Hillary yelling: why am I not up by 15%.
You were and still are bathing in the mainstream media Disneyland, just
Hillary waiting for a landslide win on election night.
you probably studied sociology for years but failed to understand the
election, just like Hillary lost the game with 30 years of experience in
politics.
The degree of similarity between H and her supporters is breathtaking. They don't really want to know how the world works. They do things mostly to
massage their ideology and ego, in a bubble, and still cannot stop doing so even after the bubble popped. Friendly reminder the election is over.
This is legitimately hilarious.
再说，就算是知识界99%的人都反对川普又怎么样呢？精英阶层的共识也不总是对的，
中世纪时候地心说也是共识。还是应该就事论事地讨论。你那个解释说明的回复，观点先不说，态度我还是赞同的。
colleagues kill the time in an artistic manner.
者两年】后，不知道你又会说什么。估计到时你一定会找出另外一个自相矛盾的说法来圆场。政治这种东西翻盘也快得很。）
而且，按照你的逻辑，美国的内战早就结束150 周年了，这些红脖子怎么还在卡车上挂上两面南方的旗帜拖着到处跑呢？ 这不是失败了还不认输吗？ 问题是人家不仅干了， 而且现在还杀回来了。
我倒觉得bigbull 的说法有些道理。 在这个社会上，法官和教师应当是东西对和错的
最后一道防线。他们应当有一些较常人高的底线。即使这个社会短期走了弯路，法官和教师应当坚持， 即使他们的行为被当时的社会觉得错了。
当然， 在实际生活中，不是所有的法官和教师都能做到这一点。但是这样的法官和教
师还是不少的。（至少在我的一个官司中， 一个保守的法官的最后判决还是令我佩服
的。）我也认识几个老师有这种特点。 但是，华人中的老师这样的少。从大陆来的华
人老师很容易就接受一个短期的既定事实， 然后找理由来解释。 不知道这个是与我们的文化背景有关， 还是因为生存的原因。
党很差的选择，这次失败可能导致民主党转向极左。
说到短期利益，我觉得主党的所作所为离驱逐华人更近，比如细分和以公平为名的各种歧视。先生们觉得还不够？
Trump只要不准备葬送美国经济，他就不敢把华人怎么样，先生们怎么看？
目前为止所见的所有龌龊事都是明主党支持者干的：推特等社交媒体上伪造独对投川普的中国人的所谓“白人歧视”，选票舞弊，左派媒体歪曲事实煽风点火，败选就打砸烧无所不用其极（你见过共和党支持者这么对奥巴马当选吗）……
目前为止所见的所有龌龊事都是民主党支持者干的：推特等社交媒体上伪造独对投川普的中国人的所谓“白人歧视”，选票舞弊，左派媒体歪曲事实煽风点火，败选就打砸烧无所不用其极（你见过共和党支持者这么对奥巴马当选吗）……
account.
太多了。比如奥巴的出生证， 比如说奥巴的宗教信仰， 比如故意夸大选举作弊实际上自己想搞选举压迫，。。。
这些政治上的恶劣行径两党都干。哪方更可接受些完全取决于个人。
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Sunday told his supporters to stop harassing minorities, in his first televised sit-down interview since becoming
President-elect.
"I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, 'Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the
cameras: 'Stop it.'"
如果你仍然觉得我“转移话题混淆视听，”我向你道歉。这个方面的进一步讨论在美新版更合适。
逼左逼这么骂，这已经失去任何有意义讨论的基础了。这与文革红卫兵有何差别。
有白人歧视加起来还没一个AA来得多。他们不反对付稅接济真正需要的人，他们反对的是賦稅给不劳而获，整天无所事事甚至犯罪的非法者.共和党也一直提案给高科技人才
绿卡工作机会，美国不需要只会动嘴皮子在网上唯恐天下不乱的"人才"。
有几个搞社会科学的教授声称从数学上证明了
Diversity Trumps Ability，
写成了文章发在PNAS上，后来还写了书。但是UC Davis的一个数学教授发现了那个
所谓的证明里面的错误，写了一片稿子
Does Diversity Trump Ability?
发在Notices of the American Mathematical Society 上，然后就踩了那几个人的
尾巴，在后来的一期Notices of AMS上吵了起来。
http://www.ams.org/notices/201409/rnoti-p1024.pdfhttp://www.ams.org/notices/201501/rnoti-p9.pdf
他们否决的理由就是要把非法移民与合法移民绑在一起出台移民改革的法律。
希拉里什么时候承诺过单独立法给STEM绿卡了？明显是和1100万非法移民捆绑着一起解决。显然和党会拒绝接受大赦非法移民，然后希拉里就可以说，不是我不遵守竞选承诺，是共和党议员不给你们STEM绿卡。
现在的情况明摆着。如果参议院再次提出STEM绿卡，President Clinton会像他的前任
Obama一样否决，而President Trump一定会通过（哪怕Sessions不高兴）。
什么更重要。
To be honest, I am not in a position to adjudicate between the two sides
since I don't have sufficient expertise on either; nor do I have time to
read both the article and the book for an in-depth understand of the problem. But it looks like the mathematician criticizes the "so-claimed" proved
mathematical theorem as a total sham whereas the two psychologists refute
that the mathematician missed a condition that they laid out in their book. I have to admit that math used outside the discipline of mathematics is kind of loose in one way or another, probably even including that in physics. In social sciences, proofs or derivations usually come with assumptions, and
sometimes even very strong assumptions. Maybe the mathematician missed
something here. Who knows? It is probably an overstatement that "diversity
is always a good thing even without the theorem." But in many cases/examples across a wide array of disciplines, this is simply a fact that's been
proven/observed many many times. Is the relationship causal? Not sure. To
extrapolate across the board? Well there is always exception.
川普是民主党极左民粹+共和党极右保守势力
如果还需要我再重复，只能证明我前面说的，就是你们其实根本不了解不关心移民问题你们只是把反非移作为一个口号来满足你们少缴税的实际目标。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
这属于毫不负责任的瞎扯蛋，你具体说说他哪一点支持你的结论，媒体的扭曲不算。