Honestly, I learn that Caucasian's graciousness charms, pulling together a diversity society we have now - that's why Chinese Americans gotta be here - be grateful for that. I can't, however, see such charming in Trump - only calling himself as "supermodel" "smart" "big manhood" - all of that being said about himself - always self-centered -
, while belittle all others.
Caucasian's graciousness? Not in him at all. Although, superficially, he said "I love Chinese Americans", when facing that group of Chinese Americans with T-shirt and sign of "I love Trump." I've looked for his Know-How to love Chinese Americans, specific fabric to love, such as having Chinese Americans in his circle of decision-making (cabinet members like Steven Chu, Elaine Chow), supreme judges, etc. - never heard - tell me if I'm wrong.
graciousness gotta derive from within. It's a troubling world - how can you be grounded with "Make American White Again" with diversity?
Without Know-How, you can't get majority of voters on board for you - Trump is a sloganneer, making outragous slogans, superficial, never offer any Know-How fabric - you can fool some, but can't fool those educated voters, including majority of white voters, those with solid sense of "equal justice under law" - that's what Caucasian's graciousness bases on. Nobody can't win without white folks backing on.
Without Know-How in place now, presidency flys you by before you warm up your seat. Solid sense of "equal justice under law" demands for a solid policy for all the voters - you can't get away with your sloganeering. Let voters shop for your Know-How.
So frustrating to see this sloan this morning - "Make America White Again" (below).
My confiction was: All whites? How so? Historically, all whites fought against each other like hell, so they wanted non-whites to shift and balance out their own problems. Blaming immigrants has been a scapegoat - making non-whites nervous - Trump got this nerve to please those whites. You know what?
"Make America White Again" = "Make America great Again" - that guy reads Trump !
That equation fits well with all Trump sayings: Only Trump-like Whites are Americans, not even that Mexican white judge, "Curiel" in Trump's eye only "That Mexican" - even ABM, not a chance for your ABCs. Don't even think, if you're ABCs - "back to ..." in his word, not yet said but implied. Not in his play book.
(I gonna clarify that, some claim read my mind - anti-Trump - No, you don't read me - I'm just shopping around for "What's in it for me?" You can't offer yours for me, as it's still yours. I work hard to get my voting right - gotta make good use of it. Laugh if you will, but only your laugh. Free to speak, but you gotta gravitize on issues only. ( English translation of gravitize: seriousness and importance of manner, causing feelings of respect and trust in others.) - I don't respond to any sloganeering attacks.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump's political rise, I've also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection.
Calling him a troll trivializes his repulsive comments. Trump is a lot of terrible things: xenophobic, self-aggrandizing, a thin-skinnedbigot. Since announcing his presidential campaign in June 2015, the reptilian nature of Trump’s beliefs hasn’t been his main headline, however. Instead, journalists have often framed Trump as a troll, perhaps the greatest troll in American history. Articles published by Salon, the New York Post, the Daily Dot, the Daily Beast, Vox, FiveThirtyEight, the Daily Mail, the Washington Post, GQ, and Politico have explicitly framed Trump’s behaviors as “trolling” in the headline or lede. Many other articles, like those published by Gawker, Jezebel, Time, and even far-right shouting arenas like Breitbart casually employ the adjective trolling when describing Trump. (And yes, Slate has done it, too.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump’s political rise, I’ve also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection. Journalists from Time, the New York Post, and the New York Times, among others, have all asked variations of the same basic question: Was Donald Trump the ultimate troll, or what?
Advertisement
I understand this impulse. Trump’s presidential announcement, for example, certainly looked like an awful lot like trolling, which is broadly defined as the attempt to provoke a strong negative reaction in one’s audience. It was just so needlessly belligerent, so out there, so offensive—like a walking, talking internet comments section. In his rambling speech, Trump described Mexicans as criminals and rapists. (“And some, I assume, are good people,” he halfheartedly conceded, suggesting that if there are any good Mexicans out there, Donald J. Trump hasn’t personally encountered any.) He promised to build a wall on the Mexican border (“nobody builds walls better than me”), and through the strength of his leadership, to Make America Great Again™ (line courtesy of Ronald Reagan). But Trump wasn’t focused solely on nativist fearmongering. He also emphasized how wonderful and rich and well-connected he was (“I think I’m actually a very nice person”; “I’ve done an amazing job”; “I have so many websites”). He even managed to plug his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal.
It was easy to dismiss Trump back then, on the left and mainstream right. There was no way he’d win the nomination. As a result, for many, Trump was funny. And for those in the news media, great for business. Because again, it was all so outrageous. A trainwreck. Why Twitter was invented. Insert Michael Jackson popcorn gif.
Thus it went for the next 12 months. When he wasn’t tweeting monosyllabic insults or defending the size of his penis on live television, Trump was engaging in the kind of speech and behavior—toward Mexicans, black people, Muslims, and women—that wasn’t just unpresidential, wasn’t just offensive, but was masterfully tailored for the click-based web economy. It was too absurd and too cynical to be real. He had to be trolling. Right?
An independent candidate for Congress from Tennessee has been swept up in a wave of criticism for his campaign billboard vowing to "Make American White Again.
总括而言，川普初选所走的煽动白人策略，已彻底曝露，他所谓的「让美国再强大」，其实就是「让美国再次变白」(Make America White Again)。田纳西州一名模倣川普的参选人，日前正式打出「让美国再次变白」的竞选口号。他说，1960年代时，他的选区85%都是白人，还没有大量移民，晚上不用关门，不用担心入屋窃盗，不用担心被人劫车，不用担心清真寺会教坏小孩。他的意思是，要时光倒流，让美国回到白人控制一切的时代。但这可能吗？美国是一个移民国家，这种赤祼祼反种族的言论，就算成功煽动白人，对移民和少数族裔却没有一点吸引力。
TJKCB 发表评论于
您的位置： 文学城 ? 新闻 ? 焦点新闻 ? 川普这些政治主张 简直就是美国版的“脱欧”(图)
川普这些政治主张 简直就是美国版的“脱欧”(图)
文章来源: BBC 于 2016-07-01 15:09:06 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
移民是资产或负债？移民利用美国的教育、医疗和政府福利等资源，研究显示，新移民享用政府福利比率确实高于本土美国人。但总体上，新移民也提高劳动力素质，对经济和创新贡献比原生美国人更优秀。智库National Foundation for American Policy今年初统计，全美87家资本逾10亿美元的新创公司，44家(占51%)是移民创办；加州硅谷1995年至2005年，新公司创办人52.4%来自国外；硅谷每十家企业有四家由移民创设。没有移民，美国难有今天的强大。
你把自己当美国人，美国人根本就没把你当人。
rty 发表评论于 2016-06-23 18:21:26
Now can we sue university if its advertisement still has words like equal opportunity? The government should force school now to add racial discriminated institution. But of course it won't do that because it then could not claim moral high ground.
邵志尚 发表评论于 2016-06-23 17:58:59
这简直是赤裸裸的种族歧视，
一贯装x的民主党及其爱打砸抢烧的暴民没有行动？
哦，原来是对你们有利，
是吧。
月光光买手表 发表评论于 2016-06-23 17:47:40
中国盛产考试精英们，这是正确的裁定
zing20 发表评论于 2016-06-23 17:45:56
绝对的公平是不可能的。全按考试分数来录取也不是很公平，和谐社会必须照顾弱势群体和族群。
平权行动(affirmative action)怎么会对亚裔特别不利呢？凭资格录取，Abigail Fisher也是没有机会，她的case在于她应该被录取，原因是她是白人。
helix22 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:22:38
youngsteryz 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:16:08
亚裔不满最高法院裁定，是不是以为他们可以紧跟白人Abigail Fisher之后，always second in line？
____________________
什么脑筋，就没想过第一，不跟人后面？ 当然我支持的是凭资格录取，和你这种死脑筋是不搭界的。
youngsteryz 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:20:36
When Fisher applied in 2008, she failed to meet the cutoff for automatic admission into the school, which was offered only to the top 10 percent the graduating class that year. Fisher had a 3.59 GPA and a 1180 out of 1600 on her SAT. Since she missed that top mark, she had to compete for 841 additional spots that were reserved for students who weren't in the top tier.
It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
Neither Fisher nor Blum (her lawyer) mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher... 查看完整评论
锦西 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:19:24
美国的大学教育的前瞻性非常强。教书，育人的教学理念，校园环境，师资水平都是世界一流。他们有权裁定他们的教育方针以及录取方式。
WSLama 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:17:13
呵呵， 法制，平等，不歧视出生种族。。。
·八戒· 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:17:04
哈哈，看看是“民主”还是几个老头子“主”？
youngsteryz 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:16:08
亚裔不满最高法院裁定，是不是以为他们可以紧跟白人Abigail Fisher之后，always second in line？
youngsteryz 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:07:37
Fisher’s case before the Supreme Court, in which she demanded that she be admitted to the University of Texas at Austin despite not having the grades to get in, confirmed every liberal suspicion about the opposition to affirmative action, namely that it’s not about “equality” at all, but about making sure white people are always first in line, ahead of all people of color, for job and education opportunities.
悠悠南风 发表评论于 2016-06-23 14:00:22
北美庆丰 发表评论于 2016-06-23 10:36:55
川普要make America white again、选川普不是找死吗。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Make America Mexico/Muslim／black／transgender 而就不是找死呀. 看来你是其中之一吧
看得清 发表评论于 2016-06-23 13:43:53
那些川黑还有什么话说，你还支持左棍?还支持老巫婆？那你真的吃错药了。
yikedashu 发表评论于 2016-06-23 12:57:40
以后华人、白人后代可能会以嫁娶黑墨为主流婚嫁选择。如此混来混去，三代后大家都一个颜色了，就好了，啥种族歧视都不存在了。
overit 发表评论于 2016-06-23 12:56:55
Bluebluesky123 发表评论于 2016-06-23 10:14:07
