選民曆年來聽很多口號,人們要實際的細節!
自古貨比貨道理: 競爭對手較勁爭更好? Election is shopping around, but not if you dig deep:
Admitted: "而希拉裏還在粉飾太平,她的辯論技巧要高於川普,但是美國現在需要實際改變的領導者" Clinton's boring, not inspiring; however, Trump disappointed some as he didn't prepare with specifics showing how he can fix it as he claimned "America's terrible, terrible, I alone can fix it. "
Show me how! No. That's secret -! "可不是一句口號和決心就夠了。選民曆年來都聽和很多口號,人們要實際的細節。"
I don't like a person taking pleasure of saying: 1) "You're fired" - Apprentice soundbite; 2) Not paying tax makes me smart (no decency).
- Tax law is basic. Given this, can you expect Trump to "law and order?" You don't/shouldn't take advantages of other's miserables - Trump ran over those little-business contractors. God forbidden "
“build on respect(建立在尊重之上)”
李嘉誠不希望別人稱呼他為老板,他更願意以“領袖”要求自己。“一般而言,做老板簡單得多,你的權力主要來自你的地位,這可能是上天的緣分或憑著你的努力和專業的知識。做領袖就比較複雜,你的力量源自人性的魅力和號召力。”在一次接受訪問時,李曾這樣自我解答:“做一個成功的管理者,態度與能力一樣重要。領袖領導眾人,促動別人自覺甘心賣力;老板隻懂支配眾人,讓別人感到渺小。”
"The number of interruptions could be up for debate. Vox reports Trump interrupted Clinton 25 times in the first 26 minutes. "
• CNN total candidate speaking times , Clinton: 41:12 Trump: 46:12 - 立場 - ♂ (http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/currentevent/871190.html) Being a woman, you lose the groupd here: Trump 5 min more than Clinton - Tell me who ruled - overran the other here? - In the eyes of the public, he didn't give a damn about the rule of governing the Presidential debate - how could you expect him to restore "law and order?"
""If he wants to do better next time, Trump needs to drop the habit of narrating his own performance. "I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament," he told us Monday. "I have a winning temperament." Regardless of whether we agree with the content of the statement, simply reiterating it won't convince anyone.
There's an adage in storytelling, known to every college creative writing class, and yet invariably forgotten by politicians. Show, don't tell. If you want your character to look heroic, show him rescuing a child from a blaze or saving civilians under fire -- but whatever you do, do not let him announce to an audience: "I am a heroic character." If you are a politician, and you want to portray judgment and temperance, behave with dignity in debate -- and don't bother to tell us."""
(by Theater critic Kate Maltby: Trump tried to narrate his own debate, write his own review")
Just a rich big boy, doesn't care about what the heck of ordinary Americans' life - he's ego maniac - aldrenaline thrust-driven - I say whatever I want - you can't do anything about it. He got everything as he claimed, like Romney, but only needs this title for his resume - that's his ego maniac. Doesn't give a damn about the public - folks - how can you expect him to? As he's hardly seen a real one? That's why he didn't come up with any specifics how to serve the ordinary folks. No clues.
In the end of the day, only God can decide who got that Presidential Look, not even voters. - thus, save your energy for yourselves jumping feet here shouting dirty cursing words-bouncing back to you if you'll. Let the show go on !
Not yet know God? Pull down the green bills - find that "In God We Trust" in American dollar bills.
"In God We Trust" - May God bless America!
~~
~~
Not just presidential debate, but also voters' comment, fascinating! Some notetaking here:
C_talent 發表評論於
川普說全世界都占美國的便宜,思路有點像中國的憤憤,什麽事情中國都成最大輸家。(聲明:我發帖一般都是批評,本帖沒批評希拉裏是因為她說了什麽我都記不住,無法彈也無法讚)
=======================
你就看吧,本城支持川普的,一定是身在美國(或者假裝身在美國),而滿腦子還是中國過去那種思維方式的。順我者昌的樣子。而本城反對川普的,一般還能夠中肯的說說希拉裏的對與錯。本城反對川普的,大概也有其實在美國而不一定是選民的老中,或者不在的,身在美國而研究美國的老中,但是至少這些人,是比較有頭腦的。而川粉則張口就汙蔑對方為:地下室吃盒飯的。多麽無聊和無知啊。
C_talent 發表評論於
北美神鷹 發表評論於
ft 發表評論於
川普總體上表現得不錯,誠實,不講空話,給足了希拉裏尊嚴,沒有用任何harsh的言辭。反觀希拉裏,多次掏川普的往事,把主流媒體報道川普的話原樣搬出來。回答問題空洞,個人的精神狀況也很疲勞。08年她和o8辯論時是她的頂峰,即使那時,和O8的敏捷機智相比也十分遜色。老太太事業生涯已經在走下坡路了。
我感覺從準備和發揮來講,老太婆表現比較好,有職業政客的老道。老川有些急於攻擊,思路和係統性不夠好,但也過得去。。。然而,老太婆的施政思路和發揮也就是如此了,上升空間不大;而老川還有多處可以在後麵兩次辯論中表現出新意,比如 law and order,你的舉措是什麽?讓工作回到美國,作為商人你應該有讓人耳目一新的係統的辦法;移民問題,不能停留在讓墨西哥掏錢修牆的高度。。。左派和老太婆的問題大家都知道,在總統辯論中用力過猛會得不償失,老川需要用好自己的時間、發揮自己的特長,這才是王道。
僅說個人看法,不參與辯論。