новый скандал трампа
Oct. 9th, 2016 07:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avvaВ Америке разразился скандал по следам публикации старой записи Трампа, на которой в 2005-м году он хвастается своими половыми похождениями в частной беседе. Меня этот скандал поражает своим лицемерием, по двум причинам:
1. Ничто из сказанного в этой записи не является новой информацией о характере и поведении Трампа.
2. Хвастовство в частной беседе имеет очень отдаленное отношение к действительно важным вопросам на этих выборах, и заведомо должно быть стократ менее важно, чем *публично* высказанные мнения Трампа, в том числе на эти темы.
Возможно, этот скандал решит исход выборов - но если так, то исход выборов решит наиболее тривиальная, наиболее поверхностная и наименее важная причина не доверять Трампу и голосовать против него, в сравнении с реально серьезными причинами и важными рисками. Не знаю, почему так получается; другой версии, кроме "это влияние пуританского ханжества, продолжающего играть важную роль в американской политике", у меня нет.
Это была выжимка из длинного комментария на эту тему, который я написал по-английски; вот он целиком для тех, кому интересно.
I’m surprisingly (to myself) annoyed by the hypocrisy of this scandal blowing up in such a huge way. For the record, I’m strongly anti-Trump, and endorse a Hillary vote as a (by far, far, far…) the lesser evil. Two reasons why this ought to be a non-event or close to that:
1. Trump is already known to be boastful of his sexual successes, including with married women. He’s already known to be misogynistic, to attack and belittle women based on looks etc. What new information is revealed by this tape?
I mean, suppose we go back in time by one week, and ask all the pundits having their field day with it, and all the Republican senators denouncing Trump today, suppose we sit privately with them, show them the transcript of this tape, and ask: “Do you feel it likely that Trump would’ve said that in private? Does it seem likely given what you know about him, and if you knew he said that privately, would it change your vote?”
I think the answer is obvious. There’s no new information here beyond the actual release of the private words. The conversation itself does not throw new light on the character of Donald J. Trump as it’s well-known publicly!
2. This continues the trend of recent decades to essentially ignore the difference between private words and public record. This trend seems to remarkably dangerous, as well as essentially hypocritical in how it’s applied to different people and different beliefs. The recent evisceration of Donald Sterling over private racist remarks recorded by a girlfriend was the same sort of thing.
People are imperfect, and they inherently conduct themselves differently in private life and in the public eye, based on whatever ideals and goals they’ve constructed for their public persona. That’s a good thing. For example, it’s possible for someone to be a bigot in private life and committed to racial equality in their public duty, and in fact many (probably most?) advances in racial equality have been pushed along by just such people. In that vein, Trump’s *public* remarks e.g. about Rosie O’Donnell ought to be considered much more vile and dangerous than whatever he’s blurted out in private – precisely because they were knowingly public. I also think that Trump’s claim that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course” is quite plausible, and all the pundits having their field day right now would likely privately agree with that.
Look, if this seals the victory for HRC, I’ll still take it. Trump remains the incredibly dangerous candidate and HRC with all her flaws an obviously preferred choice. But, but —
Of all the reasons to mistrust Trump and deny him the presidency, of all the reasons why he is dangerous, of all the dangers and risks, this – a species of typical sexual male banter in private – seems to be the most trivial one, the most superficial one, the least important one. That it seems to be becoming the strong differentiator is stupid, and I take it to be evidence of the continuing influence of a Puritan strain in the US society (convince me otherwise?). In particular I think I’m losing all respect I had for John McCain. McCain didn’t denounce Trump over his danger to national security, over his *public* remarks on veterans, over etc. etc. etc. – but *this* is what tips him over? A private conversation of boastful sexual banter? What a freaking hypocrite.
1. Ничто из сказанного в этой записи не является новой информацией о характере и поведении Трампа.
2. Хвастовство в частной беседе имеет очень отдаленное отношение к действительно важным вопросам на этих выборах, и заведомо должно быть стократ менее важно, чем *публично* высказанные мнения Трампа, в том числе на эти темы.
Возможно, этот скандал решит исход выборов - но если так, то исход выборов решит наиболее тривиальная, наиболее поверхностная и наименее важная причина не доверять Трампу и голосовать против него, в сравнении с реально серьезными причинами и важными рисками. Не знаю, почему так получается; другой версии, кроме "это влияние пуританского ханжества, продолжающего играть важную роль в американской политике", у меня нет.
Это была выжимка из длинного комментария на эту тему, который я написал по-английски; вот он целиком для тех, кому интересно.
I’m surprisingly (to myself) annoyed by the hypocrisy of this scandal blowing up in such a huge way. For the record, I’m strongly anti-Trump, and endorse a Hillary vote as a (by far, far, far…) the lesser evil. Two reasons why this ought to be a non-event or close to that:
1. Trump is already known to be boastful of his sexual successes, including with married women. He’s already known to be misogynistic, to attack and belittle women based on looks etc. What new information is revealed by this tape?
I mean, suppose we go back in time by one week, and ask all the pundits having their field day with it, and all the Republican senators denouncing Trump today, suppose we sit privately with them, show them the transcript of this tape, and ask: “Do you feel it likely that Trump would’ve said that in private? Does it seem likely given what you know about him, and if you knew he said that privately, would it change your vote?”
I think the answer is obvious. There’s no new information here beyond the actual release of the private words. The conversation itself does not throw new light on the character of Donald J. Trump as it’s well-known publicly!
2. This continues the trend of recent decades to essentially ignore the difference between private words and public record. This trend seems to remarkably dangerous, as well as essentially hypocritical in how it’s applied to different people and different beliefs. The recent evisceration of Donald Sterling over private racist remarks recorded by a girlfriend was the same sort of thing.
People are imperfect, and they inherently conduct themselves differently in private life and in the public eye, based on whatever ideals and goals they’ve constructed for their public persona. That’s a good thing. For example, it’s possible for someone to be a bigot in private life and committed to racial equality in their public duty, and in fact many (probably most?) advances in racial equality have been pushed along by just such people. In that vein, Trump’s *public* remarks e.g. about Rosie O’Donnell ought to be considered much more vile and dangerous than whatever he’s blurted out in private – precisely because they were knowingly public. I also think that Trump’s claim that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course” is quite plausible, and all the pundits having their field day right now would likely privately agree with that.
Look, if this seals the victory for HRC, I’ll still take it. Trump remains the incredibly dangerous candidate and HRC with all her flaws an obviously preferred choice. But, but —
Of all the reasons to mistrust Trump and deny him the presidency, of all the reasons why he is dangerous, of all the dangers and risks, this – a species of typical sexual male banter in private – seems to be the most trivial one, the most superficial one, the least important one. That it seems to be becoming the strong differentiator is stupid, and I take it to be evidence of the continuing influence of a Puritan strain in the US society (convince me otherwise?). In particular I think I’m losing all respect I had for John McCain. McCain didn’t denounce Trump over his danger to national security, over his *public* remarks on veterans, over etc. etc. etc. – but *this* is what tips him over? A private conversation of boastful sexual banter? What a freaking hypocrite.
no subject
Date: 2016-10-12 12:56 pm (UTC)P.S. Для моего вопроса это полный оффтопик, но я таки погуглил S.Res.85 и увидел:
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
Гм. Imposition of a no-fly zone у нас как делается?
P.P.S. Да, сорри, что такое ТРР?
no subject
Date: 2016-10-12 02:00 pm (UTC)The Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. Millions of low-income Americans have coverage through expanded eligibility for Medicaid that now exists in 31 states. Young adults can stay on their parents’ health plans until they’re 26. All Americans can benefit from increased protections against lifetime coverage limits and exclusion from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bernie was on the U.S. Senate committee that helped write the ACA.
But as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people.
Тут и похвалили за успехи, и поругали за недостатки, но никакой прямой критики Обамы здесь нет. И вот так практически во всем.
2. Резолюция 1973 ООН призывала к созданию бесполетной зоны только для защиты гражданских лиц, к прекращению огня и мирному урегулированию конфликта, поэтому ее и Каддафи поддержал. НАТО ее нарушило, фактически став ВВС мятежников и довело дело до полного поражения правительственных сил. США нарушили резолюцию также поставляя мятежникам оружие.
3. TPP = Trans Pacific Partership
no subject
Date: 2016-10-12 05:32 pm (UTC)Наконец, со стороны Зеленых в адрес Обамы прозвучало достаточно резкое "Дядя Том" из уст В.П. кандидата Аджаму Бакара. Сама Джилл Стейн резко критикует "систему" и нынешнее положение дел, но опять же на непосредственно Обаму, который для нее, как я понимаю, просто послушный винтик этой системы.