您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 观点 >> 正文

特朗普vs美国民主

更新时间:2016-10-22 8:36:30 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Donald Trump vs. American Democracy
特朗普vs美国民主

I’m just stunned.

我简直惊呆了。

In a race that has been full of shocking moments, one at Wednesday’s presidential debate stands out as the most shocking: Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the outcome of the election.

在这场充满令人震惊的时刻的竞选中,周三总统辩论上出现的一刻格外骇人听闻:唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)拒绝承诺接受竞选的结果。

And that’s saying something, because there were other shocking moments during the debate, like when Trump called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” or when he said he would deport “bad hombres” or suggested that late-term abortion included instances where doctors would “rip the baby out of the womb of the mother” and do so “as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth.”

这件事比它看起来的要更加严重,因为在辩论期间还有其他一些令人震惊的时刻,比如特朗普说希拉里·克林顿是个“歹毒的女人”,或者他会把“坏蛋”(bad hombres,特朗普使用了西班牙语对男性的称呼,暗示这些人的族群身份。——译注)驱逐出境,还有声称晚期堕胎中包含“将婴儿从母亲的子宫里扯出来”这样的步骤,而且是在“晚至生产前的一两天或三四天”进行。

But nothing even came close to this exchange between the moderator, Chris Wallace, and Trump:

但什么都远远比不上辩论主持人克里斯·华莱士(Chris Wallace)和唐纳德的这段对话来得严重:

Wallace: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely — sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?

华莱士:你是否做出同样的承诺,即你会绝对接受大选的结果?

Trump: I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I’ll look at it at the time.

特朗普:到时候我会考虑的。现在我什么也不考虑,到时候再说。

Trump went on in his response to complain about the media, saying: “They’ve poisoned the minds of the voters.” Then he complained about outdated voter registration rosters, then he pivoted to his belief that Clinton shouldn’t have been allowed to run. To him, all these things contributed to the election being “rigged.”

特朗普开始抱怨媒体,称“它们毒害了选民的头脑”,接着抱怨选民登记名单久未更新,然后转向他的那种观念,即克林顿一开始就不该被允许参加竞选。对他来说,所有这些都代表着这场竞选被人“动了手脚”。

Wallace came back with a short history lesson:

华莱士转而给他上了一节简短的历史课:

But, sir, there is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

但是,先生,这个国家有一项传统——实际上是它引以为豪的一项传统——那就是和平权力交接,不管一场竞选如何激烈,在竞选结束的时候,失败的一方会承认对方获胜。并不是说你一定会成为失败者或胜利者,而是说失败的一方承认对方获胜,让美国保持团结,部分原因也是为了国家的利益。你是在说,你现在还没准备好遵守这项规则吗?

Trump’s response:

特朗普的回应是:

What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. O.K.?

我说的是,到时候我会告诉你。我给你留点悬念,好吗?

Clinton called the remark “horrifying,” and she was right. This is jaw-dropping, unprecedented and thoroughly irresponsible. This is an attack on our democracy itself.

克林顿称这种言论“令人惊骇”。她说的没错。这是史无前例的彻底的不负责任,令人目瞪口呆。这是在损害我们的民主本身。

And Trump has been peddling his “rigged” election theory for weeks, stating flatly this week that “Voter fraud is all too common, and then they criticize us for saying that.” Trump continued: “But take a look at Philadelphia, what’s been going on, take a look at Chicago, take a look at St. Louis. Take a look at some of these cities, where you see things happening that are horrendous.”

过去数周,特朗普一直在兜售他的大选被“操纵”论,曾在本周断然宣称,“选民欺诈太普遍了,我们说出来还被他们指责。”特朗普还讲道:“但你看看费城,那里在发生什么,看看芝加哥,看看圣路易斯。看看有些城市,你会看到有可怕的事情正在发生。”

It should be noted that these are all heavily Democratic, majority-minority cities, and Republicans don’t fare well in places like that.

需要指出的是,这些都是支持民主党的人比较多、少数族裔人口占多数的城市。在这样的地方,共和党的表现不太好。

Indeed, as Philly.com reported last November, Mitt Romney didn’t get a single vote in 59 of Philadelphia’s 1,687 voting divisions. As the paper put it: “These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.” The paper pointed out that “Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Senator John McCain in 2008.”

事实上,就像Philly.com去年11月报道的,在费城1687个选区中的59个里,米特·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)连一张选票也没有拿到。就像这份报纸所写的:“正是这类数字让民主党陷入选民欺诈的担忧,但这样的结果可能并没有那么让人意外。”这份报纸指出,“2008年,芝加哥和亚特兰大都有选区出现过没人投票给共和党参议员约翰·麦凯恩(John McCain)的情况。”

As for the inclusion of St. Louis, it’s not clear to me that Trump isn’t confusing St. Louis with St. Lucie County, Fla., which was included in a viral email about voter fraud after the 2012 election. That email included this line: “In St. Lucie County, Fla., there were 175,574 registered eligible voters, but 247,713 votes were cast.”

对于其中提到的圣路易斯,我目前还不确定特朗普是不是把圣路易斯市和佛罗里达州的圣卢西亚县搞混了,后者曾出现在一封有关选民欺诈的邮件里,该邮件在2012年大选结束后被疯转。里面有这样一句话:“在佛罗里达州的圣卢西亚县,共有175574名合格的登记选民,但却出现了247713张选票。”

But FactCheck.org looked into that claim and found it to be “bogus,” writing:

但事实核查网站FactCheck.org对这项声明进行了调查,发现它是“假的”。该网站写道:

It’s simply not true that there were tens of thousands more votes cast than voters available in St. Lucie County. Whoever first started this falsehood misread a St. Lucie election board document showing that 249,095 “cards” were cast, and registered voters totaled 175,554. But the supervisor of elections website explains that a “card” is one page, and the full “ballot” contained two pages. Total cards are not double the number of voters, as not every voter cast both pages (or “cards”).

圣卢西亚县投出的选票数根本不可能比合格选民人数多出数万。不管是谁最先提出了这种说法,都是错误理解了圣卢西亚选举委员会的一份文件。文件显示,该县投出了24095张“卡片”,注册选民共计175554名。但选举网站的主管解释了,在这里一张“卡片”是指一页,而完整的“选票”包含两页。卡片总数不是选民人数的两倍,则是因为不是所有选民都投了两页(或说两张“卡片”)。

But Trump, of birther fame, is not the kind of man who shies away from conspiracy theories; he embraces them.

但以质疑出生地出名的特朗普,不是那种会避开阴谋论的人;他会欣然接受它们。

He needs a reason that he’s losing other than the fact that he is arguably the least qualified, most ridiculous candidate to ever run for president as a major party nominee. He needs a reason other than the fact that he is being done in by his own words and actions. He needs a reason so that his self-inflated self-image as a relentless winner is not undone should he lose this election by embarrassing margins.

他需要为自己可能的失败找一个理由,而非接受这样一个事实,即他可以说是有史以来以一个重要政党提名人身份参加总统竞选的最不合格、最荒唐可笑的候选人。他需要找一个理由,而非接受他在被自己的言辞和行动毁掉的事实。他需要找一个理由,这样如果他以令人尴尬的大差距在选举中落败,他作为一名持续赢家那种自我夸大的自我形象便不至于破灭。

But to take that need for a diversion and distraction and turn it toward questioning the integrity of the electoral process itself and leaving open the possibility of not conceding should he lose is beyond the pale.

但为了寻找转移注意力的事物,转而质疑选举过程本身的真实性,并表示如果竞选失败他也不一定接受这样的结果,却超出人们可以接受的范围。

When Donald Trump gave that answer, he proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is completely unqualified to be president.

当唐纳德·特朗普做出那个回答的时候,他确凿无疑地证明了,他完全没有资格当总统。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表