"The fundamental question is, are we going to follow the law?"
「拗咩吖，大家仲信唔信法律制度先？」
繼上次問到Twitter老細口啞之後，美國參議員Ted Cruz接受《Fox News》Sean Hannity訪問，評論大選兩邊嘅爭拗同輿論偏頗嘅情況，再提出一個跨黨派政見立場，值得所有人反思嘅問題，到底大家仲信唔信法律制度先？還是靠响social media打嘴炮或者記者講就得㗎？
"The fundamental question is, are we going to follow the law?"
"The way the system works is, you follow the law...You know, one of the frustrating things as a citizen, you see all these tweets going back and forth, you see allegations of this happened, that happened. It's hard to know, it's hard for anyone to know, all right, is this true, what's true?"
（行之有效嘅制度就係法律制度，作為一個國民，最失望就係睇見啲Tweets你來我往，呢個話見到乜乜，嗰個就講物物，根本無人知，亦唔會知真定假，點知咩真相呀？）
"The only way to know is, we have a legal process -- we have state courts, we have federal courts that can hear legal claims."
（要知道真相嘅唯一方法，就係經過法律程序，我地有各級法院去審理呢啲法律上嘅指控。）
"And right now, it is incumbent on the Trump Campaign's lawyers to go in and prove their case in court -- to lay out evidence -- to lay out evidence of illegally cast votes, lay out evidence of what was done right and what was done wrong. And when the process is over, we're going to know the result..."
（去到呢一步，在任總統嘅律師團咪要去法庭去闡述自己嘅理據囉，用證據解釋咩做啱或者乜嘢做錯。當個法律程序完成，大家咪知道結果囉，拗咩呢？）
"Now, the fact that you or I might say that or someone might tweet that -- that's not conclusive evidence. That needs to be determined in a court of law."
（依家我可以响Twitter講呢樣，佢又講另一樣，呢啲唔係可信嘅證據黎㗎，可信與否係要靠法庭決定嘅。）
"It's amazing that reporters are running around screaming, no, no, no, we can't resolve any of these legal matters."
（最「奇妙」就係啲記者四周圍同人講「No, no, no，呢啲問題係唔可以用法律解決㗎」）
其實Ted Cruz提出呢個概念，去到呢刻到底仲有幾多人明白呢？還是為咗個人政見、立場或者喜惡，而忘記咗？
美國國內係咁，國外就更加...
#選皇帝
Photo Source：FoxNews
訪問原片：
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1326264919529025538?s=20
go over用法 在 [請益] go over後面不可以加代名詞? - 看板Eng-Class 的八卦
如題，go over表示瀏覽時，後面可加受詞，但是不能加代名詞嗎?
原因是什麼呢?
謝謝大家!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 124.12.58.197
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1426586433.A.CD1.html
... <看更多>