9 ms·

Trump quoted this in his speech yesterday. He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before.

by miguelrochefort 10y ago

kurthr 10y ago
He's Unbelievable... because he was then pictured and quoted in multiple newspapers.
shimon_e 10y ago
Who is finding these quotes for him?
edblarney 10y ago
Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press (or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth. Just that people say good things about him. He is by no means a moral voice in this cause, he's a part of the problem: he lies consistently, and when he's taken to task, he just screams 'liar' or bullies people - instead of explaining, justifying. Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true. But it's a problem because the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' - because there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing it. This is not fair, because instead of playing 'against Trump' they should be being more objective. But they really hate Trump, and can't but help themselves play hardball back against him (and I don't mean 'doing more of a better job, I mean cheating a bit with the bias). And the press is definitely hurting their credibility in that way. The paradox is, that it is very easy to read any of the MSM headlines and easily find anti-Trump bias - which lends credence to Trump supporters acceptance of his 'anti press' rants. Example: Trump's orders on immigration were pretty hardcore. Possibly illegal. Instead of explaining it, and highlighting concerns - the press mostly lambasted it, and created a sense of 'national fury'. Buried away were the polls that showed more Americans supported the action, than were against it. This demonstrates the paradox because although the press were 'truthful' in their response to Trump's policy - they were also somewhat biased, which is a form of misrepresentation - and were also creating the idea that 'America was outraged' when really it wasn't so clear. The press was not allowing for nuance ... they were playing the role of 'vocal opposition'. Which isn't quite their job. But more to the point of the article: 'the press' was never considered truthful at all, not up until the modern era and Television, when at least the notion of 'truth' and 'impartiality' was supposed to be observed. In the 19th century, Newspapers existed as businesses only, and to push the propaganda and flame-wars of their owners. Obviously this exists today, but not quite as much. It's between the lines, and in the bias.
- rtpg 10y ago
  The EO is a good example of how your request could be very hard to satisfy. I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did! They explained the legal issues, expanded on the natsec consequences (we all know about the Iraqi interpreters now). And I saw polls in the NYT about this. Asking multiple questions as well, notably showing that a solid majority did not support touching permanent residents (which was the crux of the legal argument) Let's say Trump decided to nuke the ocean. How does the media cover that objectively? If you just say "Trump is going to nuke the ocean" without stating more facts, that's bias by omission. Like when they would report on Trump's voter fraud claim without stating that there's zero evidence. But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias! Some things are"objectively" bad ideas! But if you say "Trump is doing something stupid with no logical basis" then that looks like bias. If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH, then it's the press's responsibility to point that out.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    >> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!" Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it. Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO: CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen. When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well. More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya? It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at. Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries. Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US. Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should. So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not. CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story. >> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this." That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective. Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big. >> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!" CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'. Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim". But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here". Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context. But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here". This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased. Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban'). What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump. What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'. Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines. >> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH" I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them. Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased. Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words. Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.
hackuser 10y ago
> He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before. Which questions? Criticizing the news media has been a national (and international) sport continuously for a very long time, at least 200 years it seems. Also, his approach to the issue has long been used by fascists and authoritarians.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Exactly. There is nothing original or insightful to Trump's rhetoric. It's just a sensational, aggressive, unhinged version of the "attack the liberal media" strategy that Rupert Murdoch successfully deployed in Australia, UK and the US.
- graycat 10y ago
  > Also, his approach to the issue has long been used by fascists and authoritarians. Quite generally that argument is not very solid: For a simple but extreme refutation, no doubt "fascists and authoritarians" breathe air, drink water, walk, talk, write, read, etc. also. If Trump is being, or trying to be, a fascist or an authoritarian, then, sure, we should know that. I very much liked the OP: I've long thought of all the criticisms in the OP, more or less independently, and am glad to see that the "press" and/or media are much the same as in Jefferson's time because that is some evidence that what I long thought has been correct -- e.g., I'm not the only one saying that the press pumps out too much sewage. I had seen that negative attitudes toward the press were clear in a 1930's Andy Hardy movie; IIRC Mark Twain had some such comments; but the Jefferson quote suggests that the objectionable aspects of the press I, etc. have seen go way back at least to Jefferson: From this we suspect that the press has their techniques and that these have not changed in 200+ years and, thus, might be solidly based on something or other. Again, I like the evidence that I'm not alone in negative attitudes toward too much of the press. Another description of the press was from a college English professor my older brother had: That professor claimed that the press used the techniques of formula fiction -- a case can be made for that. From the Trump rally in Florida yesterday, I see a coincidence (different things the same in time and, thus, possibly with a common cause): (1) The First Lady of the US made what might be regarded as her first appearance as First Lady. (2) The First Lady recently won a libel law suit brought against a person associated with the press who had made vile comments about her. (3) Trump mentioned the Jefferson statement as if it was a way to tell the First Lady that vile press behavior was not unique to her or the Trump Administration but went back at least to Jefferson. (4) The First Lady started her speech with the Lord's Prayer as it she had found that helpful in her reaction to the vile libel. I have to guess that nearly all US citizens would be outraged at the vile libel against the First Lady and pleased if Jefferson's statement, the Lord's Prayer, her husband's affectionate support, etc. helped her -- I was. On "fascists and authoritarians", during the campaign Trump was attacked with, apparently, about all the possibly somewhat damaging vile accusations that could be uttered. We all heard a lot of the accusations that were common -- sexist, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, fascist, bully, authoritarian and more. When I heard those, I looked right away, immediately following the accusations, for the supporting evidence or at least references to such evidence. I never saw solid versions of any such evidence. E.g., at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 is Eddie Scarry (@eScarry), "11 New York Times that Trump was a 'racist'," Washington Examiner, 7/10/16 12:01 AM, at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 with, e.g., 1. "A nativist, sexist, arguably fascist and racist demagogue who twists the truth is the front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee..." — Liberal columnist Charles Blow, March 3. that is, such an accusation but (apparently) without solid evidence. In contrast, eventually I did see Jeffrey Lord, "When Trump Fought the Racists", The American Spectator, November 13, 2015, 9:00 am, at http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/ http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/ where apparently Trump worked hard, including with a law suit, to stop the near universal racism of clubs in Palm Beach. Many people in the US, no doubt nearly everyone at HN, is really good at considering solid evidence. We commonly see high respect for such evidence in physical science, medical science, computer science, engineering, law, a lot in finance, etc. E.g., we know from freshman physics that F = ma, from basic electricity and magnetism that I = E/R, from computer science that heap sort runs, for positive integer n and n records to be sorted, in both worst case and expected time O( n ln(n) ), from mathematics that, given a positive integer n, the set of real numbers R, a subset C of R^n closed in the usual topology of R^n, there exists a function f: R^n --> R so that f is 0 on C, positive otherwise, and infinitely differentiable (we have a solid proof, and there is no sense in saying otherwise). Well, we should attempt also to have solid evidence in evaluating our candidate and actual political leaders. No doubt nearly all of us have seen the disasters of fascists, e.g., Hitler, and authoritarians, e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and want no such disasters here in the US. Well, we can guess that the US Founding Fathers also saw the dangers of authoritarians and designed the US Constitution to protect the US from such. Recently for Trump, he wrote an executive order (EO) temporarily blocking immigration from seven countries identified by the Obama Administration as so deep into civil war and/or chaos that vetting people from those countries was impossible. Soon a US judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Trump EO. Apparently the Trump EO was based at least in part on section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... Okay, so, here, at least first cut, it appears that the Trump EO was legal. Still, a judge issued a TRO. Then the appeals court of the US 9th Circuit upheld the TRO. So, what did Trump do? He argued against the courts but did obey the courts. An authoritarian might have asked "How many tanks and airplanes does the court command?", told the court "try to make me", sent troops to lock up the judges, or some such. So, net, Trump did respect the judicial branch. So, on this issue, it appears that Trump did not act like an authoritarian. More generally, I'm short on solid evidence that Trump is a fascist or authoritarian or is racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, a bully, etc. Instead, it appears that during the campaign and since, some Trump opponents and some in the press, much as in the Jefferson statement, just tossed out whatever vile accusations they could think of and omitted any solid evidence. How could many people come to believe vile accusations or just lies without solid evidence? With some irony, as maybe we could see from some fascists such as Paul Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, if a lie is repeated often enough from enough sources, then, even without solid evidence, the lie will be widely believed. Also we can expect from some aspects of human psychology, e.g., E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, people tend to be insecure, in response seek membership in groups, and, then, adopt the norms and beliefs of the groups they join. Here they can come to believe or at least repeat lies simply from belonging to a group that wants to repeat the lies and without solid evidence.

Trump quoted this in his speech yesterday. He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before.

kurthr 10y ago

He's Unbelievable... because he was then pictured and quoted in multiple newspapers.

shimon_e 10y ago

Who is finding these quotes for him?

edblarney 10y ago

Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press (or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth. Just that people say good things about him. He is by no means a moral voice in this cause, he's a part of the problem: he lies consistently, and when he's taken to task, he just screams 'liar' or bullies people - instead of explaining, justifying. Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true. But it's a problem because the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' - because there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing it. This is not fair, because instead of playing 'against Trump' they should be being more objective. But they really hate Trump, and can't but help themselves play hardball back against him (and I don't mean 'doing more of a better job, I mean cheating a bit with the bias). And the press is definitely hurting their credibility in that way. The paradox is, that it is very easy to read any of the MSM headlines and easily find anti-Trump bias - which lends credence to Trump supporters acceptance of his 'anti press' rants. Example: Trump's orders on immigration were pretty hardcore. Possibly illegal. Instead of explaining it, and highlighting concerns - the press mostly lambasted it, and created a sense of 'national fury'. Buried away were the polls that showed more Americans supported the action, than were against it. This demonstrates the paradox because although the press were 'truthful' in their response to Trump's policy - they were also somewhat biased, which is a form of misrepresentation - and were also creating the idea that 'America was outraged' when really it wasn't so clear. The press was not allowing for nuance ... they were playing the role of 'vocal opposition'. Which isn't quite their job. But more to the point of the article: 'the press' was never considered truthful at all, not up until the modern era and Television, when at least the notion of 'truth' and 'impartiality' was supposed to be observed. In the 19th century, Newspapers existed as businesses only, and to push the propaganda and flame-wars of their owners. Obviously this exists today, but not quite as much. It's between the lines, and in the bias.

rtpg 10y ago
The EO is a good example of how your request could be very hard to satisfy. I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did! They explained the legal issues, expanded on the natsec consequences (we all know about the Iraqi interpreters now). And I saw polls in the NYT about this. Asking multiple questions as well, notably showing that a solid majority did not support touching permanent residents (which was the crux of the legal argument) Let's say Trump decided to nuke the ocean. How does the media cover that objectively? If you just say "Trump is going to nuke the ocean" without stating more facts, that's bias by omission. Like when they would report on Trump's voter fraud claim without stating that there's zero evidence. But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias! Some things are"objectively" bad ideas! But if you say "Trump is doing something stupid with no logical basis" then that looks like bias. If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH, then it's the press's responsibility to point that out.
- edblarney 10y ago
  >> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!" Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it. Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO: CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen. When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well. More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya? It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at. Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries. Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US. Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should. So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not. CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story. >> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this." That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective. Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big. >> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!" CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'. Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim". But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here". Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context. But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here". This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased. Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban'). What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump. What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'. Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines. >> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH" I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them. Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased. Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words. Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.

hackuser 10y ago

> He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before. Which questions? Criticizing the news media has been a national (and international) sport continuously for a very long time, at least 200 years it seems. Also, his approach to the issue has long been used by fascists and authoritarians.

threeseed 10y ago
Exactly. There is nothing original or insightful to Trump's rhetoric. It's just a sensational, aggressive, unhinged version of the "attack the liberal media" strategy that Rupert Murdoch successfully deployed in Australia, UK and the US.
graycat 10y ago
> Also, his approach to the issue has long been used by fascists and authoritarians. Quite generally that argument is not very solid: For a simple but extreme refutation, no doubt "fascists and authoritarians" breathe air, drink water, walk, talk, write, read, etc. also. If Trump is being, or trying to be, a fascist or an authoritarian, then, sure, we should know that. I very much liked the OP: I've long thought of all the criticisms in the OP, more or less independently, and am glad to see that the "press" and/or media are much the same as in Jefferson's time because that is some evidence that what I long thought has been correct -- e.g., I'm not the only one saying that the press pumps out too much sewage. I had seen that negative attitudes toward the press were clear in a 1930's Andy Hardy movie; IIRC Mark Twain had some such comments; but the Jefferson quote suggests that the objectionable aspects of the press I, etc. have seen go way back at least to Jefferson: From this we suspect that the press has their techniques and that these have not changed in 200+ years and, thus, might be solidly based on something or other. Again, I like the evidence that I'm not alone in negative attitudes toward too much of the press. Another description of the press was from a college English professor my older brother had: That professor claimed that the press used the techniques of formula fiction -- a case can be made for that. From the Trump rally in Florida yesterday, I see a coincidence (different things the same in time and, thus, possibly with a common cause): (1) The First Lady of the US made what might be regarded as her first appearance as First Lady. (2) The First Lady recently won a libel law suit brought against a person associated with the press who had made vile comments about her. (3) Trump mentioned the Jefferson statement as if it was a way to tell the First Lady that vile press behavior was not unique to her or the Trump Administration but went back at least to Jefferson. (4) The First Lady started her speech with the Lord's Prayer as it she had found that helpful in her reaction to the vile libel. I have to guess that nearly all US citizens would be outraged at the vile libel against the First Lady and pleased if Jefferson's statement, the Lord's Prayer, her husband's affectionate support, etc. helped her -- I was. On "fascists and authoritarians", during the campaign Trump was attacked with, apparently, about all the possibly somewhat damaging vile accusations that could be uttered. We all heard a lot of the accusations that were common -- sexist, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, fascist, bully, authoritarian and more. When I heard those, I looked right away, immediately following the accusations, for the supporting evidence or at least references to such evidence. I never saw solid versions of any such evidence. E.g., at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 is Eddie Scarry (@eScarry), "11 New York Times that Trump was a 'racist'," Washington Examiner, 7/10/16 12:01 AM, at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2596017 with, e.g., 1. "A nativist, sexist, arguably fascist and racist demagogue who twists the truth is the front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee..." — Liberal columnist Charles Blow, March 3. that is, such an accusation but (apparently) without solid evidence. In contrast, eventually I did see Jeffrey Lord, "When Trump Fought the Racists", The American Spectator, November 13, 2015, 9:00 am, at http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/ http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/ where apparently Trump worked hard, including with a law suit, to stop the near universal racism of clubs in Palm Beach. Many people in the US, no doubt nearly everyone at HN, is really good at considering solid evidence. We commonly see high respect for such evidence in physical science, medical science, computer science, engineering, law, a lot in finance, etc. E.g., we know from freshman physics that F = ma, from basic electricity and magnetism that I = E/R, from computer science that heap sort runs, for positive integer n and n records to be sorted, in both worst case and expected time O( n ln(n) ), from mathematics that, given a positive integer n, the set of real numbers R, a subset C of R^n closed in the usual topology of R^n, there exists a function f: R^n --> R so that f is 0 on C, positive otherwise, and infinitely differentiable (we have a solid proof, and there is no sense in saying otherwise). Well, we should attempt also to have solid evidence in evaluating our candidate and actual political leaders. No doubt nearly all of us have seen the disasters of fascists, e.g., Hitler, and authoritarians, e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and want no such disasters here in the US. Well, we can guess that the US Founding Fathers also saw the dangers of authoritarians and designed the US Constitution to protect the US from such. Recently for Trump, he wrote an executive order (EO) temporarily blocking immigration from seven countries identified by the Obama Administration as so deep into civil war and/or chaos that vetting people from those countries was impossible. Soon a US judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Trump EO. Apparently the Trump EO was based at least in part on section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... Okay, so, here, at least first cut, it appears that the Trump EO was legal. Still, a judge issued a TRO. Then the appeals court of the US 9th Circuit upheld the TRO. So, what did Trump do? He argued against the courts but did obey the courts. An authoritarian might have asked "How many tanks and airplanes does the court command?", told the court "try to make me", sent troops to lock up the judges, or some such. So, net, Trump did respect the judicial branch. So, on this issue, it appears that Trump did not act like an authoritarian. More generally, I'm short on solid evidence that Trump is a fascist or authoritarian or is racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, a bully, etc. Instead, it appears that during the campaign and since, some Trump opponents and some in the press, much as in the Jefferson statement, just tossed out whatever vile accusations they could think of and omitted any solid evidence. How could many people come to believe vile accusations or just lies without solid evidence? With some irony, as maybe we could see from some fascists such as Paul Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, if a lie is repeated often enough from enough sources, then, even without solid evidence, the lie will be widely believed. Also we can expect from some aspects of human psychology, e.g., E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, people tend to be insecure, in response seek membership in groups, and, then, adopt the norms and beliefs of the groups they join. Here they can come to believe or at least repeat lies simply from belonging to a group that wants to repeat the lies and without solid evidence.