5 ms·

> He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before. Which questions? Criticizing the news media has been a national (and international) spo

> 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.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Just so you know, Jeffrey Lord is a ridiculous sycophant and just might cut off his own arm to defend a Trump statement that he only had one arm.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - graycat 10y ago
    Evidence about Lord? Evidence that the story is significantly false?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The story is true, Trump used race and creed as wedge issues when he was working to open Mar-a-Lago as a social club (it had been a private estate). The part where I believe Jeffrey Lord is a sycophant is the part where he presents it as Trump nobly fighting for integration in Palm Beach, rather than Trump using accusations of racism to smear the town council and make it difficult for them to act to restrict his plans. http://www.snopes.com/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/ http://www.snopes.com/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/ Just to be clear, I don't think Donald Trump is malignantly racist, I think he's more or less nihilistic when it comes to people that aren't him. I believe that if he thought it would have been more profitable/easier to open a segregated club, he would have done that.
      - graycat 10y ago
        So, net, in Palm Beach, Trump did fight racism hard and successfully. So, tough to claim that he is racist. His motives are more difficult to document. But the burden of proof that Trump is racist is on the accuser -- tough to prove that he never had a racist comment in a private conversation some place. Instead, the key issue is proof that he did something racist and, then, proof that he has done such things often enough to have a pattern that lets us conclude he is racist. I grew up in Memphis. Memphis was and still is awash in some strong and bitter racism against the Blacks. My parents were both from the North and wanted nothing to do with that racism; neither did I; and I got the heck out of the Deep South ASAP; my ancestors are from England and Germany, but, still, I did NOT like the strong racism of Memphis. Thus, from Memphis, I've seen a lot of racism. To me, I see no evidence that Trump is racist. To me, all the billions of Hillary campaign and MSM claims that Trump is racist are missing one simple item: Some solid evidence.

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.

maxerickson 10y ago
Just so you know, Jeffrey Lord is a ridiculous sycophant and just might cut off his own arm to defend a Trump statement that he only had one arm.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- graycat 10y ago
  Evidence about Lord? Evidence that the story is significantly false?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The story is true, Trump used race and creed as wedge issues when he was working to open Mar-a-Lago as a social club (it had been a private estate). The part where I believe Jeffrey Lord is a sycophant is the part where he presents it as Trump nobly fighting for integration in Palm Beach, rather than Trump using accusations of racism to smear the town council and make it difficult for them to act to restrict his plans. http://www.snopes.com/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/ http://www.snopes.com/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/ Just to be clear, I don't think Donald Trump is malignantly racist, I think he's more or less nihilistic when it comes to people that aren't him. I believe that if he thought it would have been more profitable/easier to open a segregated club, he would have done that.
    - graycat 10y ago
      So, net, in Palm Beach, Trump did fight racism hard and successfully. So, tough to claim that he is racist. His motives are more difficult to document. But the burden of proof that Trump is racist is on the accuser -- tough to prove that he never had a racist comment in a private conversation some place. Instead, the key issue is proof that he did something racist and, then, proof that he has done such things often enough to have a pattern that lets us conclude he is racist. I grew up in Memphis. Memphis was and still is awash in some strong and bitter racism against the Blacks. My parents were both from the North and wanted nothing to do with that racism; neither did I; and I got the heck out of the Deep South ASAP; my ancestors are from England and Germany, but, still, I did NOT like the strong racism of Memphis. Thus, from Memphis, I've seen a lot of racism. To me, I see no evidence that Trump is racist. To me, all the billions of Hillary campaign and MSM claims that Trump is racist are missing one simple item: Some solid evidence.