The point, after all, is this: The President of the United States, in a meeting with a bipartisan group of senators and congressman, derided countries primarily populated by black and brown people and lauded a country (Norway) that is almost entirely white.Think about it this way: Let's say Trump had the same meeting with the same group of politicians. Rather than say "shithole" or "shithouse," he referred to African or El Salvadoran immigrants coming into the US as hailing from "undesirable countries." Would the fact that he didn't use a curse word change anything? Of course it wouldn't.

That's what's important. The sentiment. Not the word choice.And, there is no dispute -- not from Trump, his White House, his defenders or his detractors -- over the sentiment Trump was trying to get across in the immigration meeting last Thursday.

He is a New Yorker in Washington, far more consumed with the news media and personalities than policy issues. He elides facts, fudges the specifics and dispenses with professional norms in the service of success and status.

To put it mildly, it can be hard to attain the unalloyed truth from a president who has long boasted of gaming the press, or from competing courtiers who often wield insider anecdotes as sword and shield in their efforts to protect themselves and bloody their rivals. Then there is the sheer outlandishness of the Trump era: When most anything is plausible it is also printable, but that does not necessarily mean you are getting it right

“Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book,” he says. To confront his problem, Wolff notes that there are times he lets “the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them.” Unfortunately for the reader, he throws up his hands when dealing with three of the most pivotal moments of the Trump campaign and presidency.

In September 2016, you said, “We’re at a point in our history where he, Trump, is the right guy for the job.” Do you stand by that after President Trump’s first year in office?

Yes. The American people are sick and tired of what was going on; they wanted a real shake-up. It’s like they wanted someone to roll a grenade down the table, and Trump was the grenade. He shook things up.

In the year since taking office, has he found ways to address the ethical questions that could taint his foreign policy credibility?

That sort of omission of fact and blurring of ethical lines has characterized his approach to handling his business ties and overseas deals. For example, presidents traditionally have put their holdings into professionally managed blind trusts. Trump too created a trust — but he made his revocable, and put his two older sons in charge. And he named himself sole beneficiary of the profits.

"As the Trump Organization moves forward with some of its major unfinished developments such as those in Indonesia [and] India, they certainly seem to be stretching the spirit of the promise to not undertake any new deals," she says. Kenney says many of these unfinished projects do involve new contracts for infrastructure projects such as sewers and roads.

President Barack Obama joins the inaugural episode for a conversation about family, race, and America

Letterman’s honesty and degree of emotional introspection don’t just make him still relevant; they make him absolutely essential.

The Rise of the Violent Left Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

“Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.” The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to “fascists” who planned to infiltrate its ranks. Yet it also denounced marchers with “Trump flags” and “red maga hats” who could “normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.”

For progressives, Donald Trump is not just another Republican president. Seventy-six percent of Democrats, according to a Suffolk poll from last September, consider him a racist. Last March, according to a YouGov survey, 71 percent of Democrats agreed that his campaign contained “fascist undertones.”

But bona fide fascism still exist in two forms. First, what you might call cultists. These people are unafraid to be labelled fascist and might even use the Nazi swastika: they were among the people who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017,

They might join violent organisations, such as the Ku Klux Klan – an anti-black group in the United States – or join fringe parties, such as the British National Party. Many of them have a criminal history. Some have found a home within the so-called alt-Right, a largely online movement that routinely abuses racial minorities and women, and which has been known to appropriate fascist symbols.

For example, is Marine Le Pen, leader of the French far-Right Front National, a fascist?

 Trump's statements were awarded PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year.

The Internet and Social Media Are Increasingly Divisive and Undermining of Democracy

When we talk about the media’s effect on our political discourse, usually we’re referring to the way politics are reported. There are, of course, lots of other ways in which media mediate the political process, from ads to organizing to community building to fundraising, all of which play major roles in our elections. Yet much larger than any of these may be the way the media alter our thinking about politics — purveying not just narratives that often decisively shape our opinions of a Trump or a Clinton or a Sanders, but also the larger psychological context in which we conceptualize our world and ourselves.

It seldom connects us with people who don’t fit our expectations of behavior, and it does not build the understanding and empathy that can come from those disparate connections. The creation, strengthening and protecting of these like-us tribes saps the bridging social capital that is essential to addressing so many of our problems. Bridging social capital, that key element that traverses socioeconomic, geographic and racial lines, simply cannot be gained through algorithms set up to steer people away from uncomfortable truths.

Often, we don’t see the search results that defy our online habits, which is convenient when it comes to restaurant recommendations but problematic for staying informed. When the majority of us get our information, we don’t know what we’re missing.

The Internet was meant to be this great contest of ideas. But instead of expanding our perspectives, the Internet shows us what it thinks we want to see. Is it also dividing us?

The newest generation of algorithms, pieces of code that function like behind-the-scenes instructions, are ranking our preferences and filtering content online.

isting all that America could contribute to keep the world safe, he dreamed of a country that “is not turned inward, but outward—toward others”. Mr Trump, by contrast, has sworn to put America First. Demanding respect from a freeloading world that takes leaders in Washington for fools, he says he will “no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism”.

Reagan’s America was optimistic: Mr Trump’s is angry.

After the triumphs of Trump and Brexit, right-leaning parties see paths to political power

Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election in part by promising to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., of political elites and to “Make America Great Again,”

The cold wind of intolerance, authoritarianism, and nationalism is blowing across America and Europe. The unexpected rise of Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee in the United States and the recent political stirrings in Europe are oddly built of the same cloth. Intolerance of non-citizens, the belief that present governments have subordinated their countries best interests for outsiders, and the need for new leaders, whose view of their countries best interests seems to call for an upending of the joint efforts to build a collective defense system like NATO and an economic union like the EU.

Norbet’s message is in effect “Make Austria Great Again.”

A human rights group inspired by Anne Frank has drawn comparisons between Donald Trump's America and Adolf Hitler's Germany.

The list included "the President creates his own media", "he exploits youth at a rally," and "he demonises people who believe, look or love differently". It was headed: "Alarming parallels of history escalate." In an apparent warning about America's future under Mr Trump, the post concluded: "Never again to any people."

Freikorps, English Free Corps, any of several private paramilitary groups that first appeared in December 1918 in the wake of Germany’s defeat in World War I.

Composed of ex-soldiers, unemployed youth, and other discontents and led by ex-officers and other former military personnel, they proliferated all over Germany in the spring and summer of 1919 and eventually numbered more than 65 corps of various names, sizes, and descriptions.

Their members were involved in several political assassinations, of which the most dramatic was the 1922 murder of Walther Rathenau, the country’s foreign minister

The Freikorps was the name adopted by some right wing nationalists in Weimar Germany after World War One had ended.

The Freikorps was effectively a collection of groups as opposed to a cohesive whole but they all shared the same beliefs and objectives. Members of the Freikorps could be described as conservative, nationalistic, anti-Socialism/Communism and once it had been signed, anti-the Treaty of Versailles.

They did not believe that Germany had suffered a military defeat in World War One and members of the Freikorps were very vocal supporters of the ‘stab-in-the-back’ legend that was eventually taken up by the Nazi Party.

It was exactly 95 years ago — on Feb. 24, 1920 — that Adolf Hitler delivered the Nazi Party Platform to a large crowd in Munich, an event that is often regarded as the foundation of Naziism.

The German Workers’ Party (later the Nazi party) already existed before that date, though it was on that day that its exact goals were laid bare: the platform, set forth in 25 points, did not shy away from the central idea of strengthening German citizenship by excluding and controlling Jewish people and others deemed non-German.

His record of speech-making was what brought the audience to that hall in Munich in 1920. And, as Stefan Kanfer explained in TIME’s 1989 examination of the origins of World War II, Hitler’s power was closely linked to his abilities as an orator:

both the government and army wanted to know who the socialists or communists were. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles only added to Hitler’s anger during this period in his life.

Senior officers were impressed with Hitler’s skills as a speaker. It was at this time that the corporal, who was a loner, discovered his greatest talent – public oratory. The gas attack Hitler had suffered had affected his vocal chords and he spoke in a manner that few had heard before.

A series of financial events unfolded in the years 1921 through 1923 that would propel the Nazis to new heights of daring and would even prompt Hitler into attempting to take over Germany.

The German currency, the mark, slipped drastically in value. It had been four marks to the U.S. dollar until the war reparations were announced. Then it became 75 to the dollar and in 1922 sank to 400 to the dollar.

The National Revolution has begun!" Hitler shouted. "No one may leave the hall. Unless there is immediate quiet I shall have a machine gun posted in the gallery. The Bavarian and Reich governments have been removed and a provisional national government formed. The barracks of the Reichswehr and police are occupied. The Army and the police are marching on the city under the swastika banner!" None of that was true, but those in the beer hall could not know otherwise.