Replies

As a matter of fact, I did read that, as well as the article and letter upon which the writer based his conclusions!!

From that letter, just one example: "Donald Trump’s contempt for constructive, evidence-based argumentation mocks the ideals of the academy, whether in the sciences or the liberal arts. Academia is far from the only profession endangered by Trumpism. Donald Trump bullies and suppresses the press, and seeks to weaken First Amendment protections as President. . . ." - Letter from Historians et al

Pardon me, but at its heart, isn't Trump's "argumentation" on the state of the economy and on the dangers of attacks from those who state their intentions to harm America "evidence-based"? Perhaps they should consider America's early mind-boggling progress from the use of crude tools in the wilderness to putting a man on the moon, as contrasted with the past few decades of backward stagnant growth.

As far as his stated objections to "the press" predicated on and limited to that segment of "the press" which provides evidence of its own affiliation with Party, instead of its pursuit of truth and objectivity?

As far as his stand on First Amendment protections, does Trump not loudly declare his objections to "politically correct" speech, which is, in fact, censorship, and relies on coercively-imposed restrictions on that speech which, in America, was intended to be speech which was unrestrained by political fiat or that which "offended" another human being?

As a matter of fact, that great champion of the rights of conscience and free speech, Thomas Jefferson, stated:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Contrast that with the group think imposed on college and university students exposed to these haughty and arrogant "professors"!

These assorted mind controllers have concluded the view expressed by Thomas Jefferson here is dangerous and must be opposed. Their bias toward "progressivism" blinds them to the real intent and purpose of the First Amendment's protections.

So much for their joint warning to us!