@John
As for the holocaust: sure, Jews died in Europe in the 1940s – but so too did Poles, Germans, Slavs – especially Russian Slavs in far greater numbers than Jews.
The above is conveniently ignored by many. No I am not an holocaust denier.
The second thing, instead of MSM always going on about the terrible Germans and what they did. [it was 70+ years ago] and still making the current generation of Germans responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
Atrocities are committed by all sides. Israel included, but then again Israel is fighting to survive against an enemy that as only to get lucky once.

Not to say that I don’t wholeheartedly agree with your admonition that, before you tackle other people’s lies, you should be informed — at least a bit — but:
The list of countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban was supplied by the Obama Administration, In 2015.
Just to quote a short bit from that piece written by Danny Haiphong, not to overburden anyone with too much reading, but just enough to make the point:

There are many protesters and observers in the United States who may see Donald Trump’s policies as surprising, perhaps unprecedented. Trump’s actions, however, are not without a catalyst. That catalyst is none other than former President Barack Obama. A Mic article published the day of Trump’s executive order reminds us that the list of countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban was supplied by the Obama Administration. In 2015, Obama signed into law the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. The bill restricted Visa waivers for anyone who applied after visiting Libya, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq within the last five years. This list is now being used by the Trump Administration’s to enforce the travel ban.

Clearly, it’s true, then, different people do live in different bubbles.
And since Trump is, so to speak, really ratifying Obama’s own immigration policy, it can’t possibly be that it’s a “Muslim ban” — can it?
Or was that the point you were making?
I mean, unless I missed it, I don’t see this particular FACT mentioned by Kit — although to my mind it tends to reinforce his thesis more than weaken it, doesn’t it?

I agree largely with everything you have written.
What the proponents of growth fail to understand is that the way in which they measure it – as a percentage of a previous figure (usually monthly comparisons with a year previous) – means that the actual percentage growth rate must inevitably decline.
It is all very well boosting growth in a small undeveloped economy but once an economy has matured, it becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible to maintain the apparent growth rates that were achieved in earlier times.
Adding 10 per cent to a baseline economy of 100 is far easier to achieve than 10 per cent of 1,000 or 10,000.
In Britain and a number of other countries, productivity levels – which can add to growth – have flat-lined.
With more and more societal resources going to fewer and fewer people, there is no longer the wealth available to invest in new forms of production, distribution and consumption.
Where new modes do arise – such as the gig economy and associated pseudo-employment – they create only marginal amounts of wealth for the few and not for the many, thereby further depressing real demand.
Instead of fixating on growth, people need to think much more clearly about wealth and happiness.
Wealth is not solely about material wealth but has to be about cultural and psychological wealth as well.
You don’t have to be rich to be physically, materially, culturally and psychologically wealthy and healthy.

I am glad that Off-Guardian and others are committed to some genuine effort in forming political opinion through factual analysis and the exposing of lies. Context is something else though.
I think it is hard to understand what is taking place.
Personally I am convinced that the main driver of what seems to be turning (even if you are convinced that this only amounts to media attitudes towards POTUS), is that the economy will not grow anymore during my lifetime. We are in a period of slowing, contraction, and eventual implosion.
I am not alone in viewing Trump, Brexit and the emergence of a new nationalism in this context. The ‘establishment’ for the most part is no different from the vast majority of the populace in that they are devotees of the religion of progress. They only think in terms of ‘growth’.
However, high, sustained economic growth is no longer going to happen (unless someone discovers a remarkable set of solutions to our problems), and so the whole edifice of Neoliberal, global power will fall to bits. What will replace it will most likely be smaller and smaller units of collective identity, and a resurgent nationalism is the first step in this process. The Neoliberal order was a product of the oil age, and that is coming to an end.
So it is no wonder that the media (tied into the globalist corporate structures) is rebelling against this trend.
My point is that we (as much as anyone) can be cornered in our thinking because we have spent the past decade or so pushing for some acknowledgement of the reality of US imperial capitalism and the propaganda system that supports it.
I stand by my assessment that Trump is a significant change, and not a good one. What the world desperately needs is international co-operation, and a massive redistribution of wealth and power. Trump will move in the opposite direction.

A most interesting read.
One of the bases for exclusion was involvement in so-called “honor” killings.
How can anyone argue with that?
The Executive Order also introduced an annual cap of 50,000 refugees.
Did anyone question if that figure was too high or too low?
What was not mentioned was the word Muslim or any other religion-related word.
As pointed out elsewhere, only Syria was specifically mentioned in the EO.
As ever, there seem to be a lot of assumptions being made by Trump’s critics.
What is lacking is intelligent analysis on the part of the critics of the ban.
It is this kind of lazy and slovenly thinking that undermines Trump’s opponents.

Did Kit argue that the ban was a good idea?
I don’t think he did. How did you manage to persuade yourself otherwise?
As for the holocaust: sure, Jews died in Europe in the 1940s – but so too did Poles, Germans, Slavs – especially Russian Slavs in far greater numbers than Jews.
I also think the collapsing Third Reich had far more to do with an increased numbers of deaths, as allied bombing made re-provisioning of labour camps much more difficult and it also caused the medical services in the camps to collapse, which – in a pre-antibiotics era – made the scale of casualties greater.
deschutesmaple needs to question if her/his comments are not some sort of inner projection instead of being related to anything anyone else has written here?

RE Trump and the street/media protests Admin..You asked a question: What is this about? I think it might be about the exponent-driven, chain of psychological denial in the unique american conscience and self evaluation. There was G.W.Bush..fit for purpose of 9/11 and PANAC. but, with that periods’ post hoc, growing sense of guilt and shame for said american conscience..A shame that could not be allowed to extrapolate to a real change to the status quo..So obama was positioned as a conscience atonement, take two african american asprins and lie down and your conscience will be alright in the morning…But the migraine even with obama kept coming back and heaven forbid; So was the self examination of american’ goodness under god….bloody hell!..WHAT TO DO? …. Sir! Sir! I know….Trump!…OF COURSE!…divide and rule. An oldie but a goodie: