Snopes on Trump Derangement

I am not in general a fan of Snopes. But in this analysis they have sorted through the morass in a quite decent fashion. Their Leftism leaks through in minor ways, but only very occasionally and without impact on the significant logical value of this article. I was surprised and pleased to find this analysis.

The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas
An in-depth analysis of the false allegations and misleading claims made against the 45th President since his inauguration.

There are many articles that exist detailing lies and misleading claims made by the Trump administration. This article is intended as a neutral, reliable analysis of the lies, false allegations and misleading claims made about and against Donald Trump since his inauguration in January 2017. We’ve attempted to strip away the hyperbole, name-calling and generalizations, and examine the patterns and trends at work: what characterizes these lies and exaggerations, the effect they have, what might explain them.

[...]

Some of these claims are downright fake, entirely fabricated by unreliable or dubious web sites and presented as satire, or otherwise blatantly false. But the rest — some of which have gained significant traction and credibility from otherwise serious people and organizations — provide a fascinating insight into the tactics and preoccupations of the broad anti-Trump movement known as “the Resistance,” whether they were created by critics of the President or merely shared by them.

Generally speaking, we discovered that they are characterized and driven by four types of errors of thought:

Alarmism

A lack of historical context or awareness

Cherry-picking of evidence (especially visual evidence)

A failure to adhere to Occam’s Razor — the common-sense understanding that the simplest explanation for an event or behavior is the most likely.

Infused throughout almost all these claims, behind their successful dissemination, is confirmation bias: the fuel that drives the spread of all propaganda and false or misleading claims among otherwise sensible and skeptical people.

[...]

Here are some examples of terminology used in the article:

These lies and misrepresentations are also often based on snapshots — visual evidence presented without proper context;

even the cherry-picked evidence chosen to make the point undermines it;

except that he didn’t;

lack of historical context and cherry-picked evidence also played a role in another particularly egregious episode, in which Occupy Democrats placed a photograph of Pope Francis frowning beside Trump, next to one of the Pontiff grinning beside Barack Obama;

these claims have primarily come in the form of blatantly fabricated posts and stories from disreputable sources;

absolutist way the motion was misrepresented in the article’s headline;

evidence...actually supported the opposite;

rushed and alarmist conclusions, a lack of context, and a pre-existing caricature of Trump as an incipient dictator have played a role in false claims made against him;

not true;

false claims and fake stories;

false attributions; falsehoods;

major strand of falsehood

There are many more conclusions like these; read the whole thing THERE.