And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.
Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.
To repeat again it is not something that I am trying to sell. I would not expect anybody on here to come to grips with what I am trying to explain or to "buy" my responses. This is generally a board of unpersuadables and that is ok. Just recognize going forward that not much attention can or should be paid towards an unpersuadable as it is a waste of time.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.
I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.
There's an element of truth to this. And it does support BS's assertion of people voting for change.
I still maintain the majority of Trump voters bought his garbage.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.
My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.
My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.
If that's what you need to say to bow out, that's okay. I don't know what popular vote person is, I'm saying losing the popular vote proves your conclusion that this was a vote for change, false.
I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.
There's an element of truth to this. And it does support BS's assertion of people voting for change.
I still maintain the majority of Trump voters bought his garbage.
I would agree that a large portion of Trump voters did buy into the garbage. The change argument is hard because I see some evidence for it, but I also see President Obama's approval ratings. He isn't an unpopular President nationally. So I'm not quite sure how his popularity and a desire for change mesh together. I think the greater problem was Hillary Clinton and an electorate that did not want her. If it was, say, Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, do we see the same result? I don't know. Maybe we do but we'll never know for sure.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.
My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.
If that's what you need to say to bow out, that's okay. I don't know what popular vote person is, I'm saying losing the popular vote proves your conclusion that this was a vote for change, false.
Nothing to bow out of. You have your own metric of how to determine what the election was about that is not consistent with accepted norms. It is hard to debate conclusions when we are operating from different points of measurement.
And to demonstrate that daily office meetings are a waste of time, On dealing w/ daily intelligence briefings... Donald Trump said he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings because he's a "smart person." "I say, 'If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one-minute's notice,'" he said. "I don't have to be told—you know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years."
on the Russian involvement bullshit... Trump also addressed the CIA report of Russian interference in the election, which he called "ridiculous." "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," he said. "Every week it's another excuse." http://new.time.com/4597376/donald-trump-fox-news-intelligence-cia-russia/
And to demonstrate that daily office meetings are a waste of time, On dealing w/ daily intelligence briefings... Donald Trump said he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings because he's a "smart person." "I say, 'If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one-minute's notice,'" he said. "I don't have to be told—you know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years."
on the Russian involvement bullshit... Trump also addressed the CIA report of Russian interference in the election, which he called "ridiculous." "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," he said. "Every week it's another excuse." http://new.time.com/4597376/donald-trump-fox-news-intelligence-cia-russia/
Did he really say he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings? That's ridiculous. Oh yeah, he's really invested in being POTUS.
It's almost like we elected someone completely unprepared and unqualified to do the job.
I know. Now just wait for Trump to take office.
Obama. Obama. Obama.
Rinse and repeat for the Right.
Well you brought up the issue of qualifications and that whole concept was thrown out the window in 2008. Once you do that it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle and you end up with people like Trump.
It's almost like we elected someone completely unprepared and unqualified to do the job.
I know. Now just wait for Trump to take office.
Obama. Obama. Obama.
Rinse and repeat for the Right.
Well you brought up the issue of qualifications and that whole concept was thrown out the window in 2008. Once you do that it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle and you end up with people like Trump.
I referenced a President-elect who seems disinterested in intelligence briefings. You ran to Obama. Almost as if it were a reflex action.
^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.
I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.
inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'
What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y
I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.
A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.
The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.
Electorate is another word for voters.
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.
Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.
My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.
If that's what you need to say to bow out, that's okay. I don't know what popular vote person is, I'm saying losing the popular vote proves your conclusion that this was a vote for change, false.
Nothing to bow out of. You have your own metric of how to determine what the election was about that is not consistent with accepted norms. It is hard to debate conclusions when we are operating from different points of measurement.
My metric is based on data. I'm not sure what yours is based on. Maybe just developing a theory so it's easier digested?
Do you see how stupid people sound when they say Russia had some involvement but can't give any evidence? Conway said respecting intelligence agencies and calling their own findings laughable are "completely compatible." "He absolutely respects the intelligence community," she said. "He's made it very clear, he's going to put his own people in there as well." What Trump is questioning, Conway said, is the CIA's latest assessment that Russia meddled with the presidential elections to get him elected. "What's laughable and ridiculous is the notion that somehow this was meant to defeat Hillary Clinton and elevate him to the presidency," Conway said.
"The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."
It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.
Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.
"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.
To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias.
At the hands of Trump, facts have become interchangeable with opinions, blinding us into arguing amongst ourselves, as our very reality is called into question.
There is a long list of receipts when it comes to Trump's lies. With the help of PolitiFact, clear-cut examples of deception include Trump saying that he watched thousands of people cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City (police say there's no evidence of this), that the Mexican government forces immigrants into the U.S. (no evidence), that there are "30 or 34 million" immigrants in this country (there are 10 or 11 million), that he never supported the Iraq War (he told Howard Stern he did), that the unemployment rate is as high as "42 percent" (the highest reported rate is 16.4 percent), that the U.S. is the highest taxed country in the world (not true based on any metric of consideration), that crime is on the rise (it's falling, and has been for decades), and too many other things to list here because the whole tactic is to clog the drain with an indecipherable mass of toxic waste. The gas lighting part comes in when the fictions are disputed by the media, and Trump doubles down on his lies, before painting himself as a victim of unfair coverage, sometimes even threatening to revoke access.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine the press, including such well-respected publications as the New York Times. He has disseminated a wealth of unsubstantiated attacks on the media, though this baseless tweet from April pretty much sums it all up, "How bad is the New York Times -- the most inaccurate coverage constantly. Always trying to belittle. Paper has lost its way!"
As a candidate, Trump's gas lighting was manipulative, as President-elect it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize journalism as a check on the power of government.
To be clear, the "us" here is everyone living under Trump. It's radical progressives, hardline Republicans, and Jill Stein's weird cousin. The President of the United States cannot be lying to the American electorate with zero accountability. The threat of deception is not a partisan issue. Trump took advantage of the things that divide this country, pitting us against one another, while lying his way to the Oval Office. Yes, everything is painfully clear in hindsight, but let’s make sure Trump’s win was the Lasik eye surgery we all so desperately needed.
The good news about this boiling frog scenario is that we’re not boiling yet. Trump is not going to stop playing with the burner until America realizes that the temperature is too high. It’s on every single one of us to stop pretending it’s always been so hot in here.
There are things you can and should be doing to turn your unrest into action, but first let's empower ourselves with information. Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, send an email to the editor, and explain how things should have been clearer. Inform yourself what outlets are trustworthy and which aren’t. If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop. Do a thorough search before believing the agenda Trump distributes on Twitter. Refuse to accept information simply because it is fed to you, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. That is now the base level of what is required of all Americans. If facts become a point of debate, the very definition of freedom will be called into question.
It will be far easier to take on Trump’s words when there is no question of what he’s said or whether he means it. Regardless of your beliefs, we all must insist on that level of transparency. Trump is no longer some reality TV clown who used to fire people on The Apprentice. He is the President of the United States.
The road ahead is a treacherous one. There are unprecedented amounts of ugliness to untangle, from deciding whether our President can be an admitted sexual predator to figuring out how to stop him from threatening the sovereignty of an entire religion. It’s incredible that any of those things could seem like a distraction from a greater peril, or be only the cherry-picked issues in a seemingly unending list of gaffes, but the gaslights are flickering. When defending each of the identities in danger of being further marginalized, we must remember the thing that binds this pig-headed hydra together. As we spin our newfound rage into action, it is imperative to remember, across identities and across the aisle, as a country and as individuals, we have nothing without the truth."
"The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."
It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.
Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.
"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.
To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias.
At the hands of Trump, facts have become interchangeable with opinions, blinding us into arguing amongst ourselves, as our very reality is called into question.
There is a long list of receipts when it comes to Trump's lies. With the help of PolitiFact, clear-cut examples of deception include Trump saying that he watched thousands of people cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City (police say there's no evidence of this), that the Mexican government forces immigrants into the U.S. (no evidence), that there are "30 or 34 million" immigrants in this country (there are 10 or 11 million), that he never supported the Iraq War (he told Howard Stern he did), that the unemployment rate is as high as "42 percent" (the highest reported rate is 16.4 percent), that the U.S. is the highest taxed country in the world (not true based on any metric of consideration), that crime is on the rise (it's falling, and has been for decades), and too many other things to list here because the whole tactic is to clog the drain with an indecipherable mass of toxic waste. The gas lighting part comes in when the fictions are disputed by the media, and Trump doubles down on his lies, before painting himself as a victim of unfair coverage, sometimes even threatening to revoke access.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine the press, including such well-respected publications as the New York Times. He has disseminated a wealth of unsubstantiated attacks on the media, though this baseless tweet from April pretty much sums it all up, "How bad is the New York Times -- the most inaccurate coverage constantly. Always trying to belittle. Paper has lost its way!"
As a candidate, Trump's gas lighting was manipulative, as President-elect it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize journalism as a check on the power of government.
To be clear, the "us" here is everyone living under Trump. It's radical progressives, hardline Republicans, and Jill Stein's weird cousin. The President of the United States cannot be lying to the American electorate with zero accountability. The threat of deception is not a partisan issue. Trump took advantage of the things that divide this country, pitting us against one another, while lying his way to the Oval Office. Yes, everything is painfully clear in hindsight, but let’s make sure Trump’s win was the Lasik eye surgery we all so desperately needed.
The good news about this boiling frog scenario is that we’re not boiling yet. Trump is not going to stop playing with the burner until America realizes that the temperature is too high. It’s on every single one of us to stop pretending it’s always been so hot in here.
There are things you can and should be doing to turn your unrest into action, but first let's empower ourselves with information. Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, send an email to the editor, and explain how things should have been clearer. Inform yourself what outlets are trustworthy and which aren’t. If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop. Do a thorough search before believing the agenda Trump distributes on Twitter. Refuse to accept information simply because it is fed to you, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. That is now the base level of what is required of all Americans. If facts become a point of debate, the very definition of freedom will be called into question.
It will be far easier to take on Trump’s words when there is no question of what he’s said or whether he means it. Regardless of your beliefs, we all must insist on that level of transparency. Trump is no longer some reality TV clown who used to fire people on The Apprentice. He is the President of the United States.
The road ahead is a treacherous one. There are unprecedented amounts of ugliness to untangle, from deciding whether our President can be an admitted sexual predator to figuring out how to stop him from threatening the sovereignty of an entire religion. It’s incredible that any of those things could seem like a distraction from a greater peril, or be only the cherry-picked issues in a seemingly unending list of gaffes, but the gaslights are flickering. When defending each of the identities in danger of being further marginalized, we must remember the thing that binds this pig-headed hydra together. As we spin our newfound rage into action, it is imperative to remember, across identities and across the aisle, as a country and as individuals, we have nothing without the truth."
The first line of the article is false which unfortunately ruins the entire argument beneath it. A great illustration of how fake news it made. The CIA did not "officially determine that Russia intervened in our (your) election". It came to a best guess conclusion that persons from Russia (connections to goverment not proven but likely) hacked the DNC and Podesta for an unknown motive. That is all the CIA knows according to publicly available sources.
^^^ I like this from the above If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop
Talk about scatterbrain. How about just using your own brain and decipher the shit. TMZ is an accurate and trustworthy news source.
"The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."
It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.
Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.
"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.
To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias.
At the hands of Trump, facts have become interchangeable with opinions, blinding us into arguing amongst ourselves, as our very reality is called into question.
There is a long list of receipts when it comes to Trump's lies. With the help of PolitiFact, clear-cut examples of deception include Trump saying that he watched thousands of people cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City (police say there's no evidence of this), that the Mexican government forces immigrants into the U.S. (no evidence), that there are "30 or 34 million" immigrants in this country (there are 10 or 11 million), that he never supported the Iraq War (he told Howard Stern he did), that the unemployment rate is as high as "42 percent" (the highest reported rate is 16.4 percent), that the U.S. is the highest taxed country in the world (not true based on any metric of consideration), that crime is on the rise (it's falling, and has been for decades), and too many other things to list here because the whole tactic is to clog the drain with an indecipherable mass of toxic waste. The gas lighting part comes in when the fictions are disputed by the media, and Trump doubles down on his lies, before painting himself as a victim of unfair coverage, sometimes even threatening to revoke access.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine the press, including such well-respected publications as the New York Times. He has disseminated a wealth of unsubstantiated attacks on the media, though this baseless tweet from April pretty much sums it all up, "How bad is the New York Times -- the most inaccurate coverage constantly. Always trying to belittle. Paper has lost its way!"
As a candidate, Trump's gas lighting was manipulative, as President-elect it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize journalism as a check on the power of government.
To be clear, the "us" here is everyone living under Trump. It's radical progressives, hardline Republicans, and Jill Stein's weird cousin. The President of the United States cannot be lying to the American electorate with zero accountability. The threat of deception is not a partisan issue. Trump took advantage of the things that divide this country, pitting us against one another, while lying his way to the Oval Office. Yes, everything is painfully clear in hindsight, but let’s make sure Trump’s win was the Lasik eye surgery we all so desperately needed.
The good news about this boiling frog scenario is that we’re not boiling yet. Trump is not going to stop playing with the burner until America realizes that the temperature is too high. It’s on every single one of us to stop pretending it’s always been so hot in here.
There are things you can and should be doing to turn your unrest into action, but first let's empower ourselves with information. Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, send an email to the editor, and explain how things should have been clearer. Inform yourself what outlets are trustworthy and which aren’t. If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop. Do a thorough search before believing the agenda Trump distributes on Twitter. Refuse to accept information simply because it is fed to you, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. That is now the base level of what is required of all Americans. If facts become a point of debate, the very definition of freedom will be called into question.
It will be far easier to take on Trump’s words when there is no question of what he’s said or whether he means it. Regardless of your beliefs, we all must insist on that level of transparency. Trump is no longer some reality TV clown who used to fire people on The Apprentice. He is the President of the United States.
The road ahead is a treacherous one. There are unprecedented amounts of ugliness to untangle, from deciding whether our President can be an admitted sexual predator to figuring out how to stop him from threatening the sovereignty of an entire religion. It’s incredible that any of those things could seem like a distraction from a greater peril, or be only the cherry-picked issues in a seemingly unending list of gaffes, but the gaslights are flickering. When defending each of the identities in danger of being further marginalized, we must remember the thing that binds this pig-headed hydra together. As we spin our newfound rage into action, it is imperative to remember, across identities and across the aisle, as a country and as individuals, we have nothing without the truth."
The first line of the article is false which unfortunately ruins the entire argument beneath it. A great illustration of how fake news it made. The CIA did not "officially determine that Russia intervened in our (your) election". It came to a best guess conclusion that persons from Russia (connections to goverment not proven but likely) hacked the DNC and Podesta for an unknown motive. That is all the CIA knows according to publicly available sources.
It's rich, isn't it?. Like sickeningly sweet of Dem party using Russia as an excuse why Clinton didn't win. Nothing bipartisan in that at all.
BTW, both the DNC emails and Posesta emails revealed how smarmy the Dem party is, without a doubt, leading to DWS forced resignation for starters.
"The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."
It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.
Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.
"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.
To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias.
At the hands of Trump, facts have become interchangeable with opinions, blinding us into arguing amongst ourselves, as our very reality is called into question.
There is a long list of receipts when it comes to Trump's lies. With the help of PolitiFact, clear-cut examples of deception include Trump saying that he watched thousands of people cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City (police say there's no evidence of this), that the Mexican government forces immigrants into the U.S. (no evidence), that there are "30 or 34 million" immigrants in this country (there are 10 or 11 million), that he never supported the Iraq War (he told Howard Stern he did), that the unemployment rate is as high as "42 percent" (the highest reported rate is 16.4 percent), that the U.S. is the highest taxed country in the world (not true based on any metric of consideration), that crime is on the rise (it's falling, and has been for decades), and too many other things to list here because the whole tactic is to clog the drain with an indecipherable mass of toxic waste. The gas lighting part comes in when the fictions are disputed by the media, and Trump doubles down on his lies, before painting himself as a victim of unfair coverage, sometimes even threatening to revoke access.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine the press, including such well-respected publications as the New York Times. He has disseminated a wealth of unsubstantiated attacks on the media, though this baseless tweet from April pretty much sums it all up, "How bad is the New York Times -- the most inaccurate coverage constantly. Always trying to belittle. Paper has lost its way!"
As a candidate, Trump's gas lighting was manipulative, as President-elect it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize journalism as a check on the power of government.
To be clear, the "us" here is everyone living under Trump. It's radical progressives, hardline Republicans, and Jill Stein's weird cousin. The President of the United States cannot be lying to the American electorate with zero accountability. The threat of deception is not a partisan issue. Trump took advantage of the things that divide this country, pitting us against one another, while lying his way to the Oval Office. Yes, everything is painfully clear in hindsight, but let’s make sure Trump’s win was the Lasik eye surgery we all so desperately needed.
The good news about this boiling frog scenario is that we’re not boiling yet. Trump is not going to stop playing with the burner until America realizes that the temperature is too high. It’s on every single one of us to stop pretending it’s always been so hot in here.
There are things you can and should be doing to turn your unrest into action, but first let's empower ourselves with information. Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, send an email to the editor, and explain how things should have been clearer. Inform yourself what outlets are trustworthy and which aren’t. If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop. Do a thorough search before believing the agenda Trump distributes on Twitter. Refuse to accept information simply because it is fed to you, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. That is now the base level of what is required of all Americans. If facts become a point of debate, the very definition of freedom will be called into question.
It will be far easier to take on Trump’s words when there is no question of what he’s said or whether he means it. Regardless of your beliefs, we all must insist on that level of transparency. Trump is no longer some reality TV clown who used to fire people on The Apprentice. He is the President of the United States.
The road ahead is a treacherous one. There are unprecedented amounts of ugliness to untangle, from deciding whether our President can be an admitted sexual predator to figuring out how to stop him from threatening the sovereignty of an entire religion. It’s incredible that any of those things could seem like a distraction from a greater peril, or be only the cherry-picked issues in a seemingly unending list of gaffes, but the gaslights are flickering. When defending each of the identities in danger of being further marginalized, we must remember the thing that binds this pig-headed hydra together. As we spin our newfound rage into action, it is imperative to remember, across identities and across the aisle, as a country and as individuals, we have nothing without the truth."
The first line of the article is false which unfortunately ruins the entire argument beneath it. A great illustration of how fake news it made. The CIA did not "officially determine that Russia intervened in our (your) election". It came to a best guess conclusion that persons from Russia (connections to goverment not proven but likely) hacked the DNC and Podesta for an unknown motive. That is all the CIA knows according to publicly available sources.
It's rich, isn't it?. Like sickeningly sweet of Dem party using Russia as an excuse why Clinton didn't win. Nothing bipartisan in that at all.
BTW, both the DNC emails and Posesta emails revealed how smarmy the Dem party is, without a doubt, leading to DWS forced resignation for starters.
I have never come across anyone in the Democratic Party, on here or in my life who has said that the reason Hillary lost was solely on Russia. Yet you keep saying that's the case over and over again. That we keep blaming Russia. It's just not true. Just because we say that they were involved, doesn't mean that that is what we are saying the cause of the loss is. The loss is mostly self inflicted.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I still maintain the majority of Trump voters bought his garbage.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
On dealing w/ daily intelligence briefings...
Donald Trump said he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings because he's a "smart person."
"I say, 'If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one-minute's notice,'" he said. "I don't have to be told—you know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years."
on the Russian involvement bullshit...
Trump also addressed the CIA report of Russian interference in the election, which he called "ridiculous."
"It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," he said. "Every week it's another excuse."
http://new.time.com/4597376/donald-trump-fox-news-intelligence-cia-russia/
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Rinse and repeat for the Right.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Conway said respecting intelligence agencies and calling their own findings laughable are "completely compatible."
"He absolutely respects the intelligence community," she said. "He's made it very clear, he's going to put his own people in there as well."
What Trump is questioning, Conway said, is the CIA's latest assessment that Russia meddled with the presidential elections to get him elected.
"What's laughable and ridiculous is the notion that somehow this was meant to defeat Hillary Clinton and elevate him to the presidency," Conway said.
-next POTUS
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america
(From Dan Rather on FB)
"The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election, and President-elect Donald Trump dismissed the story as if it were a piece of fake news. "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," his transition team wrote in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again'."
It wasn't one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history, so presumably that's another red-herring lie to distract from Trump treating the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States like it is some rogue blogger to be cast to the trolls. A foreign government's interference in our election is a threat to our freedom, and the President-elect's attempt to undermine the American people's access to that information undermines the very foundation upon which this country was built. It's also nothing new.
Trump won the Presidency by gas light. His rise to power has awakened a force of bigotry by condoning and encouraging hatred, but also by normalizing deception. Civil rights are now on trial, though before we can fight to reassert the march toward equality, we must regain control of the truth. If that seems melodramatic, I would encourage you to dump a bucket of ice over your head while listening to “Duel of the Fates." Donald Trump is our President now; it’s time to wake up.
"Gas lighting" is a buzzy name for a terrifying strategy currently being used to weaken and blind the American electorate. We are collectively being treated like Bella Manningham in the 1938 Victorian thriller from which the term "gas light" takes its name. In the play, Jack terrorizes his wife Bella into questioning her reality by blaming her for mischievously misplacing household items which he systematically hides. Doubting whether her perspective can be trusted, Bella clings to a single shred of evidence: the dimming of the gas lights that accompanies the late night execution of Jack’s trickery. The wavering flame is the one thing that holds her conviction in place as she wriggles free of her captor’s control.
To gas light is to psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity, and that’s precisely what Trump is doing to this country. He gained traction in the election by swearing off the lies of politicians, while constantly contradicting himself, often without bothering to conceal the conflicts within his own sound bites. He lied to us over and over again, then took all accusations of his falsehoods and spun them into evidence of bias.
At the hands of Trump, facts have become interchangeable with opinions, blinding us into arguing amongst ourselves, as our very reality is called into question.
There is a long list of receipts when it comes to Trump's lies. With the help of PolitiFact, clear-cut examples of deception include Trump saying that he watched thousands of people cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City (police say there's no evidence of this), that the Mexican government forces immigrants into the U.S. (no evidence), that there are "30 or 34 million" immigrants in this country (there are 10 or 11 million), that he never supported the Iraq War (he told Howard Stern he did), that the unemployment rate is as high as "42 percent" (the highest reported rate is 16.4 percent), that the U.S. is the highest taxed country in the world (not true based on any metric of consideration), that crime is on the rise (it's falling, and has been for decades), and too many other things to list here because the whole tactic is to clog the drain with an indecipherable mass of toxic waste. The gas lighting part comes in when the fictions are disputed by the media, and Trump doubles down on his lies, before painting himself as a victim of unfair coverage, sometimes even threatening to revoke access.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine the press, including such well-respected publications as the New York Times. He has disseminated a wealth of unsubstantiated attacks on the media, though this baseless tweet from April pretty much sums it all up, "How bad is the New York Times -- the most inaccurate coverage constantly. Always trying to belittle. Paper has lost its way!"
As a candidate, Trump's gas lighting was manipulative, as President-elect it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize journalism as a check on the power of government.
To be clear, the "us" here is everyone living under Trump. It's radical progressives, hardline Republicans, and Jill Stein's weird cousin. The President of the United States cannot be lying to the American electorate with zero accountability. The threat of deception is not a partisan issue. Trump took advantage of the things that divide this country, pitting us against one another, while lying his way to the Oval Office. Yes, everything is painfully clear in hindsight, but let’s make sure Trump’s win was the Lasik eye surgery we all so desperately needed.
The good news about this boiling frog scenario is that we’re not boiling yet. Trump is not going to stop playing with the burner until America realizes that the temperature is too high. It’s on every single one of us to stop pretending it’s always been so hot in here.
There are things you can and should be doing to turn your unrest into action, but first let's empower ourselves with information. Insist on fact-checking every Trump statement you read, every headline you share or even relay to a friend over coffee. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, send an email to the editor, and explain how things should have been clearer. Inform yourself what outlets are trustworthy and which aren’t. If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop. Do a thorough search before believing the agenda Trump distributes on Twitter. Refuse to accept information simply because it is fed to you, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. That is now the base level of what is required of all Americans. If facts become a point of debate, the very definition of freedom will be called into question.
It will be far easier to take on Trump’s words when there is no question of what he’s said or whether he means it. Regardless of your beliefs, we all must insist on that level of transparency. Trump is no longer some reality TV clown who used to fire people on The Apprentice. He is the President of the United States.
The road ahead is a treacherous one. There are unprecedented amounts of ugliness to untangle, from deciding whether our President can be an admitted sexual predator to figuring out how to stop him from threatening the sovereignty of an entire religion. It’s incredible that any of those things could seem like a distraction from a greater peril, or be only the cherry-picked issues in a seemingly unending list of gaffes, but the gaslights are flickering. When defending each of the identities in danger of being further marginalized, we must remember the thing that binds this pig-headed hydra together. As we spin our newfound rage into action, it is imperative to remember, across identities and across the aisle, as a country and as individuals, we have nothing without the truth."
That Dan guy sure seems upset.
What is clear is that he doesn't know what to think anymore he is loopy and makes no sense.
I like this from the above
If you need extra help, seek out a browser extension that flags misleading sites or print out a list of fake outlets, such as the one by communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and tape it to your laptop
Talk about scatterbrain.
How about just using your own brain and decipher the shit.
TMZ is an accurate and trustworthy news source.
BTW, both the DNC emails and Posesta emails revealed how smarmy the Dem party is, without a doubt, leading to DWS forced resignation for starters.
Bigly!!
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm