Is Trump gaslighting the USA?

[Walter]

Teen vogue published an article that quickly went viral. Lauren Duca explains the president-elect’s strategy of lying so frequently that the public are left not knowing what is true or false. This manipulative technique is known as "gaslighting" (after the 1938 play Gas Light).

Read yourself:
"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..."
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

 

[dogtowner]

Teen Vogue ?
Lying started with Trump ?
Not sure I would base this theory on the new red scare. Dems have been blaming everything on russia with no proof.
Perhaps that is the real lie.

 

[Lagboltz]

What is interesting beyond that is Trump doesn't have to lie. The fake news will come up with something outlandish and Trump will simply repeat it as he has done before. The main stream media will counter it, but the damage is done, and Trump's minions will not be steered away from the "truth" of the fake news media. I am glad that that fake news is now a hot topic.

 

[dogtowner]

Fake news has been a hot topic since Dan Rather's poorly fabricated documents.
It's interesting that the left is attempting to use it given their history.

 

[grumpy]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” - Joseph Goebbels

The public is now being subjected to a barrage of reports that the Russians are in effect responsible for Donald Trump being elected president.

Isn't it great to see the democrats so very concerned about the integrity of an election?

More seriously IMO, it's good to know they couldn't completely corrupt everything.

 

[grumpy]

I don’t believe that the Russians carried Pennsylvania. I think Donald Trump did. "I don’t think that the Russians carried Wisconsin ... I don’t think the Russians carried Michigan. Donald Trump did. The problem the left has is they cannot come to grips with the reality that the American people are turning against them, that the American people defeated them, and frankly, if the election were held today, the margin would be even bigger

 

[dogtowner]

I don’t believe that the Russians carried Pennsylvania. I think Donald Trump did. "I don’t think that the Russians carried Wisconsin ... I don’t think the Russians carried Michigan. Donald Trump did. The problem the left has is they cannot come to grips with the reality that the American people are turning against them, that the American people defeated them, and frankly, if the election were held today, the margin would be even bigger

The concept of responsibility and accountability is unknown to them.
I get they are desperate to hold onto their money stream but they're done.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The concept of responsibility and accountability is unknown to them.
I get they are desperate to hold onto their money stream but they're done.

And you are going to love this just as you did when Obama did it:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...on-dollar-stimulus-right-people-will-love-it/

Well, Limbaugh does anyway. Hypocrites.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Fake news has been a hot topic since Dan Rather's poorly fabricated documents.
It's interesting that the left is attempting to use it given their history.

Or since before the was in Iraq. Not surprised that the right wants to blame it on the left. However, the reality that Trump lies, and then never proves his lies even when he says he can, and still the right sucks up to him, just proves how stupid, and gullible, the American people have become.

This was from March, and was not "Teen Vogue":

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...donald-trump-is-conning-america-with-his-lies

"Trump is a toxic blend of Barnum and bully. If you’re a good mark, he’s your best friend. But if you catch on to the con, then he starts to gaslight. Ask him a question and he’ll lie without batting an eye. Call him a liar and he’ll declare himself “truthful to a fault.” Confront him with contradictory evidence and he’ll shrug and repeat the fib. Maybe he’ll change the subject. But he’ll never change the lie.

Evidence? He says he never settles lawsuits. He says he’s polling better than Clinton in New York. He says he never encourages violence at his rallies. He says he’s winning Latinos. He says he’s the first candidate to mention immigration. He says, he says, he says.

But forget all that, because evidence is for losers."

 

[grumpy]

And you are going to love this just as you did when Obama did it:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...on-dollar-stimulus-right-people-will-love-it/

Well, Limbaugh does anyway. Hypocrites.

Big difference in Obama and Trumps plan..Trumps own words tell me the difference.. Under the failing Obama-Clinton policies, infrastructure projects across the U.S. are routinely delayed for years and years due to endless studies, layer-upon-layer of red-tape, bureaucracy, and lawsuits—with virtually no end in sight. This increases costs on taxpayers and blocks Americans from obtaining the kind of infrastructure that is needed for them to compete economically.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “more than a dozen [energy infrastructure] projects, worth about $33 billion, have been either rejected by regulators or withdrawn by developers since 2012, with billions more tied up in projects still in regulatory limbo.” This includes coal and shale energy export facilities. Major pipelines are being blocked as well. As noted in the Wall Street Journal, blocking such projects “leaves some communities without access to lower-cost fuel and higher-paying jobs.”


The Obama Administration spent more than $840 billion in taxpayer dollars on the “stimulus” program, which they dishonestly sold to the American people on the basis that the money would go to “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects. Yet, only 1% of the stimulus was invested in our nation’s drinking water systems. Less than 5% overall actually went toward America’s infrastructure. Billions were wasted on giveaways to their political friends and cronies.

Hillary Clinton proposed a massive $275 billion tax increase on American businesses to help fund an “infrastructure bank” that is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC.

Her tax hikes would drive more businesses and jobs out of America, further hollowing out our industrial and manufacturing base.

Since Hillary Clinton would have done nothing meaningful to fix the broken permitting and regulatory bureaucracy, very little real progress or improvements to our nation’s infrastructure will ever take place. Hillary Clinton would have continued to block major infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hillary Clinton supports "open trade and open borders" which places America's transportation systems, financial systems, and economic systems at grave risk.

 

[grumpy]

Trump will have problems... https://www.conservativereview.com/...y-kill-trumps-infrastructure-plan-here-is-why

 

[Walter]

The Obama Administration spent more than $840 billion in taxpayer dollars on the “stimulus” program

Which program do you mean exactly?

The "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008", signed by Bush? No, probably the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009", signed by Obama.

Less than 5% overall actually went toward America’s infrastructure

But wasn't that intended? The whole package, agreed to by Senate and House, consisted of aid, health care, education, homeland security, tax changes, and infrastructure projects.

 

[dogtowner]

Which program do you mean exactly?

The "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008", signed by Bush? No, probably the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009", signed by Obama.



But wasn't that intended? The whole package, agreed to by Senate and House, consisted of aid, health care, education, homeland security, tax changes, and infrastructure projects.

Porkulous was intended to be used primarily for shovel ready projects.
There were next to none of course so it largely got diverted to the states for whatever. In the case of Virginia (since that's where I live and kniw about though the same occurred loads of states) most went to subsidizing union teachers for two years at which point they were again laid off. The worst of it was that these teachers were not needed owing to a decline in enrollments.
Money for nothing.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Porkulous was intended to be used primarily for shovel ready projects.
There were next to none of course so it largely got diverted to the states for whatever. In the case of Virginia (since that's where I live and kniw about though the same occurred loads of states) most went to subsidizing union teachers for two years at which point they were again laid off. The worst of it was that these teachers were not needed owing to a decline in enrollments.
Money for nothing.

Obama's plan did not work because Republicans would not cooperate. Trumps plan will not work because it is *********:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-stimulus-trump-20161109-story.html

"Has John Maynard Keynes just won a ticket back to the White House?

Keynes was the British economist who advocated government deficit spending to stimulate moribund economies. And that seems to be the principle undergirding the $1-trillion infrastructure construction plan that President-elect Donald Trump proposed shortly before election day. Trump outflanked a $275-billion plan offered by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — though he asserted that his plan would require only $167 billion in actual government outlays via tax credits to private construction companies.

The program was a linchpin of Trump’s promise to pump up U.S. economic growth to 4% a year and create 25 million new jobs. He gave it prominence in his victory speech early Wednesday morning: “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” he said. “We are going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. We will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”

Many economists doubt that Trump’s plan would put infrastructure construction where it’s most needed, or that the program is affordable. But the prospect of a surge in government spending may have helped buoy the U.S. stock market in the early days after his election."

 

[grumpy]

Obama's plan did not work because Republicans would not cooperate. Trumps plan will not work because it is *********:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-stimulus-trump-20161109-story.html

"Has John Maynard Keynes just won a ticket back to the White House?

Keynes was the British economist who advocated government deficit spending to stimulate moribund economies. And that seems to be the principle undergirding the $1-trillion infrastructure construction plan that President-elect Donald Trump proposed shortly before election day. Trump outflanked a $275-billion plan offered by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — though he asserted that his plan would require only $167 billion in actual government outlays via tax credits to private construction companies.

The program was a linchpin of Trump’s promise to pump up U.S. economic growth to 4% a year and create 25 million new jobs. He gave it prominence in his victory speech early Wednesday morning: “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” he said. “We are going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. We will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”

Many economists doubt that Trump’s plan would put infrastructure construction where it’s most needed, or that the program is affordable. But the prospect of a surge in government spending may have helped buoy the U.S. stock market in the early days after his election."

Or you could just say Obama wasn't the man for the job.. He had majorities in the house, just didn't have a filibuster proof senate ...