SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the why-do-we-let-him-get-away-wiht-this-behavior dept.
Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman write in The New York Times that, with his enormous online platform of six million followers, Donald Trump has used Twitter to badger and humiliate those who have dared cross him during the presidential race, latching on to their vulnerabilities, mocking their physical characteristics, personality quirks and, sometimes, their professional setbacks. Trump has made statements that have later been exposed as false or deceptive — only after they have ricocheted across the Internet.
For example, Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political strategist, did not think she had done anything out of the ordinary: On a cable television show, she criticized Donald J. Trump for skipping a debate in Iowa in late January and described him as a "bad debater." Trump took to Twitter, repeatedly branding Jacobus as a disappointed job seeker who had begged to work for his campaign and had been rejected. "We said no and she went hostile," Trump wrote. "A real dummy!" Trump's campaign manager told the same story on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." For days, Trump's followers replied to his posts with demeaning, often sexually charged insults aimed at Jacobus, including several with altered, vulgar photographs of her face.
It is not just that Trump has a skill for zeroing in on an individual's soft spot and hammering at it. It is that he sets a tone of aggression against the person, and his supporters echo and amplify it. Jacobus sent a cease-and-desist letter to Trump and his top aide, citing electronic messages that showed the Trump campaign had courted her and not the other way around. "I have been trashed and ruined on Twitter," Jacobus says adding that Trump's lawyers had responded to her letter, but that they had not yet reached a resolution.
This week, Trump sent out a menacing message on Twitter about the Ricketts family, a wealthy clan of Republican political donors, after it was reported that Marlene Ricketts donated $3 million to a group opposed to Trump's candidacy. "They better be careful," Trump wrote of the family, "they have a lot to hide!" "It's a little surreal when Donald Trump threatens your mom," Marlene Ricketts's son, Tom, later told reporters.
"At what point does it cross the line into something that's defamatory and might be actionable?" says Parry Aftab, a lawyer who leads the Internet safety group WiredSafety. "At what point does it cross the line into encouraging violence against groups and individuals?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Sunday February 28 2016, @06:26PM
The right has been brewing this pot for decades now. I'm glad it finally boiled over onto them, it was inevitable.
It's a shame the country has to suffer. But I do believe it needs to get worse before it gets better. I just hope I see a better political era in my lifetime.
(Score: 5, Touché) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday February 28 2016, @08:06PM
This. Guys like Carl Rove apparently thought getting votes by any means necessary, from literally anyone, by telling them literally anything, is all that matters, and have spent decades inviting nut-jobs to the party...and now it's suddenly such a surprise that they're braking the china. They continue to worship people like Reagan in a day and age when he'd be a snowball in hell in the primaries.
I'd say the reality here is that real Republicans who want any semblance of what their party is supposed to stand for may be faced with a history making crossroads, much like the Democrats did when they lost the Dixie-crats over civil rights. The only other choice will be to accept the likes of Trump, and to try to believe it'll be better than a Democrat.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BK on Monday February 29 2016, @01:44AM
If Trump wins the general election, we may well see the birth of a new party(s). Right now there are really three political groups:
We have the Globalists typified by Hillary and Jeb who believe in full on cynical borderless corporatism and who pay lip service to the middle class.
We have the Borderists led by Donald who think the way to help the middle class is to pee on the borders and control access to the USA economy.
We have the Socialists led by Bernie who think that the best way to help the middle class is to attack corporations and transfer their wealth directly to those not working.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Monday February 29 2016, @04:31AM
I'd describe it more along the lines of reversing existing policy that pro-actively redistributes wealth the the wealthy. We've just had that for so long that everyone thinks it's normal.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday February 29 2016, @09:47AM
I have never heard Bernie Sanders once mention a single legal privilege that is exploited for wealth that he would eliminate. Patents? Government funded research? Regulations that prevent new companies from forming? Simplified tax code? Not a damn word.
All he says is "tax the rich more so that the poor will be richer". All he wants is more money for his political party to spend. He has demonstrated no concept of economy.