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: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday February 28 2016, @07:16PM
So twitter ragemobs have been destroying people now for years and mostly cheered on by the left. Trump aims his erratic floating hostility at a few damsels in distress and the White Knights are out in force.
But don't worry overmuch, as soon as he gets the Republican nomination sewn up Twitter will be nuking his account and the TV networks will be a lot less happy to provide unlimited free airtime.
Now to the general subject of Trump.
If you don't like Trump you should go talk to the Establishment wing of the Republican Party since they are basically the only faction still free to act.
This race has become Rock, Paper, Scissors. The twist is that in a three way Trump wins. However it is the two way pairings, after the next elimination,that are interesting and make my point.
Trump beats Rubio because too many of Cruz's voters have Trump as their second choice because they are anti-establishment or anti-amnesty. Meaning Cruz isn't an actor right now in the sense he can't influence events.
Rubio beats Cruz because that is how establishment vs outsider races always go. See 1976, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012. But Trump is the frontrunner and ain't going to be the next to drop out. This is the only scenario where the establish wins outright and they refuse to see that it is closed to them.
Cruz beats Trump because Rubio voters are mostly good establishment Republicans who would obey orders to unify behind Cruz. But the Establishment would rather Trump, Clinton, Bloomberg, or even a brokered convention and chaos before submitting to their hated base.
In other words, by accepting they can't win outright and instead choosing to throw in with one of the other factions (now Cruz, although I guess they could also board the Trump Train) they would at least get a seat at the table instead of being cast into the wilderness. National Review did a whole "Against Trump" issue, all 'brand name' elders in the Party say stopping Trump is priority one; their actions provide zero evidence they believe a word of it. To quote Rush (the band), "If you choose not to decode, still you have made a choice."
The best way to visualize the situation is they are in their ivory tower looking out at the mob of pitchfork and torch wielding peasants chanting, "Trump! Trump! Trump" and sneering down at them saying "You wouldn't dare."
Let. It. Burn.
We can survive President Trump. He can't really be worse than the last eight years and the shattering of the Republican Party almost makes it worth it. If we also get a wall out of the deal it makes it a good bargain.
Trump 2016.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28 2016, @07:47PM
> If we also get a wall out of the deal it makes it a good bargain.
I assume you meant the wall around Mexico, but I immediately thought of the memorial to the Vietnam War (aka the American War) [thewall-usa.com].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Sunday February 28 2016, @09:29PM
The twitter ragemobs you talk about exist on the left and the right. The problem here is that a major public figure is engaging in defamation and promoting misinformation. Its one thing for "the internet" to do so, its another thing entirely for a presidential candidate to behave this way. It sets a dangerous mood for our country which will only encourage bullies to force their will on others .
I haven't liked the last eight years myself, however it could get a LOT worse. I think you've been blinded by Trump's BS, he will only increase the corporate corruption while promoting seriously dangerous policies which will only solidify the world's opinion that the US is an imperialistic bigoted country. Also, expect a "real" war. Trump is the Putin of the US.
For your edification, though I know you'll disagree, history has shown the pattern of humans bonding together in larger and larger groups. From tribes to city states to countries. Globalization is the next step, and instead of being the typical fearful conservative who wants to wind back to the idealistic past you should be working out how to make it come about in the best way possible. The US has a good track record for ideologies, but a weak record for implementation.
You think a wall will be a good thing, keeping "them" out and "us" safe. Such attempts never work in the long term and create more problems in the future. Your desire is actually anti-freedom, but I'm sure you justify that with the us vs. them mentality which makes you want to defend your country. It is actually more along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall [wikipedia.org]
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:14PM
The twitter ragemobs you talk about exist on the left and the right.
Ok, name a victim of a right wing ragemob. You made the assertion, lets see if you can back it up. Other than Trump of course, being in his own category.
I think you've been blinded by Trump's BS...
Not at all. I realize exactly what he is. I simply do not care. Let. It. Burn. I see Trump as the chosen form of the Destructor, a la Ghostbusters. Trump is our vengeance weapon. Which is why all of the usual arguments do not work on his supporters. We know. We don't care.
Also, expect a "real" war.
Obama and Clinton's idiocy has already brought the world to the precipice of WWIII. War is all but certain, whether the small fires flare into a world wide conflagration is the only serious question at this point. Don't see where Trump is any worse on that front vs. Clinton, Sanders or Rubio. The Republican Establishment vetoed my first choice of Cruz.
Globalization is the next step,
Except most of the world is fleeing in terror from your Sunny Uplands of History about now. Nationalism, breakups of large States, are the current trend.
Scotland trying to flee the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom set to vote on fleeing from the EU. Spain trying to break up. Greece wanting out of the EU. Iraq shattering, countries in Africa breaking in two. Most of Europe searching for a way to escape Mad Merkel's plan to remake Europe into the Caliphate. Breakup in the U.S. being about the only peaceful way to have Red and Blue America avoid another shooting war. The U.N. increasingly being seen as ineffectual at best, outright evil as the their more typical state. No my Progressive friend, it is your turn to be standing athwart History and yelling "STOP!" Didn't work for Bill Buckley.
You think a wall will be a good thing, keeping "them" out and "us" safe.
Milton Freidman was right when he said you can have a Welfare State or Open Borders, but not both. Ending the welfare state is much farther outside the Overton Window than actually implementing existing immigration law and building a wall already authorized by Congress. You are welcome to advance a counter argument that I'm wrong on that assessment. I won't hold my breath though.
Everything South of the U.S. border, with only a couple of possible exceptions, is Socialist. Look up the history of the Mexican Revolution. Why do you think Progressives want to hand them voter ID cards so badly? Texas goes blue and you can open your American History book to the last page and in big fancy calligraphy write "The End" on it. A new story starts that day, a very dark and dystopian one. Immigration is therefore the whole game, no compromise is therefore possible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:41PM
Ok, name a victim of a right wing ragemob.
Obama.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Monday February 29 2016, @12:00AM
Forgot that one, we certainly No Platformed that loser. We even cost him his career. Poor bastard was forced to live in a sleeping bag under an overpass. Yup, we are so proud of that action, some of our very best work.
[/sarcasm]
Spin again AC.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @12:28AM
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday February 29 2016, @12:48AM
The first 'birther' came from the Clinton camp. I know she was a "Goldwater Girl" but are you really tainting her for life on that one?
Seriously, the birther thing was a red herring thrown to mislead the more gullible into missing the elephant in the room. Just from Mr. Obama's (ghostwritten) sorta autobiography we know his Father was never an American citizen and never entertained the notion. Meaning that on the day Obama Jr. was born he had Kenyan and by extension UK citizenship to go with American through his mother. Adopted by his Indonesian stepfather (again, just relying on Mr. Obama's own account) he acquired Indonesian citizenship. Upon exit from the White House next January he could walk to any of those nation's embassy and ask for papers; by the laws of all three of those nations, fully recognized by our own laws, he would be cheerfully served and welcomed home. The Natural Born Citizen clause was clearly intended to prevent those with divided loyalty from assuming our most important office. If a quad nationality citizen of the world like Obama qualifies the clause clearly has no discernible meaning. But everybody ignored the obvious and went off chasing phantom rabbits of a miracle Kenyan birth. No, all the evidence points to the Seattle area and that is the U.S. last I checked.
his religion
Where is the evidence that he is a Christian? We know he was raised Muslim for several years by his stepfather and he won't stop telling us about the Dreams from his Father, who was a Muslim into converting to Communism. Reverend Wright certainly isn't one, he is a Communist pretending to be a Protestant minister and part of an unholy Trinity including Phflager pretending to be a Catholic Priest and Farrakan pretending to be an Islamic cleric.
As for Obama's ties to terror, the LA Times to this day admits it is sitting on video of Obama attending a dinner to honor one.
In short, the case against Mr. Obama was and is strong and mostly incontrovertible. His voters are like Trump's though and do not care.
But forget all that, attacking a legitimate political figure is not a twitter ragemob action. Ragemobs are when some poor bastard nobody has ever heard of says or does something that is suddenly deemed the crimethink of the day and destroyed.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @01:03AM
we know his Father was never an American citizen and never entertained the notion.
Trump's mother was not an American citizen. There are serious questions about Trump's eligibility [redstate.com] to be President.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @02:14AM
But forget all that, attacking a legitimate political figure is not a twitter ragemob action.
Wait... I don't understand. A group of people spend years repeatedly making assertions of questionable truthiness about Barak Obama with the express intent of making him lose his job, how does that not fit your definition of a rage-mob? Did you just put the "some poor bastard noone has heard of" as a technicality to cover your butt?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @02:40AM
some poor bastard noone has heard of
I don't know what Peter Noone [wikipedia.org] has to do with any of this!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @02:44AM
;)
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 29 2016, @05:32AM
You want to let it burn yet protect it with a big wall. You make the common mistake of thinking that the most recent popular trends are the problem when its the deep corruption that is the problem. The UN never had power, and regardless so often power is used by the corrupt for their own aims instead of for the purpose that power was handed out for. The regions that are breaking up are doing so due to corruption, that doesn't mean the world isn't in need of a centralized power like the UN that can step in and stop human rights abuses. This includes corruption that inhibits the people from affecting the course of their own countries.
The "real" war I mentioned is one that will be official and not military actions. I'm not partisan, I have no love for any of the politicians of the last many decades, so your reaction misses the fact that Trump would be a lightning rod for war.
I'm not surprised you just want to defend the idea of walls. While they can be effective in their stated goals, there are often side effects that make them bad ideas. You'll get an increase in smuggling routes, black markets for visas and papers, increased social unrest due to divisive policies such as blocking an entire region from all citizens.
I think the wall is a bad idea, but I can see that it would make it much more difficult for any foreigner to just walk right over. Yes, walls can be effective. I disagree with it being a good idea because there are many ways around it (ocean, skies, and underground), it would be extremely expensive, and I believe there are better methods to solve the various problems that occur due to immigrants.
One of the major aspects of a "progressive" attitude that many people (including many progressives/liberals) do not understand is that we need to solve the underlying problems. Throwing people in jail doesn't solve the problem with crime, fixing the socioeconomic problems does solve crime issues since the community has better alternatives than risking jail/death. Building a giant wall is basically a larger scale version. Part of the problem with Mexico has come from the foreign policies of the US, with the war on drugs (lawl) being almost directly responsible for the creation of the cartels.
There is a time and place for using punishment as a method to solve a problem, however it seems to be the primary course of action for conservatives. Causing division between the plebs of the world is the primary method of maintaining control by the powers that be. Cause chaos, push agendas sold through fear, make money and gain power by playing both sides.
With statements like: "Mad Merkel's plan to remake Europe into the Caliphate" it is clear you are more of a believer than a thinker. It is difficult to tell when your own brain is thinking emotionally instead of logically. "Emotional thinking" conjures images of extreme emotional sates, yelling, crying, wailing, etc. However it happens all the time and we don't have any idea that we are using emotional logic, because by the time we notice our emotions we are usually flying over the cliff and logic is not even really possible anymore.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:25PM
The irony is that, based solely on some recent rhetoric from the right, you almost wouldn't know that's a bad thing. No fucking wonder they're ending up with arguably the scariest candidate in our history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @12:17AM
This leads me to a question: has there ever been a time in history when building a big wall has actually succeeded in keeping "us" safe and "them" out, for whatever definition of "us" and "them" seemed appropriate at the time? I can't think of any. Can anyone point to one example where this has worked?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday February 29 2016, @01:57AM
For a current example you could look to Israel and how their wall brought their problems down to manageable levels.or to Europe's frantic attempts to throw up walls to stop the invasion. If you want historical examples, the Chinese seem to think their Great Wall was worth the investment.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 29 2016, @12:35AM
It is you who will pay for that wall. Is it still a bargain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday February 29 2016, @12:49AM
Even at a trillion dollars. Survival overrides any concern for the price.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 29 2016, @01:07AM
"Wow. Just wow." indeed.
You seem quite convinced that you aren't going to survive without that wall.
That's telling about the power of influence Trumps has.
Or... are there any rational reasons that you can share with us for that belief of yours?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29 2016, @03:43AM
If we also get a wall out of the deal it makes it a good bargain.
Trump has no intention of building that wall. Why do you think he keeps insisting that Mexico will pay for it? So there will always be a reason to push back the start of construction; the financing still has to be worked out, but he's got good people looking at it.
It's a big joke and the joke is on YOU, the "uneducated" Trump supporters. He treats you exactly the same as the people who paid him $35,000 for a worthless real estate "education" - as an easy mark.