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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28 2016, @08:11PM
What you "lefties" don't understand is that most people are sick and tired of endless bailouts, cronyism, wars and globalism.
You mean Republican policies in general,or just the Bush administration? Heck of a job, Brownie! The Bush "TARP" program put forth by someone known only as "Tarpman"? Two countries invaded and the perpetrator of 9-ll not captured and tried? People are sick of Cheney. So they will go Trump, which is just Cheney with less brains and more hair, but almost the same amount of craven cowardice and paranoia? I for don't understand it. The only explanation is that a substantial portion of the American electorate is just bone-deep dumb. Sorry. I wish it wasn't so. Reagan's education policies worked!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday February 28 2016, @10:49PM
Yeah except trump is on record as saying the Iraq war was stupid.
As a liberal, if it came down to Hillary or Trump, I'd vote for Jill Stein -- I'm not afraid of Trump. Honestly, he's way less scary than any of the evangelical GOP and if I understand him correctly, he's willing to engage in a little economic nationalism which after decades of offshoring is something we really need if we are going to ever have an economy that isn't based solely on building houses, moving money, flipping burgers, or stocking shelves at Walmart. Is there a lot of shit he says that irks me? Sure, but if it comes down to a blowhard with some policies I agree with, compared to neocon warmongering wall-street-loving liar like HRC, hands down I'll keep my fingers crossed that HRC loses. Hopefully, I'll get to vote for Sanders, but as a realist, I'm going to hope Trump beats HRC and I _really_ hope that all of us Stein voters and Sanders write in voters will be seen as spoilers.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 29 2016, @04:24PM
You appear to be the "bone-deep dumb" person here.
Trump has gone on record, and pissed off his GOP competitors in the race, by saying the Iraq war was stupid. Jeb particularly was mad about that. Of course, Jeb is out of the race now.
By comparison, Hillary was in favor of the invasion (she voted for it), and Rubio and Cruz were in favor too. Sanders is the only other candidate who is and was against the Iraq war, but at this point it appears unlikely that Sanders will get the Dem nomination; the DNC is making damn sure of that.
Therefore, if you think the Iraq war, and other wars like it, are a bad idea, your best choice for candidate at this point appears to be Trump (though if you identify as left at all, I would encourage you to get to the polls and vote for Bernie in the primaries, there's still a chance he could win if Dem-voters get their asses out in sufficient numbers).
My prediction: Trump will become President. Too many Americans are sick of people like you telling them to vote for pro-war establishment candidates like Rubio and Hillary, and after the DNC/Hillary machine shuts down Sanders' campaign and Trump wins the GOP primaries, it's going to be a race between Trump and Hillary. So you'll have a choice between a war-hawk Democrat in the pocket of Wall Street and the insurance companies, or someone who's against wasting money on stupid wars in the middle east and will likely just let Russia waste their time over there.
But don't take my word for it, look at what Ralph Nader [nader.org] has to say about Hillary, since I'm guessing she's your pick.