Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

So, the people who voted for him?

What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here. No one in this thread, outside of a few nutcases were ever in here trying to defend Trump. A very sizeable number of people though, were propping Clinton up, constantly defending her. There was almost universal agreement that Trump was horrible. There was not agreement that Clinton was horrible. As such, discussions about horrible candidates centered on her, because in an internet forum, we're not going to sit around here going "Ayup" post after post after post.

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

Apparently some in this thread believe that not pillaring Trump is the same as defending him.

I was on team "Put Hillary Out To Pasture". My team won. Now I'm on team "Crush George Soros' Hopes And Dreams."

It has nothing to do with defending him.

The fact that many in this thread were foaming at the mouth for anything that Hillary did, who are now silent in the face of Trump doing them, says enough.

At a minimum of highlights the fact that the problem really wasn't with anything Hillary did, but with the fact that it was Hillary who did them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

So, the people who voted for him?

What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here. No one in this thread, outside of a few nutcases were ever in here trying to defend Trump. A very sizeable number of people though, were propping Clinton up, constantly defending her. There was almost universal agreement that Trump was horrible. There was not agreement that Clinton was horrible. As such, discussions about horrible candidates centered on here, because in an internet forum, we're not going to sit around here going "Ayup" post after post after post.

How many times since the election have you complained about Trump doing a Hillary thing?

Can you clarify on what a "Hillary thing" is?

Search your post history, find something that you didn't like about Hillary, and then apply it to Trump.

Don't act dumb now.

 d-usa wrote:
Search your post history, find something that you didn't like about Hillary, and then apply it to Trump.

Don't act dumb now.

My post history in this thread has been very limited since the election. Going through things that I've attacked Hillary on though, it was almost primarily on her handling of secured documents. Trump really hasn't done anything there yet to warrant much discussion, unless I've missed much

If you want an example right now, of Trump things I don't like, it's his Twitter account. Just about every time he uses it, I facepalm. Case in point, his posting today regarding this sanction issue. It's childish, unbecoming of a man who is going to be President.

Is that satisfactory? Does that buy me a week before I have to post something else negative about him now?

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

I know. I was anti-Hillary. I was also anti-Trump.

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

And all I'm saying is that it clear that every anti Hillary post is now proven as "I don't have a problem with what she did, but I don't like her".

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

And all I'm saying is that it clear that every anti Hillary post is now proven as "I don't have a problem with what she did, but I don't like her".

Posts like this hurt D, when you accuse me of being a hypocrite.

While it's clear that whembly is a main offender, I have tried not to single out posters in particular. But t is a general trend, both on this thread as well as in general politics and social media.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.

All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.

And yet somehow this standard wasn't applied to Clinton.

She has a looooooooooooooooooooooong record.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

Apparently some in this thread believe that not pillaring Trump is the same as defending him.

I was on team "Put Hillary Out To Pasture". My team won. Now I'm on team "Crush George Soros' Hopes And Dreams."

Oooooooooo... I'm on that team too!

You have to hand it to Trump, though. He had almost all hands against him this election including his own party and pushed through it all to win the presidency. He then has gone on a thank you tour, showing some real class.
Clinton was pretty much the darling of the media and still managed to lose. The final cherry was the way she ducked out on her supporters without a word on election night after she knew she was not going to win, but had to have a flunky come out and tell people to go home.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

And all I'm saying is that it clear that every anti Hillary post is now proven as "I don't have a problem with what she did, but I don't like her".

Not my posts. I had problems both with her and with what she did. My positions have been clear and consistent this whole time. As for "what she did" versus "what he did", people in politics were afraid of Hillary and nobody dared touch her. Were she President, she would never be removed from office because no Democrat would vote against her. She was essentially above the law. Now look at Trump. Nobody is afraid of him. The fact that he's being sued for stuff like Trump University shows he isn't untouchable the way Hillary was. The reason I'm not hopping on the "hate Trump" bandwagon is that it isn't necessary. I fully expect any misdeeds before taking office will find their way into the courts and anything illegal he may do in office would quickly end his Presidency.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

And all I'm saying is that it clear that every anti Hillary post is now proven as "I don't have a problem with what she did, but I don't like her".

Not my posts. I had problems both with her and with what she did. My positions have been clear and consistent this whole time. As for "what she did" versus "what he did", people in politics were afraid of Hillary and nobody dared touch her. Were she President, she would never be removed from office because no Democrat would vote against her. She was essentially above the law. Now look at Trump. Nobody is afraid of him. The fact that he's being sued for stuff like Trump University shows he isn't untouchable the way Hillary was. The reason I'm not hopping on the "hate Trump" bandwagon is that it isn't necessary. I fully expect any misdeeds before taking office will find their way into the courts and anything illegal he may do in office would quickly end his Presidency.

Trump U settled, btw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-university.html

Relapse wrote:
You have to hand it to Trump, though. He had almost all hands against him this election including his own party and pushed through it all to win the presidency. He then has gone on a thank you tour, showing some real class.
Clinton was pretty much the darling of the media and still managed to lose. The final cherry was the way she ducked out on her supporters without a word on election night after she knew she was not going to win, but had to have a flunky come out and tell people to go home.

Darling of the media? That before or after she was repeatedly attacked on emails, Benghazi, etc.?

And I wouldn't hand anything to Trump I didn't want sexually assaulted. Yeah, he pushed on, the way a train-wreck lingers in your mind. Horrible, awful to look at, but you can't turn away.

 d-usa wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

Is anyone really surprised that people that supported hacking 4 years ago all the sudden have a problem with it now?

 jreilly89 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You have to hand it to Trump, though. He had almost all hands against him this election including his own party and pushed through it all to win the presidency. He then has gone on a thank you tour, showing some real class.
Clinton was pretty much the darling of the media and still managed to lose. The final cherry was the way she ducked out on her supporters without a word on election night after she knew she was not going to win, but had to have a flunky come out and tell people to go home.

Darling of the media? That before or after she was repeatedly attacked on emails, Benghazi, etc.?

And I wouldn't hand anything to Trump I didn't want sexually assaulted. Yeah, he pushed on, the way a train-wreck lingers in your mind. Horrible, awful to look at, but you can't turn away.

The media glorified her and continually bashed Trump, yet he came out on top.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

Is anyone really surprised that people that supported hacking 4 years ago all the sudden have a problem with it now?

I am actually surprised that the Collateral Murder video source became the darling of conservatives. Do they remember the Iraq and Afghan War Diaries they released, Chelsea Manning, all that jazz?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

Is anyone really surprised that people that supported hacking 4 years ago all the sudden have a problem with it now?

I'm not okay with hacking either way. I'm not okay with it now and I wasn't okay with it when Newt Gingrich's phone calls were illegally intercepted and eventually leaked to the press. People who do stuff like this need to be prosecuted, if possible. I'm assuming the Russians won't be so I'm not opposed to President Obama taking action. I am laughing at the way President Obama looks ineffective facing down Putin but I feel sad about it at the same time. Still, he made that bed himself and shouldn't be surprised that he wound up laying in it.

Regardless of current drama, information security really needs to be a priority. The DNC needs to be a lot more introspective about their own security lapses that allowed them to be hacked. The RNC needs to learn this lesson, too, lest they be next on the Russian chopping block.

Did anyone actually listen to the whole "Grab them by the *****" recording? He states that women let him kiss them. They let him do all kinds of things. he could even "grab one by the...." . So, it's not really sexual assault if they let him do it.

Was this childish, immature, and totally inappropriate? Yes, it was and I am embarrassed that our new President stated those things. Let's not pretend that it's worse than arming child soldiers in Africa.

There are a number of things Hillary said, supported, did, and voted for. If Trump had a parallel I'd complain about him as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

Is anyone really surprised that people that supported hacking 4 years ago all the sudden have a problem with it now?

I'm not okay with hacking either way. I'm not okay with it now and I wasn't okay with it when Newt Gingrich's phone calls were illegally intercepted and eventually leaked to the press. People who do stuff like this need to be prosecuted, if possible. I'm assuming the Russians won't be so I'm not opposed to President Obama taking action. I am laughing at the way President Obama looks ineffective facing down Putin but I feel sad about it at the same time. Still, he made that bed himself and shouldn't be surprised that he wound up laying in it.

Regardless of current drama, information security really needs to be a priority. The DNC needs to be a lot more introspective about their own security lapses that allowed them to be hacked. The RNC needs to learn this lesson, too, lest they be next on the Russian chopping block.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the hacking. I didn't 4 years ago, and I don't now. That being said, once the cork was out of the bottle I wasn't going to ignore the truth, regardless of the source.

I don't even know where to start with a response to that, especially as I'm not especially educated in the topic, or particularly good at the whole talking coherently thing... I suppose I'll start with: "It's not really theft if you give the mugger your wallet." I guess and hope someone smarter than me can pick up the ball and run with it.

Hoo boy first an anti semetic poster and now a dude saying sexual assault is okay

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What do you mean? D is asking why Whembly didn't attack Trump that much on here.

I'm aware of that. My point was, being anti-Hillary is not the same as being pro-Trump.

And all I'm saying is that it clear that every anti Hillary post is now proven as "I don't have a problem with what she did, but I don't like her".

That's alotta horse gak you're shoveling there D...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
While it's clear that whembly is a main offender, I have tried not to single out posters in particular. But t is a general trend, both on this thread as well as in general politics and social media.

More shoveling there D...

We know exactly whom you're referring to whenever you poop'N'swoop.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Did anyone actually listen to the whole "Grab them by the *****" recording? He states that women let him kiss them. They let him do all kinds of things. he could even "grab one by the...." . So, it's not really sexual assault if they let him do it.

This is not entirely correct depending on how one is interpreting "let", failure to actively resist does not mean consent when it comes to sexual assault and rape. Even mundane assault or battery, if you walk up and punch me and I dont stop you, it doesnt mean I was ok with being punched, and I can still press charges.

Now, perhaps there's some interpretation wiggle room in Trump's words and how one views the word "let" in that context depending on your point of view, but it can very much still be assault/battery/rape/etc even if you "let" your attacker do what they will without resistance.

Was this childish, immature, and totally inappropriate? Yes, it was and I am embarrassed that our new President stated those things. Let's not pretend that it's worse than arming child soldiers in Africa.

To be fair, at this point, which secretary of state hasnt done such things?

/iwishthatwereajoke.jpeg

Relapse wrote:
You have to hand it to Trump, though. He had almost all hands against him this election including his own party and pushed through it all to win the presidency. He then has gone on a thank you tour, showing some real class.
Clinton was pretty much the darling of the media and still managed to lose. The final cherry was the way she ducked out on her supporters without a word on election night after she knew she was not going to win, but had to have a flunky come out and tell people to go home.

Eh, given how Trump was already acting in the days leading up to the election, I suspect his reaction if he had lost would have been far, far worse than Hillary's.

 Breotan wrote:

Regardless of current drama, information security really needs to be a priority. The DNC needs to be a lot more introspective about their own security lapses that allowed them to be hacked. The RNC needs to learn this lesson, too, lest they be next on the Russian chopping block.

They probably won't care until they get bit in the ass, too. Remember, they still think Russia failed to hack them. What's more likely: Russia actually failed to hack the party they wanted to win, or they pretended to fail to hack the party they wanted to win? I'll bet real money that Russia did successfully acquire all of the RNC's dirty laundry, and are sitting on it until a more opportune time.

Putin's Troll Level™?
Grand Master Tsar

✔ @RusConsulGen
Vladimir #Putin: I am inviting all children of the #US diplomats in #Russia to the #NewYear's and #Christmas celebration in the #Kremlin

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You have to hand it to Trump, though. He had almost all hands against him this election including his own party and pushed through it all to win the presidency. He then has gone on a thank you tour, showing some real class.
Clinton was pretty much the darling of the media and still managed to lose. The final cherry was the way she ducked out on her supporters without a word on election night after she knew she was not going to win, but had to have a flunky come out and tell people to go home.

Eh, given how Trump was already acting in the days leading up to the election, I suspect his reaction if he had lost would have been far, far worse than Hillary's.

 Breotan wrote:

Regardless of current drama, information security really needs to be a priority. The DNC needs to be a lot more introspective about their own security lapses that allowed them to be hacked. The RNC needs to learn this lesson, too, lest they be next on the Russian chopping block.

They probably won't care until they get bit in the ass, too. Remember, they still think Russia failed to hack them. What's more likely: Russia actually failed to hack the party they wanted to win, or they pretended to fail to hack the party they wanted to win? I'll bet real money that Russia did successfully acquire all of the RNC's dirty laundry, and are sitting on it until a more opportune time.

God damned GOVERNMENT need to acknowledge that information security is a priority. Everyone need to be accountable.

I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.

 d-usa wrote:
I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.

I remember when Romney was mocked for stated that Russia was the greatest geopolitical foe...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.

I remember when Romney was mocked for stated that Russia was the greatest geopolitical foe...

So what's your stance?

Because you are all over the place here.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.

I remember when Romney was mocked for stated that Russia was the greatest geopolitical foe...

So what's your stance?

Because you are all over the place here.

Whatever allows for him to be angry at democrats