Trump inauguration DDoS protest is 'illegal', warn securobods

Re: 1984

they're not only liars but huge hypocrites - No, that's just the way of the world these days. We live from tweet to tweet and there's a limit to how much oppression you can fit into one tweet without a typo.

Off-hand, I tend to agree with you.

Re: 1984

"The Left needs to hang up that line until they start confronting Islam about how they treat women. Until then, they're not only liars but huge hypocrites."

Personally, I do, but I also respect their culture. Also, only where it actually happens. Most I have met have a perfectly acceptable attitude toward women, including those in Muslim countries. The Right's current obsession with Muslims often blinds them to the fact that they are stereotyping, and not all are how they describe.

American culture does not endorse denigration of women, so an American leader who does so is worse than a leader of a Muslim country (or person in a Muslim country) who does.

And saying "that's just Trump" is not acceptable either. You are basically saying he's a complete dick, but we don't care who he offends. He's not a comedian, he's going to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and going around offending everyone will come back to bite, not only him, but the whole country.

Re: 1984

And the comments about the fox debate host.. the public comments about Carly's face, the public tweets about Rosie O'Donnell. Those were things he said not in private.

And the article is not about Islam, or Dominionist Christians who treat women almost as bad as the Muslims either.

Re: 1984

> I don't recall any such public behavior. Okay, that private conversation with one other guy, that

> was caught on tape and then leaked by media partisans years later was a tad off-colour, but

> everything else is merely controversial, not disgusting.

It wasn't so much "off-colour" as an admission of sexual assault. And there are numerous other examples, such as him going to the changing rooms during Miss World so he could ogle the 16-year-olds naked. Here's a public quote from Trump: "You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that." He said that on the Howard Stern show. It's been confirmed by women in the dressing rooms, and even his daughter.

Given that, it is entirely reasonable that women not want to perform at his inauguration. That's not undermining the Office of President, that being worried he might go backstage while they are changing again.

Re: 1984

"he main point I would like to make is that, once you have elected someone, for the good of *everyone* it is important to not set out to completely undermine everything they might try and accomplish."

Isn't that what Congress has been doing to Obama for the past 8 years?

(Comment made as someone from the outside looking in)

Re: 1984

"Ok, my post was rather hastily written, but I'm not going to defend points that you have attributed to me by assumption!"

As I said, I couldn't understand the post, so I stated my assumptions first based on what I could understand from your post and asked you to correct me if I was wrong in them. Thank you for explaining.

However, on this explanation, I believe this is not correct in itself. I think it's perfectly acceptable to try to undermine policies you disagree with. The election was fought with radically polarised views. If someone disagrees with one of Trump's policies, why should they not try to undermine it? Congress certainly did with most of Obama's policies over the last 8 years.

Trump's success or failure will be judged by the results of his time. However, to discount a public figure's personality in judgement of him is a mistake. He will be in the world's view, and how he comes across is important. If he goes round offending people, especially other world leaders, this will be damaging for America.

As to racial issues, I'm not American, but the view I get from outside is that these were made worse by the Trump campaign. His attacks on different races, nationalities, and religions were heard throughout the world, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. I do know that it's been widely reported that race-related incidents surged on his election. I know that doesn't automatically mean they had improved with Obama in power, but the feeling I get is that they would have been better without Trump's campaign.

Re: 1984

Like it was important that the Republicans did not set out to completely undetermined everything Obama might have accomplished? He didn't even get a hearing for his nomination to the supreme court.

You are a hypocrite, sir and a stupid one at that. A non-stupid hypocrite hides his hypocrisy better.

Re: 1984

"The main point I would like to make is that, once you have elected someone, for the good of *everyone* it is important to not set out to completely undermine everything they might try and accomplish."

But that's exactly what the Republican's have done over the last eight years, and during the Clinton era.

Re: Land of the Free

Rosa parks was breaking a system! That was the whole point. DDOS does not destroy the servers any more than her but destroyed the bus. She brought the bus to a stop and denied people their customary service. She did the right thing. This protest will not forever break whitehouse.gov.

Re: Land of the Free

Trying to break something as a form of protest isn't exactly a legal form of protest

A DoS doesn't break anything. It's the equivalent of getting a load of people to ring a phone number to clog it up. Or getting a load of people to gather outside a building to make it difficult for others to get in or out.

DoS is, IMHO, a legitimate form of protest.

Re: @ OliP

And

4) Boasts about his tax avoidance shenanigans, while refusing to disclose his tax returns (taxes are for the "little people" - some patriot, huh?)

Re: @ OliP

@AC

"1) No, Trump is NOT the winner of a national vote. He's the winner of 50 simultaneous state elections. I recall his opponent having millions more votes."

So yes he won the national vote. The national vote being taken in the 50 simultaneous state elections. Not the head count but the national vote. A system supported by the republicans and democrats so far.

"2) Trump's already done a lot of tweeting that reflects his true personality.

His campaign was partially based on hatred and a lot on fear. Most of what he says is demonstrably false. He also seems to admire autocrats and dictators."

Interestingly a lot of things spouted from all of the candidates was demonstrably false. And fine he posts things you dont like, yet he still won. How bad must the opposition have been? Remember his opposition was democrats and then even the republicans!

"3) You're NOT saying that people claimed Obama was a monster, I notice.

There were plenty of cries against Obama's actions from Republicans, who told us nonsense like the Affordable Care Act would establish "death panels"."

He did take some flak for invading countries and being a weak actor on the world stage but I see him as a continuation of Bush but with intent (Bush didnt seem too smart). After years of Bush and Obama the people could elect Hillary to continue with Obama's way or Trump who was opposed by both main parties and very much non-PC. And Obamacare is a success or failure depending on ideology it seems but economically not considered a good thing for the patient.

"4) Let's look at Trump's ACTIONS then - He's nominated a Secretary of Education who wants to destroy public education, he's nominated an Energy Secretary who wanted to abolish the department, he's picked an EPA chief who's made a career out of suing the EPA on behalf of Oil & Gas."

(think you ment 4 so edited). Obama cuddled up to Google. One of the amusing observations I read was that Trump is corrupt he just doesnt lie about it. I was quite happy for Trump to win, not because I think he will be good but because he may correct the failing highlighted most by the democratic choice (no choice just vote as your told and shut up). Hopefully this will cause more choice in US politics. Maybe even giving someone like Bernie a chance to be heard next time.

I think if the anti-Trump brigade had put as much effort as this in before the election, he would never have won.

But then we'd have protests and boycotts by the anti-Clinton brigade instead.