Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
uh? Those aren't "free" like you suggested. They are paid for with taxes. And yes, we don't want more things paid for by taxes.

Uh, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what my quotation marks around the word "free" indicate.

Nothing is free. The US' highway system and maintenance, the common defense provided by the US military, the guaranteed K-12 education for children, the FDA, Social Security, your local police force, your local fire department that saves your home from burning and provides EMT services, and many other socialist services for the common good are all paid through taxes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: alfonsog
The whole point of the sub-venue Apple News is offering is just to aggregate news from assorted sources on Democratic candidates for office in one place for ease of access.

Other media outlets have run pieces -- some that are updated regularly-- that also summarize info about Dems who have entered the race and a summary of their policies.

The way I look at all that stuff is if I don't want to read it, I won't.

I personally do enjoy seeing what some of the conservative news outlets think of assorted Dem candidates as well as what more centrist papers report and what the candidates themselves post on their websites as policy statements.

So I think Apple's idea of aggregating the stuff is a good one because even if one is interested in the Dem's primary season, we probably don't have time to search all those sites one by one and search through their politics sections. I sure don't, even though I make more time for it now than I used to. I'll appreciate not having to do quite as much hopping around the web if Apple does a good job in the curation of content for their new sub-venue of news about the Dem primary season and their candidates.
 
So, you're saying that if somebody famous also happens to like the candidate you like, that's a reason not to vote? There's so much flawed logic in your statement I'm not sure where to begin.

First off, "a lot of the supporters are celebrities" - unless we somehow live in a world where everyone is famous, this makes no sense: "celebrities" would generally be a minuscule portion of the population, if "a lot" of the supporters means either a majority or a sizable minority of the supporters, you're suggesting very few people (compared to the population at large) who are _not_ celebrities, support these candidates. (And if only this small handful of the population prefer these candidates, why are you so worried about them voting?)

Second, I've not seen particular evidence to support the idea that "the majority of Hollywood" is mentally unstable - they're largely just as stable or unstable as the rest of the population, it's just that an intense spotlight and magnifying glass gets held up to their behavior - if some random guy across town from you does something slightly unusual, it doesn't make the evening news. Most people, if you examined them closely enough, do some odd things for seemingly indecipherable reasons, it just doesn't get national attention.

Third, having the same opinion as someone who is famous, does not mean that they've dictated that opinion to you. It's entirely possible that you've both arrived at the same conclusion following different paths.

Fourth, "maybe you shouldn't vote"? So, you'd prefer it if people who believed differently than you didn't exercise their right / duty to vote. Would you prefer votes only from uninformed people who rot their brains watching Fox "News"?

Um- not gonna read your essay. Here’s a summary of my paragraph: Celebrities should not sway your opinion.
 
Actually that would make you wrong. As I am in the middle. Socially more liberal and fiscally more conservative. What I don’t appreciate is 8 years of Obama lies. I was certainly concerned with 4 or 8 years of Hilary corruption. Not a Trump fan at all but I like that our economy is doing better and I do believe that Obama’s ACA was a scam. But let’s get to the root of it. I don’t care for socialism or the hypocrisy of the left. And I don’t like the swamp either. But what’s worse is I don’t like being lied to and the liberal media machine is more corrupt than all of Washington. The higher education system too. These aren’t conspiracy theories. The media and college campuses are now liberal breeding grounds. If you don’t know that, I ca t help you. And that brings us to identity politics.

If I go for a job interview, equal opportunity employment prevails and the best candidate should be hired. However the last 2 elections, Obama - “we’ve got to vote for the Black guy.” Forget about best candidate, skin color as a qualification?!?! Then 2016, “I’m with Her.” The her that tried to destroy the credibility of her husband’s accusers. Great President. But he was a lying horny cheat as a person. And now she wants us to vote for her just because she is a woman and has jumped on the woman’s rights bandwagon. Let’s go to 2020. Mayor Pete is gay. No problem with that. I have quite a few gay friends. However, I don’t care if you are gay. It’s not part of your qualifications for the job. And more often than not liberals tend to play identity politics. Sorry. I don’t vote that way. However, Iconoclysm, your moniker does not indicate middle, it suggests revolution, anarchy, etc.

I am not socially liberal, anything that I support is for the good of the country not a specific demographic. I'm fiscally conservative, in that I see the long game. And it's obvious after 30 years that the right wing methods don't work yet the rest of the world has figured it out. Trump's economy is a sham - his adminstration is the least transparent I've seen in my lifetime yet he claims is the most transparent in all of history... Not sure what you're referring to as the swamp but if you mean DC, I'm dead in the middle of it. Which is why I also know how so much nonsense we see in the news about a deep state is lies. I don't practice identity politics, SJW's disgust me. The current right wing curriculum is to believe that college and the media are what make people liberal. It may have an influence but we've had liberals for hundreds of years. And the numbers are still about the same.

I completely oppose affirmative action, I despise Hillary, and Mayor Pete is too inexperienced.

Iconoclysm is in reference to religion, not politics. However, I want to see massive change in our government. Not tax cuts or tax hikes, not tariffs or no tariffs. The US has been held in place by a gridlock of two political parties that has prevented either one from achieving its goals. Right now, I see the right as the biggest obstacle, they're not following the plans laid out by the constitution and completely ignoring the real problems in our country.
 
Um- not gonna read your essay. Here’s a summary of my paragraph: Celebrities should not sway your opinion.

Pretty sure it works in reverse, sharing your opinion keeps you liking them. Also, celebrities are not all Kim Kardashian...one of them is our President right now...one of them used to own Microsoft and is fighting climate change. Bill Gates is a smart guy, he has a message. Should one ignore a good message because a celebrity said it? That's just dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ and alfonsog
Lol, look at when Obama took office. Much better trend under Trump. You lose.

And to answer your question I do know how charts work, and how people like you and leftists use these charts to push your false narrative.
Screen-Shot-2019-06-26-at-11-36-18-AM.jpg


So, you see that number in 2009 when Obama took office? Look at the one just before 2017 when he left. Now, look at the difference between 2017 and 2019. Do you see the trajectory? It was going this way either way, exactly what do you think Trump changed here? He could have come in and golfed like a hundred times and it still would have happened. Come to think of it...
 
>Curated by a team of Apple News editors

This should be completely fair and unbiased. :rolleyes:

The sub-venue Apple News is putting together is specifically about Democratic primary candidates' policies and campaign news.

I'm sure the respective candidates' PR offices will help keep the Apple News editors informed of any omissions, inclusions or other "bias" they see against their own particular candidates. Just as they do now when they pick up a newspaper and find (or don't find) something about their candidate right now.

I don't get what the big brouhaha is over this sub-venue Apple News has decided to curate news for. Use it or lose it, lol. Anyway they'd be doing the same thing if there was a large field of Republican candidates the way there was in 2016. All the papers and news aggregation sites back then also ran updates in their politics section on the lastest R to join the race, they covered the official debates, and they covered what this one or that Republican candidate had to say about some policy on the latest TV interview show. The same will be happening now on all those sites because the Dems are running a large field for their 2020 nomination. Why should Apple News be any different? It's cool they put it all in one place so you can skip it or head straight for it depending on your inclination.
 
They should not be involved in this in anyway. All news is effectively made up and how real it is depends on how much fact versus conjecture and opinion are included. People have trouble understanding the term "fake news", but it was never intended to say all news is fake, only that while there may be some facts in a story the editorial team is extrapolating and implying there is more to it than the facts. The news of today is not the news of 20 years ago when it was just the facts. Now with 24 hour news on multiple channels + 4 hours or more on the local channels in most cities the only way to fill the time is to extrapolate and sensationalize even the most mundane of stories.

The biggest reason it's called fake news is because of the stories that are not reported.

Has anyone who has watched CNN or MSNBC seen any news showing anything positive about Trump ?

News is a now big entertainment industry and news outlets (both left and right) show the news that they think their audience will like,
 
[QUOTE="bbednarz, post: 27493225, member: 1106512"]Social security and Medicare are free? Weird, looking at my checks I see money being taken out for that.... None of these things mentioned are free. Taxes are funding all of this. Meaning we don't want even more money taken out of our checks to pay for others "free" things.

It seems you missed my quotation marks, or do not understand their meaning, around the word "free."


"Meaning we don't want even more money taken out of our checks to pay for others "free" things."

Do you want a military that provides for the common defense of the country. Do you want guaranteed K-12 education for the nations' children? These and many other "socialist" ("free") programs provide that.[/QUOTE]
I understand that paying taxes is necessary. I am not against that. Enough of my money is being taken out of my check already. I don't want more taken is the point I am making.
 
Exactly!

It seems some people will decide what source is gospel and then believe that exclusively while ignoring potentially valid information from any other source.

We love to build our own little echo chambers, makes the world 'seem' simpler. SMH.
I mean, the woman from Google's project inclusion or whatever was really quite clear in what she said. I don't know how that is taken "out of context."

This does not pass the shoe on the other foot test. If Google were talking this way about Hillary Clinton and the left in general you people would be screaming bloody murder. There'd be no "but it's taken out of context and selectively edited." It would be all SHUT. IT. DOWN.
 
I'm sure the respective candidates' PR offices will help keep the Apple News editors informed of any omissions, inclusions or other "bias" they see against their own particular candidates. Just as they do now when they pick up a newspaper and find (or don't find) something about their candidate right now.

I'm sure they will all complain but I'm not sure Apple can keep itself non biased.

Comparing Apple to a newspaper is interesting since all newspaper's appear to be biased to some extent.
 
No, I haven't. Should I?

I mean this with no offense whatsoever - It boggles my mind that someone can have the gall to call themselves conservatives but haven't even read any of the foundational literature. Of course you should! They are the most prominent and famous conservatives of our lifetime.

I'm a liberal, I disagree with them on most everything, but I like to read up on all sides. And at least they are intellectual leaders with well thought out ideas. Whether I agree with them or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat
Let me take you back just a bit:



So you were saying?
I get it---you have contempt for people in flyover country. You think they're just some despicable hicks and rednecks. I'm actually happy you admit it--so many on the left try to hide their disdain. You on the other hand, boy, I can just see you just pinching your nose as you think about all those folks in say, central Missouri. GROSS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNeb and Huck
I'm sure they will all complain but I'm not sure Apple can keep itself non biased.

Comparing Apple to a newspaper is interesting since all newspaper's appear to be biased to some extent.
Apple has its institutional biases as well. This is the company that changed it's gun emoji to a squirt gun because....I don't know, guns are bad? Amazing. The constitution SPECIFICALLY recognizes the right to bare arms (even if you believe it only applies to militias) and a US Company is so contemptuous of it they turn a constitutional right into a toy.

I'm waiting for the Apple dead baby emoji to signal abortion. I say that in jest, but it would not surprise me if they did one. Maybe a baby with an X on each eye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNeb and Huck
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.