This. People love to troll and post baseless accusations on the interwebz because that's what makes it the interwebz. I hope everyone in this thread that is butt hurt puts their Apple products in the trash and leave the site. Here's to wishful thinking...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Said to Be Removing Iranian iOS Apps From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This. People love to troll and post baseless accusations on the interwebz because that's what makes it the interwebz. I hope everyone in this thread that is butt hurt puts their Apple products in the trash and leave the site. Here's to wishful thinking...
I don't understand the allegations here of "hypocrisy" on Tim's part. Apple is absolutely required to comply with U.S. international sanctions law. It therefore cannot facilitate this business. I would love to see us continue to ease Iran sanctions (tied to nuclear nonproliferation and other agreements), but Apple doesn't get to simply ignore federal law.
As a clock...maybe it's checking a time server for the time? A ping isn't proof of shenanigans.
Good to be wary though. Very few people would think or know how to check such things.
[doublepost=1485794206][/doublepost]
Unless you're an innocent developer whose app gets pulled I guess.
I agree with trying to moderate hysteria. I was much more concerned with Bush 1 and 2.
Maybe you're just trolling but I'm so tired of seeing this nonsensical description of the voting process of our Republic. Working as intended by our Founders, by the way, despite massive attempts to interfere with that process with such things as the 17th amendment for instance.
It isn't that the rural areas are more important, it's that no area is more important. Check a county by county election result map if you're interested in an example of the need for such a system. If you're being reasonable and open to discussion you'll begin to understand the wisdom of our republican form of government as established by our early political figures. To prevent the drowning out of less populated areas of our nation by those with huge urban centers. Hence the two houses of Congress. One for the people, one for the states, the Senate, where all states are EQUAL. The 17th has done much to damage that balance and a return to the original intent would go a long way to reestablishing order.
Our Founders, Jefferson in particular, were extremely wary of large urban centers and the havoc they eventually wreck on governments and the citizens of a nation through corruption. They were coming from Europe where such evil was visited daily on its citizenry by pompous, arrogant, aristocracy and monarchies. Disdainful of those they deemed unenlightened and beneath them. You know the type, right? Cheeto loving peasants.
First of all, didn't vote for Trump, but also think Obama was worst president of the modern era.
This is simply an example of people correctly recognizing that the current administration actually intends on enforcing the laws that congress has enacted.
No, Trump did not do anything to sanction Iran, previous presidents did.
Yes, his administration will actually punish people for breaking laws, something our previous president did not, at least laws he didn't like.
This is simply an example of people correctly recognizing that the current administration actually intends on enforcing the laws that congress has enacted.
No, Trump did not do anything to sanction Iran, previous presidents did.
Yes, his administration will actually punish people for breaking laws, something our previous president did not, at least laws he didn't like.
Only in the years your candidate wins!
I see based on the comments here the intelligence level of Macrumors is hitting an all time low. Those blaming Tim obviously didn't read the article.
Those sanctions might be coming down on them as they just fired off a ballistic missile.
So why again are we supposed to be enemies with Iran? I kinda like them.
[doublepost=1485797829][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1485797829][/doublepost]
Yep. It annoys me that people protest the protection of our borders, and they say "we're a nation of immigrants" and "you're just racist." ******s at Berkeley block Sather Gate or something to protest. What the heck. I actually would like to bring in more immigrants, especially refugees, but LEGALLY for crying out loud. Half the problem is that it's too hard for legitimate, useful members of society to legally immigrate, and the other half is that you can get away with doing it illegally. In fact, it wouldn't be fair to deport the current illegal immigrants because there's been such a long precedent of non-enforcement. I'm not happy with what Trump has been doing, but at least he might finally draw this line.
Last edited:
Not to get too far off topic, but of course there are a lot of people who want to come to America. And I don't have any issues with law abiding, hard-working people coming here from wherever and looking however they do.
But, if you have that many people who want to come and you seriously restrict the flow, people will be forced to enter illegally.
Open up the flow, but make sure that the people who are coming here are going to be employable and not a drain on our society.
Did this "wanky" trade law just come into existence within the last 2 to 3 months or did Obama just ignore it for 8 years?
That's the current election procedure in the US, either accept it or campaign for change ... until then, best to just shut it.
You can't say that with such certainty. Without the current Electoral College rules, both Trump's and Clinton's strategies would have been different.
I see the problem with the Electoral College but also see a problem with not having it: The interests of the less populated states would never be represented. The U.S. is an especially diverse country, and it's so hard for people in one region to see the perspectives of other regions. Good example is gun laws. All the states in favor of gun regulations are more urban and have the lowest % gun ownership and the highest % gun deaths, and the inverse. But I'm still more on the side of giving each state votes perfectly proportional to their voting populations only because it's kinda arbitrary how they assign the number of votes for each state right now.
Last edited:
Sure it does..neither you nor I like the outcome but that doesn't make it less a democracy
Actually CNN wouldn't run that headline because it wouldn't fit the narrative they are pushing. Tim Cook (whom I admire for his talent and many of his efforts such as accessibility, clean energy, reduced waste, etc), would be seen as virtuous because of his political views.
[doublepost=1485806974][/doublepost]
That is a common misunderstanding. The USA is not a democracy. We are a republic, big difference.
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-democracy-and-republic/
I would just add that there wouldn't be a United States of America if there wasn't an electoral college. The smaller states would never have agreed to join the United States if they thought the more populous states would run roughshod over them with simple majority rule. People also feared and didn't want an all powerful national government that would control their lives (sound familiar); they wanted power to remain vested in the states.
The word "federalism" has been turned on its head as this actually means the states retain their powers but federate for certain, LIMITED, common interests. Now, of course, most people use the term "federalism" to mean a "federal" government, which is a misnomer as it is the opposite, it is a "national government."
This is the major point that is forgotten and not taught in today's history classes. It's also why their is a nascent move in the country to call for a Constitutional Convention to reverse the power grab of the national government and put life back into the 10th Amendment. Ideally, national elections should not cause the consternation that they do. If the role of the national government was limited as it was intended, a president should and could have much less impact on people's lives. We could go back to what was intended, power to the states. For example, if the people in your state want to vote to require health insurance, the same way they do for car insurance, they can do it, but it can't be imposed by a national party, etc.
Here's a good read on it--spread the word
http://www.conventionofstates.com
Using your own hyperbole:
To be fair, our president is only blocking apps from countries that cultivate malware, not all brown apps. Else why are Saudi Arabians and folks from other Muslim countries still allowed in?
Once a better app approval process is implemented, then all apps will be allowed back in the country. The ban will be be lifted in four months.
So it's really not such an unsound executive order when you break it down.
You're not in the shoes of the Persian developers, nor me.
Calm, sober, reasoned and educated discussions are a luxury I think we'll kiss goodbye because POTUS.