Do Jews smell their own kind?
Maybe that's why they're out to get you...
(Drumroll, low tom, hits crash symbol.)
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 Withholds Republican Convention Donations Over Trump Politics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe that's why they're out to get you...
(Drumroll, low tom, hits crash symbol.)
You're working from the assumption that we live in a falling country. We don't. All things considered, we've weathered ourselves through far more dire times.
The problem with America right now is that for the last 20 odd years, we've been quite comfortable. Now that we're finding ourselves in a somewhat uncomfortable position, we're treating it as the end of the world, looking for someone to blame now that we've been suddenly made aware that we live in a very large world, and that there are dire consequences for our actions.
Though as for what Trump will be capable of doing? We're talking about a man who has never once been questioned, who has always set at the top of his little empire. I won't dispute his solid amount of business acumen. But he no experience, no notion of what to expect when he's trust into the world of politics. Both parties will be out to block his every move. Every business will rally against him if they find his policies to run counter to their bottom line. Every newspaper will be out criticizing every misstep he makes. Every other politician will laugh in his face if he plays the tough guy act with them. He will be belittled by some, ignored by others, scrutinized by all every day of every year he's in office, and there isn't a damn thing he could about it, because his powers are limited by the Constitution.
He'll find very quickly that running the government isn't all like running a business. He's not just dealing with contractors, marketers, and real estate sharks that he can lord over, fire, or cheat. He's dealing with EVERYONE, and they won't accept "because I'm Trump" as an answer.
I don't think he has the experience or the maturity to handle it.
Trump has business dealings in the Middle East that he earns money from too.
Since the Pulse Nightclub shooting there has been all this hand wringing the last week trying to portray Trump as some kind of better friend to the gay community in order to garner votes....and it's desperate and laughable. He has been out on the campaign trail for a year and not only hasn't been too talkative about the gay community, but he's even indicated that he would appoint judges that would be against marraige equality. So no...not buying it.
This might pass for a sensical retort if I was enamored with the full extent of Hillary's worth.
Clue: I'm not
The extent of my interest is who bought and paid for her, and who she owes favors to. Banks aren't giving her millions for a speech if the ROI wasn't damn good.
You have excellent points here. Consider how his rhetoric has changed from the beginning of his campaign until now.
We have been quite comfortable. The next step here, in our nation, is handling international acceptance. We've been a powerhouse for a very long time, and have lost traction as number 1 in economics and progressivism for the sake of advancing humanity (think the impact of the Brexit, how the EU is handling migrant issues, India's firm stance with Apple on selling locally-made tech/goods). We need to be global partners.
He absolutely will learn that this country isn't like a traditional business. He's made a lot of business related mistakes... but thats why he has advisors, a cabinet, and two branches to balance his often radical approaches to "fixing," or, "adjusting," this country.
All in all, I think this is a great conversation, and I applaud you for being thoughtful. You've challenged me as well.
Theres a lot of problems... A lot of work... on any and/or all ends.
Pff, you're just jelly that banks don't give you money.
Banks give me money all the time...
I don't think anybody who loves New York as much as Trump does would have major negative feelings towards the gay community. Quite honestly, why would he be "talkative," about the gay community? Don't we have our rights? I'm pretty damn happy where we are. He's also the only candidate that got justification in his views of weeding out ISIS from this event, while Hilary and Obama just aimed at gun control, a completely partisan issue, not focusing on the global crisis we're facing. That is one of his main points. He means to put a stop to this crap. He wants to clean up his home turf, and I don't blame him. I think he's an excellent ally.
A gift to the country? Omg..wow. You just didn't drink the kool-aid, you jumped in and swam in it! To listen to you it sounds like a parody. Like something out of The Onion.
Or....this maybe:
In what alternate universe was this? He's a cheating philanderer too.
And it's amusing that you think liberals are to blame for conservative divorces. There's some more of that "personal responsibility" that right wingers are famous for. Always blaming others for their problems.
[doublepost=1466310290][/doublepost]
So he can be talkative about:
The Blacks
The Mexicans
Women
The Asians
And every other demographic group out there, but not the gays? Why not? Do we not matter too?
When a person doesn't talk about you, it is a sign at the regard they have for you. As in none. He didn't bother to pay a visit to Flint, Michigan either. Didn't really want to talk about it either. Meanwhile kids were being poisoned. Yeah, that's some leadership there.
Obama has made some headway on the international reacceptance front. I don't we've quite regained our reputation as being the shining city on the hill as of yet, but progress has been made. For that to happen, we'll need to fix our **** at home.
With that in mind, I don't think we're suffering economically at the moment. The dollar has regained its value and then some, the stock market is quite healthy, and we're still the #1 economy in the world (though granted, it is a little slow at the moment). Though with the combined might of the EU being able to match us, and China barking at our heels, I do think we'll have to accept the very real possibility that our position as the sole world superpower might be coming to a close.
This is hardly the end of the world. We'll just have to become competitive again, exercise those muscles we've let atrophy over the years. We need to realize that our position as America The Exceptional is not a given, and we can't live off the accomplishments of our grandparents forever.
Even in the worst case scenario that Trump hires a bunch of yes-men to steamroll his agenda through the government come hell or high water (which seems to be what some people believe he'll do...and they'll be disappointed), it won't be the end of the world. We'll just be looking at another 4+ years of a gridlocked government.
I think the answer to all our ills doesn't rely on who's our next president. Our choices at the moment aren't exactly confidence inspiring, no matter which side of the aisle you lean towards. What we need to do is get over our love of partisanship, realize that the greatest difference between our two parties are their interpretations on the Taxing and Spending Clause, and get to compromising for the greater good again, instead of putting the D's and R's ahead of America as a whole.
Last edited:
So who will suffer with his mistakes? Some of his advisers are crazier then loons. He has no clue about any of it yet he is going to fix it all by himself. I mean he knows more about war then the commanders according to himself. The people who know the least are absolutely sure they are experts on it. Fits trump to a tee.
We went into Iraq because president Bush and his cronies managed to divert a sufficient number of people's fear and anger towards Bin Laden and Al Qaeda into fear and anger towards Saddam Hussein (because people from the Middle East are pretty much interchangeable, right?). Hussein was clearly a bad guy, but he had nothing, _nothing_, to do with 9/11. Bin Laden and a handful of Saudi Arabians killed some 3000 Americans, and in response, President Bush... invaded an unrelated country on trumped-up charges (the intelligence community was telling the White House ahead of time that the evidence didn't support President Bush's claims), got 4,500 Americans killed (50% more than Bin Laden managed on 9/11, great job President Bush!), got another 30,000 or so Americans wounded (and not stubbed toes - a whole lot of limbs blown off and severe brain trauma), oh, and he also got well over 100,000 Iraqis killed (but they don't really count, right? because they attacked us on 9/11 - oh wait, that wasn't them - they hadn't done anything to us), as well as creating substantially more Middle East hatred of the US than there already was (that's not just a feels thing, it grows terrorists), helped create ISIS and destabilized the Middle East substantially more than it already was. Again, great job, former President Bush.
President Obama, on the other hand "pulled out of Iraq when he did" because doing so was required by an international treaty that the US was bound to ever since President Bush had signed it. So, in arguing that President Obama should have kept our forces in Iraq longer, you're recommending that he should have broken an international treaty signed by former President Bush. Is that really what you want? Or is it just easier to pave over these facts in order to blame President Obama for problems that President Bush created?
Last edited:
holy crap hes like the Milo Yiannopoulos of Macrumros!
Lmao liberal cucks you cant stop him! Its a gay guy saying it!!
It wasn't due to any treaty, but rather an agreed upon date, determined by the standing Iraqi government. It was set under Bush, and happily obliged by Obama.
I don't blame Obama for not being able to divine the future, and see ISIS waiting in the wings. Though that said, the region was still far from stable, and he could've listened to his military advisers, and pushed to keep a small force in the country for the sake of security. ISIS still would've risen on the world stage regardless, but we could've been in a better position to deal with it.
Though the people claiming that Obama hasn't done anything to combat ISIS since is pure ignorance.
Please explain the bolded part? I'm a little confused because it reads like You have a problem with Human interpersonal relationships because their skin colour happens to be different?
Last edited:
You're going to have to help us out here: what bolded part? This thread is nine pages long. The ninth page, where your comment has arrived, does not appear to have any bolded text. Neither does the original article. So, what are you referring to and whom are you trying to address?
Trump is a joke. You think a successful business person will make him. Successful leader of a country?
If you believe that, you are in for a rude awkening.
The USA IS NOT. A. BUSINESS.
[doublepost=1466312802][/doublepost]
In his post Bobby Corwen said the following: "...Nobody ever agreed on this stuff, the world is split and there was never some sort of consensus after much deliberation and everyone agreed we should keep showing black men with white females in every single commercial to influence young girls into interracial sex...."
No not at all. That was rather one example of many varying things on the liberal agenda. But I was more concerned with the rate and consistency of pattern of pairing pretty white women as sex symbols for minorities almost exclusively to the point where being that vs seeing a white male with another race is almost 10:1 in ratio of how its always white women targeted.
There are many such studies on this you can look them up if you want to look further into it. Also a utility of the Jewish world view vs the Christian white male world view being shoved down our throats and on our impressionable youth.
Question for you:
Who do you think has more influence over the average children and teens mental development?
Social media/TV/Movies/Music?
or
Mom and dad?
I believe in the balance between democrats and republicans and I think its bad to go to far in any one direction. The balance is really really important.
With most choice issues Im actually on the liberal side and they are smart about many things, but they take that righteousness and go too far left to the noticeable and measurable detriment of society. Im pro choice, pro gay, pro every thing that is true equality and freedom. But when people start being ANTI-white just to make themselves feel better about themselves, thats where I draw the line.
So when there is no balance anymore, and things are too far left, its time to swing the pendulum back boyos!
And thats whats happening! You will see Trump win a landslide victory like none before in recent history!!
With most choice issues Im actually on the liberal side and they are smart about many things, but they take that righteousness and go too far left to the noticeable and measurable detriment of society. Im pro choice, pro gay, pro every thing that is true equality and freedom. But when people start being ANTI-white just to make themselves feel better about themselves, thats where I draw the line.
So when there is no balance anymore, and things are too far left, its time to swing the pendulum back boyos!
And thats whats happening! You will see Trump win a landslide victory like none before in recent history!!
Last edited by a moderator:
The greatest influence in a child's life will always be their parents.
I can guarantee you remember more things your parents or elders said to you, than commercials you've seen over the course of your life.
Yet 14 million people in the primaries voted for him. He may be a bit of a loose cannon and a buffoon, but he is where he is because due political process has put him there, while all the other umpteen contenders for the republican nomination were defeated and dropped out, one by one. You could argue he has masterfully tapped into the electorate's discontent with the status quo.
I understand Tim, being from a minority himself, is falling over himself to be politically correct and get on the Trump-bashing bandwagon. He has most likely calculated to be gaining more friends than alienating people with his very public stance of withholding cash and technology from the GOP convention.
On the one hand, one could argue he is perfectly within his right to publicly back the candidate of his choice, but with his sizeable influence and power, a case could be made that he's subtly but unduly subverting the political process.
While Tim presumably has his hands full running Apple (what with an overflowing roster of Fall product releases, and even more importantly, the relentless pressures of keeping the company at its current market position through real innovation and product refinement), we will all individually evaluate both (or all three, as that now seems a distinct possibility) candidates and come to our own conclusions about who we think would be our best choice as commander in chief, and ultimately come November, we collectively will decide who occupies the white house for the next four years, and even more importantly, who controls the House and Senate.
Last edited:
Trump talks at the level of a 10 year old, why? He is targeting the simpletons who are too dumb to realise that their fears and prejudices are being manipulated to control them. Be wary of people and parties who rally support in this fashion, we should all know where it leads.