Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, he has.
And like the old saw "you can indict a ham sandwich", he has been impeached without any reference to actual crimes - for which, if the oddly delayed delivery of Articles ever arrives, the Senate can/will/should dismiss with prejudice for not actually stating what crime he's guilty of.
(Yes I'm aware of the "45 day" point. I read the law in question. There is no transgression. House Democrats failed to follow the process which the law prescribes following such a "45 day" issue.)
(Yes I'm aware of the "subpoenas ignored" point. Supreme Court accepted Trump's appeal to executive privilege. Wasn't ignored, it was legitimately challenged.)

Insofar as there is a legal definition of "impeach", Trump has been impeached.
Insofar as the colloquial use of the term "impeached" differs from legal definition, and that the House has not sent the Articles, it's as meaningless as writing a check to pay a bill but not sending it.

Impeachment is a political process and the articles state abuse of power and obstruction.
Executive privilege does not exist in the constitution, read it.
The process was the same as the process that republicans decided on Clinton.
The obstruction was a order to all peoplein his administration to ignore subpoena and not turn over relevant documents.

I don't want to get into a debate, but if Obama had done what Trump did, all heck would break loose.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," - Lindsey Graham
Hypocrite much?

Also just to be clear, in an indictment, you investigate enough to bring the indictment.
No different than a grand jury. That is what the House impeachment hearing is equivalent to.
In a trial you call, witnesses to prove your case. If the senate refuses witnesses, how can one prove the case?

Image if all the DA's and prosecutors in the US were denied the ability to call witnesses after an indictment?
How stupid is that?

But let's not confuse people with facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
Back to the article, I saw that John Gruber had some great things to say about it, I couldn’t agree more with him:

 
lol

Right, let's allow the government to force big corporations to unlock our phones for the sake of "catching criminals".

While at it, let the government to take our guns. Because, you know, making guns illegal will definitely put an end to gun violence LMAO!

You would definitely benefit from looking at gun crime stats from around the world.
Less guns = Less gun crimes.
Just look at the stats.

This is a link to get you started, but by all means just do your own research:

 
Last edited:
I am curious, Apple could have just said that "We would like to help but currently it is impossible because we don't have access to the volume key inside the secure enclave and without the passpphrase/passcode it will be impossible to decrypt the data."
 
Apple will do as asked and play it out like they care about privacy. It's a very effective marketing campaign that for some reason people believe. Keep beating the privacy, we care drum, get some players on board to make it look good. They constantly bow down to Russia, China and other countries, why do you think they will be different in yours?
 
You would definitely benefit from looking at gun crime stats from around the world.
Less guns = Less gun crimes.
Just look at the stats.

This is a link to get you started, but by all means just do your own research:


Nice promo crap. You're clearly a leftist. Go sell your soul to the cartels. They'll go easy on you. No need to protect yourself.
[automerge]1578543458[/automerge]
Impeachment is a political process and the articles state abuse of power and obstruction.
Executive privilege does not exist in the constitution, read it.
The process was the same as the process that republicans decided on Clinton.
The obstruction was a order to all peoplein his administration to ignore subpoena and not turn over relevant documents.

I don't want to get into a debate, but if Obama had done what Trump did, all heck would break loose.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," - Lindsey Graham
Hypocrite much?

Also just to be clear, in an indictment, you investigate enough to bring the indictment.
No different than a grand jury. That is what the House impeachment hearing is equivalent to.
In a trial you call, witnesses to prove your case. If the senate refuses witnesses, how can one prove the case?

Image if all the DA's and prosecutors in the US were denied the ability to call witnesses after an indictment?
How stupid is that?

But let's not confuse people with facts.

Impeachment means nothing. Abolustely nothing. Two presidents have been impeached and they were never removed from office. It's just a process to enforce a make-believe law that says nobody is above the law. When in reality, the elite are above the law, always have been, and always will be. Especially presidents.

BTW, crime rates in major US cities skyrocketed after Obama took over. Worst president ever. Did nothing to address crimes in the hood, which is quite ironic, given where he's from.
 
Last edited:
Since we are discussing privacy: Macrumors, please learn about GDPR. When you ask me for consent to cookie usage, by EU law you MUST have ONE button to refuse any non-essential use of cookies, that one button must be set to “reject” by default, and your website must be fully functional if rejected.

With your approach which makes rejecting cookies basically impossible, you have to assume that consent of cookie usage is not given, no matter what your computer thinks.
 
Nice promo crap. You're clearly a leftist. Go sell your soul to the cartels. They'll go easy on you. No need to protect yourself.

You don't have to be a leftist to understand that less guns = less gun deaths. The worldwide statistics are irrefutable. Facts don't care about your political ideology.

Impeachment means nothing. Abolustely nothing. Two presidents have been impeached and they were never removed from office. It's just a process to enforce a make-believe law that says nobody is above the law. When in reality, the elite are above the law, always have been, and always will be. Especially presidents.

Impeachment carries a heavy political price on a President's reputation. The humiliation of possibly being impeached forced Nixon to resign. Clinton's impeachment cost the Democrats the next election. So yes, impeachment means something. Maybe just not to rabid, blind cult following, authority-worshiping Trumpanzees.

BTW, crime rates in major US cities skyrocketed after Obama took over. Worst president ever. Did nothing to address crimes in the hood, which is quite ironic, given where he's from.

Nonsense. All the data shows crime rates have been falling over the past 40 years, especially violent crime rates. Obama is from Hawaii. Is Honolulu supposed to be 'da hood'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meuti
The problem is not Apple refusing to help or being willing to help, the problem is that iPhones are intentionally designed so that Apple cannot unlock them.

I remember in the 2016 case, the FBI played around with the phone they had to get access to the iCloud data and managed to make that inaccessible, so Apple could and probably would help them to get what they can get. Where Apple will be absolutely firm is to not change their design to be able to unlock phones.


Inaccessible to anybody other than yourself, and that obviously includes Apple.

That's true, but how do we know all this isn't actual cover up...?

"For private party requests Apple complies with the laws pertaining to user data and provides data as legally required."

In fact, i would argue "any" thing you provide is an automatic "you comply"
 
I thought my phone data was protected regardless of any situation? Not that I will ever be in a situation like this, but it makes me want to put on the wipe feature if password is done incorrectly many times.
 
You don't have to be a leftist to understand that less guns = less gun deaths. The worldwide statistics are irrefutable. Facts don't care about your political ideology.



Impeachment carries a heavy political price on a President's reputation. The humiliation of possibly being impeached forced Nixon to resign. Clinton's impeachment cost the Democrats the next election. So yes, impeachment means something. Maybe just not to rabid, blind cult following, authority-worshiping Trumpanzees.



Nonsense. All the data shows crime rates have been falling over the past 40 years, especially violent crime rates. Obama is from Hawaii. Is Honolulu supposed to be 'da hood'?

lol you’re not very good at deductive reasoning.

No statistic has ever proved that banning guns will result in less gun violence. Key distinction: gun violence, not gun use. When a law-abiding citizen protects himself with a gun, that’s legal use of a gun, not “gun violence”. Gun violence relates to illegal or unlawful use of a gun, most of which just happens to be committed by illegally owned guns. Other countries never went from owning guns to banning them, so your statistics make absolutely no sense because there’s nothing to support your narrative that making guns illegal will result in less gun violence. Thugs and criminals will always find ways to acquire guns illegally. Your “statistics” have failed you.

Also, Obama is actually from Chicago. He even considers it his home town. You’re very misinformed for an Obama supporter. And yes, that’s “da hood”. In fact, one of the worst in the nation. Crime rate in “da hood” specifically shot up insanely during his presidency. That’s one of the reasons why folks from the hood despise him, even though he was the first black president.

Consider yourself schooled.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BarrettF77
You don't have to be a leftist to understand that less guns = less gun deaths.
That only addresses less guns, not less deaths.

Were cellphones banned, this whole thread wouldn't exist because no criminal would use a cellphone in commission of their crime - doesn't mean those crimes wouldn't be committed.

Bracketing of the issue ranges from "gun availability does not correlate, in any way, to murder rates" to "less guns = more deaths". https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
[automerge]1578591047[/automerge]
it makes me want to put on the wipe feature if password is done incorrectly many times.
I would, but for kids prone to tapping random buttons for prolonged periods.
 
Impeachment means nothing. Abolustely nothing. Two presidents have been impeached and they were never removed from office. It's just a process to enforce a make-believe law that says nobody is above the law. When in reality, the elite are above the law, always have been, and always will be. Especially presidents.

BTW, crime rates in major US cities skyrocketed after Obama took over. Worst president ever. Did nothing to address crimes in the hood, which is quite ironic, given where he's from.

You are absolutely incorrect.
Nixon, when faced with impeachment by The House and and almost guarantee of conviction by the Senate resigned.
Clinton was was not convicted and the impeachment in the 1800's was a political power play.
The constitution specifically says that The House has the sole power to impeach and the Senate has the power of removal from office after a conviction. The process does not carry jail time. It prohibits the holding of office once convicted. Criminal prosecution is still possible based on any laws broken.

I won't even talk to you about Obama, since you have your bias.
But Republicans, both Regan and now Trump, increased taxes on the middle class more than Democrats ever did. Regan eliminated the interest deduction for all but mortgages and Trump capped the SALT deduction which costs money to anyone in a state with property tax and state income tax.
Trickle down is "Voodoo Economics", a ten coined by Bush Sr.
Trump lied about having a healthcare plan.
Trump lied right before the 2018 election that he had a tax break for the middle class.
Trump lied to the troops about a pay increase.
Trump lied about Stormy Daniels.
Trump lied about.... Pick a topic.
[automerge]1578594072[/automerge]
lol you’re not very good at deductive reasoning.

No statistic has ever proved that banning guns will result in less gun violence. Key distinction: gun violence, not gun use. When a law-abiding citizen protects himself with a gun, that’s legal use of a gun, not “gun violence”. Gun violence relates to illegal or unlawful use of a gun, most of which just happens to be committed by illegally owned guns. Other countries never went from owning guns to banning them, so your statistics make absolutely no sense because there’s nothing to support your narrative that making guns illegal will result in less gun violence. Thugs and criminals will always find ways to acquire guns illegally. Your “statistics” have failed you.

Also, Obama is actually from Chicago. He even considers it his home town. You’re very misinformed for an Obama supporter. And yes, that’s “da hood”. In fact, one of the worst in the nation. Crime rate in “da hood” specifically shot up insanely during his presidency. That’s one of the reasons why folks from the hood despise him, even though he was the first black president.

Consider yourself schooled.

As someone that happen to be black and "from the hood"; I don't know many people that despise Obama.
As a matter of fact, he has one of the highest ratings after leaving office, ever.
You might not like him, but he kept the country from going into the toilet after GW drove the economy into a ditch. Don't get me wrong here, Clinton didn't help the situation before GW by helping repeal Glass-Steagal; that allowed risky investments and "Too Big To Fail".

As for gun violence. I'm a gun owner and people that plan to do crime will do so with whatever they can get their hands on.

In the UK guns are hard to get but they have plenty of clubbing and knife attacks.
Ban guns and people use knives, clubs and cars. That is a fact.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely incorrect.
Nixon, when faced with impeachment by The House and and almost guarantee of conviction by the Senate resigned.
Clinton was was not convicted and the impeachment in the 1800's was a political power play.
The constitution specifically says that The House has the sole power to impeach and the Senate has the power of removal from office after a conviction. The process does not carry jail time. It prohibits the holding of office once convicted. Criminal prosecution is still possible based on any laws broken.

I won't even talk to you about Obama, since you have your bias.
But Republicans, both Regan and now Trump, increased taxes on the middle class more than Democrats ever did. Regan eliminated the interest deduction for all but mortgages and Trump capped the SALT deduction which costs money to anyone in a state with property tax and state income tax.
Trickle down is "Voodoo Economics", a ten coined by Bush Sr.
Trump lied about having a healthcare plan.
Trump lied right before the 2018 election that he had a tax break for the middle class.
Trump lied to the troops about a pay increase.
Trump lied about Stormy Daniels.
Trump lied about.... Pick a topic.
[automerge]1578594072[/automerge]


As someone that happen to be black and "from the hood"; I don't know many people that despise Obama.
As a matter of fact, he has one of the highest ratings after leaving office, ever.
you might no like him, but he kept the country from going into the toilet after GW drove the economy into a ditch. DOn't get me wrong here Clinton didn't help the situation before GW by helping repeal Glass-Steagal; that allowed risky investments and "Too Big To Fail".

As for gun violence. I'm a gun owner and people that plan to do crime will do so with whatever they can get their hands on.

In the UK guns are hard to get but they have plenty of clubbing and knife attacks.
Ban guns and people use knives, clubs and cars. That is a fact.

You are definitely not from the hood because if you were, you would know how people there really feel about him. I happen to work with a bunch of them. They hate Obama. He did nothing for the hood during his presidency. Literally nothing. As an African American, he had an obligation to do more in that respect than any other president. But he did nothing.

And since you acknowledge the fact that people will commit crime with whatever they can get their hands on, then you should also support banning knives. Without them, you'll have less stab wounds.
 
In the UK guns are hard to get but they have plenty of clubbing and knife attacks.
Ban guns and people use knives, clubs and cars. That is a fact.

That might well be true, but take a look at the murder rates UK vs US:

You know, US gun fans can try to spin it whichever way they want, but more guns means more gun crime AND more murders (whether committed with guns, clubs, knives, cars or coffee machines).
 
That might well be true, but take a look at the murder rates UK vs US:

You know, US gun fans can try to spin it whichever way they want, but more guns means more gun crime AND more murders (whether committed with guns, clubs, knives, cars or coffee machines).

You are assuming that banning guns means no more guns. Guns will never go away, legal or not. As long as law enforcement, military, etc. can acquire guns, so will folks on the black market. There's no way to suddenly reduce gun violence by making guns illegal. It would take decades to see any discernible effect, at which point guns will probably be obsolete and make way for a cheaper, faster, and easier way to murder someone.

The only thing banning guns guarantees immediately is that you eliminate guns from all law-abiding citizens. That's the only guarantee.
 
You are assuming that banning guns means no more guns. Guns will never go away, legal or not. As long as law enforcement, military, etc. can acquire guns, so will folks on the black market. There's no way to suddenly reduce gun violence by making guns illegal. It would take decades to see any discernible effect, at which point guns will probably be obsolete and make way for a cheaper, faster, and easier way to murder someone.

The only thing banning guns guarantees immediately is that you eliminate guns from all law-abiding citizens. That's the only guarantee.

Coming up from the abyss will take time.
The sooner you start, the sooner you get there.
 
You are definitely not from the hood because if you were, you would know how people there really feel about him. I happen to work with a bunch of them. They hate Obama. He did nothing for the hood during his presidency. Literally nothing. As an African American, he had an obligation to do more in that respect than any other president. But he did nothing.

And since you acknowledge the fact that people will commit crime with whatever they can get their hands on, then you should also support banning knives. Without them, you'll have less stab wounds.

Interesting, how you can tell me where I'm from.
If you are saying "the hood" is Chicago, then you are right but even the folks from Chicago I know don't hate Obama. If you are talking about black folks and "the hood" in generic terms, then I still don't see large sums of folks where I'm from (Oakland and the SF Bay Area) that hate Obama. Not sure where you get your information from, but when I'm at the barber shop, in the hood, he's not hated. Nor is he hated by my relatives and friends black, white or otherwise.

His job was not to fix the country for a segment of the population, his job was to run the country.
He also don't fit the classic description of "African American" because he was half African and half white.
His experience was far from growing up "in the hood".
100 years of Apartheid in America is what desolated the black hood.
Denial of education, housing and jobs in a government sanctioned effort called Jim Crow and The Black Codes. CoIntelPro by the FBI to infiltrate and destroy black civil rights groups. We still have the legacy of Apartheid in America.
But we call Apartheid -> Jim Crow
We call Japanese Concentration Camps -> Internment Camps
We call Genocide of the Indigenous People -> The Trail of Tears
We call Experimentaion of Syphilis on Black Men -> The Bad Blood Experiment
We don't even talk about mass sterilization of people of color in America anything.
In Puerto Rico it was common to sterilize the woman of color in a US government program starting after the Spanish American war when the US took over Puerto Rico.

Nothing gets honestly discussed until you call it what it was. We have polite names and never have had a real discussion about any of this.

I don't support banning guns. Read my post carefully. I'm a gun owner and indicated that people will do crime with whatever they can get. Knives, clubs, or otherwise. Banning guns is a "feel good" solution that only leaves criminals with guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
That might well be true, but take a look at the murder rates UK vs US:

You know, US gun fans can try to spin it whichever way they want, but more guns means more gun crime AND more murders (whether committed with guns, clubs, knives, cars or coffee machines).

If you want to ban guns, change the constitution.
The Second Amendment is not a second class right.
You might argue that they didn't mean semiautomatic rifles and pistols; but that is not correct.
The concept of semiautomatic guns does go back that far. There were methods to fire multiple projectiles through a barrel as early as the Revolutionary War.

Let's put that to bed.
Most crimes are done with illegally obtained guns.
That could be buying stolen, straw purchases, etc. The concept of banning guns sounds attractive.
Unless you plan to go door to door and confiscate all you find, forget it.

I'm for background checks and controls, but until you change the constitution the Second Amendment is a right. Unlike a driver's license which is not a right; I don't need to prove that I am capable of exercising the right. You need to prove I'm not capable of exercising the right.

You also didn't look further in the statistics tables:
These statistics are 1 million people.
UK ranks higher for rapes than the US.
UK ranks higher in murder in domestic disputes.
UK is higher in assaults.
UK ranks higher in robbery victims.
UK ranks higher in car thefts.
UK ranks higher in embezzlements.
UK ranks higher in fraud.

They have plenty of problems.
They have also had some form of licensing for guns since 1903.
 
Last edited:
Sure, probably even a higher rate of diabetes.
It doesn’t change much of what I said.

No it doesn't, but to not look at how other crimes are committed is specious.
They have had some form of gun control for more than a century.
The first wide reaching gun control in the US was the national fire arms act that banned fully automatic guns and silencers.
Ca. didn't have handgun registration until 1991 and long guns until 2014.
So even a conservative estimate puts the number of unknown firearms in the US at some 100 million.

So to compare the UK with the US seems a bit silly.
They haven't had unfettered access to guns for more than 100 years.
Once again, I'm all for strict background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill.
No question on that.
Banning firearms in America requires a change in the constitution.
As long as the constitution doesn't change you cannot legislate away a right.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.