Donald Trump Criticizes Apple for Opposing iPhone 'Backdoor' Order: 'Who Do They Think They Are?'

[LizKat]

US America dreaming of fascism. This happens when you don´t teach your kids WORLD history.

Well, yes, and it's also because of the discontents that arise in a 99%-1% environment. Look around to find someone to blame... xenophobia, bigotry, more hate groups... anger, fear, confusion about what lies ahead when nothing seems straightforward... people start looking for a strongman to articulate simple ideas and just "make the country great again". A strongman always shows up, too. Cue Mr. Trump.

I'm no serious fan of Marco Rubio, since I'm a Dem, but if the Democrats don't win the general election I hope we're not looking at President Trump. Rubio is a somewhat inexperienced but he is a mainstream conservative Republican politician who would gather some reasonably sane Republican and probably neocon advisors around him. I would not be thrilled. But I would breath a sigh of relief that I wasn't looking at a caricature of a Central Asian dictator occupying the White House and ready to install a gold-leafed statue of himself on the lawn.

Trump is a narcissistic showman just made for the era of reality TV. Who knows who his advisors would be. Lawyers specializing in bankruptcy? What's next, defaulting on American obligations?

Not only that, but all those Republicans who held their nose and voted for Trump because he "isn't Hillary" or "isn't a socialist" would realize to their horror after inauguration that he's not actually a Republican either.

As far as his stance on FBI v Apple: Trump is pandering. If it was his company's smartphone he'd be tweeting the Bill of Rights and ranting about government overreach.

 

[stroked]

Is this really how you all think? That if someone is against the Mexican border wall, they have to be against walls everywhere, or else they're hypocrites?

This is by and far the most strained condemnation I think I've ever seen.

YES. What is the purpose of the walls around Vatican City?

 

[APlotdevice]

YES. What is the purpose of the walls around Vatican City?

To deter invading armies of the Middle Ages.

 

[Renzatic]

YES. What is the purpose of the walls around Vatican City?

Visigoths and Vandals tearing **** up, mostly.

 

[stroked]

Visigoths and Vandals tearing **** up, mostly.

That's right, to keep the unlawful out.

 

[APlotdevice]

Delete

 

[Renzatic]

That's right, to keep the unlawful out.

More like keeping the roving armies of the barbarian hordes away from things they can burn.

We're more worried about individual illegals crossing over to pick our beans for us on the cheap.

 

[APlotdevice]

That's right, to keep the unlawful out.

That does not change the fact that there is a pretty big difference between a wall surrounding one of the smallest countries in the world, and one covering the largest land border in the world. I mean, LITERALLY a big difference.

It's not like the walls of the Vatican have just stood there, completely unguarded. I'm sure they've had to deal with breaches at some point in the ~1200 years since its initial construction. This is a much easier task when you're only dealing with a few miles of wall.

 

[997440]

The walls aren't just for the past :

The Vatican is the only fully fortified state in the world, protected by 40-foot-high walls. The few porte, the arched access gates into Vatican City, are manned by Swiss Guards dressed in their colorful Renaissance uniforms and carrying swords.
Visitors are asked to sign in and are allowed only upon invitation. But for Vatican employees, usually a nod of recognition will do. The Vatican is the smallest state in the world, and pretty much everybody knows each other. But things are quickly changing. This month, the Vatican is introducing an electronic badge for some of its thousands of employees. Workers will be expected to swipe in and out when entering and exiting....

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ican-launches-swipe-card-security-system?lite

 

[stroked]

We're more worried about individual illegals crossing over to pick our beans for us on the cheap.

This liberal argument is getting very old. You know as well as I do, they are doing more than just picking produce.

 

[HEK]

A simple " your instructor was wrong" would've sufficed.

So true, finding anything complete is so rare, even idiots.

 

[Renzatic]

This is a much easier task when you're only dealing with a few miles of wall.

The Vatican is 110 acres, so you'd probably be looking at around a mile and a half of wall.

If anything, it's more like a big gated community.

 

[APlotdevice]

This liberal argument is getting very old. You know as well as I do, that they are doing more than just picking produce.

Only because some politicians are still too stupid to realize that the War on Drugs has been a complete failure.

(Yes I realize that campaign financing is a big factor)

 

[Renzatic]

This liberal argument is getting very old. You know as well as I do, they are doing more than just picking produce.

Yeah, some of them are ***holes who end up coming over here, and committing crimes.

But even so, don't you think it's overkill to spend hundreds of billions of dollars building a 2000 mile wall to stop something that's never been a big deal before it became a wedge issue, and hardly represents an existential threat to the US?

 

[flat five]

A Kardashian currently lives in the White House.

who? obama?

they're all the same.. obama is the same as g.w.bush & bush senior is the same as bill & hillary is the same as reagan is the same as d.trump is the same as etcetc.

fighting/arguing over which one of these 'candidates' is better is worthless and distracting.
it's a guise.

 

[stroked]

The Vatican is 110 acres, so you'd probably be looking at around a mile and a half of wall.

If anything, it's more like a big gated community.

The size of the country doesn't matter. We are not debating cost, we are debating the morality of walls. Pope Francis is a hypocrite.
[doublepost=1455843196][/doublepost]

Yeah, some of them are ***holes who end up coming over here, and committing crimes.

But even so, don't you think it's overkill to spend hundreds of billions of dollars building a 2000 mile wall to stop something that's never been a big deal before it became a wedge issue, and hardly represents an existential threat to the US?

I am against the wall on the border. I think we should bring our troops home, and use them to protect our border.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Citizens of the United States of America that are entitled to due process under the constitution.

But corporations aren't people, my friend...

 

[Thomas Veil]

That's right, to keep the unlawful out.

Thank god that Vatican City never had to suffer the fate of Visigoths and Vandals sneaking into their kingdom to pick produce.

 

[Renzatic]

The size of the country doesn't matter. We are not debating cost, we are debating the morality of walls. Pope Francis is a hypocrite.

This isn't about the morality of walls. It's about their need and feasibility.

The border wall is a solution that'll cost the US considerably more than the problem it's trying to solve, and will only be only serve to be a minor deterrent in the long run.

We've had a border jumper problem for about 70 years now, give or take. Their presence in the US has cost taxpayers billions int he past, and is expected to cost upwards of 50 billion over the next 30 years.

It hasn't broken us. Far from it. We've had them around both through times of plenty and need. They're, at worst, a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

Now The Wall will probably cost us, at least, at least $100 billion to build.

You have to realize that the border is hardly a barren wasteland we can build on to our heart's content. There are cities there. Towns. Grazing lands. Farms. The Wall will be cutting right through those. The government can exercise Imminent Domain to gain these occupied spaces, but they still have to pay the appropriate value for it, lest they run afoul of the Constitution.

Now you have to build it. It'll have to be at least 35 feet tall, or else someone could just pop up a tall ladder and go right over it. So what would be the cost of 2000 miles of 40 foot high wall? Added on top of the land the government has to buy to build it, it'd be a bunch.

Now what about maintaining and staffing it? We already spend a billion or more on ICE as is. We'll probably be spending even more, cuz...hey, gotta justify that wall. Upkeep? Probably a few million a year.

Needless to say, it won't be cheap. And what will it solve? Well, it might cut down our illegal immigration problem by as much as 30-40%. A goodly chunk, certainly. But will it be worth the price we pay? A massive amount of ill will towards our neighbors to the south all for the cost of at least twice the amount money spent up front than we otherwise would have if we just maintained the status quo for the next 30 years.

So what is the wall? The wall is a political placebo for people who want to solve a problem not because it's costing them, but because the thought of it makes them mad.

 

[LizKat]

This liberal argument is getting very old. You know as well as I do, they are doing more than just picking produce.

Yah.

Cleaning bank offices and chain hotel/motel rooms on the cheap, standing on the process chicken/pig/beef lines, mowing and raking lawns, bringing up your children while you party down, and yes, supplying the needs of the drug-crazed amongst us. Much much more than just picking produce. But much, much picking of produce, yes.

Who benefits?

If some pretty high up the food chain people did not benefit, that wall would have been up and armed by 1980.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

No sir, you clearly do not know what socialism is. Can't you see how what Sanders is proposing can quickly lead to Communism and/or totalitarianism? All the dictators of the 20th century (Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Mussolini) all started their political campaigns in a similar fashion to Bernie. When you start giving the government too much power it becomes more and more difficult to control. Regaining that power becomes nearly impossible. The government has far too much power and authority now.

Govement too powerful? Too much authority. Watch this documentary and tell me that again
http://www.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

To recap, Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street by repelling Glass-Steagall (Great Depression era banking regulations). Then he failed to put in legislation regulating the shady derivatives market. These 2 factors (along with others) caused a huge bubble. When that bubble popped, it was the the biggest crash EVER. it was soo damn bad that the US economy was going to drag the entire world economy down with us. We were days away from a global depression, worse than the great depression. In spite of all capitalist or small government theory, the US govt stepped in and bailed out these companies, preventing great depression 2.0. Sure when it comes to FBI spying, the government is too powerful but when it comes to dealing with corporations, the US government isn't powerful enough to deal with corruption.

I agree that we have far too many social programs as it is.

If the plebs aren't happy they riot. A society with no social programs is unstable: look at the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. Sure you'll pay less in taxes, it'll be great.... at first, until the plebs riot, kill you or take all your possession, then you'll have absolutely nothing, maybe not even your life.

Bernie's policies will destroy our economy, which is the idea. Nothing is free. You should be very cautious about anyone who is promising you something for free. Bernie is proposing a 90% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans. It's crazy. If you want to see what America looks like under Sanders just look to Cuba.

This sounds like Sean Hannity's or Bill O'Reilly's talking points. Cuba is a false comparison; they have been isolated from the world economy thanks to the US trade embargo. A better comparison is Germany. They have the strongest economy in all of Europe and no problem creating some of the most popular cars in the world in addition to providing college and healthcare for their citizens.

I haven't heard Sanders say 90%, regardless it's a marginal tax rate. So only each dollar in excess of $415,000 would be taxed at that rate.

I proudly proclaim to be a Trump supporter. What has electing career politicians gotten us the last 50 years? In my opinion there is basically only 1 party in America now. They go by different names (Republican, Democrat) but ultimately the same party. It's more like Democans and Republicrats. Every elected position should have term limits. No more lifetime Representative and Senatorial positions. 2 terms and out.

There are basically like 4 or 5 real conservatives in all of Congress. I like Trumps positions on National security and the Wall. A Nation is defined by what? It's BORDERS. It's LANGUAGE. It's CULTURE. All of these things are being eroded at an alarming rate. Walls work. We aren't required to clothe, feed, and shelter everyone in the world. There are dangerous people coming into the country. The European nations that accepted all these refugees are waking up to the fact that they made a huge mistake. Their desire to help (which is admirable) has cost them their security and safety, both physically and economically.

Call me a fascist, xenophobe, whatever. But if you are unwilling to let an unknown stranger in your house, why should we let them into our country?

Germany doesn't win anymore; Let's Make Germany Great Again! let's rebuild the German economy; we don't know what these Jews are doing, I'm just saying we are temporarily deport them until we figure out the final solution. The most ironic part is Trump is an ethnic German and Sanders is a Polish Jew. I'm not even making this up. Trump is echoing pre-WW2 Germany all over again.

Sure illegal immigration is a problem and having open borders is unsafe but is that really the biggest problem? Most illegals are working trash-tier jobs and getting minimum wage or lower.

A middle class family that wants to send their children to college will have to pay 10,000s or 100,000s of dollars. So what is the bigger problem?

Drug Co. executives are charging Americans the most for drugs of all the world nations, they are sitting in their penthouse apartments while the illegals are cleaning their toilets. Again what is the big problem here.

FBI is trying to force Apple (and others) to install backdoors into their OS. Trump has no problem with this and even wants the govt to "talk to bill gates and censor the internet." Again what is the bigger problem here.

Speaking about the economy. Trump's plan to compete with China is to turn America into China with low wages and no pollution regulation. This is what China looks like and this is what Trump would make America look like:

You can't even breathe in china without a face mask.

Last and most important of all, Trump lied about being against the Iraq War. He only came out 16 mo. after it began saying it was a bad idea.

If Trump wins you'll get that wall, but you can kiss all your rights and freedoms good bye, corporations will price gouge you to the max, and the US military will be invading/bombing countries left and right.

 

[stroked]

Yah.

Cleaning bank offices and chain hotel/motel rooms on the cheap, standing on the process chicken/pig/beef lines, mowing and raking lawns, bringing up your children while you party down, and yes, supplying the needs of the drug-crazed amongst us. Much much more than just picking produce. But much, much picking of produce, yes.

Who benefits?

If some pretty high up the food chain people did not benefit, that wall would have been up and armed by 1980.

Those are not the only jobs they are taking. They are also taking industrial, and construction jobs at an alarming rate.
You are right on your last point. There is a lot of wealthy people making money from their cheap labor. Some call themselves Republicans, and some call themselves Democrats.
[doublepost=1455848293][/doublepost]

This isn't about the morality of walls. It's about their need and feasibility.

The border wall is a solution that'll cost the US considerably more than the problem it's trying to solve, and will only be only serve to be a minor deterrent in the long run.

We've had a border jumper problem for about 70 years now, give or take. Their presence in the US has cost taxpayers billions int he past, and is expected to cost upwards of 50 billion over the next 30 years.

It hasn't broken us. Far from it. We've had them around both through times of plenty and need. They're, at worst, a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

Now The Wall will probably cost us, at least, at least $100 billion to build.

You have to realize that the border is hardly a barren wasteland we can build on to our heart's content. There are cities there. Towns. Grazing lands. Farms. The Wall will be cutting right through those. The government can exercise Imminent Domain to gain these occupied spaces, but they still have to pay the appropriate value for it, lest they run afoul of the Constitution.

Now you have to build it. It'll have to be at least 35 feet tall, or else someone could just pop up a tall ladder and go right over it. So what would be the cost of 2000 miles of 40 foot high wall? Added on top of the land the government has to buy to build it, it'd be a bunch.

Now what about maintaining and staffing it? We already spend a billion or more on ICE as is. We'll probably be spending even more, cuz...hey, gotta justify that wall. Upkeep? Probably a few million a year.

Needless to say, it won't be cheap. And what will it solve? Well, it might cut down our illegal immigration problem by as much as 30-40%. A goodly chunk, certainly. But will it be worth the price we pay? A massive amount of ill will towards our neighbors to the south all for the cost of at least twice the amount money spent up front than we otherwise would have if we just maintained the status quo for the next 30 years.

So what is the wall? The wall is a political placebo for people who want to solve a problem not because it's costing them, but because the thought of it makes them mad.

It is about the morality of walls, remember you didn't like my comment about Pope Francis tear down this wall. I think you're doing what they call changing the goalposts. What is with the nine paragraphs opposing the wall, after I already stated I am against it

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

This isn't about the morality of walls. It's about their need and feasibility.

The border wall is a solution that'll cost the US considerably more than the problem it's trying to solve, and will only be only serve to be a minor deterrent in the long run.

We've had a border jumper problem for about 70 years now, give or take. Their presence in the US has cost taxpayers billions int he past, and is expected to cost upwards of 50 billion over the next 30 years.

It hasn't broken us. Far from it. We've had them around both through times of plenty and need. They're, at worst, a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

Now The Wall will probably cost us, at least, at least $100 billion to build.

You have to realize that the border is hardly a barren wasteland we can build on to our heart's content. There are cities there. Towns. Grazing lands. Farms. The Wall will be cutting right through those. The government can exercise Imminent Domain to gain these occupied spaces, but they still have to pay the appropriate value for it, lest they run afoul of the Constitution.

Now you have to build it. It'll have to be at least 35 feet tall, or else someone could just pop up a tall ladder and go right over it. So what would be the cost of 2000 miles of 40 foot high wall? Added on top of the land the government has to buy to build it, it'd be a bunch.

Now what about maintaining and staffing it? We already spend a billion or more on ICE as is. We'll probably be spending even more, cuz...hey, gotta justify that wall. Upkeep? Probably a few million a year.

Needless to say, it won't be cheap. And what will it solve? Well, it might cut down our illegal immigration problem by as much as 30-40%. A goodly chunk, certainly. But will it be worth the price we pay? A massive amount of ill will towards our neighbors to the south all for the cost of at least twice the amount money spent up front than we otherwise would have if we just maintained the status quo for the next 30 years.

So what is the wall? The wall is a political placebo for people who want to solve a problem not because it's costing them, but because the thought of it makes them mad.

AND the fact that the wall will actually keep people IN THIS COUNTRY that seek to leave it to go back to Mexico.

Immigration has been nearly negative for a few years now. Why the heck would they want to stay here? I'm not sure I do...

 

[Renzatic]

It is about the morality of walls, remember you didn't like my comment about Pope Francis tear down this wall. I think you're doing what they call changing the goalposts. What is with the nine paragraphs opposing the wall, after I already stated I am against it

Damnit, you're right.

Though I could say that the pope, while living behind a wall in his off time, does spend more time building more of those allegorical bridges than most of the wall advocates do.

 

[stroked]

Damnit, you're right.

Though I could say that the pope, while living behind a wall in his off time, does spend more time building more of those allegorical bridges than most of the wall advocates do.

To be fair, not all people that are for the wall, are bad people. Some of them are stuck in jobs with stagnant wages, while they watch more and more illegals come in, working for lower wages. They are tired of the same old politicians doing nothing for them, so they follow someone like Trump.