This is an APPLEINSIDER top story? What does this have to do with Apple? Are there not already enough websites spreading political division and hate?
Absolutely concur!
Thanks Appleinsider for a completely useless article that serves no other purpose than to bash the President of the United States. As a Veteran that has served under several Presidents with different ideologies - what has happened to America where all we do is bash our dully elected leaders simply because we are of different opinions.
This Country simply lacks pride and this stupid article just showed its true colors.
Idiots.
It's not an opinion to state the fact that the Trump Org has backed off the false claim that their T1 phone would be built in the US, or that the T1 phone and Trump Mobile itself are at best a crass move by the family of the President to profit off his presidency.
I have enough pride in this country to say that the whole thing is at best below the dignity of the Office of the President, and it is a disservice that President Trump has not publicly objected to it and asked his sons to shut the whole embarrassing thing down. I also have enough pride in the country to observe that this isn't just a crass faux pas, but yet another grift where the President himself is seeking to profit off the presidency in an activity rife with deep conflicts of interest as he takes executive actions that will affect competitors to this new "business." My pride in the country demands that this should stop and the people sullying our government be held to account for it.
I also love the "no true scotsman" by Oky. The author also served under three presidents, including Trump. I served under three as well.
He can enjoy his ban for this and other offenses we didn't catch previously.
What I don't get is why would TMobile allow its website to be used to publish lies? It hurts TMobile's brand.
Anybody with sense knew from the start that that phone wasn't gonna be made in the US.
First, it's not T-mobile's website. Trump Mobile is a "Mobile Virtual Network Operator" that would presumably lease access at wholesale from T-mobile's cellular network. As with much else the Trump Org does, they don't make anything, but rather slap a gold T on lease deals.
As for T-mobile's willingness to be involved in any manor whatsoever, put yourself in their shoes. They're regulated by the FCC, part of a government currently ruled by Donald Trump's fiats through social media and executive orders. When Eric and Don Jr showed up at T-mobile wanting to do an MVNO lease, what were they going to do, say no and risk an arbitrary executive order screwing with their business, or the FCC suddenly announcing some sort of "investigation"?
This is why, even if Trump Mobile was otherwise legit and not some sort of grift, it shouldn't exist anyway. Any of the other 45 presidents in US history would face impeachment for that level of conflict-of-interest alone. For this one, it's just another Wednesday.
I really wish I could get inside the heads of some Trump voters and know how they -really- feel about this running comedy show...
Junkware. Not "Great".
I was going to post that this article is misleading by saying that "However, President Trump is still in control of the trust and has the ability to make decisions that affect the company." Because, obviously, the only appropriate way a trust could be set up would be as a blind trust (like every other president used) where they explicitly relinquish control over their business/investments.
But then I fact checked this and I was a fool to give Trump any benefit of the doubt. Trump didn't set up a blind trust at all; he retains "significant influence or control over the activities of the trust."
You can’t really set up a blind to trust with active businesses like that. And not every other president did that. President in the early days of the republic had one desk for business and one for the country. Literally in the same room.
As a conservative, who doesn’t share the views of most members in this thread, I have to say I don’t see any problem with AppleInsider covering this.
It’s sort of a bizarre story, Even if you put the politics aside. The Trump organization is essentially a licensing organization now. I listened to Eric Trump a week ago…talked about the phone after I had read about it here. This was before the made in America claims were apparently walked back. I suspect there is some kind of issue between the assembler, /manufacturer (licensee) and the Trump organization in terms of communication. It almost has a feeling of them getting approved advertising copy and talking points, then realizing a lot of it simply isn’t true. I have no idea if that’s what went down, it’s just a feeling I have.
What I will say is there seems to be a lot of crowing about all the Trump fans who are going to lineup to be bamboozled for this thing. I realize the view some people have of Trump supporters, but I don’t think it’s accurate…and I don’t think this is going to be a very popular product.
This is an APPLEINSIDER top story? What does this have to do with Apple? Are there not already enough websites spreading political division and hate?
Short answer: We can cover anything we'd like. Ink by the barrel and so forth.
Longer answer: Apple and Trump intersect in about 10 different ways. If you can't see the connection to Apple because, charitably, his sons decided to do this and license the name, launching in SEPTEMBER, you know, iPhone release season, while their father shit-talks Apple for not manufacturing in the US, while they at the same time try to pull a fast one about US manufacturing, I don't know what to tell you.
We do not require you to read everything we write. If you don't like something, move on to the next piece, or the 10 before that, or the 50,000 before that.
If there's hate to be had here, it's the Trump sons that are doing it in this case. Pointing out the lies is hardly that. Facts don't care about your feelings or political side.
But political sides care about facts when they need to distort them or just plain lie about them to justify their position.
I was going to post that this article is misleading by saying that "However, President Trump is still in control of the trust and has the ability to make decisions that affect the company." Because, obviously, the only appropriate way a trust could be set up would be as a blind trust (like every other president used) where they explicitly relinquish control over their business/investments.
But then I fact checked this and I was a fool to give Trump any benefit of the doubt. Trump didn't set up a blind trust at all; he retains "significant influence or control over the activities of the trust."
You can’t really set up a blind to trust with active businesses like that. And not every other president did that. President in the early days of the republic had one desk for business and one for the country. Literally in the same room.
Every President for 50 years not-named-Trump has put their businesses into a blind trust. Is conflict of interest not a thing if your name is Trump, but the public expects better optics from all the others? Legal and ethical are of course different standards, and doing so is not a legal requirement. IMO it should be.
Remember how Joe Biden was demonized by Trump for his son Hunter potentially making any money from Presidential connections? Donald Trump has frequently accused Hunter Biden of using his father's name and position for financial gain. Trump's campaign, for example, ran an ad stating: "The question is not why Hunter Biden used his name to get these gigs. It's why Joe Biden let him do it." Yet here we now with a different ethical standard. Is that OK with you?
Comments
Anybody with sense knew from the start that that phone wasn't gonna be made in the US.
This is why, even if Trump Mobile was otherwise legit and not some sort of grift, it shouldn't exist anyway. Any of the other 45 presidents in US history would face impeachment for that level of conflict-of-interest alone. For this one, it's just another Wednesday.
Every President for 50 years not-named-Trump has put their businesses into a blind trust. Is conflict of interest not a thing if your name is Trump, but the public expects better optics from all the others? Legal and ethical are of course different standards, and doing so is not a legal requirement. IMO it should be.
Remember how Joe Biden was demonized by Trump for his son Hunter potentially making any money from Presidential connections? Donald Trump has frequently accused Hunter Biden of using his father's name and position for financial gain. Trump's campaign, for example, ran an ad stating: "The question is not why Hunter Biden used his name to get these gigs. It's why Joe Biden let him do it." Yet here we now with a different ethical standard. Is that OK with you?