The shareholders, evangelical Christian maybe, who complain about Apple’s ideology should just sell their apple shares and invest in military industry. Most of these peaceful people just care about god, country and guns.
Ridiculous statement. Apple touts inclusion and diversity but I guess just like with Liberals that only applies if those you are including think like Liberals. Dare to think differently (You know like Apple used to) and you get told to go elsewhere by people like you. You can not have it both ways my friend. You are either diverse and include all or you can not call yourself diversified and inclusive.
The shareholders, evangelical Christian maybe, who complain about Apple’s ideology should just sell their apple shares and invest in military industry. Most of these peaceful people just care about god, country and guns.
Ridiculous statement. Apple touts inclusion and diversity but I guess just like with Liberals that only applies if those you are including think like Liberals. Dare to think differently (You know like Apple used to) and you get told to go elsewhere by people like you. You can not have it both ways my friend. You are either diverse and include all or you can not call yourself diversified and inclusive.
I hear this complaint frequently about liberals and now with Apple's old motto, "Think Differently". When people or companies express the importance of diversity, that does not necessarily mean that they are saying they are open to every single group or idea. For instance, it would be silly to assume "Think Differently" would encompass the ways that serial killers think. On the same line, people who are open to ideas and beliefs outside of their traditional experience are not required to welcome the ideas from those who do not believe in scientific method or the merits of fact-checking. There is a movement in America and elsewhere that is openly against fact-checking and science, at least when that science disagrees with their political views. These people must not be allowed to thrive, as society would eventually collapse under the massive spread of misinformation and anti-intellectualism.
On another note, this is a fascinating thread. Like so many others, I was motivated to chime in. So many here claim that Apple needs to stay out of politics yet on the other hand so many are riled up by this thread.
The shareholders, evangelical Christian maybe, who complain about Apple’s ideology should just sell their apple shares and invest in military industry. Most of these peaceful people just care about god, country and guns.
Ridiculous statement. Apple touts inclusion and diversity but I guess just like with Liberals that only applies if those you are including think like Liberals. Dare to think differently (You know like Apple used to) and you get told to go elsewhere by people like you. You can not have it both ways my friend. You are either diverse and include all or you can not call yourself diversified and inclusive.
No. To be inclusive and diverse you do not have to reach out to those who are not inclusive or anti-diversity. That's not how it works. You do not tolerate the intolerant.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
That's just as stupid as voting for "your" party regardless of who the candidate is. Do your darnedest to filter out the FUD and learn just who it is you're voting for, then vote for the person, not the party. And if you're stuck with only two choices, do NOT throw away your vote, even if you're not happy with either choice.
relax, people, super majority of share holder were too smart to vote "for" such proposal. I was always want to attend shareholder meeting one of those future days. If too many of ideological proposals pop up at the meeting with someone holding 70ish shares, i might as well stay home. just wish those chaps don't zap energy away from Apple exes. That will be a tragety - everybody only has 24 hr a day. life is short. I personally believe some chaps just want attention to their "group" - used share holder meeting as free ads. I could be wrong ;-).
In this case it sounds like a bunch of ideologues who put their ideology ahead of all else and are trying to propagate that ideology and impose it on others. ISIS did the same. So did the Nazis.
Well, and would this be referring to those who spoke up at the meeting? Or, Apple? I think the complaint was probably that Apple should be a technology company, not a bunch of ideologues. And, yes, all those groups - internally - thought/think they are doing what is the right thing and trying to impose it on others.
jedwards87 said: Ridiculous statement. Apple touts inclusion and diversity but I guess just like with Liberals that only applies if those you are including think like Liberals. Dare to think differently (You know like Apple used to) and you get told to go elsewhere by people like you. You can not have it both ways my friend. You are either diverse and include all or you can not call yourself diversified and inclusive.
For sure. As Frank Turek recently put it, "In the name of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, you're excluded, and won't be tolerated, because you have a diverse view." Unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing in culture, politically, and in the behavior of the tech industry, especially the social media giants, is right out of the totalitarian playbook.
bill42 said: I hear this complaint frequently about liberals and now with Apple's old motto, "Think Differently". When people or companies express the importance of diversity, that does not necessarily mean that they are saying they are open to every single group or idea. For instance, it would be silly to assume "Think Differently" would encompass the ways that serial killers think. On the same line, people who are open to ideas and beliefs outside of their traditional experience are not required to welcome the ideas from those who do not believe in scientific method or the merits of fact-checking. There is a movement in America and elsewhere that is openly against fact-checking and science, at least when that science disagrees with their political views. These people must not be allowed to thrive, as society would eventually collapse under the massive spread of misinformation and anti-intellectualism.
On another note, this is a fascinating thread. Like so many others, I was motivated to chime in. So many here claim that Apple needs to stay out of politics yet on the other hand so many are riled up by this thread.
Except, that when diversity is used in our culture currently, it's pretty much every kind of diversity except for viewpoint, ideology, etc. Basically, it's all about skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior, etc. so long as ideologically you believe the exact same thing.
re: fact checking and science... I guess I ask who that would be? For example, I'm against propaganda and Science™ which are being politically used to gain power. It's kind of like Nineteen Eighty-Four... words don't mean what we think they mean anymore.
SpamSandwich said: It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
Yeah, I think that is one of the key things Americans need to break out of. We essentially have two parties of neocons with some radically differing views on certain social policies, primarily it almost seems, to make the people think they are warring against one another. Then, you look at what is going on in Congress and they are like peas in a pod on most of the really critical things (wars, economics, world-order, etc.).
sacto joe said: That's just as stupid as voting for "your" party regardless of who the candidate is. Do your darnedest to filter out the FUD and learn just who it is you're voting for, then vote for the person, not the party. And if you're stuck with only two choices, do NOT throw away your vote, even if you're not happy with either choice.
The problem is that I don't think it matters too much who that person is, as the party will make them tow the line once they are in power. Just look at what is currently going on in the Republican party with Trump, or what happened to Bernie. Neither party wants non-neocons in place.
relax, people, super majority of share holder were too smart to vote "for" such proposal. I was always want to attend shareholder meeting one of those future days. If too many of ideological proposals pop up at the meeting with someone holding 70ish shares, i might as well stay home. just wish those chaps don't zap energy away from Apple exes. That will be a tragety - everybody only has 24 hr a day. life is short. I personally believe some chaps just want attention to their "group" - used share holder meeting as free ads. I could be wrong ;-).
In this case it sounds like a bunch of ideologues who put their ideology ahead of all else and are trying to propagate that ideology and impose it on others. ISIS did the same. So did the Nazis.
Well, and would this be referring to those who spoke up at the meeting? Or, Apple? I think the complaint was probably that Apple should be a technology company, not a bunch of ideologues. And, yes, all those groups - internally - thought/think they are doing what is the right thing and trying to impose it on others.
....
LOL... That's the standard line of extremists from both sides: doing the Trumpian thing of justifying their position by attacking the other -- because their own position is unjustifiable except to fellow extremists. But they nevertheless want to impose their twisted and distorted will on everybody.
I lean conservative and don't agree with this junk of declaring your political affiliations or any of the other crud the "conservatives" in this article are ranting about. I'm tired of the hateful and bigots that have co-opted the conservative moniker and given then rest of us a bad name. Just my opinion and upbringing, but TRUE conservatives just want to be left alone...that means keeping your nose out of others business (including who someone marries or what they do with their body). Somehow the hatemonger "conservatives" have forgotten this. Maybe we need a new designation...I'm a fiscal conservative and a social don't-give-a-dang. Do what makes you happy, but don't waste money trying to do so.
Lastly, the SPLC is most certainly a hate group and I do wish Apple wouldn't support them. Look no further than the numerous recent payouts and lawsuits the SPLC has lost due to their wielding their "hate map" as a tool for silencing their critics. Raise you voice against them and they label you a hate group. Apple essentially is paying extortion money to those turds.
I lean conservative and don't agree with this junk of declaring your political affiliations or any of the other crud the "conservatives" in this article are ranting about. I'm tired of the hateful and bigots that have co-opted the conservative moniker and given then rest of us a bad name. Just my opinion and upbringing, but TRUE conservatives just want to be left alone...that means keeping your nose out of others business (including who someone marries or what they do with their body). Somehow the hatemonger "conservatives" have forgotten this. Maybe we need a new designation...I'm a fiscal conservative and a social don't-give-a-dang. Do what makes you happy, but don't waste money trying to do so.
Lastly, the SPLC is most certainly a hate group and I do wish Apple wouldn't support them. Look no further than the numerous recent payouts and lawsuits the SPLC has lost due to their wielding their "hate map" as a tool for silencing their critics. Raise you voice against them and they label you a hate group. Apple essentially is paying extortion money to those turds.
The Republican Party has regrettably become a collection of extremist groups that all call themselves "conservatives" -- even though they have little or nothing in common.
Those who retained the Reagan's philosophies and values have been pushed out of the party -- as would Reagan himself if he were still alive. Trump would very definitely have a derogatory knickname for him.
For the SPLC: I agree that it has sometimes (maybe too often) over reached. But they have stuck to their basic mission of calling out and exposing real hate groups. For the most part, the lawsuits just mean that they're doing their job -- but some are likely justified.
robbyx said: ... It's pretty hard to argue that individuals and businesses will do the right thing when history provides an endless string of examples to the contrary.
Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. ...
But, isn't what the 'right thing' is what is up for debate in the first place?
Doesn't that go without saying? Aren't we all just expressing our opinions here?
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more liberal think conservatives sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more conservative think liberals sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL. Well, not really LOL. More like, GROAN.
Of course, unregulated businesses won't often do the right thing, because... human nature. That's economics 101, which is so frustrating when I see conservative push for 'free market' as in unregulated. But, it's also equally frustrating, when I see liberals push for more socialistic solutions that put the power into the hands of some government officials... as if that hasn't been tried before.
Yeah, and it works quite well in all the "socialist" countries of Europe that consistently rank higher than the US in quality of life, happiness, health, etc. What I find frustrating is the endless parroting of the same bad old ideas from the "conservative" side, ideas that have never worked, that are, in essence, just selfishness wrapped in a hybrid religious/political coating so that the pill goes down a little easier. And then, the kicker is, conservatives claim to be Christian, which is the biggest laugh of all because Jesus was a hardcore socialist.
But, to be honest, I don't even know what "conservative" means anymore. I know there are still some "real" fiscal conservatives out there, somewhere, I think...but the mainstream conservative movement has, for the most part, been taken over by the Christian Taliban element. These snowflakes, the most precious and delicate snowflakes among us, can't stand the idea that people might NOT want to live as they do and cast any effort to balance the scales as an attack on them and their faith. They are totally schizophrenic in their beliefs as they weirdly (and somehow successfully) reconcile their faith with their selfish political ideology. They never cease to amaze as they cherrypick passages from their good book to give them cover for everything they do while ignoring all those pesky and inconvenient passages that might call their actions into question. That's what comes to mind when I hear the word "conservative" these days.
While there are certainly just some hateful bigots (re: LGBT issues), or people who just want to pollute, etc. (re: climate change)... the core of the debates (by actual thinking people on both sides) are much, much deeper than that. For example, most of the so-called 'climate deniers' aren't denying some warming, some part of which is human-caused (ie: we're right in there with that 97% made up figure). The debate is over the proposed solutions, who will be harmed in and to what extent with each solution, and who is on the $$$ take in pushing certain solutions.
You're deluding yourself. Mainstream climate change deniers don't acknowledge human involvement. They scoff at the idea that burning a little oil could change the environment. They aren't proposing any solutions other than drill baby drill. And we all know who is in on the take (and has been for decades): the oil companies. And we all know who supports them blindly and unquestioningly: conservatives. Conservatives claim to want energy independence, but do everything they can to limit renewables. We were once the leader in renewable energy technology. Now China and Germany pretty much own it.
Or, with LGBT stuff, the debate is over personal rights vs societal impact, and who gets to control 'public education' and what kinds of bullying are going on to accomplish those ends.
When we simplify this stuff down to black & white; right and wrong side of history; 'doing what is right' kind of slogans, then yeah, it's pretty easy to straw-man a particular 'side.'
Bullying? Yeah, gay people know all about it. That last paragraph is such "I want to sound tolerant but I'm really not" homophobe crap. Personal rights versus societal impact? Give me a break. Conservatives (aka Christian Taliban) want everyone to accept that a magical wizard lives in the sky and created all of this, that this Santa Claus for Grownups is keeping a list of who's been naughty and nice, and will one day judge us all. We're in the 21st century, but the Christian Taliban wants to keep the Bronze Age going strong! And we're all supposedly to just fall in line and take it as fact. And any attempt to push back is bullying. Precious snowflakes indeed.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
Hahahahahahaha ooooh boy. Yeah, no, that's not how it works around here.
For sure. As Frank Turek recently put it, "In the name of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, you're excluded, and won't be tolerated, because you have a diverse view." Unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing in culture, politically, and in the behavior of the tech industry, especially the social media giants, is right out of the totalitarian playbook.
Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Except, that when diversity is used in our culture currently, it's pretty much every kind of diversity except for viewpoint, ideology, etc. Basically, it's all about skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior, etc. so long as ideologically you believe the exact same thing.
Being inclusive and tolerant does not necessitate including and tolerating the non-inclusive and intolerant. For similar reasons, hate speech is not protected speech because you're by definition infringing the rights of others.
Yeah, I think that is one of the key things Americans need to break out of. We essentially have two parties of neocons with some radically differing views on certain social policies, primarily it almost seems, to make the people think they are warring against one another. Then, you look at what is going on in Congress and they are like peas in a pod on most of the really critical things (wars, economics, world-order, etc.).
I look to the freshman class of 2019's Congress and other down-ballot elections throughout the US as a positive sign of things to come, at least on the Democrat's side of things.
For sure. As Frank Turek recently put it, "In the name of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, you're excluded, and won't be tolerated, because you have a diverse view." Unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing in culture, politically, and in the behavior of the tech industry, especially the social media giants, is right out of the totalitarian playbook.
Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Except, that when diversity is used in our culture currently, it's pretty much every kind of diversity except for viewpoint, ideology, etc. Basically, it's all about skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior, etc. so long as ideologically you believe the exact same thing.
Being inclusive and tolerant does not necessitate including and tolerating the non-inclusive and intolerant. For similar reasons, hate speech is not protected speech because you're by definition infringing the rights of others.
Yeah, I think that is one of the key things Americans need to break out of. We essentially have two parties of neocons with some radically differing views on certain social policies, primarily it almost seems, to make the people think they are warring against one another. Then, you look at what is going on in Congress and they are like peas in a pod on most of the really critical things (wars, economics, world-order, etc.).
I look to the freshman class of 2019's Congress and other down-ballot elections throughout the US as a positive sign of things to come, at least on the Democrat's side of things.
I agreed -- until the last...
Unfortunately, the freshman class is typically described as Progressive (which it isn't -- it was the suburban moderates who took back the House for Democrats and elected mostly moderate candidates). In any case -- people believe that it is mostly Progressive because that's all news media talks about. Unfortunately, the Progressives are as extreme, far left as the the so called "conservatives" are extreme, far right -- and both offer "solutions" that will create more problems than solution.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Precisely. The Founding Fathers tried to make the federal government as limited in scope as possible by granting most governing power to the states.
The Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery alive for a few more years.
At least one of those Founders didn't. Check out Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence sometime.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
That's just as stupid as voting for "your" party regardless of who the candidate is. Do your darnedest to filter out the FUD and learn just who it is you're voting for, then vote for the person, not the party. And if you're stuck with only two choices, do NOT throw away your vote, even if you're not happy with either choice.
Yes, because voting for someone I actually want to be in office is wasting my vote, while voting for someone I don't is not.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
It is, however, accurate to label them both as fascist leaning, one religious and one economic. Both Liberals and Conservatives have abandoned their liberal and conservative principles in order to accrue more power and money.
Actual philosophical conservatives still believe those things, even if Political Conservatives do not.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
That's just as stupid as voting for "your" party regardless of who the candidate is. Do your darnedest to filter out the FUD and learn just who it is you're voting for, then vote for the person, not the party. And if you're stuck with only two choices, do NOT throw away your vote, even if you're not happy with either choice.
Yes, because voting for someone I actually want to be in office is wasting my vote, while voting for someone I don't is not.
According to Michael Moore (who is very pro-Progressive) if Progressives had not held back their vote in a "My guy or no guy" tantrum, Trump would have lost. So, essentially, Progressives elected Trump (but, admittedly they had help from Russia, Comey, FauxNews and 4 years of Benghazi investigations)
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
It is, however, accurate to label them both as fascist leaning, one religious and one economic. Both Liberals and Conservatives have abandoned their liberal and conservative principles in order to accrue more power and money.
Actual philosophical conservatives still believe those things, even if Political Conservatives do not.
That false equivalency only holds water if you ignore Citizens United -- which makes it near mandatory to raise massive amounts of money to succeed in any national election.
For sure. As Frank Turek recently put it, "In the name of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, you're excluded, and won't be tolerated, because you have a diverse view." Unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing in culture, politically, and in the behavior of the tech industry, especially the social media giants, is right out of the totalitarian playbook.
Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Except, that when diversity is used in our culture currently, it's pretty much every kind of diversity except for viewpoint, ideology, etc. Basically, it's all about skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior, etc. so long as ideologically you believe the exact same thing.
Being inclusive and tolerant does not necessitate including and tolerating the non-inclusive and intolerant. For similar reasons, hate speech is not protected speech because you're by definition infringing the rights of others.
Yeah, I think that is one of the key things Americans need to break out of. We essentially have two parties of neocons with some radically differing views on certain social policies, primarily it almost seems, to make the people think they are warring against one another. Then, you look at what is going on in Congress and they are like peas in a pod on most of the really critical things (wars, economics, world-order, etc.).
I look to the freshman class of 2019's Congress and other down-ballot elections throughout the US as a positive sign of things to come, at least on the Democrat's side of things.
I agreed -- until the last...
Unfortunately, the freshman class is typically described as Progressive (which it isn't -- it was the suburban moderates who took back the House for Democrats and elected mostly moderate candidates). In any case -- people believe that it is mostly Progressive because that's all news media talks about. Unfortunately, the Progressives are as extreme, far left as the the so called "conservatives" are extreme, far right -- and both offer "solutions" that will create more problems than solution.
I’m aware of all this. Regardless, it’s the most diverse freshman class ever, and a step in the right direction. We’ll see how the legislative side of all this goes in time.
Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.
That's just as stupid as voting for "your" party regardless of who the candidate is. Do your darnedest to filter out the FUD and learn just who it is you're voting for, then vote for the person, not the party. And if you're stuck with only two choices, do NOT throw away your vote, even if you're not happy with either choice.
Yes, because voting for someone I actually want to be in office is wasting my vote, while voting for someone I don't is not.
No, it’s a waste because you will not be counted as anything other than a rounding error in most cases, and in the worst case may enable the worse of two evils to win. Look at the Jill Stein voters — she’s a serial loser, yet pulled enough votes from key states that it’s hard to argue she didn’t directly aid Trump’s electoral college victory. Nader, same thing. Look at the amount of 3rd party representation in our government.
Comments
On another note, this is a fascinating thread. Like so many others, I was motivated to chime in. So many here claim that Apple needs to stay out of politics yet on the other hand so many are riled up by this thread.
I think the complaint was probably that Apple should be a technology company, not a bunch of ideologues.
And, yes, all those groups - internally - thought/think they are doing what is the right thing and trying to impose it on others.
For sure. As Frank Turek recently put it, "In the name of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, you're excluded, and won't be tolerated, because you have a diverse view." Unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing in culture, politically, and in the behavior of the tech industry, especially the social media giants, is right out of the totalitarian playbook.
Except, that when diversity is used in our culture currently, it's pretty much every kind of diversity except for viewpoint, ideology, etc. Basically, it's all about skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior, etc. so long as ideologically you believe the exact same thing.
re: fact checking and science... I guess I ask who that would be? For example, I'm against propaganda and Science™ which are being politically used to gain power. It's kind of like Nineteen Eighty-Four... words don't mean what we think they mean anymore.
Yeah, I think that is one of the key things Americans need to break out of. We essentially have two parties of neocons with some radically differing views on certain social policies, primarily it almost seems, to make the people think they are warring against one another. Then, you look at what is going on in Congress and they are like peas in a pod on most of the really critical things (wars, economics, world-order, etc.).
The problem is that I don't think it matters too much who that person is, as the party will make them tow the line once they are in power. Just look at what is currently going on in the Republican party with Trump, or what happened to Bernie. Neither party wants non-neocons in place.
Lastly, the SPLC is most certainly a hate group and I do wish Apple wouldn't support them. Look no further than the numerous recent payouts and lawsuits the SPLC has lost due to their wielding their "hate map" as a tool for silencing their critics. Raise you voice against them and they label you a hate group. Apple essentially is paying extortion money to those turds.
Those who retained the Reagan's philosophies and values have been pushed out of the party -- as would Reagan himself if he were still alive. Trump would very definitely have a derogatory knickname for him.
For the SPLC: I agree that it has sometimes (maybe too often) over reached. But they have stuck to their basic mission of calling out and exposing real hate groups. For the most part, the lawsuits just mean that they're doing their job -- but some are likely justified.
But, to be honest, I don't even know what "conservative" means anymore. I know there are still some "real" fiscal conservatives out there, somewhere, I think...but the mainstream conservative movement has, for the most part, been taken over by the Christian Taliban element. These snowflakes, the most precious and delicate snowflakes among us, can't stand the idea that people might NOT want to live as they do and cast any effort to balance the scales as an attack on them and their faith. They are totally schizophrenic in their beliefs as they weirdly (and somehow successfully) reconcile their faith with their selfish political ideology. They never cease to amaze as they cherrypick passages from their good book to give them cover for everything they do while ignoring all those pesky and inconvenient passages that might call their actions into question. That's what comes to mind when I hear the word "conservative" these days. You're deluding yourself. Mainstream climate change deniers don't acknowledge human involvement. They scoff at the idea that burning a little oil could change the environment. They aren't proposing any solutions other than drill baby drill. And we all know who is in on the take (and has been for decades): the oil companies. And we all know who supports them blindly and unquestioningly: conservatives. Conservatives claim to want energy independence, but do everything they can to limit renewables. We were once the leader in renewable energy technology. Now China and Germany pretty much own it. Bullying? Yeah, gay people know all about it. That last paragraph is such "I want to sound tolerant but I'm really not" homophobe crap. Personal rights versus societal impact? Give me a break. Conservatives (aka Christian Taliban) want everyone to accept that a magical wizard lives in the sky and created all of this, that this Santa Claus for Grownups is keeping a list of who's been naughty and nice, and will one day judge us all. We're in the 21st century, but the Christian Taliban wants to keep the Bronze Age going strong! And we're all supposedly to just fall in line and take it as fact. And any attempt to push back is bullying. Precious snowflakes indeed.
Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Being inclusive and tolerant does not necessitate including and tolerating the non-inclusive and intolerant. For similar reasons, hate speech is not protected speech because you're by definition infringing the rights of others.
I look to the freshman class of 2019's Congress and other down-ballot elections throughout the US as a positive sign of things to come, at least on the Democrat's side of things.
Even then, politics managed to screw things up.
Actual philosophical conservatives still believe those things, even if Political Conservatives do not.
No, it’s a waste because you will not be counted as anything other than a rounding error in most cases, and in the worst case may enable the worse of two evils to win. Look at the Jill Stein voters — she’s a serial loser, yet pulled enough votes from key states that it’s hard to argue she didn’t directly aid Trump’s electoral college victory. Nader, same thing. Look at the amount of 3rd party representation in our government.