jlandd

tallest skil said:

Provisions therefor are in the Constitution. No laws need to be passed and no budget needs to be appropriated.

Oh no, not the Constitutional Provisions claim. That's only been stated on Trump sites, and they don't even get it close.  Just another thing Trump figures if he says it enough times people will believe it.  No, there's noting in the Constitution that gives the go ahead to build the wall.   The WSJ gives some insight into what Trump has claimed:   http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-crumbling-wall-plan-1460320010 


It's from April but the gist still holds.  Trump claims if Mexico refuses to pay for the wall he will rewrite The Patriot Act to completely cut off money from crossing the border.  This is Trump's claim, not the WSJ's, and there are many reasons why neither that nor any Plan B or C will work.   

A wall *could* be built, it's not completely unfeasible, but not by Trump, and not for a long time due to his ham fisted handling of the issue.

apple ][ said:

jlandd said:

if you don't think Trump hasn't made pilefulls of amazingly ignorant and false statements almost daily you haven't been paying attention.  

I never said that he's perfect or that he's never said anything that was false.

I do also recogonize that his opponent is far worse, and she's directly responsible for multiple dead Americans, and for trying to cover up the crime, when the embassy was attacked. She is also a national security risk, with her careless and criminal, illegal, email server scam.

Trump hasn't caused any deaths, yet.

How can you compare any political data, whether deaths caused or lives saved, between someone who has never been in any position to have such data and someone who has?   Trump's years of service: zero.  That he gets a zero in every negative stat isn't exactly mind boggling.

apple ][ said:

He has my vote for sure. 

If there is any justice left in the world, then Trump will be in the Whitehouse soon, and Hillary will be behind bars, and at least she wont have to wear any ridiculous looking pantsuits anymore or outfits that make her look like a teletubby. She is one dangerous lunatic, and she's a career politician who's been scamming people for a very long time. She is greatly funded by countries and enemies that hate us. Extremist countries are funding her with many tens of millions.

I'm no Hillary fan, I voted for Sanders and am disappointed in the ridiculousness of the Democratic primaries, but Trump is far, far more dangerous as President than Clinton could ever be regardless of her career in politics, and as far as "lunatic", well, it's no contest. This is just typical hatred of Clinton and not love of Trump. No one cares what an awful person someone's opponent is if their person has anything at all to offer. But because Trump doesn't it always comes down to Clinton and her prison garb.  OK, I get it.  You really hate the woman.  That's enough to feel Trump in the White House will mean justice has been done?

SpamSandwich said:

bells said:

How is it taking sides? Apple usually gives both parties product. It is good for marketing. Out of the two parties, only Trump bashed Apple publicaly, and having Apple's logo appear next to Trumps is likely to controversial. Women, minorities, gay people, and foreigners but its products.

Even some Republicans don't want to appear by Trump.

It's because Trump is a loose cannon that he should be elected. Both Republicans and Democrats have become deeply corrupt and Trump needs to descend on Washington to kick some chairs out from under people. His lack of depth and comprehension on constitutional matters concerns me, but look what has happened under an alleged "constitutional law professor". The encroachments and damages have only increased since George W. Bush going forward.

We could use an intelligent and savvy loose cannon who has a record of success.  But Trump simply has none of the tools necessary for the job, and his string of dubious self proclaimed successes only mean he knows how to walk away from failed projects with another few million in his pocket.   It's unfortunate that we aren't being given much of a choice, but Trump is a laughing stock to the rest of the world's leaders and to say he hasn't got a chance in international negotiations would be being generous.

apple ][ said:

paxman said:

From how I read the article this is not so much a party political choice as a statement against Trump's views on minorities, women, and immigrants.

Correction, illegal immigrants, and there's nothing wrong at all with criticizing illegal scum. They're not supposed to be here. They are illegal, and anything bad said about them is A-OK. They can expect to be rounded up and deported soon, to wherever they snuck in from.

Trump hasn't said anything bad about women in general. He's said a few things to individual women who are slobs and pigs, like Rosie O'Donell., who attacked him first. Are certain disgusting females supposed to be immune from criticism? Not where I am from, I believe in fairness.

Women working for Trump have many high positions, and they are paid better and treated far better than those women who work for Hillary for example.

Putting aside anything about immigrants, minorities or women, if you don't think Trump hasn't made pilefulls of amazingly ignorant and false statements almost daily you haven't been paying attention.  And the rationale about women in Trump's organization (many high positions?  ffffttttt) proving he understands the issue is equally inane.  Defies logic, but there you go, that's who he's attracting.

wood1208 said:

Hardware improvements on Macbook pro is always welcome news for people looking to upgrade. But this time around, I hope to see MBP(13",15") loose some weight and get bit slimmer. 

Eccchhh, no.    Slimmer is one thing Apple has been delivering on for years, often going over the line of diminished returns.  Leave the Airs going for those who want slim and keep the MBPs with the space inside to house SSDs in good temperature and enough ports to keep it a "pro" machine.