ilarynx

Wesley Hilliard said:

SmittyW said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

canukstorm said:

DAalseth said:

I wonder if Trump knows it won’t change. He made all sorts of really stupid promises to his supporters. These Executive Orders let him say he followed through, but like his promise in 2016 to ‘bring back coal’ none of them stand a chance in hell of happening. He knows that but he’s just going through the motions. It’s also good misdirection so people talk about this, while he and his crew are doing real damage behind the scenes. 

As a non-US citizen, how do Executive Orders work?  Are they not binding?  For example, the issue of birthright citizenship is a hot button topic which from my understanding is protected by the 14th Amendment.  Can an executive order just overturn that even though it's in the Constitution?

Nope. Many of Trump's executive orders were actually illegal. An executive order is kind of like a promissory note that conveys the intentions of the administration. They are binding for federal employees and offices, but can't go beyond that and can't violate the constitution. The orders can later be considered by Congress and the Supreme Court if they need further legislation to make them more official, or if they need to be blocked.

For example, his orders about birthright citizenship aren't allowed, period. He can't actually provide amnesty to ByteDance from a law that was passed. And he can't withdraw from the WHO like that. He's being sued already and there are a lot of people on both sides of the isle that are unhappy with the many of the executive orders and what they do. Congress will likely overturn several. We'll see.

You need to do some more research and look into what 'US jurisdiction' means. Might want to look up supreme court precedent while you're at it. You are welcome.

Also, that's a shame about the WHO, looks like Tedros is going to have to go back to embezzling funds from the Ethiopian government again. Poor guy.

I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread: wtf are you talking about?

It looks like that particular hallucinating AI bot doesn't respond to direct inquiries. (Either that, or the latest extension for ChatGPT prefaces each query with "AI BOT ON METH...").

MacPack4 said:

lol, Meanwhile $$$millions went to Biden 4 years ago from many of the SAME donors contributing to Trump, don't recall the outrage then... what short memories we have. So when Biden similarly got money it was not "possible corruption"? Give me a break. You do have to appreciate the hypocrisy though, it's great entertainment.

In reality, the fact that Tim donated to Trump's inauguration shows how active he is in working with all people to accomplish his and Apple's goals rather than crying about who is in the Executive Branch. Much respect to Tim.

Hypocrisy? Short memories? What cognitive issues would compel someone to shovel such outright, and highly biased, BS?

Via DF - 

By the way, a reader pointed my way to Biden’s Presidential Inaugural Committee FEC filing from four years ago:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/corporate-donors-trump-inauguration-1.7430028

And a little pro tip, source your data, it's more convincing... and by actually doing a little research, you're less likely to embarrass yourself by spreading falsehoods. Cheers!

Steve Jobs flew a pirate flag when developing the Mac.

Mark Zuckerberg...

https://theonion.com/mark-zuckerberg-defends-decision-to-fly-confederate-fla-1826847417/

“Facebook considers itself an open environment that accepts all perspectives, and white nationalism is an important part of the conversation,” said Zuckerberg, telling reporters that the Confederate battle flag waving majestically above the company’s main campus would give employees and users alike an opportunity to reflect on the brave sacrifices made by the Rebel army during the War of Northern Aggression.

/snark

9secondkox2 said:

leighr said:

The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 

Exactly. Especially when the so called fact checkers have the facts wrong.  

Liars hate fact checkers. 

Pizzagate much? 

https://apnews.com/article/pizzagate-gunman-dead-police-shooting-north-carolina-81f0383fb55587350576b8265b7b5dd5

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985

9secondkox2 said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

ike22w said:

Tim Cook did the same thing with Biden. Also, why did Wesley coin the President-Elect as controversial? He won in an electoral college landslide and also won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. I’d say the country clearly stated who they wanted. No controversy here folks. Maybe let’s just stick with tech news and not show our biased political views in a tech article. 

He's controversial not because he won, but because of who he is and what he believes. There's nothing biased or even political about that. The mountain of lawsuits, assault claims, overt racism, sexism, and indignation for any country that isn't the United States makes him a controversial president.

Saying someone is controversial isn't an insult or attack. It's a simple fact.

That’s your opinion. Many of us believe it was Biden, his family, business dealings, and policies that are controversial in addition to the law fare waged against the former and future President. 

We appreciate the articles, but perhaps they can be a little more universal instead than of obviously creating a dividing line. 

Literally anyone can be labeled controversial by anyone who disagrees with them. Doesn’t make it so. 

When the majority of the country approves of the guy enough to make him president again, it’s not what believes or stands for that’s controversial. Just the facts. 

I don't know what to say except words have meaning and you don't have to read our website. It's not biased to call him controversial, but if that hurts your feelings then find an article that will lie and make you feel better I guess.

Words do have meaning. That was my point. Your opinion about the president is your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your need to shoehorn your opinion everywhere possible when necessary - to the point where you are actively encouraging longtime website members (who have been with the site longer than yourself) to go elsewhere is antithetical to any business goal in addtiion to just being rude. Doesn't seem very professional. And that comment in bold proves it. Nowhere did I display emotion. I simply stated facts. If that hurts your feelings, maybe you should be doing something else. 

Hilarious how the poster proves the author's point by seeing controversy in the article that points out how Trump is controversial. Doubly hilarious with the claim "I simply stated facts" when what was stated was a demonstrably false opinion. 

And not all readers - "longtime" or not - will feel at home in all forums. Some forums may actually welcome those who are Moon-landing deniers, believers in Bigfoot, think that injecting bleach will cure Covid, wear white hoods and robes on the weekends, believe in Pizzagate/Jade Helm/JFK Jr's return, or pursue authoritarianism over democracy, etc. There are plenty of places where such nonsense is welcomed and even encouraged. I hope Apple Insider doesn't become one of those forums.  

BTW - For reference:

controversial | ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl, ˌkäntrəˈvərSH(ə)l | adjective
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement