Apple refuses to aid 2016 GOP presidential convention over Trump comments

“Apple has told Republican leaders it will not provide funding or other support for the party’s 2016 presidential convention, as it’s done in the past, citing Donald Trump’s controversial comments about women, immigrants and minorities,” Tony Romm reports for Politico. “Unlike Facebook, Google and Microsoft, which have all said they will provide some support to the GOP event in Cleveland next month, Apple decided against donating technology or cash to the effort, according to two sources familiar with the iPhone maker’s plans… Apple declined to comment for this story, and it’s unclear how the company plans to handle the Democratic convention in Philadelphia this summer.”

“While Apple isn’t the most active political player in the nation’s capital, the tech giant previously has backed both parties’ conventions. It provided about $140,000 in MacBooks and other tech tools to the Democratic and Republican events in 2008, according to campaign finance records. Apple sat out the nominating conventions in 2012, the year Democrats opted against accepting corporate contributions,” Romm reports. “Typically, the tech industry tries to court Democrats and Republicans in equal measure. Despite the liberal leanings of Silicon Valley’s top executives, companies like Google and Facebook long have split their election-year donations among both parties’ officeholders. While Apple does not have a political action committee, Cook on his own has tried to forge personal relationships with Democratic and GOP lawmakers. He even dined in D.C. last year, for example, with a quartet of top House Republicans.”

“Major tech companies including Apple support efforts to attract more high-skilled foreign workers to the U.S. –- a position shared by many Republicans. But Trump has taken a vastly different course, threatening to expel millions of undocumented immigrants while building a wall on the Mexican border,” Romm reports. “And on some of the most pressing issues in tech policy, the presumptive Republican nominee’s views conflict with the prevailing opinion in Silicon Valley. Earlier this year, for example, Trump slammed Apple for resisting the FBI, as the government sought to force the company to unlock a password-protected iPhone tied to the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Many tech executives, however, rushed to Apple’s defense.”

Read more in the full article here.

Donald Trump’s investments include Apple, other companies he bashes – May 19, 2016
Apple and Silicon Valley employees love Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump? Not so much – May 6, 2016
Donald Trump calls for Apple boycott over San Bernardino terrorist iPhone encryption – February 19, 2016
Why Donald Trump is now targeting Apple and their ‘damn computers’ – January 19, 2016
Trump: We’ll get Apple to manufacture ‘their damn computers and things’ in the U.S.A. – January 18, 2016
iPhones don’t kill people, people kill people – February 19, 2016

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]


    1. Err.. yeah.

      ” citing Donald Trump’s controversial comments about women, immigrants and minorities”

      No one seems to care that Hillary took money from countries that execute gays, make women wear sheets in blistering hot deserts, and do not allow any religions besides islam to build any religious buildings or talk about their religions in public?

      Seems extremely duplicitous of Apple. :\

          1. Well, obviously it makes none to Hillary that HER department RUN by her REFUSED to allow help be dispatched to protect Americans in Benghazi.

            Must see 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

            I had not realized how deeply her and Obama’s betrayal was to their own staff.

          1. Trump supporters really are low-information voters. Or just morons. Get a clue, Wil: Trump was interviewed on national TV and declared that women who have abortions should be punished. If that is your idea of “pro-choice” you fall into the moron category.

            1. Ralph… ERRRRRR! Wrong answer. Trump was asked a leading question so low information sheepel such as yourself could froth at the mouth. The question, “If abortion was illegal and a woman had one, should she be punished?” His response was that if she broke the law she should be punished. Seems like a legit answer to a slimy question.

            2. Yeah, but you Bernie Burners (literally speaking) are so much more high information that you completely ignore the collapse of Venuzela and total incompetence in South American countries.

              Or that Lord Obama has to bail his Castro buddies out to save Cooba….

              Communists, believing their own lies so fervently that their reality is as warped as what’s on the other side of a Star Trek warp drive – another universe!

        1. Do you people think what Trump says on any given day actually _means_ anything, good or bad?! You’re forgetting that five minutes later he’ll say the exact opposite and deny he said the earlier thing. Who knows what he actually believes or will do?

          Trump is scarily self-centered – he probably believes the thing he says when he says it, then believes the exact opposite when he says THAT, five minutes later. He might not even really believe he’s contradicting himself, because what he’s saying right now is so important that even five-minutes-ago Trump is a total loser compared to the Trump-of-now.

          This guy shouldn’t be in charge of a hot dog cart, let alone a country.

          1. Well, you saved me some typing, Krioni. That is an incredibly accurate description of Trump!

            I am no fan of Hillary. But, if the Republicans wanted to win the White House they would have offered a reasonable option. Another unelectable candidate from the right and a questionable one from the left along with a broken political system. Perhaps that is what people should be focusing on.

      1. I am not supporting any candidate in this race but I agree with you, Hillary is a despicable person especially when she lied straight to the face of the Benghazi families that lost their loved ones and continues to lie about it. To say before a committee hearing ‘what difference does make?’ Would she say that had her daughter been killed in that compound and some republican president went lying about some stupid video that had nothing to do with it because of his incompetence?

          1. The reason not to vote Clinton is also why would we want another Clinton in control? That would mean the same 2 families have control for 32 years. HELL NO
            Ill take Gary Johnson over either. Check him out

            1. Yes, the prospect of 8 more years of Clinton dubious rule makes me wanna barf/hurl. She is essentially a power hungry pod person (See: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS) who as political an animal as the usual status quo – something the country has been desperate to change, regardless of party. Clintons are lying SOS who should be drummed out of the political arena.

              I also hate the fact it’s Hillary who might make history as the first woman president. Future generations will look back and think we were all morons for letting THAT happen.

            2. And if the unthinkable alternative were to occur and Trump is elected POTUS, then there might not be future generations to curse our choices. That guy is so thin-skinned that I would not trust him with a lit firecracker.

      2. And George Bush gave Saudi Arabia 19 Billion dollars of our Social Secutity investment to reward them for 9/11, so he could spread his “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lies and start his wars to pay Hallibutron CEO Dick Cheney another 10 billion. And you worship him as Jesus reincarnate!

          1. Errr. No. Bush Jr. implemented the policy that threw all Iraqi government workers, of all levels, out of work. He then didn’t bother to look for all the country’s weapons. Then he signed an agreement that all US military would be out of the country by a certain date or would be subject to Sharia law. Iraq refused to renegotiate that agreement, which was clearly untenable for the US. The ex-government leaders, shunned by the US, knew where all the weapons were. They were the ones that started ISIS because the Shrub and his cronies left a power vacuum AND tens of thousands of displaced, very pissed off ex-government people who had all the weapons.
            Do some real, independent research instead of just spouting anti Obama talking points.

    2. I’m not going to rant at the TC SJW hypocrite little boys at Apple HQ. Instead of using money to upgrade aging iPad for iPad Pro, I’m going to take some of my Apple stock profits and donate to RNC/Trump 2016 and give credit on behalf of Apple!

      1. Please do.. The less that you own of Apple, the better I will feel. Not only will you own less Apple, but you will be giving money to a billionaire who won’t get elected. Love it. Please proceed with all haste.

    3. Bottom Line: Apple isn’t required to donate equipment and services to any political party, so there’s nothing wrong in refusing to make such donations to the GOP in this election year. But having announced that the GOP will not be supported, I would see something wrong if Apple provides such support to the Democrat party this year. I contribute to Apple’s revenues, and don’t want to see them employed in partisan politics. While I have no problem with equal support to the major political conventions as a public-spirited activity, a decision to not support one of them should automatically apply to the other as well.

      That’s especially true this year, as both presumptive candidates present unusually unsavory choices to voters.

  1. Some points of clarification:

    “Major tech companies including Apple support efforts to attract more high-skilled foreign workers to the U.S. –- a position shared by many Republicans. But Trump has taken a vastly different course, threatening to expel millions of undocumented immigrants while building a wall on the Mexican border.”

    H1-B visas for skilled workers DO NOT EQUAL uneducated illegal aliens streaming across the southern border intent on cashing in on American taxpayer’s largesse while setting up shop in the domestic drug trade and/or other crimes (gangs, rape, robbery, etc.).

    Trump is FOR upholding the laws already on the books designed to protect our borders. Trump is FOR suspending immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.

    “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here. That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.” — Donald Trump, June 2016

    In 1979, Democrat U.S. President Carter ordered all Iranians with student visas to report to U.S. immigration officials or else face possible deportation. On April 7, 1980, Carter ordered administration officials to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

    Donald’s Trump’s official policy:

    Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

    Requirement to hire American workers first. Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year 2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed. Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not USCIS.

    BOTTOM LINE: Apple and others want skilled labor as CHEAPLY as possible. That’s a main reason why Apple and other tech firms are not supporting Trump – they want unlimited H-1Bs, so they can pay Ajeet from India half what they’d have to pay Tom from Tulsa who can’t find a job after graduating from college and has to live in his parents basement because Apple got Ajeet from India to do it on the CHEAP.

    Before I return you to your regularly-scheduled progressive groupthink that’s obsessed with banning a gun (AR-15) that was not even used during yet another ISLAMIC TERRORIST’S RAMPAGE and/or pretending it was about “THE GAYS” – even though the ISLAMIC TERRORIST cased Disney World first, but found security too tight, so the ISLAMIC TERRORIST chose a place he’d been to multiple times where he knew the likelihood of armed resistance to be low or non-existent so that the ISLAMIC TERRORIST could maximize his killing spree’s body count. He’d been there multiple times before, by the way, BECAUSE THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST WAS GAY. He went on JIHAD during RAMADAN because the ISLAMIC TERRORIST believed he’d be forgiven his SIN of being GAY by Allah.

    So, the solution isn’t to disarm the law-abiding populace by trampling their constitutional rights. The solution isn’t to hold more gay rights parades. The solution is to stop ISLAMIC TERRORISM by stopping ISLAMIC TERRORISTS by any means necessary.

      1. Few points to consider:
        1. The terrorist’s parents moved into USA before Afghan became a terrorist nation.

        2. Terrorism cannot be stopped. Even in an rich country like USA- uneducated people are motivated to hate and demand aggression from their leaders. Social security, law and order and education in the affected country is the only medicine to reduce terror.

        3. Its not a terrorist who killed school kids. Plus gun control is just a precaution. You can argue on both sides of the coin. But precautions can help. After 9/11, the TSA is controlling what we carry in our airplane. As per your argument, we should stop security check and just focus on banning all planes from terrorist countries. Don’t you think it sounds ILLOGICAL?

        4. War is devastating to both sides – simply not worth it. So motivating people with terms like “America is at war” is useless. It will only give congress more money to destroy more innocent families – which in-turn will motivate / justify the actions of more terrorists. Terrorism is not a nation – its an ideology, you cannot eradicate it.

        5. The best thing you can do is not give so much media coverage. Because thats is the aim of this shooting. They are seeking attention. So don’t give it to them.

        My arguments may appear vague and not strong enough to tap into your emotions. But thats the point… Only terrorists tap into emotions. We need to open our minds and understand / accommodate others point of view. Blaming one party or hating one company / president is pointless.

        Think about this… “Terrorists are there in all countries, but not all countries act like terrorists. USA Government uses terrorist tactics (drones, arming other terrorists, etc) to destroy others. So don’t buy into the rhetoric if you want to save innocent lives (American/ Non american). We should only Look for constructive measures for a better future. We owe that to our kids”.

        1. “4. War is devastating to both sides …”
          …boy, it sure is:

          • World War I – Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
          • World War II – Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat.Viet
          • Korean War – Harry Truman, Democrat.
          • Vietnam War – Lyndon Johnson, Democrat.

          Democrats: The Party of War, Death and Hate.

          1. Any “examples” of Democrat or Republican before the mid 1960s is invalid for any honest person trying to make a point. Lincoln was a Republican, but any idiot knows the two parties flipped positions during the Civil Rights movement.

            1. See post further down. Pre-1964 actions by either party cannot be used as examples of how good or bad the current parties are. Pre-1960s Democrats were effectively modern Republicans, and vice versa.

              “Those who commit lies of omission are condemned to be Trump voters”

            2. Democrats failed to support the civil rights and voting rights acts. If not for Republican votes overcoming the southern Democrat votes, those laws wouldn’t have passed. Move on to your next historical revision please.

            3. Not heard of Ronnie Rayguns “Southern Strategy”, eh. All of the Dixiecrats, who were pissed at the Democratic Party leadership in getting Civil Rights passed, switched and infected the Republican Party with its present active base of hate-filled morons. Reagan brought them in, now the Republican Party is stuck with crazy.

            4. LMAO, “historical revision”. You are still speaking pre-flip era.

              If you want to get pedantic, sure the *supporters* of the Democratic party defected to the Republicans (and Republicans who supported Civil Rights switched to Democratic), after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and the influx of intolerants to the Republican Party made the party positions flip.

              Don’t pretend you don’t know that, and are trying to score cheap points on a grammatical technicality meant to keep a post short.

              Or if you do, you’re ignorant of actual history and have just been schooled.

        1. I think his point is that f14t16 doesn’t listen, nor is he capable of having a discussion. Have you ever tried to argue with him or show him he’s wrong on any topic regardless of what it is? It’s impossible, and he always tries to get the last word. Even when he’s blatantly wrong about anything. It’s a pointless argument.

            1. One, he’s wrong about people wanting to repeal the second Amendment. That is an nra talking point about every democrat since Lapierre took over. And it’s never been true…. For example: more guns have been sold during obamas 2 terms than any other period in our history. Second he’s wrong about trumps suggestion that it’s because we let his parents into this country that he went on this rampage. By that logic this is Ronald regans fault for letting his parents into the country in the 80’s (the shooter was born in queens NY, the same place trump was born btw, and was not “born in afghan” as he said during his speech) third, you’re not infringing on anyone’s rights by limiting assault weapons to people not on the terrorist watch list, and the no fly list…. they’re too dangerous to fly on a plane but they can have a semi automatic sig-sauer without a waiting period? There’s a 3 day waiting period for a handgun in Florida for fuck sake…. Why wouldn’t there be a similar waiting period for an assault weapon? Also he’s wrong about it not being an AR-15…. No, the Sig-sauer is technically not a classic AR-15. But the parts are compatible, and sauer ADVERTISES that in their literature for the gun. Full disclosure I own one of these, and can attest that it is interchangeable. I in fact own 23 firearms and am under no illusions that j could possibly be Rambo in the middle of one of these type of situations. That’s not how that works, it’s not the movies. The nra lies and stokes fear, and most of their endorsed candidates parrot all of their fantasy land bullshit.

              And if it were true that less assault weapons and rapid fire pistols wouldn’t reduce mass shootings, then why hasn’t Australia had a single mass shooting since 1996? No one wants to take your guns, or repeal the second amendment. First of all, the president can’t just repeal an amendment, it takes a ⅔ vote of congress to pass and repeal amendments to the constitution. Take a civics class before swallowing horseshit from a lobbying arm of an industry.

            2. The NRA is a marketing organization. Their goal is to sell more guns. They’ll say whatever it takes to get more people to the checkout counter. For a company that makes toothpaste the marketing line is that you’ll have a better social life. For the NRA, the line is OMIGOD!!! THEY’RE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!! HISSY FIT!!! HISSY FIT!!!

            3. They USED to be a sensible organization until the ultra right wing paid-for lap dogs of the gun companies took it over.

              The VAST majority of Republicans and ever NRA members are for some kind of sensible gun laws– completely disagreeing, for example, with people on the terrorit watch list still being able to buy guns.

            4. That’s the one that says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

              Note the “well regulated” bit. That’s what the NRA, gun fetishists and the perpetually afraid seem to be missing. The Constitution says regulations are required on the right to bear arms.

            5. In English syntax, the comma is used to lessen the redundancy of the word “and,” thus: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state “and” the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

              I hope this clarifies that sentence for you.

            6. Regardless, it was all about keeping slaves in line. Nothing to do with liberty or freedom. Just proxy oppression through fear.

              Plus ça change…..

            7. DaveH: there is not one word in the Federalists papers or any of the correspondence of the people who were concerned about the people’s right to keep and bear arms on how it was all about controlling slaves. It was instead about the right of the people to protect themselves and to retain the ability to to retain the ability to over throw an oppressive government if it were ever to become one. Nothing about slavery. It also merely recognized a Right the people already HAD and stated that the government could not infringe it. The government does not grant it. This is plain in the discussions in the Federalist papers. You are just completely wrong.

            8. Maybe you should pick another country other than Australia. Firstly, a peer-reviewed study (first reference below) concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate. A similar conclusion was made by researchers at the University of Melbourne (second reference below). Secondly, Australia’s immigration policy would make Trump look like “mister open borders.” Maybe we also should try their approach on this as well?

              Gun laws and sudden death: Did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference?:

              The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths:

              Australia reaffirms hard-line immigration policy:

            9. Homicide rate was not was I was referring to. Don’t move the goal posts. I was specifically referring to MASS SHOOTINGS. Which have not happened once since 1996. I’ll pick a different country where everyone has guns then… Switzerland…. They don’t have mass shootings either, because you have to register your ammunition. They also all serve a year in the military and know now to use their weapons. So, complete background checks, and registered ammunition. You want to have assault weapons? Then register the ammunition. Problem solved. It certainly seems to work over there….

            10. Lack of information my dear!
              Swiss SOLDIERS have a gun in their home, but it receive the ammunition only during the shooting drives or in the event of war!
              That makes pretty much of a difference!

            11. Yes, that’s exactly what said. And Swiss citizens all serve at least one year and get qualified on firearms. If we had a silmilar program it might work.

            12. Black males age 18-35 are only 4% of the U.S. population, yet commit 50% of homicides. Black males (all ages) are only 6% of the U.S. population, yet commit 46% of all violent crimes, and 50% of the gun homicides.

              If Blacks were removed from the equation, the U.S. gun homicide rate would be equal to Great Britain’s, who have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world. Therefore, the U.S. has a Black problem, not a gun or violent crime problem.

            13. So, we have a Black problem, a non-Christian problem, a woman problem, an immigrant problem, a disability-act problem, a poor-people problem, a foreign trade problem, a foreign treaty problem, an Obamacare problem, a protester problem, a Pope problem, a government-regulation problem, a mainstream media problem, and probably some other problems I am ignoring.

              Trump agrees, and will eliminate all those problems and Make America Great Again by returning control to rich white Protestant men like God apparently intended.

              He will do so without reference to the Constitution (“Free speech? Give me a break”) and notwithstanding the objections of the legislative and judicial branches of government. Instead, he clearly plans to use executive orders on a scale that would make Obama’s head spin. He expects to enforce his executive decisions with the military, which he believes must follow his orders even when they are illegal.

              How can somebody who loves—or even likes—the United States of America and its Constitution expect Apple to help finance the coronation of such a man, particularly after he called for a boycott of Apple products?

            14. If there where no “blacks”, some more “whites” would fall into the category of “losers” and thus would commit the same % of homicides as you show off! This stupid racism is just a pure proof of the “common nonsense” ruling over some type of people! Frustration is the real enemy.

    1. I was an H1-B.

      Your view about the H1-B program is totally and absolutely wrong.

      I was not cheap labor.

      if fact, most technology companies prefer to hire local before hiring H1-Bs. When you mention “I need sponsorship as H1-B”, 90% of the cases, the answer is “We are not sponsoring, sorry”.

      And when you compete and you get hired, you compete against a lot of locals. You compete in equal conditions. nd they pick the best candidate.

      Isn’t it what America is about? Free market? Don’t we like competition? If I provide a better quality employee, why shoudn’t I get the job, in equal conditions?

      I wasn’t picked because I was cheap. I was picked because I was GOOD. Companies rather hire locals because it’s easier and cheaper. There are no legal fees, no waiting time, no paperwork, no immigration issues, and no red tape. Yes, getting an H1-B is not easy. It’s not approved in 5 minutes. it takes a while.

      But H1-Bs bring a lot to the table. First of all, we all pay taxes. And more taxes than locals. For example, we pay state unemployment insurance, despite of the fact that we can NEVER use it, because if we end up without a job (for any reason) we ned to leave the country the next day. No selling your stuff, no relocation, no conditions. And of course, no unemployment benefits. We have not easy path to a permanent residenship. We change our way of life, and then we are kicked out.

      And we raise the bar. We bring intellectual competition, so the bar can be raised in America, plus we keep that money flowing inside the country instead of hiring overseas, where America never sees the money.

      So, next time you bash the H1-B program, think again. We made a lot of effort to get that H1-B and do things in the USA by the book, instead of crossing the fence as those illegals you hate so much. And we did everything with respect to the laws of America, and with a lot of love and respect for its people. We didn’t come to steal jobs, but to make America a better place.

            1. You accuse me of being a liar. Without any proof. Just like the troll you are. You want to insult me in a public forum? You want to call me a liar? Well, you HAVE TO PROVE IT.

              Of course, it’s very easy to hide behind a nickname and insult people without any accountability. That what cowards do. And I call you a coward. And a troll. And I will state my case:

              – You insult me with no proof.
              – You hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
              – You don’t state your name, or any other way to refute you.
              – You post just to ignite people

              So, yes, I’m calling you a coward. And I’m calling you an internet troll. And honestly, int’s not your stupidity what bothers me. I don’t really care about trolls. I’m not angry not upset. I’m not even offended. I just want everybody to see you for what you are: Just another troll in another forum.

              At least Zune Tang was funny…… (remember him)?

            1. sorry botvinnik. I’ve just got three kids and big thumbs, hence the garbled message and delay in replying.

              I’m a UK citizen, work as an engineer; but your and Trump’s views still make you fascist, narrow mined bigots.

              So now you’re wrong on all count, as usual..

              But don’t worry, keep them and don’t change your mind. You’ll see before the end.

      1. Apparently you encountered people who adhered to the intent of the H1-B visa program. Your experience, however, does not invalidate the view that the program is terribly abused (by some major employers, such as Southern California Edison and Disney) to the detriment both of existing and potential US citizen employees.

        And to answer your question – America is not COMPLETELY about “free market.” The first purpose of the country is to defend the rights of its citizens. People admitted on H1-B visas are for the CONVENIENCE of citizens of this country, and (at least in intent) only when they offer skills not available from other citizens.

        The fact that you went through the hassle of getting such a visa and coming here, with all the downsides, says many things about you, all of them good, and I hope that you decide to apply for permanent residency or citizenship – but you are not representative of the abusive situations which sparked the debate in the first place.

        1. I don’t vouch for illegal immigration. Nor I vouch for abusing the system.

          Problem is, Americans don’t even know their own immigration laws for the most part.

          The fact that you tell me (and I greatly appreciate that) “I hope that you decide to apply for permanent residency”, is a nice wish, but unfortunately, not even feasible.

          One can’t just “apply for citizenship”. That doesn’t exist. The biggest myth is that after 5 years of being legally in the USA, you pretty much can apply to residenship and get it.

          First, you can’t just apply. There’s no place where you just “apply”. If you are not a political refugee, or under some extreme exceptional circumstance, there are only 3 ways to obtain permanent residency:

          1. A company sponsors you. I which case you don’t apply, but the company asks for you.

          2. You get married: And that also has a lot of red tape. But, also, in which case, your spouse is sponsoring you. You don’t apply yourself.

          3. You come with 1 million dollars to invest in the USA. In which case, yes, that’s the only case you apply. But not everybody has 1 million to invest.

          So, the reality is, becoming a legal immigrant is close to impossible. So, people has 2 choices. Either go back to their country, or stay against the law.

          I’m a lucky person, despite not wanting to come back. But I’m a professional, and I can make a living in my country. I was not going to come to starve. My living standard is OK. I’m not dying here, I’m doing OK. Not as good as in the USA, but not bad either.

          But other people has nothing. Nothing in their countries. The worst possible condition in the USA is better than what their lives could be in their countries. They have nothing to lose. Getting them back is almost killing them.

          Sure, some people deserve to be sent back. Criminals, drug dealers, robbers, all the bad people. But hey, guess what? If they are permanent redisents, and get caught in a crime, their green card gets revoked and the person is expelled.

          The difference is, if you have people with a green card, you can know where they are. You keep them illegally, they are in the shadows. Authorities will never be able to catch them.

          It’s a very complicated issue. but tome, fact is, the immigration system is broken, and it needs fixing.

          Thanks for your kind comments. Again, I greatly appreciate them.

    2. Personally, I would vastly prefer corporate money to be removed from politics entirely. These are publicly owned entities and the corporate management should not have the right to distribute money on behalf of a presumably large and diverse group of shareholders.

      Corporations are not people and, thus, the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens should *not* apply to corporations. If I cannot throw a corporation in jail, then a corporation does not have the right to free speech. Furthermore, money is *not* equivalent to speech. Otherwise a wealthy person has more “speech rights” than regular folks, which clearly violates the intent of the Constitution.

  2. Never knew Apple was supporting either party’s convention.

    Given the non-support for the Republicans, it’s consistent for Apple to stay out of the Democratic national convention.

    There are other ways for Apple to support the party of Al Gore, but less conspicuous.

  3. “Unlike Facebook, Google and Microsoft, which have all said they will provide some support to the GOP event in Cleveland”

    Yea, they would support anyone regardless of what their politics is.

      1. The last generation Zip drives were USB and FireWire, when they 250-750MB in size. They were just too slow compared hard drives and flash drives and cost a lot more per megabyte in the early 2000’s. I did prefer the zip concept however, and if Iomega had found a way to make one drive that could read all the different sizes instead of having to get a new drive for the 250 and 750 disks respectively (750 drives couldn’t read the 100mb disks), it would’ve been more popular. And if they could’ve found a way to increase the transfer rate off of the disks them selves into the 30-50 MBps rage, it would have stayed viable, and external hard drives may not have become as ubiquitous. The other problem is that I remember those disks costing 15-25.00/piece. If they could’ve brought that down to DVD levels, they’d have a winner. It was a good storage solution though.

        1. Zip drives used to be my backup solution. Well worth the money for that, made especially apparent when the HD drive in my Performa 630CD failed. Would have lost quite a bit of work on that occasion.

  4. Again with the political statement… Why?

    Apples iPhone has its first no growth quarter, anticipating another no growth year, no excitement at WWDC. As well as losing to android in phones, education market, tv/living room, laptops, voice assistants, maps. Facing stiff competition from Samsung on quality and advanced hardware features, as well as other Chinese manufacturers.

    So in face of these and many other issues, (i.e. Their software doesn’t ‘just work’ anymore), Tim Cook chooses to take another stand. And on a highly volatile subject such as politics that could potentially alienate half the country, and do so in a hypocritical manner.

    I wish they’d go back to making software that just works and devices that people love.

  5. 2 cents.

    Some of Donald Trumps ideas trouble me but I’m also troubled somewhat by Apple taking political stances. I’ve read some of Trumps books years back (Art of the Deal and so on) so I’m not a universal Trump hater but since he got onto TV and politics I’ve been turned off but Apple’s stance is bothersome as it seems to be a new precedent.

    Steve Jobs focused more on products and the consumer experience rather than social or political initiatives that Cook is into. Jobs didn’t even want to celebrate Apple’s 30th anniversary as he wanted Apple to focus on products, he didn’t have Apple do much charity or political contributions either (Apple just matched employees charitable donations) so that Apple didn’t have to make JUDGEMENTS on who or what was worthy. Jobs was just laser focused on products.

    When apple donates to both democratic and republican conventions it shows not support for an individual candidate but for the POLITICAL PROCESS (which is a somewhat different thing).

    the problems with supporting or condemning a candidate is that you invariably anger some people and there’s a chance you will make mistakes in your judgement (perhaps in the future about someone else as it sets a precedent) . For example I’ve seen so many people and corporations support someone and then that someone turns out not what he seems ( an example which is not political but illustrative is the Subway spokesperson who was a hidden child molester. ).

    Like I said I am troubled by some of Trumps’ comments but Apple seems to be heading towards a SLIPPERY SLOPE, in the future it might make a mistake supporting someone or condemning someone and then find out it was in error.

    (note that I think condemning a SPECIFIC comment made by a candidate is DIFFERENT than withhold all support for the Republican convention. Like I said — to me — donating to both sides, den and repub, is just a statement on support for the political PROCESS i.e a part of USA democracy and not necessarily an endorsement of the candidate).

      1. am I saying Jobs would have supported Trump? are you reading my post?

        I’m saying Jobs much more than Cook kept Apple out of partisanship or social activity. His belief was that Apple service to humanity was to PROVIDE REVOLUTIONARY PRODUCTS OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY TO CHANGE LIVES and not by using Apple as a ‘soapbox’.

        On very rare occasions Jobs made what might be construed as a social statement like his ideas on education but I think he did that as a PRIVATE citizen and not as ‘this is what Apple believes’ which is what T.C is doing. (apparently Jobs and his wife were quite involved in charities and social work but it was all private.)

        Look at the comments on this forum: don’t you think it’s divisive? Most of the old time posters here usually have insightful stuff on TECH , now they are tearing at each other over politics or spending time discussing it in a TECH forum ! (I’m doing it MYSELF !).

        is this a refection of what is also happening inside Apple, i.e that people are talking POLITICS and SOCIAL ACTIVISM as opposed to TECH, making great products (or fixing bugs , like it took forever to fix the simple Wifi bug)? Friends please note Apple is BUSINESS TECH ENTITY it is NOT a social pressure group like Greenpeace. Apple isn’t or shouldn’t be run by social activists or social lawyers etc : are the SVPs so qualified that they can make social judgements unfailingly? like i said this sets a PRECEDENT, what about AFTER trump, who is next? I really think this a dangerous game making judgements on people supporting or condemning them. (like I was a fan of Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong and look what happened… )

        Also what happens to the REPUBLICANS working for apple or the customers. Many of them don’t really support all of Trumps ideas but might be troubled by Apple’s move not to support the convention. (go read my post) i think supporting BOTH conventions is more for supporting POLITICAL PROCESS rather than Trump and not supporting one side seems slapping down on all republicans. Like I said I am troubled by Trump’s comments but you can see the slippery slope Apple is on.

        Trump is perhaps a above the rest but we have to admit ALL politicians make statements that might be disturbing to some. Like I said Apple condemning SPECIFIC statements someone made is different from not supporting the republican convention as a whole.

        Getting Apple into partisan politics gets very confusing and takes up resources. Instead of SVPs focusing on products, quality control they are focused on social work. The Mac Pro is 3 years old with no update and no drop in price and Jony Ive is making furniture etc for charities. I think apple needs to rein in.
        the CEO , SVPs etc can make their own private social comments but Apple should mostly keep out of politics.

        think about it what if India or China or Saudi Arabia asks Apple to make a political statement (like “Communism is Good” or “the Royal Family is Wonderful” ) can apple now strongly say “Apple’s worldwide policy is that we don’t do politics” ?.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.