President-elect Trump says Apple CEO Tim Cook called him after election victory

Live tweeting from a meeting with president-elect Trump today, The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman tweeted: “Trump says Tim Cook from Apple called him, so did Bill Gates.”

Haberman’s full coverage can be found via her Twitter feed here and includes nothing further about the content of the calls, but does offer President-elect Trump’s responses to a wide variety of issues including:

Sydney Ember reports for The New York Times, “Mr. Trump arrived at midday for a meeting with Times representatives at the paper’s Midtown headquarters. Seated next to the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., in the paper’s Churchill Room, he said he had great respect for the paper but thought its treatment of him had been ‘very rough.'”

“In the end, the 75-minute meeting was a relatively cordial discussion, with Mr. Trump covering the full range of his sometimes conflicting attitudes toward the media,” Ember report. “His meeting at The Times came one day after Mr. Trump attacked television network executives and anchors during an off-the-record meeting at Trump Tower. At that meeting, Mr. Trump said that the networks had been dishonest and that they had missed the signs of his impending victory.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Oh, to have be able to hear the contents of that phone call from Cook!

61 Comments

  1. The TV networks may well have deserved some of what he told them, but not for completely missing his popularity. They weren’t making up poll numbers; they were basically reporting what people were telling them. With the exception of the LA Times poll, which had consistently been an outlier skewing in favour of Trump, practically all others showed him trailing.

    It is interesting that so many people refused to admit to these pollsters that they were voting for Trump. What does it say when you are actually embarrassed to admit who you’re voting for….?

      1. In all of this I find very important than the maniacal war-hawk Hillary that was pushing for the WWIII has lost.

        Russia was on American side 1770s, in 1860s (both times against the British monarchy), in 1910s during the WWI, in 1940s in WWII, in 2001 in the war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and, with Trump, in 2010s in the fight against against terrorism that is spread by Clinton/Obama’s sponsors: the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

        The neocon wing of Republican party is strong, though, so lets see if Trump will be able to overcome that and go away from red scare/neo-MacCarthyism. There is no reason why the countries could not collaborate.

    1. You know, all those annoying Tim Cook apologists.

      What excuses can you logically present for Timid Crook now… peterslut72, anyone?

      That’s what we thought!
      😝

      1. What for a phone call? Yep that’s surely an indefensible act. Or was there some other meaning in that mish mash of words you used? How did it go again, all the words were there just not in the right order to make any sense.

    2. Not embarrassed… afraid of the voilent repercussions of the other side. Why stir up any trouble when someone just wants to vote? An app called Brigade and written by a liberal leaning group in San Francisco was able to get honest, unsurpassed poll data and predicted a win in battleground states by Trump. The left has been so angry, propelled by the Clinton Campaign’s framing of Trump as dark or Hitler or racist, that Trump supporters were just not interested in inviting them or arguing with them. Several of my colleagues at work were quite open about their Trump support on Election Day, just not before.

      1. When you are responding to a telephone pollster from the safety of your own home, there is no one to be afraid off. Pollsters don’t give comments or judgements about your choice, and anyone responding to them is likely aware that their response may shape the campaigns.

        So, with nothing to fear, why would anyone who intends to vote for a certain candidate hide such information from pollsters? Surely, the campaign would have been shaped in a different way, had the candidates actually known the real sentiments of the voters, and the results would have been possibly even stronger. Remember, right up to the last minute, polls were showing him down, so it is quite likely that many who were leaning towards him decided to stay home, since the winner was quite clear. Had the polls been more accurate, more of his supporters could have come out for him. Probably not enough to give him the popular vote (the deficit now stands at close to two million), but at least, it would have given him a semblance of a mandate. This way, it is clear that he is NOT the president the majority of Americans have voted for.

        So, yes, it looks like Trump voters were embarrassed to admit it to the pollsters.

    3. “With the exception of the LA Times poll, which had consistently been an outlier skewing in favour of Trump …”

      Skewing? Skewing?! Skewing?!?

      Hey brainless, LA Times was the ONLY major media outlet that predicted accurately for weeks.

      The rest were SKEWED! Do you understand?

      1. Polls have consistently showed what poll responders were saying. Pollsters couldn’t possibly know that some of respondents were too embarrassed to admit they support Trump. Whatever the reason for them withholding their choice, it was clear that the data was incomplete.

        Even Trump’s own pollsters were telling him the same story. In the final days of the campaign, even he had moments where he was almost ready to accept that his odds are indeed very long.

        Until somebody designs a way to reliably find out what people are ACTUALLY thinking and how they intend to vote (rather than what people are saying how they intend to vote), there is that chance that the polls are not accurate. In the past, they were almost always correct. This time, they weren’t, since a large percentage of the polling sample(s) weren’t honest with pollsters.

        1. You are DEAD WRONG!

          As usual, no surprise. Three polls did in FACT devise NEW METHODS to poll and all THREE were accurate for weeks leading up to Election Day.

          So, spew your typical excuse making BS 🐂💩 just because you are clueless and not up to the latest polling methods, does not automatically translate to the rest of us are behind –unlike you.

          You should remember that.

          1. Now you are simply making stuff up.

            Polling isn’t some obscure craft. It is a very straightforward method. You devise a sample of your potential audience, making effort to have the sample be as representative of your audience as possible (across various socio-economic and political criteria), you poll your sample, then correct for any specific deficiency in the sample.

            There was an article explaining the precise reasons why LA Times poll (the one which skewed towards Trump). In its effort to be as representative of the population as possible, it used various weighing methods, giving some respondents stronger weight in the final number than others, depending on who they represented. Since the original sample was a bit thin on educated black males, it gave them higher weight. There were these two particular black guys, somewhere in Midwest, who consistently polled in favour of Trump. This was statistically unlikely (based on polls specifically polling black voters across USA), so their two votes, representing a large percentage of the black vote in LA Times poll, pulled the results up in favour of Trump, since those two were heavily weighted.

            In the end, it wasn’t blacks who brought Trump victory (although he did better than Romney against Obama); it was the whites (especially uneducated ones). So, vast majority of polls were incorrect, and the reasons are mainly as I had stated before (people declined to admit who they were voting for). When your polling sample gives you incorrect answers, and you have no way of knowing that they re lying to you, you can’t have an accurate poll.

            Please show me the links to these three polls that somehow devised NEW METHODS (I suppose it sounds more convincing if you type it in all-caps…) that were able to accurately reflect the choices of voting public. You can’t because they don’t exist.

            1. “Now you are simply making stuff up.”

              Yeah, right.

              I repeat, three polls consistently had Trump winning for weeks using new methods of polling and weighting responses.

              Hey tedious brainless, I’m NOT doing your homework. Got it?

    4. “What does it say when you are actually embarrassed to admit who you’re voting for.”

      It says that people like you, Predrag, and other demagoguing leftists vilify people that support Trump and are a threat to democracy. Take your Orwellian “thought crime” regressive attitude and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  2. Now. The United States becomes a me me me (Trump Trump Trump) country. A bully asking for love from those who really make the country great… that’s how he start thinking about what’s next, and the world will follow? Maybe…

  3. It was less of a Trump win and more of a Hillary losing. I’m progressive and I can’t stand her and didn’t vote. She was shoved down our throats because it was “her turn” She had the DNC, part of the GOP, all of the press, and even both Bushes pulling for her and she still couldn’t win. The DNC has nobody but them selves to blame for losing this election

    1. “It was less of a Trump win and more of a Hillary losing.”

      Only a blind partisan would make such a ridiculous statement! It was an Electoral College blowout dating back to the 1980s. It was a populist revolt against the status quo establishment Dem party.

      From Yahoo News:

      “Not only do Republicans control the White House and both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, they now hold 33 governor’s offices.

      Republicans also command 32 state legislatures and have full control — meaning they hold the governor’s office and both legislative chambers — in 24 states, including swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, they controlled just nine.

      “There are more Republicans at the state legislative level than there have ever been,” said Tim Storey, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

      Got it?!?

      It’s OK, in your safe space and as an Artist I’m sure you can do some amazing things with crayons. 😘

      1. Quit making crap up! Trump did not achieve an Electoral College blowout at all, much less one of historical significance dating back to the 1980s. Obama won by much more in the Electoral College and +10M in the popular vote.

        You want *real* blowouts? Nixon in 1972. Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Those were Electoral Collage blowout.

        Don’t get me wrong…Trump’s win is historic in one sense. He is one of the very few people to win a U.S. Presidential election with fewer votes than his opponent. The last person to do that was George Bush in 2000. You know, the guy you all try to pretend never existed.

        1. That’s only if you don’t take out the 3 million illegal alien votes. So, no, he didn’t lose the popular vote of legal citizens.

          He didn’t win with Obama’s numbers, that is true, but Obama also achieved something you might not appreciate, the lowest level of Democrat state houses since the Civil War, and the first time the Congress and the Presidency has been in Republican hands since the 1920s.

      2. Just in case you are incapable of grasping the message…

        Obama 365 to McCain 173 in 2008 and 332-206 against Romney in 2012. That’s right, your “blowout” can’t even get past the last two election cycles. Stupid pricks on this forum.

          1. It’s tough to swallow that Trump is NOT the choice of the majority of Americans. And even with the immense advantage that Republicans as a conservative party have with the Electoral College system (heavy skew towards rural voters, at the expense of the urban, educated, progressive and liberal), his advantage was lower than the last two Democratic presidents.

            Look, you may scream that your country has liberal media bias, but as big as you think that bias may be, it can’t make up for the massive advantage conservatives have at every level of government, and especially at the federal level. 25 least populous states, currently heavily conservative, account for only 18% of the entire American population, but meanwhile hold 50% of the power, leaving the remaining 82% of the population with the other half. In no country in the world is that considered representative democracy except in America.

            1. “It’s tough to swallow that Trump is NOT the choice of the majority of Americans.”

              Nothing to swallow, brainless. This has happened in several elections dating back to the 1800s. And to educate you, the popular vote has NEVER picked a President in the history of the U.S.

              “And even with the immense advantage that Republicans as a conservative party have with the Electoral College system (heavy skew towards rural voters, at the expense of the urban, educated, progressive and liberal), his advantage was lower than the last two Democratic presidents.”

              There is NO SKEW for or against, anyone. The electoral college was put into place for the exact opposite of what you claim. Otherwise, the heavily skewed advantage would be the “urban, educated, progressive and liberal” voters in NYC and El-Lay. Demtards would win every election for thousands of years. So, God Bless the electoral college because the white, poor, uneducated hard working families have a voice and a choice!

              “Look, you may scream that your country has liberal media bias, but as big as you think that bias may be, it can’t make up for the massive advantage conservatives have at every level of government …”

              Advantage? Who has been running the federal government for the last eight years? You did not DENY liberal media bias. Because you can’t, it is a fact and indefensible.

              “In no country in the world is that considered representative democracy except in America.”

              Well, I have not studied land mass as it translates to voting power in every country across planet earth. And I don’t believe you have done so, either. Whatever, God Bless America!

            2. You are profoundly uninformed.

              The reasons for electoral college are many, but none are what you say (to prevent bias towards cities). The (likely unintended) consequence of the bizarre and arcane system is the heavy favouring of those white, poor, uneducated voters. You hadn’t mention the fact that half of the US states that have all-republican senators represent only 18% of the population, yet they control half of the power in the country’s legislative body. Exactly how is that not biased, you explain to me?

              Land mass does not vote. People vote. There is no logical reason why person who owns five square miles of land should have three times the political power (with his vote) than a person who lives in an apartment building, sharing an acre with 800 other people.

            3. I repeat, “And to educate you, the popular vote has NEVER picked a President in the history of the U.S.”

              Period.

              Cry and tedious blame away all you want. I stand by my comments.

            4. And you still haven’t defended any of them successfully.

              Popular vote has actually correctly picked US presidents almost all the time. There were only four presidents (five including Trump) who won electoral, but lost popular vote. Out of those five, four were republicans (one was Whig).

              For the lazy (who can’t be bothered to look this up), they are:

              John Quincy Adams
              Rutherford Hayes
              Benjamin Harrison
              George W Bush
              Donald Trump

            5. Look, kid, I’m a foreigner, no horse in your race, don’t really care that much either way.

              You keep trying to argue something against provable facts, and in your arguments, the only things you use are offensive language and childish insults, but no facts or links. You don’t see me calling a hack, an idiot, dumb, or anything else. Instead, I give you facts. Who do you think has stronger voice here?

            6. As for the last eight years, for the most part, republicans have been running it (with majorities in both houses). The president can’t really do much if the lawmakers won’t let him. There are very strong limits to your presidency in the USA; he isn’t a king or a dictator. I’m surprised you don’t know this, since it isn’t some well-kept government secret….

            7. “There are very strong limits to your presidency in the USA; he isn’t a king or a dictator.”

              You mean like the present day executive order in chief, bypassing Congress? Look forward to Trump, trumping them all.

              “I’m surprised you don’t know this …”

              I’m surprised you have the elitist gall to PRETEND to know what I know or don’t know. Pity.

            8. Truly uninformed (or uneducated).

              Look at what you wrote; then look at what I wrote. I corrected the major inaccuracy in your statement (implying that democrats were running the country for 8 years, while most of that time, republicans had control both of the congress and the senate).

              President is not a king or a dictator. There is a very limited range of things he can change with executive orders, and those can be (and often are) reversed by the succeeding president of the opposite party. Your message clearly indicated that you didn’t know this. So, either you purposely wrote incorrect things, even though you knew they were wrong, or you simply didn’t know them to begin with.

            9. Wow!

              Accelerated clueless with every post.

              Your personal attacks PRETENDING to tell me what I know or don’t know is a pointless exercise. But we’ve had eight years of pointless exercises.

              Too bad all that self-righteous indignation means NOTHING.

            10. You keep capitalising words as if it makes them be true.

              Once again (for the remedial class): I’m not PRETENDING (see, I can capitalise words too!) to be or do anything. I’m merely pointing out the inaccuracies in your text and deriving conclusions from them. once again, you either don’t know things, or you PRETEND (here it is again, that word) not to know things. Which is it? (seems that you are the one PRETENDING…)

            11. Also, I can’t seem to find any statement where I attacked you personally. I argued (with civil tone and plenty of arguments), and you seem to be the one making personal attacks (the words of choice were dumb, hack, brainless, idiotic…).

              There is nothing elitist in my arguments. All I said was that your country has an undemocratic system to elect its president. Most of the time, it doesn’t matter, as the result is in line with the voice of your people, but five times, it was not, and there is no valid excuse for it being so. You have yet to provide a valid argument in opposition to what I had said.

Reader Feedback

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