Introducing the EOSHD Tim Apple LUT for that washed out nationalist propaganda look

[deezid]

Someone noticed this here?
https://www.fontspace.com/buzzfeed-news/bf-tiny-hand

Just, how?
How do people look up to him?

[racer5]

"Apple has broken ground on its new $1 billion, 3-million-square-foot campus. The campus will initially house 5,000 employees, with the capacity to grow to 15,000, and is expected to open in 2022."

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/

 

While it's true they chose an existing plant for the photo op, ground was broken on a major new facility close by on the day Trump visited. 

[Mokara]

On 11/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, The ghost of squig said:

Dr Ford was sexually assaulted. You can read Dr Ford's testimony yourself: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/2018_09_26_Written_Testimony_of_Dr_Christine_Blasey_Ford.pdf

He did not rape her. She just thought he was going to. Nobody gets convicted for rape because someone thought they might do it. They actually have to do it.

What he allegedly did was common assault. From the description it was obvious that they were engaged in the sort of inappropriate horseplay that drunken people do. No matter how upsetting that is to the victim, that is what it was. If they really wanted to sexually assault her they would have done a lot more than that.

On 11/24/2019 at 6:26 PM, Chrad said:

You are wrong to equate them. Bernie Sanders held to the same beliefs for years, even though it made him politically unpopular. It took decades for enough of a critical mass to come around to his way of thinking that it became feasible for him to run for president. The evidence is that he is a man who has held true to his beliefs and fought for them all his life.

Trump on the other hand is a populist demagogue who made a late pivot into politics out of his business/entertainment career. Not that long ago he was considered to be a friend of the Clintons. 

The same number of people who support Sanders now supported him then. The only reason he was reasonably successful last time around is that the activists who support him dominate in a caucus system (same thing holds true in the Republican contests btw, just in the other direction). In states that had primaries Clinton was usually far ahead of him in support. The only state in 2016 that had both a caucus and a primary was Washington, so we can use that as a gauge of the disparity between a caucus contest and a primary contest. Sanders got 73% in the caucus and "won" the state. However, the state by law holds a primary as well, and when that was held, Clinton got 53% of the vote. The same sort of disparity was likely true in most other caucus states, meaning that the system was heavily rigged in favor of Sanders. His real support was such that he should never have come that close to the nomination. He was held in contention purely by the caucus states, he would have been thrashed if there had been primary votes in every state.

The same thing is true now. People like Sanders get the left wing activist vote because of the demagoguery he indulges in, but the real support in total voters in an open poll is a lot less. In a general election he might beat someone like Trump, but it is NOT because people support him, it is because people see him as the lesser of two evils.

[Mokara]

23 hours ago, abehalpert said:

First of all, Buttigieg claimed to have endorsements from dozens of black South Carolinians who did not endorse him. He also sent out a message with a list of endorsements that were implied to be from black people but many people on the list were white. This is racist in and of itself: he's putting words in the mouths of African-Americans so he can fool other African-Americans into voting for him.

He's also under a cloud of scandal for mishandling a police shooting (of a black person) in his town and also the firing of their first black police chief. The evidence against him is mounting, which is why he has so few black supporters and prominent blacks from South Bend have endorsed his opponents.

Sanders hasn't just been saying the same things for 40 years. He has been ACCURATELY diagnosing the problems of America. There are areas where I disagree with him and I'd be happy to tell you where. It's not a cult of the personality. I like his policies the most and I believe he would enforce them.

Say what you want about mental decline with age. All I know is that McConnell and Pelosi can predict the future of politics better than anyone else in the game. They know when a scandal is going to be a big deal and when it will blow over. They are more effective in their roles than younger folks have been. Experience counts. Again, I say that as a 30-year old buan avid reader of political news.

Lol....the reason he has very little black support is not because he is racist, it is because he is gay. The black community may be generally supportive of many liberal policies, but LGBT tolerance is not one of them. They are conservative when it comes to that.

Sanders has not been accurately diagnosing the problems in America, he has an unrealistic view of what they are and how to solve them. The policies he proposes have zero chance of getting through congress, he knows this, yet he pushes them as his platform anyway because that is what his supporters want to hear, instead of solutions that might actually work. He is great on the sweeping gestures, but short on exactly how they will be accomplished.

People like McConnell and Pelosi get to where they are not because of some secret wisdom, but because of a combination of patronage, the seniority system and bullying. Congress is set up that way, and that is the basic problem. The backbone of their support are a bunch of people not much younger than them, and they hold power that way. Their ideas have nothing to do with it, it is all about entrenched stagnation and not rocking their particular boat. There are plenty of younger folks with newer, fresher and more relevant ideas in both parties, but they are shut out because of how the system in congress is run.

[The ghost of squig]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

He did not rape her. She just thought he was going to. Nobody gets convicted for rape because someone thought they might do it. They actually have to do it.

What he allegedly did was common assault. From the description it was obvious that they were engaged in the sort of inappropriate horseplay that drunken people do. No matter how upsetting that is to the victim, that is what it was. If they really wanted to sexually assault her they would have done a lot more than that.

TRIGGER WARNING

"I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming."

You may think that's just foreplay, but as far as the law is concerned, that's sexual assault.

And BTW: Running defence for a sexual predator: really gross.

 

[abehalpert]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

Lol....the reason he has very little black support is not because he is racist, it is because he is gay. The black community may be generally supportive of many liberal policies, but LGBT tolerance is not one of them. They are conservative when it comes to that.

Sanders has not been accurately diagnosing the problems in America, he has an unrealistic view of what they are and how to solve them. The policies he proposes have zero chance of getting through congress, he knows this, yet he pushes them as his platform anyway because that is what his supporters want to hear, instead of solutions that might actually work. He is great on the sweeping gestures, but short on exactly how they will be accomplished.

People like McConnell and Pelosi get to where they are not because of some secret wisdom, but because of a combination of patronage, the seniority system and bullying. Congress is set up that way, and that is the basic problem. The backbone of their support are a bunch of people not much younger than them, and they hold power that way. Their ideas have nothing to do with it, it is all about entrenched stagnation and not rocking their particular boat. There are plenty of younger folks with newer, fresher and more relevant ideas in both parties, but they are shut out because of how the system in congress is run.

"Reducing Pete Buttigieg’s struggle to attract black support solely to black homophobia is not only erroneous, it is a disgusting, racist trope..." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/opinion/pete-buttigieg-black-homophobia.html

Sanders sounded the warning on climate change and growing inequality 30+ years ago because he saw the processes at work and understands the underlying mechanisms. Why do you think his solutions won't address the problems? As for implementing them, it's purely a matter of political will and support. Social security and medicare were vociferously opposed by the business interests of the day, but now they're the most popular programs in America.

I'm not talking about Pelosi and McConnell's ability to gain and retain power; I'm talking about their ability to get things done once they have it. They're very good at reading public opinion and predicting the future. That's how Pelosi passed the ACA and McConnell packed the courts. They know when to hold them and when to fold them. It's not about ideas, it's about tactics.

[abehalpert]

BTW here's an op-ed in the NYT that completely agrees with Andrew's original point: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/opinion/trump-apple.html

[Shell64]

I really wish this thread didn’t start. This is a camera forum guys. I love how we can all come together to talk about something we love. Why ruin this with such a decisive topic?  Obviously, we disagree on this issue, but that isn’t what this forum is about. Go on reddit for crying out loud!

[abehalpert]

5 minutes ago, Shell64 said:

I really wish this thread didn’t start. This is a camera forum guys. I love how we can all come together to talk about something we love. Why ruin this with such a decisive topic?  Obviously, we disagree on this issue, but that isn’t what this forum is about. Go on reddit for crying out loud!

You don't have to read this thread if you don't want to, let alone reply.

[Shell64]

Just now, abehalpert said:

You don't have to read this thread if you don't want to, let alone reply.

I know, I just think this all is a bit silly. 

[indianajones]

Andrew,

The BBC is not impartial, and neither is Wikipedia, you're a naive fool if you think otherwise.

[TiJoBa]

Yeah, I'd be careful thinking Wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone) is safe ground. It's certainly not as accurate as a well known encyclopedia edition.

 

[Andrew Reid]

That's enough now.