Trump Calls For Boycott Of Apple Amid His Feud With The Pope

GOP candidate Donald Trump called for a boycott of the tech Giant Apple on Friday. The reason for the boycott: Apple’s refusal to comply with the FBI to unlock the cellphone of one of the killers in the San Bernardino, California, attack.

.@RealDonaldTrump calls for Apple boycott until they unlock San Bernardino shooter's phone: https://t.co/mar3b6U2XX pic.twitter.com/0fUVSbT6si

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 19, 2016

A move which Apple themselves are claiming would “set a bad precedent for consumer privacy.” On the contrary, some are calling Apple’s defiance against federal agents as purely a marketing decision.

Reuters broke the story claiming that more specifically, Trump said on a whim, at a campaign event in Pawleys Island, South Carolina, “Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information, it just occurred to me.”

Trump announced the boycott at a town-hall-style event at the country club a day before the GOP nominating contest Saturday Night in Charleston.

Trump had previously attacked Apple when he called out the company for not making more Apple products in the United States which also could be fueling his wish for a boycott.

Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, noted that the business tycoon does not use an iPhone either.

However, 9to5Mac ironically points out that Trump — or whoever his social media manager is — tweeted the message from an iPhone.

The Apple-centric website also claims that it will keep an eye on Apple’s stock to see if Trump’s boycott outcry has actually dealt a blow to the tech company.

As of right now the company’s stock (APPL) does appear to be down by 0.22 percent, but it is difficult to conclude whether the drop was caused by Trump’s boycott and his supporters yet.

However, Apple users are becoming more vocal on the case and showing their support.

Growing group of folks at the SF Apple Store. Showing support of Apple's decision to protect encryption for users. pic.twitter.com/UKIwf5qYPK

— Doctor Popular (@DocPop) February 18, 2016

So far, no images or stories of protesters supporting the Apple boycott have emerged yet.

Trump has been making more enemies than ever with increasingly prominent figures lately as the elections draw near.

It is unthinkable that someone would personally attack the Pope, but even he is among those whom Trump is fighting with as the Pope finishes up his tour in Mexico.

The Inquisitr reports that perhaps Trump wouldn’t mind a boycott against the Pope as the former Apprentice host recently reduced the globally recognized spiritual leader to a mere “political pawn” to fit an agenda.

Trump chastised The Pope’s Christian credibility in a statement that he issued after being called a non-Christian by the Pope for his divisive views on immigration.

Trump lashed back at the Pope,

“No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.”

Then, in a possible rare instance of what could be a display of humility from Trump, the Inquisitr has discovered that the presidential candidate has admitted that he does not like fighting with the Pope.

Another one of Trump’s enemies, Edward Snowden — who emerged out of the shadows to show his support for Apple amid the entire debacle — Tweeted in defense against Trump’s boycott calls.

can we boycott trump instead

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 19, 2016

As always, Donald Trump’s voice is loud and influential. And American consumers love Apple products maybe as much as they love the Pope, but maybe not as much as they love Donald Trump.

It will be interesting to see which way his supporters, and the American public in general, will react to Apple’s defiance — eventually on where to stand regarding the Apple vs. the federal government case.

This is a case which truly invokes a cognitive dissonance for American citizens and lawmakers, because as such, they want to protect constitutional privacy rights, by not allowing the government to choose when to invade it, under any circumstance.

Or choose to not set any precedents for privacy invasion — even if it means letting murderous criminals have that right to privacy as well.

Which side would you choose?

[AP Images/David Becker]