Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#11

Post by bryant »

mrangle wrote: post #10
bryant wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote. 87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0] I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on…

My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest. Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing. Ka…

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs.

As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.

The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.

[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."

---

Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#12

Post by mrangle »

bryant wrote: post #11
mrangle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest. Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing. Ka…

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs. As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. I…

You tell me what I supposedly implied, and then set that up as a shifted-goalposts straw-man argument.

Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".

It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.

Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.

Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.

I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.

You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!

The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.

I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.

Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.

But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#13

Post by tomhow »

bryant wrote: post #11
mrangle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest. Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing. Ka…

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs. As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. I…

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#14

Post by tomhow »

mrangle wrote: post #12
bryant wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs. As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. I…

You tell me what I supposedly implied, and then set that up as a shifted-goalposts straw-man argument. Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L". It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith. Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as t…

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#15

Post by [deleted] »

mrangle wrote: post #6
quantified wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GWB did indeed harm US's standing in the world, quite a bit. It's remarkable how far we've fallen, to be at all nostalgic for that regime.

That wasn't nostalgia on my end. I was only making an implied point. To remember that era clearly is to know that it is impossible for sentiment to be worse. My point is about the flaws of perception and memory, and regrettably immortal pabulum. US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United…

[deleted]

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#16

Post by Anonbrit »

If you need unfettered admin access to modernise software, you're incompetent. You might need to be able to run tools that collect schema and sample records as admin, but that should be controlled and auditable. This is true in a moderate size enterprise company, and should be much more true in government IT.

Re: Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

#17

Post by [deleted] »

tomhow wrote: post #13
bryant wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs. As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. I…

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]
Post reply on HN