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

Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 931 posts

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#911

Post by _Tev »

mulmen wrote: post #823
Neonlicht wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you it seems everyone has already forgotten project 2025. Look I don't want to be too harsh on Americans nobody took the Nazis seriously when they had already written a book about how they saw the world... But none of this is shocking. There is an ideology behind what Trump is doing and he never hid it from the world.

As an American please be careful blaming all of us for this. Less than 1 in 4 Americans voted for Trump. It doesn’t mean you need to buy an F-150 but please separate the concept of the American people from the GOP voter base. The complexities of our electoral system and our unique racist history made this very hard to avoid. Please don’t assume Americans in general wanted this or are ok with it. > nobody took the Naz…

> Less than 1 in 4 Americans voted for Trump

Yea and it seems the 75% of population cannot do anything about Trump now.

I wonder when people will wake up to the fact that USA does not actually have a democracy.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#912

Post by arandomusername »

actualwitch wrote: post #903
arandomusername wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said Trump dismantled social nets. Your AI slop doesn't mention any social nets that were dismantled. Please tell me, what social nets could one rely on before Trump that they cannot now? > but it doesn't include stuff like people's pension plans being dependent on economy being in "number go up" state, which is not the case now. Sounds like a ponzi scheme.

So is it that you fail to see how any of the actions mentioned in the "AI slop" can result in lack of access to safety nets by certain population groups, or do you merely assign no value to those specific nets or those specific population groups? In former case I suggest you refer to dictionary, otherwise a history book will do. Look up what happens in any of the authoritarian regimes when all the undesirables are pr…

You said safety nets were dismantled. Please tell me, what safety net was dismantled. Just one, the biggest one you can think of.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#913

Post by righthand »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #851
righthand wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still have another 90+ days to figure this out. Perhaps you have fallen victim to believing each move is a different game than last time. To me it appears all someone did was shuffle the pieces.

We don't have another 90+ days. The 145% tariff is in effect right now. Whoever told you about the 90 days was intentionally trying to trick you; there are other tariffs that were delayed for 90 days, but the announcement delaying those tariffs made it extremely clear that this one was not delayed.

No one tricked me, you’re just jumping to conclusions based on what I wrote and what point you want to make.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#914

Post by lukas099 »

_heimdall wrote: post #872
lukas099 wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could fix it now, before the Constitutional crisis, which is what we were talking about from the start.

Were we? This chain started with the idea of getting rid of the concept of the president and moving to a parliamentary system. Then it shifted a bit into giving the judicial branch its own law enforcement agency. Those both risk creating a constitutional crisis, not avoiding one.

Amending the Constitution to create a judicial law enforcement agency would not, in itself, be a Constitutional crisis. Or if you meant that such an agency could then cause one, yeah that could happen in theory, but so could the Executive causing a crisis because the courts don't have an enforcement arm. And to act like the President causing the crisis isn't the more likely scenario in 2025 would be stupifyingly ignorant.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#915

Post by freejazz »

arandomusername wrote: post #900
freejazz wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Anyone who is fair would see it exactly how I see it!" That's not what I was saying. I was saying anyone would reflect there is a long list of questionable behavior. Whether or not you think that is disqualifying is your opinion. Scam university, scam banks, scam businesses. These are facts of Donald Trump's past, not opinions. >Wonderful way to have a conversation, isn't it. Everything else in your response is nit…

> That's not what I was saying. I was saying anyone would reflect there is a long list of questionable behavior. Whether or not you think that is disqualifying is your opinion. Scam university, scam banks, scam businesses. These are facts of Donald Trump's past, not opinions. If I address any of those points, would I be nitpicking and picking on minor details? > You didn't say that the other example was groping. You…

>If I address any of those points, would I be nitpicking and picking on minor details?

If you only did that while ignoring my main point, yeah. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for you to grasp.

>The user brought up groping and injecting bleach. I refuted the bleach argument, leaving the groping argument alone. It's also not technically right, it's completely incorrect and absolutely disingenous framing.

Disagree there, which can be fine and reasonable. But don't pretend you addressed the poster's point, which wasn't the bleach thing. This is basic reading comprehension, again.

>I addressed ONE of the TWO reasons the user provided. What other reason am I supposed to have addressed? Should I start making some up?

He provided more than two and you didn't address his point at all. You just repeatedly bickered about small details about one of the points and said he had bad intentions.

>Rest of your post isn't worth addressing it's just the same junk.

Look who is talking. I wish I could report posters like you, you're the worst.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#916

Post by actualwitch »

arandomusername wrote: post #912
actualwitch wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it that you fail to see how any of the actions mentioned in the "AI slop" can result in lack of access to safety nets by certain population groups, or do you merely assign no value to those specific nets or those specific population groups? In former case I suggest you refer to dictionary, otherwise a history book will do. Look up what happens in any of the authoritarian regimes when all the undesirables are pr…

You said safety nets were dismantled. Please tell me, what safety net was dismantled. Just one, the biggest one you can think of.

Again, I provided a whole list, you just refuse to count them. Even the SSA cut alone will result in people being unable to access the services they need, as repeatedly discussed in media:

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-social-security-office-cl...

If you still insist that none of what I posted fits your definition of social net being dismantled, I invite you to post a definition that you have in mind. Given that I am confident I can find a match for it in activities of the admin.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#917

Post by keybored »

t-writescode wrote: post #815
keybored wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the same thing as being pro-business. Big business out-competes small businesses again and again. The idea of smol business being viable (see: this whole thread) is just the marketing front.

Well, it's also a US- vs the rest of the world thing. Big businesses destroying local economies, local health, local taxes, etc, is a very American problem. See [0] for a study on the topic. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7-e_yhEzIw "These Ugly Big Box Stores are Literally Bankrupting Cities" - Not Just Bikes

It’s a most-advanced-capitalist-power problem. Any other capitalist leader would have caused the same result.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#918

Post by arandomusername »

freejazz wrote: post #915
arandomusername wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what I was saying. I was saying anyone would reflect there is a long list of questionable behavior. Whether or not you think that is disqualifying is your opinion. Scam university, scam banks, scam businesses. These are facts of Donald Trump's past, not opinions. If I address any of those points, would I be nitpicking and picking on minor details? > You didn't say that the other example was groping. You…

>If I address any of those points, would I be nitpicking and picking on minor details? If you only did that while ignoring my main point, yeah. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. >The user brought up groping and injecting bleach. I refuted the bleach argument, leaving the groping argument alone. It's also not technically right, it's completely incorrect and absolutely disingenous framing. Disa…

It's like going in circles with you. Let's start simple.

> He provided more than two

What other reasons did he provide?

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#919

Post by arandomusername »

actualwitch wrote: post #916
arandomusername wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said safety nets were dismantled. Please tell me, what safety net was dismantled. Just one, the biggest one you can think of.

Again, I provided a whole list, you just refuse to count them. Even the SSA cut alone will result in people being unable to access the services they need, as repeatedly discussed in media: https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-social-security-office-cl... If you still insist that none of what I posted fits your definition of social net being dismantled, I invite you to post a definition that you have in mind. Given that…

That does not make it dismantled. People can still get social security. Just because some office is closed and now they have to travel further or do it online, does not make it dismantled.

Dismantled means destroyed. To take apart. It means that people can no longer rely on it. Them having to use the internet instead of calling is not dismantling.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#920

Post by JustExAWS »

hedora wrote: post #324
JustExAWS wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tech company can’t shoot me with impunity under “qualified immunity”. Put me in jail, harass me because I don’t look like a belong in my own neighborhood, take my property under civil forfeiture without a trial…

They can permanently ban you from the economy though.

There is no company that would ruin me if I lost an account.
Post reply on HN