Most active commenters
  • philipallstar(4)

←back to thread

639 points CTOSian | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
zaptheimpaler ◴[] No.45029926[source]
> importers must declare the exact amount of steel, copper, and aluminum in products, with a 100% tariff applied to these materials. This makes little sense—PCBs, for instance, contain copper traces, but the quantity is nearly impossible to estimate.

Wow this administration is f**ing batshit insane. I thought the tariffs would be on raw metals, not anything at all that happens to contain them.

replies(22): >>45029962 #>>45029965 #>>45030034 #>>45030053 #>>45030129 #>>45030340 #>>45030343 #>>45030393 #>>45030421 #>>45030466 #>>45030477 #>>45030502 #>>45030605 #>>45030634 #>>45030776 #>>45030954 #>>45030975 #>>45031125 #>>45031196 #>>45031214 #>>45031243 #>>45034509 #
duped ◴[] No.45030343[source]
> Wow this administration is f*ing batshit insane

It's reasons why this that I refuse to associate with Republicans in my daily life anymore. They are undeserving of respect or decency for how they continue to make our lives worse.

replies(12): >>45030372 #>>45030391 #>>45030434 #>>45030599 #>>45030704 #>>45030766 #>>45030932 #>>45031205 #>>45031210 #>>45031537 #>>45031828 #>>45035222 #
philipallstar ◴[] No.45030372[source]
Haven't people been saying this for a decade now? The democrats purity tests make this test for copper look like child's play.
replies(5): >>45030404 #>>45030483 #>>45030492 #>>45030758 #>>45032949 #
Mtinie ◴[] No.45030492[source]
I’m genuinely interested in which “purity tests” you are referring to. I’m all for bi-partisan ridicule if it’s warranted.
replies(1): >>45030564 #
1. throwmeaway222 ◴[] No.45030564[source]
https://nypost.com/2025/08/25/opinion/dems-nix-45-woke-words...
replies(2): >>45030612 #>>45032099 #
2. miltonlost ◴[] No.45030612[source]
An opinion article from the NY Post. Neat.
replies(1): >>45031071 #
3. philipallstar ◴[] No.45031071[source]
Isn't it better to argue the content than ad hominem the source?
replies(3): >>45031842 #>>45031956 #>>45032531 #
4. cosmicgadget ◴[] No.45031842{3}[source]
Hold on I will have an LLM write a 40-page rebuttal and when you don't read it I'll accuse you of ad homineming the AI.
replies(1): >>45037390 #
5. RankingMember ◴[] No.45031956{3}[source]
That source lost its right to the benefit of the doubt long ago.
replies(1): >>45037394 #
6. Mtinie ◴[] No.45032099[source]
Thank you for sharing.

Would you agree that Third Way’s positions and suggestions should be weighted differently than official federal government stances and actions?

7. anigbrowl ◴[] No.45032531{3}[source]
The content is also garbage (I read this a few days ago). They collected examples of the wackiest, most tortured language that they could (phrases like 'birthing person') and ascribed them to Democrats in general as if the party had some sort of crisis of cognition. The truth is that ivory-tower euphemisms like this are not common political currency, but ham-fisted attempts at communication by individuals or tiny groups with little or no political capital.

Tabloid trash publications like the NY Post are not honest messengers, but rather seek to amplify things like this using synecdoche to suggest that they're representative of the median Democrat. If the poster above wanted to showcase the underlying ideas, they could have just linked to the Third way website and paraphrased their argument directly, but instead they decided to share the gutter press version. I discount tabloid newspapers the same way I discount left-leaning outlets like Democracy Now! or Truthout - they might be right some of the time but the general level of bias outweighs their utility as providers of factual information, which is readily available from less biased sources.

8. philipallstar ◴[] No.45037390{4}[source]
Well, either you've just invalidated the concept of ad hominem being bad, or you haven't. Which is it?
replies(1): >>45040486 #
9. philipallstar ◴[] No.45037394{4}[source]
No benefit of the doubt required. Either read the content and comment on it or don't comment.
replies(1): >>45039290 #
10. RankingMember ◴[] No.45039290{5}[source]
> Either read the content and comment on it or don't comment.

These are not the only two options. Considering the source is always relevant and worthy of comment.

11. cosmicgadget ◴[] No.45040486{5}[source]
False dilemma. I have illustrated that distrusting slop and a propaganda magazine isn't ad hominem.