• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    152·
    2 days ago

    Right wing does not argue in good faith. I’m reminded of that Sartre quote

    Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

  • unalivejoy@lemm.eeEnglish
    761·
    2 days ago

    Heritage deletes the article in 30 minutes lol.

    So where’s the article archive?

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    47·
    2 days ago

    In case there was anyone left who wasn’t already certain that he was lying when he said that he had nothing to do with the Project 2025 people.

    Not sure how that could be possible given the events of the past several weeks… But I’m continuously astounded by people’s ignorance.

  • CarbonIceDragon
    28·
    2 days ago

    Honestly I think tariffs could be a good thing if used in certain ways, but certainly not in the manner that the orange idiot has been applying them. They act to make targeted products more expensive, so if one was to specifically tariff goods made under labor conditions that would be illegally substandard in this country, such as under safety conditions that wouldn’t meet our regulations or with purchasing power adjusted wages that would be below our minimum, and set the tariff amount so as to make those goods just a bit more expensive than if they had been made under conditions that at least met our standards, you could reduce the economic incentive for companies to outsource to places where they can exploit their workforce more, and reduce the incentive for those places to avoid improving their labor laws. Trump would never use them for something like that though.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      15·
      2 days ago

      Agreed, but I would use tariffs as a form of carbon tax on countries w/o sufficient climate policies. Individual companies/products could reduce the tariff by proving how much pollution is actually produced.

      I suppose you could extend that to other negative externalities we want to control for as well.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        7·
        2 days ago

        Great use for them. If the reason it’s cheaper is that they aren’t paying the externalities, then adding a tariff is a great way to compensate for that.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        3·
        2 days ago

        Or tariffs on countries with terrible labour policies. It’s always annoyed me that labour is never involved in free trade negotiations and the stuff that makes it in are requirements for standardisation or intellectual property, but never anything about labour standards.

        Of course, that’s by design, because all of those things are neoliberal constructs and the whole point of those is to break labour power, but it’s disappointing you never even see anyone pay lip service to anything like that.

  • turnip@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    41·
    2 days ago

    Why would the heritage foundation support a border wall and capital punishment, two crazy things Trump just happens to have been talking about for decades.

    It has a section on restructuring the Fed, removing bailouts for banks, and setting a 3% annual growth in the money supply. Which is amazing, so I’m not even mad.