leadore @ leadore @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

988

Joined

1 yr. ago

Thanks! Yes, I had read that the de minimis exception was removed for China.

So that sounds like CBP is calculating the tariffs for everything when it arrives, then the postal service takes it from there and collects what you owe when you pick it up from them or they deliver it to you. I guess that makes sense. I just wonder if even CBP even knows what the correct current rates are, based on the article. I guess they do, but the people/companies importing stuff probably don't and might be quite surprised at what they get charged!

If you're unable to answer the questions, just don't respond.

I got my desktop computer from https://www.currentbuild.com/

So how does this all work in practice? You order something from China and it will be sent over on a ship. At what point do you pay for the item, what steps does it go through to get to you, and how/when do you pay the tariff to the government?

Say you pay the Chinese company $100 online for your order and they ship it. So it arrives on US soil. Who picks it up there, the USPS? Who determines what the tariff amount should be and collects it? Some shipping company or port authority inspector or what? At what point does someone deliver it to you and collect the tariff from you?

Trump supporter who didn't vote in the election wants sympathy for also being too lazy/apathetic to bother to vote for him. That actually puts her half a rung higher on my sympathy scale than trump opponents who could have voted for Harris to stop him but didn't.

Atallah is planning to leave for Lebanon in a few days, and he is not sure what will happen when he tries to return.

raises one eyebrow How strong a mental block can people have, that even after this experience returning from Canada, he's "not sure what will happen" when he returns from Lebanon?

You beat me to it, declaring this is the day that will be marked in history.

I'm calling today, with the conclusive fall of the Judicial branch, the day that the US officially became a dictatorship by definition.

The day when no one can still pretend there's any gray area left. Courts, the last remaining "check and balance", officially no longer have any say in what the regime does.

'They're Draining Resources'

"Building new power plants and taking all the water just to service broligarchs' AI businesses is fine, though."

“Damn that’s wild because I voted for you to have zero tariffs and a $50K tax break as a small business owner under Kamala,” reads the top comment under the video.

One of the best comments because it's true and he can't dismiss it as people being mean or reveling in his pain, just stating reality.

She hasn't seen a dime from him and never will in the remainder of her lifetime. If she was much younger and trump hadn't won again she might have had a chance, but her victory is basically symbolic only. I'm sure you know that the rich can just keep appealing what amounts to forever since the legal system crawls at the speed of a sloth. Legal, and especially financial consequences do not apply to oligarchs.

Elon will just pay the settlement for them with $DOGE or $TRUMP.

Or he just won't. What's anyone going to do about it?

Just to clarify, since I don't know if my experience is what you all are describing: this sounds kind of like what I hear if I start a yawn. Is the rumbling sound just for a second or can you make it indefinitely? And can you also make a short click or series of clicks?

I can get those sounds if I tense up some muscle(s) that you would also use to start a deliberate yawn. The clicks are easy to make, with less tension, and the rumble happens with more tension and it's only for about a second or so. Also I definitely hear the rumble during a yawn. Does that sound like what you mean or am I describing something completely different?

That's my point and why I say they didn't do the cartoon right. If they wanted to say what you explained, we'd have to see the first person answering "no". As it is, the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn't the answer is lying/hypocritical.

I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply--that there are no true pacifists and people who say they're against violence are hypocrites who actually like violence when it's used to protect their privileged position. They just didn't do it right.

First, true pacifists do exist, who would answer "yes" to the first two questions--and which would make the last question ridiculous. So if the cartoonist's goal was to criticize the hypocrites, they just needed to show the first person answering the first two questions with an unqualified "no" to show they didn't really mean what they said in the first panel.

First panel: I agree with the aspiration to avoid violence but allow for circumstances like self-defense or defense of a vulnerable party.

Second panel: I do agree we shouldn't give them weapons, at the least not lethal weapons, certainly not military-grade weapons.

Third panel: If you want to be capable of preserving your national sovereignty, having a military is required, therefore justified in that context.

Fourth panel: While the two previous questions logically follow from the position stated in the first panel, the last question makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur from the stated position. [i.e. "Violence is never a solution" --> "oh, so do you mean it's a solution in this one case? !? !" <--non-sequitur]

I'm watching Freetube right now, still working. v0.23.3

Oh, definitely.

Two hours before he paused them he tweeted (or whatever you call it) "NOW is a good time to buy"

When I was older I loved dancing on tables in nightclubs now I just want silence

"But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" --Bob Dylan