it was a joke, captain serious.
Well that's annoying, I wanted to get into a 10 page argument about what China does and why no one hates China enough.
• The U.S. government should maintain higher tariffs on imports of goods from China
(1) of which China is the dominant supplier and that the Departments of Defense and
Commerce consider key technologies and (2) that could undermine U.S. industries con-
sidered critical to U.S. economic or national security.
• To maintain the overall competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and to benefit U.S. con-
sumers, the U.S. Trade Representative should offer to negotiate reductions of U.S. tariffs
on nonsensitive imports of consumer goods and manufacturing inputs from China in
exchange for reductions in Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods.
Wow, it's almost like whether we have tariffs or not doesn't depend solely on the economic outcomes of them but instead also depends on China's offensive measures. Perhaps you need to replace "tariffs" with "bombs" and you'd get it? "We will stop bombing you if you stop bombing us" seems like it's better for you to read because you keep getting hung up on "ahhh muh economy".
i'm in a trump thread commenting on a proposal trump made. "there are other people recommending different things that are possibly more rational than this thing" is largely irrelevant to me.
You made a generalized statement about Tariffs Never Working And Are Always Bad. Some of Trump's tariffs are Actually Good. His new plans Are Probably Not Good. You haven't delineated between the two up to now.
not really, it's just hard to be anything more than halfhearted when i reply to posts that don't actually read the things i write and are 90% "don't you agree you're obviously wrong?" and "here's 10 things i'm not saying. can you guess what i am saying?"
Not reading the things that I write is how this argument mostly got started, to the point that you're like "hmm your position has changed, but I won't explain why, because it's funny". How dare you use the "ur retartet but u donut even kno it and I walnut tel u y" on me.
i think it sounds way dumber to make an argument by analogy that relies on russia : ukraine :: china : united states. i do not agree that chinese steel exports are literally an existential threat to the united states. or anything close. and i think inflation and unemployment are worse than just "muh economy."
Nice opinion.
from my point of view, the analogy is that trump proposes simply carpet-bombing the entirety of ukraine. when i say that this is fucking stupid, you pop in to be like "okay but the dept of defense actually recommends increasing targeted strikes of russian supply bases in eastern ukraine while lowering strikes elsewhere because they themselves demonstrate that all strikes come at a significant cost. i bet you feel so dumb now." i don't, though.
Trump routinely proposed ridiculous things in his first term, then backed off of them to more sane numbers. It's part of his "I make deals" meme. Surely you picked up on that by now.