The post being replied to says "the tarrifs", clearly referring to the current set of tarrifs implemented by this admin, not the concept of tarrifs in general, otherwise they'd have just said "tarrifs".

▲

hdgvhicv 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sure. You can support these exact tarrifs and not support trump in general

If you have to be against everything Trump does to be against Trump that’s a problem, and you’d be a hypocrite (like Trump)

▲

stouset 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's not even what's being argued here.

What's being pointed out is the retcon that "the whole damn point of the tariffs" is to end rampant consumerism. It's clear that the grand^{n}parent poster is flailing about and desperately trying to find the comfort of some coherent and intentional narrative behind a set of inherently incoherent and unintentional actions.

▲

ActorNightly 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yall missing the point.

If your manager at work acted like a legit insane person, but said one true thing, you wouldn't be there saying that he/she is smart in that particular area.

If by some chance in hell tarrifs actually work, its due to pure luck, not due to any strategy. Which is what the original person I am replying to made it seem.

	▲	hdgvhicv a day ago \| parent [-]
		I believe the phrase is “even a broken clock is right twice a day”.