Frank wrote on Aug 13^th, 2025 at 4:08pm:


Breitbart, what a flapping joke.

It's what Navarro leaves out (or distorts) that's what is important.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, tariffs were one of the few ways to raise federal revenue. The US was a developing, industrialising nation competing with established powers. Today, the US is a mature, service-heavy economy with complex global supply chains.

Historically, high tariffs often provoked trade retaliation, raised consumer prices, and sometimes harmed the very industries they were meant to protect (eg, the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930 worsened the Great Depression). Navarro ignores these downsides.

Hamilton and Clay's tariffs were targeted in a far smaller, less interconnected economy. Trump's tariffs are broad, global, and hit US allies as well as rivals, which has disrupted supply chains and raised costs for US manufacturers.  Basically, what I said here.

There's little hard evidence that Trump's tariffs in 2018–2020 significantly boosted US manufacturing in the long run. Some industries saw short-term gains, but many more faced higher input costs and lost export markets.

But as seems on trend for you Frank, as long as someone tells you what you want to hear, reinforcing what you already believe, the research stops there.

Copy and paste here, then insult or ignore those who looked at both sides of the coin.

Tariffs have a much, much longer history than free trade.

Frank wrote on Aug 14^th, 2025 at 10:45am:


Nobody is saying tariffs are bad per se.

It's the way Trump - the adjudicated rapist and convicted felon - applies them that's the problem.

He has no idea what he's doing, as usual.

Tariffs need to be wielded like a surgeon's scalpel, not a blacksmith's sledge hammer.

Frank wrote on Aug 14^th, 2025 at 11:50am:


I think you've broken him, haha. He's reduced to copy-pasting the same thing over and over, stuck in a loop. The cognitive dissonance has won, and he's parroting his own words so he doesn't have to confront what you've said. It's a level of weakness that's almost impressive in its fragility.

Frank wrote on Aug 14^th, 2025 at 3:21pm:


You only say that because you keep stripping out everything you can't handle when quoting people and then refusing to answer the straightforward question of what source you'll actually accept when someone provides citations and evidence.

Anything to ensure you're never held to account.

No wonder you're so devoted to Trump, he's terrified of accountability as well.

SadKangaroo wrote on Aug 13^th, 2025 at 4:36pm:



Long on assertions, shot on evidence - even though you gthink you are a champion of evidence based intellectual arguments.