Or perhaps: he could be lying about one and not the other.
I don't know if you've noticed, but politicians never follow through with either 0% or 100% of their promises. It's somewhere in the middle. Similarly, nobody lies either 0% or 100% of the time. It's somewhere in the middle.
It's very feasible he could lie about one and not the other. Because the association with Project 2025 was harmful to his candidacy, so it was beneficial to lie. But the tariff plan wasn't harmful to his candidacy, because average people don't understand how tariffs work anyway.
You have an extremely black-and-white, simplistic approach to every political question. It's like you cannot comprehend outside of absolutes. That's not how people work.
In addition, even if the two possibilities (lying about one, not lying about the other) were mutually exclusive, it still wouldn't be irrational to consider both. I could worry that either were true. If someone shot someone else in the torso, i could worry that the shot hit the heart or the lung, even if it couldn't have hit both. Either is possible.
Eh, I don't know why I bother though. Your original point-- defending tariffs, saying they won't raise prices-- fell through long ago, and you're not even bothering to defend it in principle anymore, you're just deflecting like you always do. You're not even actually thinking about the subject you're talking about anymore. Just desperately trying to get a "win", even if it doesn't make any goddamn sense.
Last edited:
)
