> These examples don't prove your point though, so they were easily countered.
I guess I missed the part where you "countered" them. Saying "that's not true" is not an argument.
> You even gave up the point when admit Obama's tariffs were "nothing as sweeping or rushed as what is going on now".
I didn't "give up the point" -- I can admit when something is different in scale while still nothing the fundamental shift in historical stance.
Some more examples for you:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/business/energy-environme...
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steel-dumping-2014071...
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...
I'm not sure who is arguing against ever using tariffs in general. Obama's, like Trump's tariffs against China, they were at least planned and somewhat targeted for a specific purpose. The argument against Trump's tariffs this time around has always been they are capricious.