I think people are reading an implication of "would be justified and righteous" into the use of the word "should" in the phrase "the White House should be furious" in the GP comment.

Yes, this is correct. Amazon showing tariff surcharge is a huge deal to Trump's approval rating due to the fact that 180m Americans subscribe to Prime, which means many people will directly see the effect of the tariffs.

But I think people got too angry too fast to understand my point.

Not to get into pedantics, but just to offer a helpful explanation, I think it's because you used "should" instead of "would". It's no big deal, but in your sentence, should implies reasonable, while would implies expected. (Even though should also has a usage where it means expected, that's only when you're unsure of something happening in the future, whereas this event has already happened.)

I thought the White House response was reasonable. That’s why I used should.

> I thought the White House response was reasonable.

Reasonable in what sense?

Reasonable in the sense that a con-man doesn't want his con revealed?

Or reasonable in the sense that they have a principled position against the proposed action by AMZN?

I get the feeling that you're being too clever by half with your phrasing.

I hate being right. I remember years ago predicting that if MAGA got back in they’d levy a huge tax increase they’d call a tax cut and a huge spending increase they’d call a spending cut.

My other big prediction for years has been that it’ll be MAGA that will do mass gun confiscation in defiance of the second amendment. Let’s see how that one does. Of course all the MAGA folks would be fine with it because it's not mass gun confiscation by the "new world order" if Trump does it.