And without the skilled workers his vision would be exactly that, a vision?

“Providing jobs” is something he do if he were operating a charity. He makes a profit from the labor of his employees. No employees, no profits. If he weren’t making a profit employing people, he wouldn’t employ people.

The Trump tariffs are in retaliation to tariffs that have been in place for decades.

In fairness, protectionism is not historically a right wing thing, or at least the intellectual branch of conservatives has been a stronger proponent of free trade than most others in politics.

All you had to do was watch Hamilton during the last race. He’s a great driver and all that but it wasn’t even a competition, the dude powered from last to 5th in no time, as his car is so incredibly superior to all the others except for the Ferrari and Red Bulls. Most drivers were just moving aside as they knew…

Reverse: paying to park is a public good. Free parking is an expensive bane to the reasonable flow of ppl in/around business areas. Parking is heavily subsidized to begin with, as are cars. Congestion pricing, charging for parking, etc etc are all well known and understood ways to keep cars from making downtowns into…

Pretty sure that’s a Lambo, dude.

The best part is, you can definitely benefit from a trade war if you’re unscrupulous enough to not divest yourself from your business interests when taking office. At least he stood behind that table full of manila envelopes and blank paper to show that....uhhh??

The problem becomes perspective. How do you convince these people that they’re cutting off their own noses when someone shows them a made up picture of (a democrat) standing there with a knife and a persons nose?

We have a 25% tariff on a whole slew of vehicles - about 60% of the US market, actually.  60%*25%+40%*2.5% = an average tariff of about 16%.

Good, then we will be able to refocus our security concerns to our true enemy, Canada.

F150 and Silverado have been extremely popular for decades. I was referencing the overall shift of market share among vehicle types. Truck sales have been relatively flat over the past 40 years, despite minor fluctuation based on the economy or gas prices. Cars have lost marketshare mostly to SUV’s.

This isn’t about the cause of the crash. This article, and the studies, say nothing about the cause of the crashes.

Well this is what happens when you try to counter data (SUVs kill disproportionately) with opinion (distracted driving is deadlier than SUVs). You walked out on this limb.

To be fair the title and lead paragraph(you know, the click generating parts) were kinda misleading too. Headline: ‘Death on foot: America’s love of SUVs is killing pedestrians’ and then the article goes on to examine multiple contributing causes, one of which is SUVs, but never really reaches a verdict as to whether…

Perhaps the reason you’re getting argumentative responses is that, while you’re making a perfectly reasonable point that distracted driving is a problem, there’s no reason to make impact-survivability its enemy. It’s a little like responding to an article about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the risk of HIV…

If you’d read the original article where the research was done rather than the Jalopnik article it examines multiple contributing causes. Distracted driving and walking have both gone up contributing to more pedestrian impacts and therefore deaths, SUV driving has gone up which means a higher proportion of pedestrian…

There’s literally a section in the referenced article titled “Distraction and other factors,” as well as a section here plainly stating:

Well, the point of this study would still stand even if smartphone usage were a factor as well—regardless of how likely to be hit due to distracted driving/walking, if/when you’re hit, you’re more likely to die if hit by an SUV.