Plus it’s way too big

I would have until this comment :)

For sure it’s a two part thing, but regardless of the increased cost of US cars due to other tariffs, the price will still include the opportunistic gaming US car companies will play based on the car tarrif trump is stupidly rotting with.

Conceivably the only benefit the auto tarrif will do is allow US companies try to remain competitive against foreign companies who won’t have to deal with the materials tariffs he’s stupidly straddling US companies with.

Makes sense, but it still seems like all the recognizable ‘quotes’ mentioned are quotes the movie used, and not ones that are came from the movie itself, to the point where it would only be in very specific context where anyone saying them would be quoting Aliens.

The problem here isn’t the increased price of goods, it’s the fact that Trump knows increasing the price of non-US built cars via tarrif gives US car companies an advantage that could be used to sell more cars for less money, but will really just give US car companies the opportunity to raise prices any amount they choose, as long as it’s slightly less than the tarrif, thereby making more money and enjoying the advantage of not paying the tariffs. People will still buy cars, and they might buy American cars because they’re now a little cheaper than non-US… But if they do this, the tariffs will pretty much only result in higher priced cars across the board instead of affordable IS cars vs expensive foreign ones.

Basically someone explained to Trump one of the many ways the tariffs will be backfiring, and he’s ineffectually asking companies not to do that.

Problem is that a well paid and well educated workforce will make more money ‘sometime after the next quarter’ and in a diffuser way spread evenly across the board.

Stiffing people and withholding raises will show a profit within a quarter someone’s bonus is based on.

Guess which option the people who get the bonuses will pick.

Honestly the ‘fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value’ might be the phrase we’ll look back on as the downfall of the human race.

Seriously, what can possibly make that worth adding?

But you said there was probably cause, and then brought up a bunch of stuff there’s no reason to assume the cops ‘knew’ before arresting him.

The top two are obviously familiar, but certainly wouldn’t attribute the first one to that movie. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the next two phrases used or remember them from the movie, and never heard anyone use ‘mostly’ as a reference from that movie.

Maybe it’s an insider thing

Yet you suggest there was enough to know how bad contained cash and he was on a bus from New York

Are you guessing at this, or are you claiming that is what was actually reported?

My understanding is that it was an employee at the restaurant that reported him. ‘Mall adjacent to a bus stop’ seems a little less ‘first hand account that he was on a bus from New York’ and more circumstancial like ‘he came in at the same time as some others, had a different color hoodie and different color backpack than the description, but very broadly matched “white guy with hoodie”’.

Basically exactly what should get an improper arrest thrown out if you detain someone without cause, fail to Mirandize, search them and then find something incriminating.

Probably? Based on what? McDonalds around you often note which bus you get off of, do they?

That is true but pretty irrelevant. Is a law enforced is a completely different question from is it a law, and it’s not an insignificant degree of difference.

That’s like someone asking if chocolate ice cream exists and you saying it’s possible no one likes it. Technically true but irrelevant to the question.

They knew he got off a bus from New York and that his backpack was full of cash? By the fact that he was sitting in a mcdonalds?

And he didn’t match the outfit, just similar. You think the cops from around the us were justified in searching anyone white in a hoodie because someone in New York did something?

Technically yes, especially since this was a technical question, he wasnt asking if he would get pulled over, he was asking if there was a law being broken. You probably wouldn’t get arrested for hooking your donkey to a post on main Street on a Sunday in Colorado springs, but if you asked if there was a law against it, the answer would be in the codified law, not in is likelihood of a cop knowing it.

That just calculates into whether you get pulled over or get a ticket. He specifically asked if it was breaking a law which has little to do with where the cop is a dick or not. Doesn’t technically even depend on the judge.

Why do you think they had reasonable suspicion?