TylerDurden

They won't, at least not as the PR stunts promise. The finances don't work for a variety of reasons. This is one of the ruses that politicians play. Hold a presser promising thousands of jobs, give away millions in tax dollars, if not billions...then, nothing. Recall the Foxconn fiasco. It's a story the continues to be repeated. Photo ops with shovels, 1/10th of the promises are delivered, if that. For instance, during the last Trump administration, he touted steel tariffs as a huge win because there was a slight uptick in US steel jobs, but that was outstripped by job losses in steel-related industries. It was a net loss - certainly nothing to celebrate. There certainly will be some industries that already have infrastructure in place may decide to ramp up production on a temporary basis, but that's window dressing. Car manufacturers, for instance, could increase production on a line or two for a short time, but it won't be a repatriation of production. I do understand the emotional element of this and I am not going to discount that factor in the decisions that are being made, because it appeals to a large portion of the voter pool. The US, historically, was a big producer of goods and entire regions were propped up by those industries and people long for the same environment.

There are four pages in this thread and I haven't seen anyone take issue with the OP's original premise that companies pay tariffs to sell their goods in other countries. That's not how it works. The importer pays the tariff. That cost is then passed on to the consumer in nearly every instance. So the tariffs make products/raw materials more expensive to import for US-based companies/consumers, decreasing demand, thereby reducing the promised (grossly overstated) revenue potential from tariffs and creating an inflationary environment. Also, these things aren't happening in a vacuum. The world is vast and resource-rich. The US isn't the only supply option for many things. Tariffs have their place, but what Trump is doing is nonsensical. It won't deliver anything he's say it will and, more likely than not, will have the opposite impact on our trade +/- and will slow our economy, or worse.

He was auditioning during his ESPN interviews at the NCAAs. Saw a gap left by Brooks, applied on national TV.

I think Carter could gas him.

Right next to Steve Mocco.

This has to be a Rick Roll.

Quint Kessenich: Dan, with all the great wrestlers on the mat today, how well do you think you would do at the NCAA Tournament? Dan Gable: Well, I figure against today's grapplers that I'd probably win a little more than half of my matches and squeak into the tournament as a 20-something seed. Quint Kessenich: That's surprising. A little more than .500 record? You lost just one time in your collegiate career and won a couple of titles. We'd all like to know why you think you'd struggle to make the NCAA field. Dan Gable: Well, I'm 76 f*cking years old you ignorant SOB.

Pindrickson is going to win and he probably should. He has big pin numbers and beat two national champs to win the title. No one else did that. For me, Starocci is second because it feels like his competition was a tougher than Mesenbrink, even though Mesenbrink's results were more "dominant" on the scoreboard. I'm not sure who else someone could realistically vote for in a top three. Hamiti, maybe.

He doesn't have the cardio for that.

It's not the 3-point takedown that is the problem. No matter what rules you have in place, coaches and wrestlers at this level always will find what they consider to be the most advantageous strategy to win a match. IMO, the biggest problem is the application of the stalling rule. It absolutely was not applied the same in the finals as it was in the regular season. Officiating is a challenging job for a variety of reasons and I understand they they may want to "let the wrestlers decide the match," but deciding not to call the rules the same way in the finals matches is at least as influential as they think calling the stall is.

David Taylor will have the portal doors wide open this offseason. Oklahoma State didn't hire him to finish behind Iowa at the NCAA tournament.

I don't think anything has been proven false. Not pursuing charges doesn't mean it's not true. But that wasn't my point anyway. The allegations happened and that influences what people think.

It's not low, it's true. The allegations influence perception, whether it happened or not I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

For sure. He beat two champs.

People always tell on themselves.