He could well be anti automated driving vehicles, it is widely accepted that one of the first casualties of the introduction of automated vehicles will belong distance lorry drivers. There are approx 3.5 million drivers employed in the US right now, even if we see only 25% of jobs going in the next 10 years that is an extra 850,000 unemployed people. And not only are they unemployed but their skill set is no longer required, so they are either long term unemployed or they need to retrain. I imagine many will be older people and they will not be in a position to retrain significantly, so they become competition for low paid manual work, further depressing wages in this sector. So even if you do get a job the wage is likely to be much lower than that of a truck driver.
These could be protected (for a while) if they introduced anti-automation policies and laws. This sort of short term thinking is right up the republican street.
Until Trump proves otherwise, I'll continue to think he's not going to act like current Republican leadership, because he didn't act like that during the primary or general election and his platform doesn't line-up with someone who would be against self-driving vehicles.
But what is he saying in private to people like Peter Thiel? We have no idea... And amusingly, Hillary was heavily criticized by Trump proponents for stating the obvious about public vs. private stances. Every bit of Hillary's private talks was dug up, but we know essentially nothing about Trump's real intentions. (Maybe Wikileaks could get on the case? Hah.)
There's a lot to dislike about him and I don't think it's fair to speculate on positions of his he's given no evidence to merit speculation on.
One might make subtler arguments about how this (and much) technology indirectly benefits all of civilization in myriad ways, even in the face of causal fallout like that mentioned above, but we have not one scrap of evidence that subtle arguments will either be employed or considered.
Gerrymandered districts have made that nearly impossible.
Still, as Trump showed, you can flip the needle to the other side.
The Senate can't be Gerrymandered but a lot of people argue it's not fair for California and New York to have the same level of Senate representation as North and South Dakota.
>> The Senate can't be Gerrymandered but a lot of people argue it's not fair for California and New York to have the same level of Senate representation as North and South Dakota.
Only from people that don't understand how Congress works. Making the Senate more fair for large states against small states just turns it into another House of Representatives. Which, of course, favors one party over another which I'm sure is the basis for the argument.
And thus demonstrating that they didn't pay enough attention in that civics class because "it's stupid and when am I going to need to know this?", where it was clearly explained why it's done this way. Hint: feature, not a bug.
Sectors that require, or are helped substantially by, the government to innovate will almost certainly suffer but what makes you think he would interfere with private enterprise?
Trump doesn't like business regulation and seems to want to make it easier for businesses to operate. Obviously that has negative consequences some some things but would also mean he wouldn't interfere.
Where he does want to make changes is in regards to trade and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries.
As far as Republican leadership in the House and Senate, there is no doubt that they'll play favorites with lobbyists but Trump's main appeal was that he WASN'T like that. If he is like that, we'll have a Democratic Congress in two years and a new president in four.