Q:

Is the logic implication a tautology?

I had a discussion with a person who says that logic implication is a tautology.
Reviewing this book, specifically on page $12$ ($19$ of the document), I see that there is a difference between what is a conditional, $⇒$, and what is an implication. 
https://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~krajicek/mendelson.pdf
The conditional has the next truth table:
http://www.metafysica.nl/nature/truth_table_impl.gif
And the book says on page $16$ that $p$ implies $q$ if and only if $p ⇒ q$ is a tautology. But, does this mean that an implication is a tautology? Because if it does, then we cannot say something does not imply another thing, I think.

A:

A conditional has a condition: if A is true, then B will also be true.
An implication is a direct statement of fact: A is true, therefore B is true.
That becomes tautological because it is trivially true in all cases. A is true so B is true, so A is true so B is true.

