• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: Administration Is Revoking California Emissions Waiver

rocket88 said:
Your state is at liberty to have cars manufactured to their standards.
Click to expand...

The overzealous Progressives who rule California have made the mistake of claiming publicly they use their unique waiver position to control the rest of the Nation.

A state should never have the ability to control how citizens of other states live.

Kudo's to the President and the EPA for working to crush the Progressives attempts to overrule the Federal Government
 
Fletch said:
You dont believe in states rights so I dont know what your argument against this is. You are just advocating for the most government power possible.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't believe in the principle, either, which was the point. And that making an argument for Uncle Fed dictating emissions rules to all 50 states, followed by "States rights", isn't an argument for states' rights.

And I don't have any interest in government power for power sake. If you've flown into LA, you know why a waiver for CA makes sense, or at least strict rules on auto emissions makes sense.
 
ocean515 said:
The overzealous Progressives who rule California have made the mistake of claiming publicly they use their unique waiver position to control the rest of the Nation.

A state should never have the ability to control how citizens of other states live.

Kudo's to the President and the EPA for working to crush the Progressives attempts to overrule the Federal Government
Click to expand...

Awesome - another all powerful Uncle Fed, big government advocate on the right, when it suits him.
 
JasperL said:
Awesome - another all powerful Uncle Fed, big government advocate on the right, when it suits him.
Click to expand...

Lame accusation backed by nothing but your projection.

A state should not have the right to set policy that impacts every citizen in the country.

California progressives, who rule the state, have made it very clear they want to control the country via legislation like that allowed through the waiver program.

Making the state as powerful as the rest of the states is not an overreach, it's a attempt to stop overreach from occurring.
 
ocean515 said:
Lame accusation backed by nothing but your projection.

A state should not have the right to set policy that impacts every citizen in the country.

California progressives, who rule the state, have made it very clear they want to control the country via legislation like that allowed through the waiver program.

Making the state as powerful as the rest of the states is not an overreach, it's a attempt to stop overreach from occurring.
Click to expand...

They don't set policy for the rest of the country. Automakers just have to comply with CA regs in CA, not in Tennessee. If they choose to only make CA compliant cars, that's their decision.

What Trump is doing, on the other hand, is telling CA and the auto makers that only Uncle Fed matters and they will be investigated and prosecuted unless they agree to abide by the LOWER national standards, in all 50 states. So you're arguing for states rights by advocating for Uncle Fed to "set policy that impacts every citizen in the country."

The truth is "states' rights" is only ever an argument from our right wing friends when it suits them, when they like the result. Bush II did it with lending. The "sell insurance across state lines" argument another. If passed it will effectively gut health insurance regulations in the vast majority of states. So if state regs are less stringent than the feds, then conservatives make the argument for STATES' RIGHTS!!! But if the opposite, states are more strict than the feds, then it's SAVE US UNCLE FED BY IMPOSING NATIONAL STANDARDS FRIENDLY TO OUR DONORS!!!
 
JasperL said:
They don't set policy for the rest of the country. Automakers just have to comply with CA regs in CA, not in Tennessee. If they choose to only make CA compliant cars, that's their decision.

What Trump is doing, on the other hand, is telling CA and the auto makers that only Uncle Fed matters and they will be investigated and prosecuted unless they agree to abide by the LOWER national standards, in all 50 states. So you're arguing for states rights by advocating for Uncle Fed to "set policy that impacts every citizen in the country."

The truth is "states' rights" is only ever an argument from our right wing friends when it suits them, when they like the result. Bush II did it with lending. The "sell insurance across state lines" argument another. If passed it will effectively gut health insurance regulations in the vast majority of states. So if state regs are less stringent than the feds, then conservatives make the argument for STATES' RIGHTS!!! But if the opposite, states are more strict than the feds, then it's SAVE US UNCLE FED BY IMPOSING NATIONAL STANDARDS FRIENDLY TO OUR DONORS!!!
Click to expand...

Of course they do. They have admitted as much.

The Progressives who rule California understand the power of the states economy is so large, they can dictate what the rest of the country has to live with.

Automakers can't afford to make cars that meet California's more stringent requirements, and cars for the rest of the country. Same holds true with electronics and other goods California regulates to the extreme.

All that adds cost citizens in other states have to cover.

Your argument has no merit and should be ignored.
 
MTAtech said:
The counter argument is that states cannot make regulations that are weaker than the federal ones but can always make regulations more strict than the federal regulations.
Click to expand...

Obviously California recognizes that it can't do so, in this case, because it applied for the exemption to begin with.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course they do. They have admitted as much.

The Progressives who rule California understand the power of the states economy is so large, they can dictate what the rest of the country has to live with.

Automakers can't afford to make cars that meet California's more stringent requirements, and cars for the rest of the country. Same holds true with electronics and other goods California regulates to the extreme.

All that adds cost citizens in other states have to cover.

Your argument has no merit and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're a fan of Big Government from Washington. That's OK, just don't pretend you care about "states' rights" in some other context. What you're arguing in effect is that because CA is so big they don't get to enjoy "states' rights" but I presume a smaller state like Wyoming or Tennessee should have "states' rights" properly denied CA. Where's the principle in that, other than "states' rights" when you like the outcome? If not, then save us Big brother!!
 
SLC said:
Car emission standards are regulated by the Federal government unlike textbooks.
Click to expand...

What's to stop a state from having more stringenr regulations?

The car companies choose to build all cars the same, which is understandable since it's cheaper that way. They also want to have cars that they can sell abroad, which is good for them, but also good for plant workers (someone Trump clains to support).

Basically, you want Trump to have all the power.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course they do. They have admitted as much.

The Progressives who rule California understand the power of the states economy is so large, they can dictate what the rest of the country has to live with.

Automakers can't afford to make cars that meet California's more stringent requirements, and cars for the rest of the country. Same holds true with electronics and other goods California regulates to the extreme.

All that adds cost citizens in other states have to cover.

Your argument has no merit and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that no Chevys have been sold in California in the past 50 years? Being as they clearly have, or seems automakers can afford it.
 
JasperL said:
You obviously don't believe in the principle, either, which was the point. And that making an argument for Uncle Fed dictating emissions rules to all 50 states, followed by "States rights", isn't an argument for states' rights.

And I don't have any interest in government power for power sake. If you've flown into LA, you know why a waiver for CA makes sense, or at least strict rules on auto emissions makes sense.
Click to expand...

I do believe in the principle of states rights. You dont. So Im not swayed by your phony Federalism. Would you support Wyoming decreeing that only horse-drawn, covered wagons may enter their state? I doubt it. Plus you libs couldnt care less about states rights when it comes to guns or abortions or Medicare for all. You guys care about power and power only. The only time you wind up in the states rights column is when it supports your power agenda. This is a perfect example. You WANT greater government control and in this particular instance, California setting the rules for the entire nation suits you simply because you agree with the ends.
 
Fletch said:
I do believe in the principle of states rights. You dont. So Im not swayed by your phony Federalism. Would you support Wyoming decreeing that only horse-drawn, covered wagons may enter their state? I doubt it. Plus you libs couldnt care less about states rights when it comes to guns or abortions or Medicare for all. You guys care about power and power only. The only time you wind up in the states rights column is when it supports your power agenda. This is a perfect example. You WANT greater government control and in this particular instance, California setting the rules for the entire nation suits you simply because you agree with the ends.
Click to expand...

"I know you are but what am I?"
 
JasperL said:
"I know you are but what am I?"
Click to expand...

My agenda is to empower the individual. Your agenda is to empower the state. That is why we agree on virtually nothing.
 
Fletch said:
I do believe in the principle of states rights. You dont. So Im not swayed by your phony Federalism. Would you support Wyoming decreeing that only horse-drawn, covered wagons may enter their state? I doubt it. Plus you libs couldnt care less about states rights when it comes to guns or abortions or Medicare for all. You guys care about power and power only. The only time you wind up in the states rights column is when it supports your power agenda. This is a perfect example. You WANT greater government control and in this particular instance, California setting the rules for the entire nation suits you simply because you agree with the ends.
Click to expand...


I suppose this case is an example of you supporting large government when it suits yours agenda? That aside, the more interesting aspect of this is there's no assessment on the standard itself but only on whether another state should have their waiver rescinded. It's not often you have companies willing to hop aboard with these types of initiatives, so taking a step backward under the premise of making cars cheaper and safer doesn't make sense; especially when there's nothing quantifying what makes them safer than what's currently built. As for government control, I trust government to have the focus on the broader impacts than a corporation does because the government is supposed to represent the public interest; corporations are interested in a much more narrow focus.
 
Fletch said:
If everyone is on board, why isnt the California standard the federal standard? Explain the logic of granting California a waiver to make standards higher when it is known that if California did so, the entire nation would be effected.
Click to expand...

The waiver goes back to Reagan’s time, I believe. And yes, I believe a national standard would be better. But I presume based on his record that Trump did this out of resentment of California and indifference towards the environment.
 
Fletch said:
My agenda is to empower the individual. Your agenda is to empower the state. That is why we agree on virtually nothing.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, you don't understand anything at all about what I believe. How "empowered", for example, is an individual who can't afford healthcare? How "empowered" are they if because they have had breast cancer, no one will even insure them unless they exclude coverage for cancer?

So I don't favor government intervention in that case BECAUSE my agenda is to empower the state but to actually empower those individuals in the only way that matters to them, which is the ability to get necessary, life saving healthcare for themselves and their family, hopefully without bankrupting themselves and their families.

In this case how "empowered" are millions in LA living through 90 straight days of dangerous air quality causing all kinds of health problems? Without the government, it would be WORSE. If you've been to China, although I hear it's getting better, you know how bad. We had the same problems in the U.S. prior to EPA, clean air and water acts. Were U.S. residents "empowered" when they had their air and water poisoned by polluters who offloaded their costs onto the public?

FREEDOM!! is not having some polluter 100 miles upstream poisoning the water in front of your house, or 10 million cars all doing their little bit poisoning the air you breathe. It would be awesome of individuals were "empowered" somehow to prevent that or demand compensation for the damages in the 'free market' but we know that did not happen. So the way to "empower" those affected was through the exercise of state power.
 
Last edited:
Hitler destroyed a continent. Trump is shooting for a planet.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I suppose this case is an example of you supporting large government when it suits yours agenda?
No. This is a case of me not wanting to be tyrannized by a large federal government OR a large state government like California in which I have no representation whatsoever
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
If you believe that, you don't understand anything at all about what I believe. How "empowered", for example, is an individual who can't afford healthcare? How "empowered" are they if because they have had breast cancer, no one will even insure them unless they exclude coverage for cancer?

So I don't favor government intervention in that case BECAUSE my agenda is to empower the state but to actually empower those individuals in the only way that matters to them, which is the ability to get necessary, life saving healthcare for themselves and their family, hopefully without bankrupting themselves and their families.

In this case how "empowered" are millions in LA living through 90 straight days of dangerous air quality causing all kinds of health problems? Without the government, it would be WORSE. If you've been to China, although I hear it's getting better, you know how bad. We had the same problems in the U.S. prior to EPA, clean air and water acts. Were U.S. residents "empowered" when they had their air and water poisoned by polluters who offloaded their costs onto the public?

FREEDOM!! is not having some polluter 100 miles upstream poisoning the water in front of your house, or 10 million cars all doing their little bit poisoning the air you breathe. It would be awesome of individuals were "empowered" somehow to prevent that or demand compensation for the damages in the 'free market' but we know that did not happen. So the way to "empower" those affected was through the exercise of state power.
Click to expand...

It seems these kind of discussions always end up with the assumption it's a zero sum game between total government control and pure individualism. There's plenty of gray in between, and what's clear is that an individual is not going to have the same power than a group of people. Corporations are groups of people working collectively for the company, so to think individuals alone are going to have the same leverage doesn't make sense.
 
Fletch said:
No. This is a case of me not wanting to be tyrannized by a large federal government OR a large state government like California in which I have no representation whatsoever
Click to expand...

There's no "tyranny" when states have the option to apply those standards. 13 other states have opted to do that without being forced by the federal government or California. You, as an individual, can protest and drive one of those "coal rollers" if you're so inclined.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
If you believe that, you don't understand anything at all about what I believe. How "empowered", for example, is an individual who can't afford healthcare? How "empowered" are they if because they have had breast cancer, no one will even insure them unless they exclude coverage for cancer?
Click to expand...
Those are the types of question only a person seeking to empower the state would ask.

So I don't favor government intervention in that case BECAUSE my agenda is to empower the state but to actually empower those individuals in the only way that matters to them, which is the ability to get necessary, life saving healthcare for themselves and their family, hopefully without bankrupting themselves and their families.
Click to expand...
You dont empower someone by giving them something that isnt theirs and isnt yours to give. What you have done is made them a dependent.

In this case how "empowered" are millions in LA living through 90 straight days of dangerous air quality causing all kinds of health problems? Without the government, it would be WORSE. If you've been to China, although I hear it's getting better, you know how bad. We had the same problems in the U.S. prior to EPA, clean air and water acts. Were U.S. residents "empowered" when they had their air and water poisoned by polluters who offloaded their costs onto the public?
Click to expand...
Because there is a problem in LA doesnt mean they have the right to decide how everyone else in the country should live. If they want higher standards, they can get them through congress like everyone else has to.

FREEDOM!! is not having some polluter 100 miles upstream poisoning the water in front of your house, or 10 million cars all doing their little bit poisoning the air you breathe. It would be awesome of individuals were "empowered" somehow to prevent that or demand compensation for the damages in the 'free market' but we know that did not happen. So the way to "empower" those affected was through the exercise of state power.
Click to expand...
You use using both the word freedom and empower incorrectly as your comments have nothing to do with either. Turning power over to the state to 'solve' all these problems is empowering the state. That should be obvious. Unless, of course, you believe that central planning and central control is truly the way to freedom and individual empowerment.
 
ElChupacabra said:
There's no "tyranny" when states have the option to apply those standards. 13 other states have opted to do that without being forced by the federal government or California. You, as an individual, can protest and drive one of those "coal rollers" if you're so inclined.
Click to expand...

Which means 37 havent. And I do drive a 'coal roller' because I am pro-global warming. A warmer planet is a better planet and someday you or your offspring will thank me for all I have done to make the world a better place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom