Trump to propose blocking California’s clean car standards

[Swordsmyth]

The Trump administration is planning a proposal to block California regulators from enforcing their own emissions standards for vehicles sold in the state.
Bloomberg News (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/trump-is-said-to-seek-repeal-of-california-s-smog-fighting-power) reported Monday that the proposal will be part of a regulation the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will jointly propose in the coming days to freeze or reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency rules for cars.


The EPA and NHTSA revealed in a regulatory notice Friday that its upcoming proposal to reduce vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will be dubbed the “Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule,” indicating that administration officials will likely argue that stricter standards would compromise safety.
Then-EPA head Scott Pruitt (http://thehill.com/people/edward-scott-pruitt) formally declared in April that the Obama plan to make emissions and efficiency standards stricter through 2026 is not appropriate. It was the first step toward potentially rolling the standards back.
The agencies are expected in the coming days to float a proposal with a handful of ideas, including various levels of looser rules through 2026 and freezing the standards in 2020 with no additional ramping up.

More at: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398372-trump-admin-to-propose-blocking-californias-clean-car-standards

[acptulsa]

Gee, just what we needed--another president pissing on the Tenth Amendment.

[Anti Federalist]

Gee, just what we needed--another president pissing on the Tenth Amendment.

A very valid point...I am really torn on this.

On the one hand you have the 10th Amendment issue.

On the other, you have CARB de facto setting pollution controls for the other 49 states.

Based on the initial reports, I'm going to have to give a tentative thumbs up on this.

[CaptUSA]

Gee, just what we needed--another president pissing on the Tenth Amendment.

Right. This is where I stand. Once again, Trump does the right thing in the wrong way.

I guess we're beyond the point of worrying about precedents??? Seriously, even if you like this policy (which seems to be mostly a plus), the idea that the federal government can interfere here means that the next President will use that power to do far worse! Friggin' cults of personality - always burning us.

[Anti Federalist]

Right. This is where I stand. Once again, Trump does the right thing in the wrong way.

I guess we're beyond the point of worrying about precedents??? Seriously, even if you like this policy (which seems to be mostly a plus), the idea that the federal government can interfere here means that the next President will use that power to do far worse! Friggin' cults of personality - always burning us.

I wish the auto industry would grow a spine again, like they used to have, and fight back against this shit, instead of being rent seeking cocksuckers, rolling over for every fatwa that DC sends down.

I'd have long ago made the executive decision to not sell cars in California, had it been me in charge of Ford or GM or Honda.

[timosman]

A very valid point...I am really torn on this.

On the one hand you have the 10th Amendment issue.

On the other, you have CARB de facto setting pollution controls for the other 49 states.

Based on the initial reports, I'm going to have to give a tentative thumbs up on this.

Let's not pretend they are not trying to be assholes a bit.:upsidedown:

[Swordsmyth]

I wish the auto industry would grow a spine again, like they used to have, and fight back against this $#@!, instead of being rent seeking $#@!s, rolling over for every fatwa that DC sends down.

I'd have long ago made the executive decision to not sell cars in California, had it been me in charge of Ford or GM or Honda.
If it wasn't for big brother they would have dozens of competitors, why would they do anything against him?

[acptulsa]

If it wasn't for big brother they would have dozens of competitors, why would they do anything against him?

More specifically, a combination of lucrative defense contracts and these very types of fatwas eliminated their domestic competition.

But just as Detroit can't ignore California because it's such a huge car market, the world can't ignore the huge car market of the U.S. So, Detroit's relief at brib--er, I mean influencing Washington into killing Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Willys and AMC was short lived. Competition is a force which cannot be denied. And judging by the ranks of the world's biggest carmakers today, it's actually advantageous to sell on these shores without actually being headquartered on these shores.

[Swordsmyth]

More specifically, a combination of lucrative defense contracts and these very types of fatwas eliminated their domestic competition.

But just as Detroit can't ignore California because it's such a huge car market, the world can't ignore the huge car market of the U.S. So, Detroit's relief at brib--er, I mean influencing Washington into killing Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Willys and AMC was short lived. Competition is a force which cannot be denied. And judging by the ranks of the world's biggest carmakers today, it's actually advantageous to sell on these shores without actually being headquartered on these shores.

Without federal government intervention there would be companies producing cars for the states with less fatwas than Kalifonia, they might never grow as big as nation/worldwide car companies but they would turn a great profit and lock up the marketshare.

[timosman]

Without federal government intervention there would be companies producing cars for the states with less fatwas than Kalifonia, they might never grow as big as nation/worldwide car companies but they would turn a great profit and lock up the marketshare.

Wouldn't be able to control the federal government. That's a big disadvantage.:monocle:

[Anti Federalist]

Trump Derangement Syndrome on Nitrous Oxide. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?524618-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome-on-Nitrous-Oxide)

[acptulsa]

Without federal government intervention there would be companies producing cars for the states with less fatwas than Kalifonia, they might never grow as big as nation/worldwide car companies but they would turn a great profit and lock up the marketshare.

The federal government doesn't do a goddamned thing to prevent car companies foreign or domestic from producing cars for the other 49 states. And cars which were legal to be sold in the other 49, but not in California, used to be quite common--not that California got no version of the car, but that California could not get the most powerful engine, or the most economical version, and/or the version with a manual transmission.

That's not so common now, but if you look closely enough at enough literature, you might find that the 49 states still get their own version now and again (generally with a little more power).

So, once again, what are you talking about? Where did you get this fakenews? Did you just make that shit up?

[Swordsmyth]

The federal government doesn't do a goddamned thing to prevent car companies foreign or domestic from producing cars for the other 49 states. And cars which were legal to be sold in the other 49, but not in California, used to be quite common--not that California got no version of the car, but that California could not get the most powerful engine, or the most economical version, and/or the version with a manual transmission.

That's not so common now, but if you look closely enough at enough literature, you might find that the 49 states still get their own version now and again (generally with a little more power).

So, once again, what are you talking about? Where did you get this fakenews? Did you just make that $#@! up?
The feds have an uncountable number of regulations designed to ensure that only the biggest few car companies are viable, those few large companies want to sell nation/worldwide, if smaller competitors were able to survive they would focus on niche markets where they could take marketshare away from the big companies, low regulation states would be an obvious target.

We used to have a car company that only produced cars for taxi companies so don't tell me we wouldn't have companies producing cars for red states.

[acptulsa]

The feds have an uncountable number of regulations designed to ensure that only the biggest few car companies are viable, those few large companies want to sell nation/worldwide, if smaller competitors were able to survive they would focus on niche markets where they could take marketshare away from the big companies, low regulation states would be an obvious target.

We used to have a car company that only produced cars for taxi companies so don't tell me we wouldn't have companies producing cars for red states.

You're lecturing me about the Checker Motor Co. of Kalamazoo? Really? Did they originally tend to use engines by Continental or Lycoming, Professor?

Firstly, there's no reason not to sell in California if you can sell there just by limiting your driveline choices to the lamest but cleanest. Nobody is going to do that. Secondly, how does one tailor their vehicle for red states? Bull horn hood ornaments, hitch pockets with dangling balls and Non-peelable Dubya stickers? Thirdly, none of this lame attempt to get the last word changes the fact that 49 state cars have been built (it's a lot less necessary now that a change in engine management software can make enough difference to meet the special standards) and you keep doubling down on the lie you told that the federal government isn't allowing anyone to do that.

Seeing you get arrogant and lecture people with ideas which are just silly--like automakers trying to stay competitive while refusing to sell cars in blue states (even though there are Republican customers in blue states)--is bad enough. But seeing you put on that arrogant air and disseminate "information" which is plainly false is something else.

[Swordsmyth]

You're lecturing me about the Checker Motor Co. of Kalamazoo? Really? Did they originally tend to use engines by Continental or Lycoming, Professor?

Firstly, there's no reason not to sell in California if you can sell there just by limiting your driveline choices to the lamest but cleanest. Nobody is going to do that. Secondly, how does one tailor their vehicle for red states? Bull horn hood ornaments, hitch pockets with dangling balls and Non-peelable Dubya stickers? Thirdly, none of this lame attempt to get the last word changes the fact that 49 state cars have been built (it's a lot less necessary now that a change in engine management software can make enough difference to meet the special standards) and you keep doubling down on the lie you told that the federal government isn't allowing anyone to do that.
I said all along that the feds are limiting competition not that they were directly forcing companies to build to California standards.

If we had dozens of smaller car companies some of them could certainly sell higher quality cars in low regulation states where they would have an advantage and aboid competing directly with the big companies in the Kalifonia market.

You are letting your hatred for conservatives show with all that garbage about Bull horn hood ornaments, hitch pockets with dangling balls and Non-peelable Dubya stickers, you'd better watch that or more people might figure out that you are a Democrat mole.

How do Trump voters smell?

[acptulsa]

I said all along that the feds are limiting competition not that they were directly forcing companies to build to California standards.

If we had dozens of smaller car companies some of them could certainly sell higher quality cars in low regulation states where they would have an advantage and aboid competing directly with the big companies in the Kalifonia market.

You are letting your hatred for conservatives show with all that garbage about Bull horn hood ornaments, hitch pockets with dangling balls and Non-peelable Dubya stickers, you'd better watch that or more people might figure out that you are a Democrat mole.

How do Trump voters smell?

LOL

With their noses.

You're the one who is being rude to Republicans, wanting to refuse to sell them cars if they live in Illinois or Minnesota.

We do. Certain car companies sell mini-trucks in states which allow them certain tax advantages. More three-wheelers are sold in states where there are no mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles (as three wheelers are motorcycles even if they have steering wheels and roofs).

Now. You doubled down on that ignorant statement. Spin it. I dare you.

And while you're spinning, see if you can reconcile that '...not that they were directly forcing companies to build to California standards' line with this:


Without federal government intervention there would be companies producing cars for the states with less fatwas than Kalifonia, they might never grow as big as nation/worldwide car companies but they would turn a great profit and lock up the marketshare.

[Swordsmyth]

We do. Certain car companies sell mini-trucks in states which allow them certain tax advantages. More three-wheelers are sold in states where there are no mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles (as three wheelers are motorcycles even if they have steering wheels and roofs).

Now. You doubled down on that ignorant statement. Spin it. I dare you.

A few minor exceptions are nothing compared to what we would have without the anti-competition regulations from the feds.

Do you really want to expose yourself by defending federal regulations and claiming they don't suppress competition and market diversity?

[acptulsa]

A few minor exceptions are nothing...

That attitude certainly explains why you're completely ignorant of their existence.


Do you really want to expose yourself by defending federal regulations and claiming they don't suppress competition and market diversity?

Everyone who didn't show up just as the Bolton Brigade showed up to spam Trump during the last election knows that I have been talking about the problems federal regulations cause on this site for ten and a half years. But of course you won't take my word for it, and you won't do the research yourself before you make baseless, libelous accusations. So, why don't you ask Anti Federalist? If you had actually read what I said to understand it, instead of merely to rush in and spin it, you'd realize I didn't defend a single regulation. I merely pointed out what e reality is, because AF and I have set a certain standard of accuracy on this site and frankly, I'm sick of watching you talk out of your ass and make stuff up as you go along. The subject deserves intelligent discussion, and you don't seem to be capable of meeting that standard.

'Tis better to look, or to ask, than to talk out of your ass before everyone and his dog.

[acptulsa]

subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread.

LOL caught you before you edited to add the spam!

It'd be more interesting if Swampsmythe would tell us why he thinks big government should force California to stop shooting its own citizens in the foot by forcing them to buy less powerful cars which astute buyers in the other 49 states do not want, thus decreasing their resale value on the wider market. I thought Republicans had a vested interest in the Tenth Amendment, but clearly some consider it secondary to a chance to jack with Californians.

[Swordsmyth]

That attitude certainly explains why you're completely ignorant of their existence.



Everyone who didn't show up just as the Bolton Brigade showed up to spam Trump during the last election knows that I have been talking about the problems federal regulations cause on this site for ten and a half years. But of course you won't take my word for it, and you won't do the research yourself before you make baseless, libelous accusations. So, why don't you ask @Anti Federalist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3169)? If you had actually read what I said to understand it, instead of merely to rush in and spin it, you'd realize I didn't defend a single regulation. I merely pointed out what e reality is, because AF and I have set a certain standard of accuracy on this site and frankly, I'm sick of watching you talk out of your ass and make stuff up as you go along. The subject deserves intelligent discussion, and you don't seem to be capable of meeting that standard.

'Tis better to look, or to ask, than to talk out of your ass before everyone and his dog.

I know all about your cover, you usually do a better job of maintaining it but when dealing with me you let your hatred cloud your judgement and the mask drops.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that there wouldn't be companies producing non-Kalifonia cars on a major scale without the federal regulations that limit competition and free-market theory says that there would be but you are so obsessed with arguing with me that you make that claim and thereby defend the regulations.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL caught you before you edited to add the spam!

It'd be more interesting if Swampsmythe would tell us why he thinks big government should force California to stop shooting its own citizens in the foot by forcing them to buy less powerful cars which astute buyers in the other 49 states do not want, thus decreasing their resale value on the wider market. I thought Republicans had a vested interest in the Tenth Amendment, but clearly some consider it secondary to a chance to jack with Californians.

I never said once that the feds should overrule Kalifornia, I didn't even go as far as AF and say that is was a good thing if we couldn't get a better solution.

I made the point that federal regulations limiting competition are what give Kalifornia the power to dictate to drivers in other states what they can buy, the proper solution is to remove the federal regulations so that many smaller car companies could start up to serve the other states.

You however just had to argue with me.

[acptulsa]

I know all about your cover, you usually do a better job of maintaining it but when dealing with me you let your hatred cloud your judgement and the mask drops.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that there wouldn't be companies producing non-Kalifonia cars on a major scale without the federal regulations that limit competition and free-market theory says that there would be but you are so obsessed with arguing with me that you make that claim and thereby defend the regulations.


I never said once that the feds should overrule Kalifornia, I didn't even go as far as AF and say that is was a good thing if we couldn't get a better solution.

I made the point that federal regulations limiting competition are what give Kalifornia the power to dictate to drivers in other states what they can buy, the proper solution is to remove the federal regulations so that many smaller car companies could start up to serve the other states.

You however just had to argue with me.

Fat lot of good it did. You still aren't explaining why you think any car company would be stupid enough to refuse to sell a car in California when all they ever had to do was limit driveline options to sell in that huge market, and now they can generally get by with revised software. You still haven't acknowledged that there are quite a few smaller car companies catering to states with favorable regulations, from companies as large as Suzuki with their mini trucks to companies as small as Polaris with their trikes. And you still haven't explained how you think "Kalifornia" (sic) is getting from the Feds the "power to dictate to drivers in other states what they can buy".

I have news for you, kid. One doesn't have to be a Democrat to debunk your misinformation. In fact, you are the one insulting Republicans (and Libertarians alike) with your inference that only Democrats are smart enough to see your misinformation for what it is.

Of course, nobody's seeing any coherent discussion from you at all. All we're seeing out of you is, 'It's contradicting me! It must be a DEMONCRAT(TM)!!!


https://youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo

[Swordsmyth]

Fat lot of good it did. You still aren't explaining why you think any car company would be stupid enough to refuse to sell a car in California when all they ever had to do was limit driveline options to sell in that huge market, and now they can generally get by with revised software.
Because it saves money to limit the number of different parts used to make different models of the same car, that is why the current car companies don't offer a Kalifonia and a non-Kalifonia version of every car they make, a smaller company wouldn't necessarily make more cars than were able to be sold in low regulation states so they would make the better non-Kalifornia cars and save money by not making a Kalifornia model.


You still haven't acknowledged that there are quite a few smaller car companies catering to states with favorable regulations, from companies as large as Suzuki with their mini trucks to companies as small as Polaris with their trikes.
I did acknowledge such exceptions but they are a tiny part of the market that in no way is like the full choice of non-Kalifornia cars we would have without the competition suppression the feds provide.


And you still haven't explained how you think "Kalifornia" (sic) is getting from the Feds the "power to dictate to drivers in other states what they can buy".
I did but you are apparently to dumb to understand so I'll explain again:

By regulating the industry so heavily that only giant companies can viably compete they limit the public's options to those companies that can't afford to give up the Kalifornia market, those companies comply with Kalifornia's regulations and don't produce low regulation options because providing another option would cost more and customers in other states will buy Kalifornia cars anyway due to the limited competition.

[acptulsa]

Because it saves money to limit the number of different parts used to make different models of the same car, that is why the current car companies don't offer a Kalifonia and a non-Kalifonia version of every car they make, a smaller company wouldn't necessarily make more cars than were able to be sold in low regulation states so they would make the better non-Kalifornia cars and save money by not making a Kalifornia model.

Are you just repeating your misinformation because you think whoever gets the last word wins? Or have you been so busy speed skimming the other posts so you can spin yourself as quickly as possible that what has been said here didn't sink in?

The California fatwas have, up until now, mostly been about emissions. It does not take a different model to meet them. One does not need to change the body to adhere to that standard. PETA is not bribing Sacramento into mandating vinyl interiors where the rest of the country insists on cloth or leather. Six headlights are not required. All that is needed is a particular driveline. This is not a special model, it's just an option. These particular 49 state drivelines have been offered; they were once common. Nowadays with computer control, they are largely unnecessary; where special drivelines are needed to allow Sacramento to cheat Californians out of little power and gas mileage, it can usually be done with revised software. Which means there are no special parts at all.

One exception would be diesel cars. But those are unpopular enough all across the country that no one has developed a diesel strictly for the U.S. car market since the late 1970s. Some have been imported. Most have been unpopular enough that even selling in 49 states they hardly made enough money to pay for the cost to make them compliant. And then there's Volkswagen's experience.

The zero-emissions mandate could change that. But that hasn't kicked in yet. And unlike you, I don't feel like making blind, sweeping predictions of what might happen if and when it does.

But do feel free to screech I'm a socialist for saying that the Sacramento fatwas were and are robbing Californians of power and/or gas mileage.


I did acknowledge such exceptions but they are a tiny part of the market that in no way is like the full choice of non-Kalifornia cars we would have without the competition suppression the feds provide.

So, you still maintain that, even though you're talking about for-profit car companies using nothing more than a possible change in software as an excuse to refuse to sell a product in the state in which one of every eight new car sales in the U.S. happens?

Dude. The more car companies you have spending billions to develop a product which, if they do a very good job of getting ahead of the competition, they might be able to sell for nearly a decade before they'll have to have its replacement ready to sell, the more they'll absolutely have to compete for the state which represents 12 freaking percent of the market. Do you really not understand this?


I did but you are apparently to dumb to understand so I'll explain again:

By regulating the industry so heavily that only giant companies can viably compete they limit the public's options to those companies that can't afford to give up the Kalifornia market, those companies comply with Kalifornia's regulations and don't produce low regulation options because providing another option would cost more and customers in other states will buy Kalifornia cars anyway due to the limited competition.

Well, now. You're wrong, and when I disprove you, you repeat yourself and call me dumb for making you do it.

Yes, regulation clearly banged the nails in the coffin of American Motors. But the government found creative ways to kill the other independents before the Fatwa Era. It was usually done by the Department of Defense. Charlie Wilson wasn't kidding when he said he couldn't imagine a situation where what was good for GM wasn't good for the country, and soon thereafter only the Big Three got the vast majority of government contracts. Diamond Reo made the major mistake of signing a three year contract with the DoD with no inflation clause--in 1972. When they begged for relief, they were laughed at.

No, dude. By regulating so heavily they squeeze out smaller companies, but that only ensures the U.S. has no independent automakers. This leads to more imports, and led to the demise of the U.S. auto industry as the undisputed world leader. But nobody with a lick of sense has ever tried to make a buck in the U.S. car market by turning its back on the state that buys one of every eight new cars sold in the country. There's nobody in the car industry that stupid. Nobody.

In fact, the only person I know of who is that stupid is the person calling other people stupid. Guess the guilty dog does bark first.

As for Trump's proposed major violation of the Tenth Amendment, the threatened zero emissions mandate could have brought about a situation where California cars and 49 state cars would have to have been radically different. This would actually have created a situation where we would have seen how much trouble California's 12% of the market was truly worth. Car companies might actually have abandoned the state, despise the size of its market. But if Trump goes all totalitarian on the state, the market and the Tenth
amendment, I guess we'll never find out.

It looks to me like he's trying to do the state of California a favor. I personally think the zero emissions mandate will be a severe hardship on California citizens and will lead to the California legislature falling on its face. I guess Trump can't have that.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you just repeating your misinformation because you think whoever gets the last word wins? Or have you been so busy speed skimming the other posts so you can spin yourself as quickly as possible that what has been said here didn't sink in?

The California fatwas have, up until now, mostly been about emissions. It does not take a different model to meet them. One does not need to change the body to adhere to that standard. PETA is not bribing Sacramento into mandating vinyl interiors where the rest of the country insists on cloth or leather. Six headlights are not required. All that is needed is a particular driveline. This is not a special model, it's just an option. These particular 49 state drivelines have been offered; they were once common. Nowadays with computer control, they are largely unnecessary; where special drivelines are needed to allow Sacramento to cheat Californians out of little power and gas mileage, it can usually be done with revised software. Which means there are no special parts at all.

One exception would be diesel cars. But those are unpopular enough all across the country that no one has developed a diesel strictly for the U.S. car market since the late 1970s. Some have been imported. Most have been unpopular enough that even selling in 49 states they hardly made enough money to pay for the cost to make them compliant. And then there's Volkswagen's experience.

The zero-emissions mandate could change that. But that hasn't kicked in yet. And unlike you, I don't feel like making blind, sweeping predictions of what might happen if and when it does.

But do feel free to screech I'm a socialist for saying that the Sacramento fatwas were and are robbing Californians of power and/or gas mileage.

Talk to AF he seems to agree with me that Kalifornia imposes its standards on the rest of us:




On the other, you have CARB de facto setting pollution controls for the other 49 states.

The fact is that they do have to make significant changes to car designs to get them close enough to Kalifornia standards that software can make the difference, also without the federal regulations there would be an even larger difference between Kalifornia and low regulation states.




So, you still maintain that, even though you're talking about for-profit car companies using nothing more than a possible change in software as an excuse to refuse to sell a product in the state in which one of every eight new car sales in the U.S. happens?

Dude. The more car companies you have spending billions to develop a product which, if they do a very good job of getting ahead of the competition, they might be able to sell for nearly a decade before they'll have to have its replacement ready to sell, the more they'll absolutely have to compete for the state which represents 12 freaking percent of the market. Do you really not understand this?



Well, now. You're wrong, and when I disprove you, you repeat yourself and call me dumb for making you do it.

Yes, regulation clearly banged the nails in the coffin of American Motors. But the government found creative ways to kill the other independents before the Fatwa Era. It was usually done by the Department of Defense. Charlie Wilson wasn't kidding when he said he couldn't imagine a situation where what was good for GM wasn't good for the country, and soon thereafter only the Big Three got the vast majority of government contracts. Diamond Reo made the major mistake of signing a three year contract with the DoD with no inflation clause--in 1972. When they begged for relief, they were laughed at.

No, dude. By regulating so heavily they squeeze out smaller companies, but that only ensures the U.S. has no independent automakers. This leads to more imports, and led to the demise of the U.S. auto industry as the undisputed world leader. But nobody with a lick of sense has ever tried to make a buck in the U.S. car market by turning its back on the state that buys one of every eight new cars sold in the country. There's nobody in the car industry that stupid. Nobody.

In fact, the only person I know of who is that stupid is the person calling other people stupid. Guess the guilty dog does bark first.

You entirely miss the point of what regulations do, they do kill some already existing car companies but what is worse is that they prevent the creation of new ones, even if a few got killed by DoD tricks and the like dozens more should have been created.

Imports are also irrelevant because they too must meet Kalifornia standards.

If a company could start up and make significantly better cars for the low regulation states they would have a significant advantage in the struggle for 88% of the market in exchange for giving up Kalifornia, not only would that be a viable strategy on its own but if they were a smaller company it might take all of their production without Kalifornia.



As for Trump's proposed major violation of the Tenth Amendment, the threatened zero emissions mandate could have brought about a situation where California cars and 49 state cars would have to have been radically different. This would actually have created a situation where we would have seen how much trouble California's 12% of the market was truly worth. Car companies might actually have abandoned the state, despise the size of its market. But if Trump goes all totalitarian on the state, the market and the Tenth
amendment, I guess we'll never find out.

It looks to me like he's trying to do the state of California a favor. I personally think the zero emissions mandate will be a severe hardship on California citizens and will lead to the California legislature falling on its face. I guess Trump can't have that.

Again you should have a bigger problem with AF than with me, I explained how it was better to get rid of federal regulations than to violate the 10thA, I never said anything like this:




Based on the initial reports, I'm going to have to give a tentative thumbs up on this.

[acptulsa]

Talk to AF he seems to agree with me that Kalifornia imposes its standards on the rest of us:

You're the one who gets sand in his pussy when people disagree with you. I don't need to talk to Anti Federalist. He's not spreading falsehood as fact. He expressed an opinion, as is his right. But he didn't present it as fact.

You're the one misrepresenting your opinions and your mistaken notions as facts here.

[Swordsmyth]

You're the one who gets sand in his pussy when people disagree with you. I don't need to talk to Anti Federalist. He's not spreading falsehood as fact. He expressed an opinion, as is his right. But he didn't present it as fact.

You're the one misrepresenting your opinions and your mistaken notions as facts here.

I did nothing AF didn't do, you are just biased.

[acptulsa]

I did nothing AF didn't do, you are just biased.

Now you're libeling Anti Federalist. You're also as reliable as a seven year old.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=LdDlXQVTxLc