Trump: "We have the cleanest air and the cleanest water...." June 5, 2020

[White 6]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

 

[White 6]

That is just it. They didn't double as compared to the rest of the world. Apparently it is not a "either/or" kind of gig. I have pointed out your 2 dimensional, limited viewpoint before. I would suggest you think outside the box or cube, but you can't even get off the line.

It's politics. They claim if you do that, then prices will double, or triple, or will make it no longer available at all.

If we said that about going to the moon, we never would have gotten there.

Remember the domino theory of why we should be in Viet Nam war?

He

You are just the same immature kid at heart as your avatar, willing to pass on costs from business to the general economy whether they want you product or short sided decisions or not. Some states and even auto-manufacturers have rejected changing to the reduced standards, as consumer do not generally want it.

What changes have been made?

Please show us who is rejecting what changes. A reliable source and working link would be nice!

Thank you.

OK.

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California

The Trump administration had been working on a plan to drastically weaken Obama-era rules on planet-warming vehicle pollution.Credit...Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California (Published 2019)

Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution.

www.nytimes.com

He said a reliable source.

Try again.

Not going to hunt forever just because you don't use the internet, but
Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy

Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy

The president claimed the auto manufacturers' openness to higher fuel emission standards would have Henry Ford rolling in his grave.

www.vanityfair.com

Four Auto Manufacturers Reject Trump’s Deregulation Plans

Four Auto Manufacturers Reject Trump's Deregulation Plans

Four major auto manufacturers – Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW – have made a deal with California to conform with local standards for auto emissions. In doing so, they have rejected the Trump Administration’s plans to reverse regulations put in place by the Obama Administration that required...

community.hannity.com

Sean Hannity had heard about it. Didn't you get the message on FOX NEWS?

So?

You acted as if it wasn't common knowledge when I only posted 1 reference from one of the oldest newspapers in the country, so I gave you several more. Most people in positions of power in industry, that can have the most effect, just do not support the president on this, because the consumers don't support the president on this. Doubt the 35% minority under trump will win on the position against the auto industries, the consumers, the states, etc.

Consumers don't support the president? If they saw prices double for everything they buy they would change their minds. Morons like you just don't believe there's any downside to regulations. That's how we know you're a dumbfuck.

That is just it. They didn't double as compared to the rest of the world. Apparently it is not a "either/or" kind of gig. I have pointed out your 2 dimensional, limited viewpoint before. I would suggest you think outside the box or cube, but you can't even get off the line.

The regulations where never enforced, moron. Trump put all that shit on hold the day he was inaugurated. You think when a regulation is enacted that every company is in compliance overnight?

Believe what you want kid. Arguing with you is like arguing with a stump. You have no facts or references and reject the ones you ask for, just because it is trump policy and just like trump you favor tearing crap down, just to be tearing down, it helps, hurts or is indifferent, whether you can get industry or states or people to support or not. Probably a big reason he is out of here come election.

Just admit that you lied and that I proved it. If anyone is tearing things down, it's the clowns who want to give the EPA unlimited power to destroy our economy and our property rights. Anyone who supports this insanity is a boot licker.

Proved what? You posted not a single reference kid. Does your mother know you are playing on the computer?

 

[bripat9643]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

 

[frackapisa]

Your inability to follow a conversation isn't my problem.

I can't follow a conversation you "pull out of your ass"

You claimed he said something he never said, and when I called on you to cite where he said it, you just waived the white flag.

 

[bripat9643]

That is just it. They didn't double as compared to the rest of the world. Apparently it is not a "either/or" kind of gig. I have pointed out your 2 dimensional, limited viewpoint before. I would suggest you think outside the box or cube, but you can't even get off the line.

It's politics. They claim if you do that, then prices will double, or triple, or will make it no longer available at all.

If we said that about going to the moon, we never would have gotten there.

Remember the domino theory of why we should be in Viet Nam war?

He

You are just the same immature kid at heart as your avatar, willing to pass on costs from business to the general economy whether they want you product or short sided decisions or not. Some states and even auto-manufacturers have rejected changing to the reduced standards, as consumer do not generally want it.

What changes have been made?

Please show us who is rejecting what changes. A reliable source and working link would be nice!

Thank you.

OK.

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California

The Trump administration had been working on a plan to drastically weaken Obama-era rules on planet-warming vehicle pollution.Credit...Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California (Published 2019)

Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution.

www.nytimes.com

He said a reliable source.

Try again.

Not going to hunt forever just because you don't use the internet, but
Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy

Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy

The president claimed the auto manufacturers' openness to higher fuel emission standards would have Henry Ford rolling in his grave.

www.vanityfair.com

Four Auto Manufacturers Reject Trump’s Deregulation Plans

Four Auto Manufacturers Reject Trump's Deregulation Plans

Four major auto manufacturers – Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW – have made a deal with California to conform with local standards for auto emissions. In doing so, they have rejected the Trump Administration’s plans to reverse regulations put in place by the Obama Administration that required...

community.hannity.com

Sean Hannity had heard about it. Didn't you get the message on FOX NEWS?

So?

You acted as if it wasn't common knowledge when I only posted 1 reference from one of the oldest newspapers in the country, so I gave you several more. Most people in positions of power in industry, that can have the most effect, just do not support the president on this, because the consumers don't support the president on this. Doubt the 35% minority under trump will win on the position against the auto industries, the consumers, the states, etc.

Consumers don't support the president? If they saw prices double for everything they buy they would change their minds. Morons like you just don't believe there's any downside to regulations. That's how we know you're a dumbfuck.

That is just it. They didn't double as compared to the rest of the world. Apparently it is not a "either/or" kind of gig. I have pointed out your 2 dimensional, limited viewpoint before. I would suggest you think outside the box or cube, but you can't even get off the line.

The regulations where never enforced, moron. Trump put all that shit on hold the day he was inaugurated. You think when a regulation is enacted that every company is in compliance overnight?

Believe what you want kid. Arguing with you is like arguing with a stump. You have no facts or references and reject the ones you ask for, just because it is trump policy and just like trump you favor tearing crap down, just to be tearing down, it helps, hurts or is indifferent, whether you can get industry or states or people to support or not. Probably a big reason he is out of here come election.

Just admit that you lied and that I proved it. If anyone is tearing things down, it's the clowns who want to give the EPA unlimited power to destroy our economy and our property rights. Anyone who supports this insanity is a boot licker.

Proved what? You posted not a single reference kid. Does your mother know you are playing on the computer?

I refered to the content in your reference, dumbass. Your own cite disproved your claim.

 

[Markle]

WTF is WRONG with him???


Trump Administration Rolling Back Federal Water Protections ...
www.npr.org › 2020/01/23 › trump-administration-is-roll...
Jan 23, 2020 - The controversial rule change dramatically reduces pollution protections ... EPA Makes Rollback Of Clean Water Rules Official, Repealing 2015 ...

Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands ...
www.nytimes.com › climate › trump-environment-water
Jan 22, 2020 - The Trump administration has finished a new rule that rolls back ... President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama's “Waters of the ... “This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ...

He sure is an idiot, they still have a water issue in Flint, MI.

Their water system was already out of compliance with 40 year old regulations, dingbat.

Thanks for your non-facts and lack of data.

You think it was legal to introduce lead into the water supply in 2015? Really?

That's, in part, because the EPA action level – 15 parts per billion of lead in the water – is not a threshold for public health, so a reading below that number doesn't mean the water is safe.

Public officials and school administrators often reference that level to assuage fears about lead in the water.

Lead Levels Below EPA Limits Can Still Impact Your Health

Even tiny amounts of lead in the water can cause IQ deficits in children or high blood pressure in adults.

www.npr.org

Please show us all where in this article it says DOES cause low IQs in children and high blood pressure in adults. Not that it can, but it DOES cause problems.

I CAN be struck by lightening. I could be killed in a landslide, an earthquake or forest fire. Personally, I'll take those chances. Will you?

 

[frackapisa]

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

It was the start of the "slippery slope" that allowed the federal government to regulate guns to drugs. Slowly the court fought back by finding lines, like congress overstepped their power when they tried to make it illegal to have guns near schools.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and released in 1995, ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional

 

[White 6]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

 

[frackapisa]

Lead Levels Below EPA Limits Can Still Impact Your Health

Even tiny amounts of lead in the water can cause IQ deficits in children or high blood pressure in adults.

www.npr.org

Please show us all where in this article it says DOES cause low IQs in children and high blood pressure in adults. Not that it can, but it DOES cause problems.

I CAN be struck by lightening. I could be killed in a landslide, an earthquake or forest fire. Personally, I'll take those chances. Will you?

If you want to argue semantics you can start a new thread. As you mentioned, you could be struck by lighting, but people survive that event. It's a matter of statistical consequences, not direct cause and effect.

 

[Nostra]

Your inability to follow a conversation isn't my problem.

I can't follow a conversation you "pull out of your ass"

You claimed he said something he never said, and when I called on you to cite where he said it, you just waived the white flag.

Your inability to follow a conversation isn't my problem.

 

[harmonica]

WTF is WRONG with him???


Trump Administration Rolling Back Federal Water Protections ...
www.npr.org › 2020/01/23 › trump-administration-is-roll...
Jan 23, 2020 - The controversial rule change dramatically reduces pollution protections ... EPA Makes Rollback Of Clean Water Rules Official, Repealing 2015 ...

Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands ...
www.nytimes.com › climate › trump-environment-water
Jan 22, 2020 - The Trump administration has finished a new rule that rolls back ... President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama's “Waters of the ... “This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ...

WTF is wrong with YOU?

 

[my2¢]

The less government involvement the cleaner the air and water get....believe it or not libtards...we the people can do good things without government.....

I recall things such as acid rain. The strides made in clean air and water since government involvement has made life much better than health issues and recreational limitations imposed by corporations acting in the own short term interest.

Back in the day when the Cuyahoga was a fire hazard...

 

[bripat9643]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

 

[frackapisa]

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

Wickard v Filburn was the USSC interpretation of the commerce clause as White 6 tried to inject past your shield of ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

What makes you believe I give a flying **** what some hacks said about the commerce clause? Supreme Court judges are appointed to rule the way the man who appointed them wants them to rule. You cited the single most absurd and obviously wrong ruling the SC ever made.

Actually the single most absurd and obviously wrong ruling the SC ever made was the Dredd Scott decision. The one that said that "we the people" was never meant to include all the people.

That decision was outrageous, but the "logic" used in the Wickard v. Filburn is beyond absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

Wickard v Filburn was the USSC interpretation of the commerce clause as White 6 tried to inject past your shield of ignorance.

That isn't what I was referring to when I said I proved him wrong, moron. Thanks for jumping in to confirm your idiocy.

 

[White 6]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

What is it you thought he posted and that I thanked him for posting? You certainly don't get participation points just for dirty name name calling.

 

[bripat9643]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

What is it you thought he posted and that I thanked him for posting? You certainly don't get participation points just for dirty name name calling.

No, moron. You're confused, as usual.

 

[White 6]

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

Wickard v Filburn was the USSC interpretation of the commerce clause as White 6 tried to inject past your shield of ignorance.

That isn't what I was referring to when I said I proved him wrong, moron. Thanks for jumping in to confirm your idiocy.

Heck, kid. Nobody knows what in the world you are referring too, including you. You are not smoking rabbit tocacco while you are off for summer break from school are you? It will rot your brain little guy.

 

[White 6]

The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.

Educate yourself.

Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.

Huh?

Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.

I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.

What is it you thought he posted and that I thanked him for posting? You certainly don't get participation points just for dirty name name calling.

No, moron. You're confused, as usual.

Go tell mommy you made a booboo again. You'll be alright, kid.