Political Roundtable Part XIX

[dckingsfan]

This is what his voters wanted! Down with regulations, down with regulations! I don't think a lot of people in the US will get the picture until the the country is enveloped in smog like China, the water is polluted and unusable and all the national parks have been sold off to special interests.

Well, we want smarter regulations. Look at the deregulation in terms of coal dust disposal - even those in the industry didn't wanted smarter regulation not stupid deregulation. Then look at what they did with trucks that should be off the road due to their pollution. The vast majority of truckers didn't want that either.

Point to me where Republicans have ever campaigned on "smart" regulations. This is exactly what Trump campaigned on. He said he'd get rid of job killing regulations. News flash in the Republican ideology EVERY regulation is job killing. They would gladly gut every single environmental regulation as long as it benefits their corporate donors. Republicans don't give a **** if they turn the country into a inhabitable dumpster fire as long as they enrich themselves along the way. This is what happens when you put Republicans in power and this will be true 50 years from now. The crazy thing is that the regulations in the U.S. aren't even as stringent as other developed countries. But if you actually give a **** about anything other than tax cuts to the top 5% then you might want look into another party.

You got me there... I am not going to endorse their strategy.

But we know the rules growth is ridiculous. If you own a business and KNOW you can't comply because there are contradicting rules - then you know what I am talking about. I am sure if you do a bit of research on the matter, you will find your favorite asinine rules - those rules that everyone knows are terrible but will never go away.

But this Administration is flat-out dumbest - they will get no defense from me.

Even the Atlantic who like the idea of having more rules said this:

But it does a poorer job (US) than many other developed countries in getting rid of regulations that no longer work.

[gtn130]

Point to me where Republicans have ever campaigned on "smart" regulations. This is exactly what Trump campaigned on. He said he'd get rid of job killing regulations. News flash in the Republican ideology EVERY regulation is job killing. They would gladly gut every single environmental regulation as long as it benefits their corporate donors. Republicans don't give a **** if they turn the country into a inhabitable dumpster fire as long as they enrich themselves along the way. This is what happens when you put Republicans in power and this will be true 50 years from now. The crazy thing is that the regulations in the U.S. aren't even as stringent as other developed countries. But if you actually give a **** about anything other than tax cuts to the top 5% then you might want look into another party.

my man

[dckingsfan]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

[cammac]

The politics of “trade wars” is to hit countries where they are vulnerable! In democracies it is to hit voters in areas that an administration is strong! While farmers will be hard hit in Trump country also the SUV market by BMW makes its X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 sports utility vehicles in Spartanburg SC. They export over 100,000 SUVs to China this will obviously hit BMWs bottom line and lead to layoffs. BMW will also likely explore alternate countries to build auto plants.

One poll I look at with interest is Morning Consults monthly tracking poll. While admittedly Morning Consult isn't a top polling company they are the only one's who have a by state breakdown monthly. There latest poll in 538 show Trump favorable at 42% and unfavorable at
54%. Which is in the range of many polls except outliers like Rasmussen.

The Morning Consult Monthly poll shows a more dramatic shift in States than spot polls.
If you look at February versus March polls some significant changes.
Arizona went from Trump +3 to -1
Texas went from Trump +7 to +4
Florida went from Trump +2 to tie
NC. went from Trump +1 to ties
PA. went from Trump -5 to -8
Ohio went from Trump +1 to -4
Indiana went from Trump +3 to +1
Michigan went from Trump -10 to -15
Wisc. went from Trump -9 to -12
Iowa went from Trump -2 to -11
Kansas went from Trump +6 to +2
One State poll I find amusing is Utah Trump was -1 to -6 (note this is a Republican stronghold and will likely be totally Republican with the outside chance of Mia Love losing) But Trump hate is everywhere. Solid Republican are moving away and Blue State strength is increasing. The Republicans are pouring money into the Special Election in Arizona for fear of losing a solid Republican seat with huge favorable demographics (retired white people).

If rural America turns the midterms will be a blood bath of BLUE!

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

[gtn130]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

Who cares?

The result of this DISHONESTY is policy that advances fuel efficiency standards and protects the environment.

[gtn130]

On one side we have Pruitt being overtly corrupt and working fastidiously to dismantle the EPA to enrich his energy sector donors.

On the other we have the Obama admin using underhanded tactics to implement policy that will protect the environment and advance fuel efficiency standards.

Many sides, folks

[cammac]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

I agree it was politics but the reality is that it just isn't coal which Texas is a leader now in closing coal generation plants. Look at this National Geographic piece on the EPA and environment. The report has been updated to 2018.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

[stilldropin20]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

Seems like this is pretty much the obama game plan from November 8th until Jan 20th. The entire Obama administration and every single department acted just like this.

You know, it was Obama in 2008 when I first heard the term “elections have consequences.”

Why couldn’t this man just step aside after his party lost the way George Bush did for him?

There could’ve been no russia gate, no collusion gate, no Fisa gate. The United States has enough problems. It’s difficult enough to govern. The Trump administration has been 80% or more of his energy just undoing the boobyy traps laid by the Obama administration from November to January.

75% of trumps appointees have still not been confirmed by the Senate. Wtf!!

And the strategy is also crystal clear. The country be damned the citizens be damned let’s make it as difficult for Trump as possible so he can hopefully screw things up as much as possible so they can use it against him in the midterms and 2020 so they can regain power. They don’t actually care about the American people. Nor the country. They just want to be in power so they can enrich themselves like the Clintons did through their foundations and influence.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[stilldropin20]

On one side we have Pruitt being overtly corrupt and working fastidiously to dismantle the EPA to enrich his energy sector donors.

On the other we have the Obama admin using underhanded tactics to implement policy that will protect the environment and advance fuel efficiency standards.

Many sides, folks

“To protect the environment”

Remember in 2007 when Obama promised us an entire new grid. 100% green that would be in full effect by 2016? We’re cars were no longer run on gasoline? Remember those campaign promises?

Yeah good times.

Three months later in 2008 he handed over nearly $1 trillion to the auto industry to bail them out. Without a peep in the legislation requiring them to do anything with the fuel efficiency. So in essence. Obama had the auto industry by the balls in 2008. They were doomed to collapse and he could’ve forced them into compliance into almost anything. Yet not a peep about fuel efficiency in the bail out legislation.

But yeah, keep lying to us. Keep telling us what a good guy Obama was and how he protected the environment.

Have you ever given any consideration maybe his environmental protection regulations were designed to just benefited his donors??? By harming his donor’s competition???? Ever thought about that??? Global corps that supported Obama for the win!!! USA corps for the loss!! Record high unemployment rates during the entire Obama administration for the win!!!! Cuz, you know...” The environment. “


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

On one side we have Pruitt being overtly corrupt and working fastidiously to dismantle the EPA to enrich his energy sector donors.

On the other we have the Obama admin using underhanded tactics to implement policy that will protect the environment and advance fuel efficiency standards.

Many sides, folks

Got it - okay to do whatever, however as long as it has your stamp of approval

[stilldropin20]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

Who cares?

The result of this DISHONESTY is policy that advances fuel efficiency standards and protects the environment.

Meanwhile there’s not a single unbiased scientific study on the planet anywhere that demonstrates conclusively any correlation whatsoever between fuel efficiency and protection to the environment.

I’m a man of science. A doctor. “unbiased and scientific” are the key words in the paragraph above.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

I don't support the Pruitt and what he is doing with the EPA - especially with regards to coal.

But since this part of the thread started with the mileage targets, here is a better explanation of what happened with those mileage targets - it is never quite as clean as we would like.

The original Obama plan was to set aggressive targets that would go progressively higher through model year 2025, when cars would have to average 54.5 miles per gallon. But a mid-term review was supposed to happen in 2018. Automakers and regulators would assess the technological progress needed to meet that goal, along with other factors, such as the types of vehicles consumers were actually buying. In theory, the 2025 target could be rolled back if it seemed technologically out of reach.

After Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Obama pulled a fast one. His EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, declared that the 2012 targets were final, more than a year before the EPA and automakers were supposed to review the data and decide on future targets together. Obama essentially threw the automakers under the bus. McCarthy was peppered with questions about whether the EPA sped up the final rulemaking simply because Trump won and might not support the Obama rules. She denied what was obvious to everybody.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-pruitt-right-obama-mpg-rules-213926653.html

I agree it was politics but the reality is that it just isn't coal which Texas is a leader now in closing coal generation plants. Look at this National Geographic piece on the EPA and environment. The report has been updated to 2018.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

Yep, Trump is soooo misguided on his coal boondoggle. Coal was going away regardless. The other thing about Texas - they are a leader in renewable energy

Texas could have permanently buried Coal with renewable and natural gas but for the want of two stupid back to back Administrations.

https://www.voanews.com/a/texas-leads-us-in-use-of-renewable-energy/3565024.html

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

No actual plan from Trump - huge surprise

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

On one side we have Pruitt being overtly corrupt and working fastidiously to dismantle the EPA to enrich his energy sector donors.

On the other we have the Obama admin using underhanded tactics to implement policy that will protect the environment and advance fuel efficiency standards.

Many sides, folks

Got it - okay to do whatever, however as long as it has your stamp of approval

Merrick f*****g Garland.

Norms are done and over with. The GOP will break every rule they can to stack the courts with judges that will shape the country for decades. Playing by the rules is a losing strategy that results in handing the country over to the party of grifters and Roy Moore.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

On one side we have Pruitt being overtly corrupt and working fastidiously to dismantle the EPA to enrich his energy sector donors.

On the other we have the Obama admin using underhanded tactics to implement policy that will protect the environment and advance fuel efficiency standards.

Many sides, folks

Got it - okay to do whatever, however as long as it has your stamp of approval

Merrick f*****g Garland.

Norms are done and over with. The GOP will break every rule they can to stack the courts with judges that will shape the country for decades. Playing by the rules is a losing strategy that results in handing the country over to the party of grifters and Roy Moore.

Got it - we need a benign dictator of that you approve.

Guess we need to throw out SD's benign dictator...

[gtn130]

Got it - okay to do whatever, however as long as it has your stamp of approval

Merrick f*****g Garland.

Norms are done and over with. The GOP will break every rule they can to stack the courts with judges that will shape the country for decades. Playing by the rules is a losing strategy that results in handing the country over to the party of grifters and Roy Moore.

Got it - we need a benign dictator of that you approve.

Guess we need to throw out SD's benign dictator...

Yeah man making fuel efficiency rules permanent that were otherwise not necessarily permanent is benign dictatorship.

Centrism!

[DCZards]

Seems like this is pretty much the obama game plan from November 8th until Jan 20th. The entire Obama administration and every single department acted just like this.
You know, it was Obama in 2008 when I first heard the term “elections have consequences.”

Why couldn’t this man just step aside after his party lost the way George Bush did for him?

As you rightfully point out, "elections have consequences." Obama's term as president ended on Jan. 20, 2017. So he and his administration had every legal right to continue to govern after Nov. 8, 2016, including making the changes in fuel mileage targets that were made before Jan. 20, 2017.

So what's the problem?

Quite frankly, I think Obama did the country a favor by trying to mitigate, wherever possible, the damage that the orange idiot and his administration were likely to do.

And do we really know that the Bush Administration didn't do similar things between the time Obama was elected and the time Obama took office?