4 ms·

Aside from a petty desire to undo things done by the previous administration and attack California, I really don't understand this move by Trump and his adminis

by sq_ 7y ago

Aside from a petty desire to undo things done by the previous administration and attack California, I really don't understand this move by Trump and his administration. Any major car manufacturer will look at this with the knowledge that emissions standards will likely flip back either on a court challenge or when a new administration comes in, so why would they want to change up their whole design and assembly process? I guess the only good news is that it's unlikely that any manufacturer will actually regress and produce cars that hurt our planet more than current ones since they'll know it'd be a short term move that they'll have to undo later.

bovermyer 7y ago
I would venture a guess that Trump himself doesn't understand this move.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
Personally, I don't see why States don't have the right to regulate this as they see fit.
- sq_ 7y ago
  I'd prefer that the federal government set a proper nationwide standard (match or beat CA's current standard?), but I do agree with you. You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... Not only has this train left the station, the station has been obliterated from the air. You'd think that all the free-market people would be up in arms about tariffs and an escalating trade war. You'd think that all the pro-gun people to be up in arms about the first President in history to implement a gun ban by executive order. (Or perhaps even about the candidate who said "take all the guns now, worry about due process later" well before the election.) You'd think that all the corrupt-Clintons people would raise an eyebrow as Trump pressures world leaders to meet at his personally owned properties, and accepts bizarre payments[0] from Saudi Arabia while coincidentally also being engaged in an effort to defend their gruesome murder of a US citizen. You might even think that all the "war on terror" as well as the "US out of Middle East" crowd to be somewhat concerned about a President who announces that the US "is waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to how we should proceed." Whatever is going on here, it's far beyond any kind of simple hypocrisy or political compromises or whatever. People who have spent their entire lives behind slogans like "better dead than red," "pry it from my cold dead hands" and all that stuff have simply done a 180 degree turn on a dime. Now it's suddenly the other side who is unfairly demonizing Russia and the Saudis, and bump stocks are just toys that no one really needs, and whatever else. Despite my best efforts I am no closer to understanding why it's happening like this. The textbook explanations, like cults of personality, don't seem to apply here. But whatever it is it seems far more dangerous than the normal game of politics in the United States. And it would really behoove us to figure it out soon. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyis...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Does the Federal Government have the right to regulate firearms through the Commerce clause? The Federal Government's powers to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (somewhat separate from the right to keep and bear) are the same powers that enable them to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  They did, provided they asked for a waver. Trump is undoing that.
yokaze 7y ago
The way I see it, it is mostly about motivating his base. Creating a negative feedback from the opposition rallies his base united against "the enemy" and has a larger reach and impact than whatever he does in the first place. That is impact on his support, anything else doesn't matter. If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base. So it's not a failure in that context.
drak0n1c 7y ago
There is a valid reason based in dismantling regulatory capture. The California rules make it necessary for carmakers to produce multiple types of cars for different regions of the country, or just produce all cars based on California's costlier standards. Car prices are already raised due to the regulations. The big automakers support it because they've already built infrastructure for it and they have the resources to continue to pay for it. Small new competitors might not.

by sq_ 7y ago

bovermyer 7y ago

I would venture a guess that Trump himself doesn't understand this move.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Personally, I don't see why States don't have the right to regulate this as they see fit.

sq_ 7y ago
I'd prefer that the federal government set a proper nationwide standard (match or beat CA's current standard?), but I do agree with you. You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... Not only has this train left the station, the station has been obliterated from the air. You'd think that all the free-market people would be up in arms about tariffs and an escalating trade war. You'd think that all the pro-gun people to be up in arms about the first President in history to implement a gun ban by executive order. (Or perhaps even about the candidate who said "take all the guns now, worry about due process later" well before the election.) You'd think that all the corrupt-Clintons people would raise an eyebrow as Trump pressures world leaders to meet at his personally owned properties, and accepts bizarre payments[0] from Saudi Arabia while coincidentally also being engaged in an effort to defend their gruesome murder of a US citizen. You might even think that all the "war on terror" as well as the "US out of Middle East" crowd to be somewhat concerned about a President who announces that the US "is waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to how we should proceed." Whatever is going on here, it's far beyond any kind of simple hypocrisy or political compromises or whatever. People who have spent their entire lives behind slogans like "better dead than red," "pry it from my cold dead hands" and all that stuff have simply done a 180 degree turn on a dime. Now it's suddenly the other side who is unfairly demonizing Russia and the Saudis, and bump stocks are just toys that no one really needs, and whatever else. Despite my best efforts I am no closer to understanding why it's happening like this. The textbook explanations, like cults of personality, don't seem to apply here. But whatever it is it seems far more dangerous than the normal game of politics in the United States. And it would really behoove us to figure it out soon. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyis...
microcolonel 7y ago
Does the Federal Government have the right to regulate firearms through the Commerce clause? The Federal Government's powers to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (somewhat separate from the right to keep and bear) are the same powers that enable them to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles.
WalterSear 7y ago
They did, provided they asked for a waver. Trump is undoing that.

yokaze 7y ago

The way I see it, it is mostly about motivating his base. Creating a negative feedback from the opposition rallies his base united against "the enemy" and has a larger reach and impact than whatever he does in the first place. That is impact on his support, anything else doesn't matter. If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base. So it's not a failure in that context.

drak0n1c 7y ago

There is a valid reason based in dismantling regulatory capture. The California rules make it necessary for carmakers to produce multiple types of cars for different regions of the country, or just produce all cars based on California's costlier standards. Car prices are already raised due to the regulations. The big automakers support it because they've already built infrastructure for it and they have the resources to continue to pay for it. Small new competitors might not.