California loses right to set emissions standards.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok? Well? We can ignore “States rights” arguments from Republicans.

Not really sure the fake president can do this....

[Thermodolia]

The authority of the EPA quite literally comes from the president. If Trump says the EPA is no longer, the EPA would be no longer.

I believe it is Congress that create and eliminate federal agencies except in very specific purposes.

That is correct. Trump can’t wish any government agency away. Doesn’t mean that he can’t fuck that agency into oblivion though

[Pal Lundelackcodan]

I mean, there are countries currently taking massive steps to fight against climate change: Bhutan and Costa Rica.
Yeah, we're fucked.

They're not taking "massive" steps against climate change.
These countries are just working off of their current sustainability standards that have worked for decades.

[Rojava Free State]

So much for states rights. Federalism is dying and we killed it. Let California have emission standards. If people in your state don't like those standards, then set your own

[San Lumen]

That’s some grade A corporate propaganda right here.


Ya no. That’s never happened, like ever. Nobody is just going to volunteer to do anything.


Which is a good thing. The free market is pure fantasy.


Ya that’s bullshit.

You're playing into the hands of the corporations by dissing the free market. Corporations hate the free market, precisely because there power comes from interventionism. You accuse me of corporate propaganda, I now accuse you of corporate propaganda. Do you know who's responsible for most environmental regs? Corporations. Why? Because they hurt competition more than they hurt the corporations, which are so big that they are insulated. Why do you think that this country has such big corporations? Because the regulations make it damn near impossible for competition to occur, with all the miles of red tape. So you, sir, are the monopolist, and the corporate shill.

I care more about the planet then if a CEO can stuff his or her wallet with cash.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The states right was taken away for absolutely no reason whatsoever and people applaud it beacuse "CAliFORnia baD".

The state never had a right to violate the more important rights of the individual.

The company never had a right to fuck with the earth for profit.

[Nantoraka]

That’s some grade A corporate propaganda right here.


Ya no. That’s never happened, like ever. Nobody is just going to volunteer to do anything.


Which is a good thing. The free market is pure fantasy.


Ya that’s bullshit.

You're playing into the hands of the corporations by dissing the free market. Corporations hate the free market, precisely because there power comes from interventionism. You accuse me of corporate propaganda, I now accuse you of corporate propaganda. Do you know who's responsible for most environmental regs? Corporations. Why? Because they hurt competition more than they hurt the corporations, which are so big that they are insulated. Why do you think that this country has such big corporations? Because the regulations make it damn near impossible for competition to occur, with all the miles of red tape. So you, sir, are the monopolist, and the corporate shill.

I'd like to see your sources for all of this, so they aren't paranoid ramblings

[Neutraligon]

This is correct. The President can't just eliminate a federal agency if they so chose.

In this case he most certainly can, at it is part of the executive branch.

Incorrect, while he may be the head of the executive branch it is congress that creates and eliminates agencies.

[Antityranicals]

Environmental regs hurt the nation more than they will ever help it, as a rule. Otherwise, people would just do what the regs say, even without the reg.

"People always make the rational, informed, responsible decision about every issue, therefore regulations are bad because if they were actually needed people would all ready naturally be abiding by them!"

What is the weather like up there in cloud cuckooland?

Yet the same people who are incapable of making such decisions can pick people who can?

Earth to Myrensis...

[Rojava Free State]

I believe it is Congress that create and eliminate federal agencies except in very specific purposes.

That is correct. Trump can’t wish any government agency away. Doesn’t mean that he can’t fuck that agency into oblivion though

Trump probably will find a way to give himself the power to do just that. No power is enough when you're DJT

[Thermodolia]

So much for State's Rights.

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?

Personally this is a good move. We should slowly cut any and every hold California has on this nation beyond the most basic of influences

That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

[Bear Stearns]

Let's be honest, neither party has argued on states vs. federalism in good faith, they support one to the extent it further's their aims.

Evidence by Republicans supporting federalism and Democrats supporting states rights

[Antityranicals]

You're playing into the hands of the corporations by dissing the free market. Corporations hate the free market, precisely because there power comes from interventionism. You accuse me of corporate propaganda, I now accuse you of corporate propaganda. Do you know who's responsible for most environmental regs? Corporations. Why? Because they hurt competition more than they hurt the corporations, which are so big that they are insulated. Why do you think that this country has such big corporations? Because the regulations make it damn near impossible for competition to occur, with all the miles of red tape. So you, sir, are the monopolist, and the corporate shill.

I'd like to see your sources for all of this, so they aren't paranoid ramblings

Here's a good one. I've got more if you'd like.

https://mises.org/wire/if-i-were-corpor ... -228743717

[Antityranicals]

Let's be honest, neither party has argued on states vs. federalism in good faith, they support one to the extent it further's their aims.

Evidence by Republicans supporting federalism and Democrats supporting states rights

You're right, I like states rights as an ends to the means of fighting government intervention.

[Crockerland]

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?



That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

That would go against the First Amendment, but I may be biased as I think kicking California the hell out and not letting them vote in our elections would be pretty desirable.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Companies would likely learn from the first company's mistake, as the company would suffer more from the suit than from just not dumping in the river.

Well fortunately many don't think like you as we would still be having Love Canals, Valley of the Drums and river fires.

A company should be held legally liable for its pollution and mistakes when it comes to disposal of toxic waste and byproducts, as well as accidental spills. No one- NO ONE -opposes companies being held responsible for their mistakes and messes. That said, coupled with being held liable in court (and granting victims in the vicinity the right to sue for damage), market forces and consumer demand would have ultimately made companies clean up their act.

This said, environmental affairs is one of the only "HELP ME SUGAR DADDY GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING" instances that has ever had a full, constitutionally valid justification to exist. The EPA, in its original interpretation, is ironically one of the few overarching government agencies that is actually constitutional. The EPA regulates the air and navigable waters. The states are forbidden from governing navigable waters because they are interstate and all actions of one state affect all other states. The same goes with the air.

That means that the EPA has no constitutional reason to be abolished, nor is there a need. The problem is that it now bosses around the domestic institutions of the states and recently tried to force federal control on ditches and ponds that are filled a certain number of months in the year.

[Antityranicals]

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?



That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

Criminalizing that sounds like a teeny tiny violation of the First Amendment.

[Nantoraka]

I'd like to see your sources for all of this, so they aren't paranoid ramblings

Here's a good one. I've got more if you'd like.

https://mises.org/wire/if-i-were-corpor ... -228743717

I'd prefer more, as Mises is known to be fairly biases and not very factual.

[Thermodolia]

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

That would go against the First Amendment, but I may be biased as I think kicking California the hell out and not letting them vote in our elections would be pretty desirable.

I’m a die hard unionist. Anyone who supports said movements should be arrested for sedition. The Union is Eternal

[Bear Stearns]

You're playing into the hands of the corporations by dissing the free market. Corporations hate the free market, precisely because there power comes from interventionism. You accuse me of corporate propaganda, I now accuse you of corporate propaganda. Do you know who's responsible for most environmental regs? Corporations. Why? Because they hurt competition more than they hurt the corporations, which are so big that they are insulated. Why do you think that this country has such big corporations? Because the regulations make it damn near impossible for competition to occur, with all the miles of red tape. So you, sir, are the monopolist, and the corporate shill.

I'd like to see your sources for all of this, so they aren't paranoid ramblings

Wait seriously? I thought it was common knowledge that regulations benefit big business the most.

Licenses and fees are massive barriers to entry to new players who don't have the clout or connections to get "legal consultants" to help them flout strategically navigate regulations while punishing smaller people.

Same reason why small business owners support abolishing corporate income tax but Fortune 500s are in favor of keeping it. Corporate income tax gives them leverage over politicians, and they can afford to pay the tax anyways.

[Rojava Free State]

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?



That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

I don't see why. If a majority of cali voters wanna leave, let them. Keeping California isn't worth it if violence is the price

[Thermodolia]

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

Criminalizing that sounds like a teeny tiny violation of the First Amendment.

First amendment meet my shredder, shredder meet the first amendment

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

It was a parliamentary, royal, and admiralty crime to support the United States of America seceding from the United Kingdom.

That case was not true for Dixie and is not true for California and Texas. The right to secede and self-determination is, and should be, absolute, assuming the consent of the people involved.

[Nantoraka]

So much for State's Rights.

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?

Personally this is a good move. We should slowly cut any and every hold California has on this nation beyond the most basic of influences

That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Sure, I'll donate one day.
While we're at it, can we cut California off of the mainland and push it out to sea?
And florida, too.

[San Lumen]

Normally, I'd be the first man to jump into making this exact argument and deep down, you are right. States' rights is the most important issue in America today.

The problem is that their standards are interfering with the ability of other states to define theirs. California is such a huge state and has so much control in its region that car companies are bowing to California and catering to them, to meet their standards, shafting the smaller companies and driving the cost of automobiles up nationwide.

The question leads down to this: if California swings its regulatory fist, does it end at every other state's nose? California's huge market demand makes car companies cater to them. Is this right?



That's why I am such a proud supporter of the Yes California Independence Movement and some day, a donor. Releasing California as its own nation would be the best thing to happen to the United States of America, as long as we still had access to their ports.

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

It has no support to even be viable statewide

Should be a federal crime to support that movement

That would go against the First Amendment, but I may be biased as I think kicking California the hell out and not letting them vote in our elections would be pretty desirable.

You can't do that.