Jump to content

JoeBama Regime Set to Unleash Scheme to Wipe Out Gasoline-Powered Cars!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

From the article:  

"The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.

FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.

Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants."

I think it's way past time for States to start pushing back using the 10th Amendment!   These people are evil!!

This is the hidden content, please

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

From the article:  

"The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.

FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.

Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants."

I think it's way past time for States to start pushing back using the 10th Amendment!   These people are evil!!

This is the hidden content, please

 

Didn’t we already have failed policy requiring emission monitoring coupled with state inspection? Seems to me that expensive buildings were erected for such nonsense and eventually, the buildings were sold and emission monitoring was scrubbed. I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, baddog said:

Didn’t we already have failed policy requiring emission monitoring coupled with state inspection? Seems to me that expensive buildings were erected for such nonsense and eventually, the buildings were sold and emission monitoring was scrubbed. I could be wrong.

The one here in Orange is now a crane service company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, baddog said:

Didn’t we already have failed policy requiring emission monitoring coupled with state inspection? Seems to me that expensive buildings were erected for such nonsense and eventually, the buildings were sold and emission monitoring was scrubbed. I could be wrong.

If I'm not mistaken, that was some of Clintonista's stupidity!  Clintonista, Obamanista, JoeBamanista -- no difference in commies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2023 at 1:07 AM, Reagan said:

From the article:  

"The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.

FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.

Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants."

I think it's way past time for States to start pushing back using the 10th Amendment!   These people are evil!!

This is the hidden content, please

 

FAKE NEWS!!!  FOX LIES TO KEEP THEIR STOCK VALUE UP!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2023 at 9:33 PM, UT alum said:

FAKE NEWS!!!  FOX LIES TO KEEP THEIR STOCK VALUE UP!!!

Saw the same story on cBS earlier. Biden admin to force auto makers to EV switch. Emission regulations so high they won't be able to pass with conventional gasoline engines.

Imagine needing to switch out half the pumps, at every gas station in America, to charging stations. That's what they expect to happen. And all the oil refineries will shut down. And the water will be clear. And the air will be clean. And all the rainbows will be prettier than ever with 2 extra colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Saw the same story on cBS earlier. Biden admin to force auto makers to EV switch. Emission regulations so high they won't be able to pass with conventional gasoline engines.

Imagine needing to switch out half the pumps, at every gas station in America, to charging stations. That's what they expect to happen. And all the oil refineries will shut down. And the water will be clear. And the air will be clean. And all the rainbows will be prettier than ever with 2 extra colors.

We are witnessing the dumbest and most corrupt administration to ever inhabit the WH.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

We are witnessing the dumbest and most corrupt administration to ever inhabit the WH.  

I tend to think others were more corrupt. This admin is too stupid to cover it up. Or they know that it doesn't matter how the optics appear to the voters. They've got the vote counters/machine algorithms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2023 at 12:06 AM, WOSdrummer99 said:

Saw the same story on cBS earlier. Biden admin to force auto makers to EV switch. Emission regulations so high they won't be able to pass with conventional gasoline engines.

Imagine needing to switch out half the pumps, at every gas station in America, to charging stations. That's what they expect to happen. And all the oil refineries will shut down. And the water will be clear. And the air will be clean. And all the rainbows will be prettier than ever with 2 extra colors.

Wait a minute…if CBS reported it, it’s fake by definition, right? Or is FAKE NEWS only fake when it doesn’t fit your narrative?

Emission rules proposed are designed to change auto production to 2/3 of cars and 1/4 of heavy trucks be electric by 2032.  No one will be forced. There’ll still be an option for internal combustion autos. That also gives 9 years to build our infrastructure for electric autos. Refineries won’t be shut down. Other uses for petroleum will be discovered, if they haven’t been already.  Chicken little rules in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Wait a minute…if CBS reported it, it’s fake by definition, right? Or is FAKE NEWS only fake when it doesn’t fit your narrative?

Emission rules proposed are designed to change auto production to 2/3 of cars and 1/4 of heavy trucks be electric by 2032.  No one will be forced. There’ll still be an option for internal combustion autos. That also gives 9 years to build our infrastructure for electric autos. Refineries won’t be shut down. Other uses for petroleum will be discovered, if they haven’t been already.  Chicken little rules in this forum.

Really, chicken little? Anyone who refuses to see the aggressive far left/communist agendas strategically put in place, is an air head at best…..or an ostrich. Smog control on California vehicles are already so stringent, no one outside of that state wants a vehicle equipped to be sold there. Setting dates by which “requirements” will be met is not the American way. Anyone should know that vehicle exhaust is waste and the quicker you can get that waste away from your engine, the better your engine will perform. Choking down the exhaust so that gas/diesel powered vehicles don’t perform well, so as to encourage electric vehicle purchases, is forcing an agenda.

Since climate change (used to be global warming) is already being blame for hurricanes, rising crime, more wasps in Alaska, wildfires and drought…..etc…..please tell me how driving electric vehicles will cure this…..especially the wasps. This whole ploy is all about man’s selfish attempt to “control” everything, including Mother Nature. I place my money on Mother Nature.

The climate change money goes into a huge pot for the “global” elites, who divvy it up and fly off in their private jets. The communists want to hold their thumb on every one of us, but some people can’t see the forest for the trees.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Wait a minute…if CBS reported it, it’s fake by definition, right? Or is FAKE NEWS only fake when it doesn’t fit your narrative?

Seems it fits your narrative to claim it's fake. There's only one narrative I believe 100%. And your political party is also doing everything they can to turn this country away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Read it all - good info - thanks
    • Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 
    • I bet he has woodville in the top 2 in the region
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...