Typical Election Lie

[acco40]

What is a lie? Sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? But let's take a closer look at a particular Republican campaign statement that gets quite a bit of attention in my state (Michigan).

Republicans (specifically Trump and Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers) repeatedly accuse Democrats of supporting an EV (Electrical Vehicle) mandate that would require people to buy electric vehicles insinuating that doing such will hurt the country's and specifically Michigan's, automotive industry.

Now let's look at the facts. Pure and simple, the truth of the issue is that there is no mandate from the Biden administration or anywhere else forcing folks to buy EVs. What is true however, is that Biden administration and most Democrats and some Republicans supported the already finalized emissions standards that, absent a change in the rules or some other technology being adopted, automakers could have to make sure two-thirds of all new cars sold by 2032 are zero-emission or face hefty fines. Currently, the only "zero-emission" autos are EVs (as defined by the regulators).

Now nuance is lost on the vast majority of the electorate and that's a shame. Is it due to partisanship, ignorance, stubbornness or simply ignorance? It is true that Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Senatorial candidate and current US House member) did vote against legislation that would have blocked implementation of those standards, but primarily because it wasn't clear what they would have been replaced with if anything at all. But she has also said she would support rewriting those rules if they hurt U.S. automakers (who by the way were the ones who helped develop them) and that she's against anyone being told what car to buy. But she also defended the rules as a way for U.S. technology to catch up with China's lead in making and selling EVs worldwide. "I want that manufacturing here. I don't care what you drive, I want to build them," she said during her debate with Rogers yesterday.

So from my vantage view, this is another lie by Republicans (which they know is a lie) and they are banking on an ignorant, lazy electorate (their base) to swallow it. I'm the first to admit Democrats have been guilty of similar tactics in the past albeit at a much lower frequency that current day Republicans (Trump is the champion of lies and fear mongering).

So Republicans, when you hear such statements as "Democrats will require you to buy EVs!" do you think, "Hey, I can't vote for them, they can't tell me what to buy." or do you cringe and say I wish they would speak the truth, it would be much more effective?

My take? Republicans wouldn't make such outrageous claims if they didn't work to their advantage so I put 40% of the blame on Republicans who ignore the truth for political gain and 60% of the blame on the ignorant electorate who lap up such nonsense.

Your take?

 

[eman623]

In California, Gov Newsollini signed an EO requiring ALL new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state to be zero emission by 2035.

Governor Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars & Drastically Reduce Demand for Fossil Fuel in California’s Fight Against Climate Change | Governor of California

Executive order directs state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles Transportation currently accounts for more than 50 percent of…

www.gov.ca.gov

Kamala Harris supports this, or at least she used to before she realized she needed to win Michigan and thus flip-flopped on the issue. But her values have not changed.

 

[Mycroft]

What is a lie? Sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? But let's take a closer look at a particular Republican campaign statement that gets quite a bit of attention in my state (Michigan).

Republicans (specifically Trump and Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers) repeatedly accuse Democrats of supporting an EV (Electrical Vehicle) mandate that would require people to buy electric vehicles insinuating that doing such will hurt the country's and specifically Michigan's, automotive industry.

Now let's look at the facts. Pure and simple, the truth of the issue is that there is no mandate from the Biden administration or anywhere else forcing folks to buy EVs. What is true however, is that Biden administration and most Democrats and some Republicans supported the already finalized emissions standards that, absent a change in the rules or some other technology being adopted, automakers could have to make sure two-thirds of all new cars sold by 2032 are zero-emission or face hefty fines. Currently, the only "zero-emission" autos are EVs (as defined by the regulators).

Now nuance is lost on the vast majority of the electorate and that's a shame. Is it due to partisanship, ignorance, stubbornness or simply ignorance? It is true that Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Senatorial candidate and current US House member) did vote against legislation that would have blocked implementation of those standards, but primarily because it wasn't clear what they would have been replaced with if anything at all. But she has also said she would support rewriting those rules if they hurt U.S. automakers (who by the way were the ones who helped develop them) and that she's against anyone being told what car to buy. But she also defended the rules as a way for U.S. technology to catch up with China's lead in making and selling EVs worldwide. "I want that manufacturing here. I don't care what you drive, I want to build them," she said during her debate with Rogers yesterday.

So from my vantage view, this is another lie by Republicans (which they know is a lie) and they are banking on an ignorant, lazy electorate (their base) to swallow it. I'm the first to admit Democrats have been guilty of similar tactics in the past albeit at a much lower frequency that current day Republicans (Trump is the champion of lies and fear mongering).

So Republicans, when you hear such statements as "Democrats will require you to buy EVs!" do you think, "Hey, I can't vote for them, they can't tell me what to buy." or do you cringe and say I wish they would speak the truth, it would be much more effective?

My take? Republicans wouldn't make such outrageous claims if they didn't work to their advantage so I put 40% of the blame on Republicans who ignore the truth for political gain and 60% of the blame on the ignorant electorate who lap up such nonsense.

Your take?

My take?

Setting regulations that require two-thirds of all new cars sold by 2032 are zero-emmision and then claiming that is not a mandate requiring people to buy electric vehicles is nothing but deliberate disingenuousness.

It's like saying that we will pass legislation making it "almost" impossible to buy firearms is not gun control.

The actual effect of both "non-mandates" is the same: Controlling what people are able to buy regardless what people want to buy and regardless the Constitution.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

In California, Gov Newsollini signed an EO requiring ALL new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state to be zero emission by 2035.

Governor Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars & Drastically Reduce Demand for Fossil Fuel in California’s Fight Against Climate Change | Governor of California

Executive order directs state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles Transportation currently accounts for more than 50 percent of…

www.gov.ca.gov

Kamala Harris supports this, or at least she used to before she realized she needed to win Michigan and thus flip-flopped on the issue. But her values have not changed.

EO’s are not laws, and can be cancelled by any Governor that succeeds Newsom.

 

[DrewPaul]

EO’s are not laws, and can be cancelled by any Governor that succeeds Newsom.

Mandates can be reversed also.

 

[jpn]

What is a lie?

Some people have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing reality from unreality. These people are taken advantage of by conmen.

Like this:



As Frum notes, what actually happened was that Trump creditors seized his "Trump Shuttle" airline during Trump's first bankruptcy in summer 1990.
The creditors leased Trump-branded planes to anyone who would pay a commercial rate, including Nelson Mandela's eight-city US tour that year.

 

[acco40]

In California, Gov Newsollini signed an EO requiring ALL new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state to be zero emission by 2035.

Governor Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars & Drastically Reduce Demand for Fossil Fuel in California’s Fight Against Climate Change | Governor of California

Executive order directs state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles Transportation currently accounts for more than 50 percent of…

www.gov.ca.gov

Kamala Harris supports this, or at least she used to before she realized she needed to win Michigan and thus flip-flopped on the issue. But her values have not changed.

California has been ahead of the curve on such issues for decades.

Please show a grain of evidence that Harris supported this for the nation. I’ll wait.

 

[Roadvirus]

California has been ahead of the curve on such issues for decades.

Please show a grain of evidence that Harris supported this for the nation. I’ll wait.

From 2019:

In Harris’ proposal, the California senator promises to help the country reach an aggressive set of environmental benchmarks. Her plan calls for phasing out sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, mandating carbon-neutral building standards and steering utilities to renewable sources of energy.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234670837.html

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Mandates can be reversed also.

EO’s are “mandates”.

 

[Fletch]

What is a lie? Sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? But let's take a closer look at a particular Republican campaign statement that gets quite a bit of attention in my state (Michigan).

Republicans (specifically Trump and Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers) repeatedly accuse Democrats of supporting an EV (Electrical Vehicle) mandate that would require people to buy electric vehicles insinuating that doing such will hurt the country's and specifically Michigan's, automotive industry.

Now let's look at the facts. Pure and simple, the truth of the issue is that there is no mandate from the Biden administration or anywhere else forcing folks to buy EVs. What is true however, is that Biden administration and most Democrats and some Republicans supported the already finalized emissions standards that, absent a change in the rules or some other technology being adopted, automakers could have to make sure two-thirds of all new cars sold by 2032 are zero-emission or face hefty fines. Currently, the only "zero-emission" autos are EVs (as defined by the regulators).

LOL. Thats an EV mandate dude.

 

[DrewPaul]

EO’s are “mandates”.

Then they can be reversed.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

LOL. Thats an EV mandate dude.

Not in a literal sense.

Biden’s EO #14507 lays out aspirational goals, but does not include any enforcement language.

In fact, the EO explicitly states; “This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Have a read for yourself.

Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to reestablish the Federal

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Then they can be reversed.

EO’s cannot be reversed anymore than any law can be reversed.

EO’s can only canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms.

Specific language matters when referring to legal issues.

 

[eman623]

California has been ahead of the curve on such issues for decades.

And this proves the OP's claim about lying to itself be a lie.

Please show a grain of evidence that Harris supported this for the nation. I’ll wait.

I can show more than a grain.

Harris co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which would have mandated 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2040.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1487

 

[DrewPaul]

EO’s cannot be reversed anymore than any law can be reversed.

EO’s can only canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms.

Revoking isn't in action the same as reversing? If the legal right to turn right on a green light was revoked wouldn't the policy of legally turning right on a red light be reversed?

Specific language matters when referring to legal issues.

I'll bear that in mind when I go to court.

 

[Athanasius68]

What is a lie? Sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? But let's take a closer look at a particular Republican campaign statement that gets quite a bit of attention in my state (Michigan).

Republicans (specifically Trump and Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers) repeatedly accuse Democrats of supporting an EV (Electrical Vehicle) mandate that would require people to buy electric vehicles insinuating that doing such will hurt the country's and specifically Michigan's, automotive industry.

Now let's look at the facts. Pure and simple, the truth of the issue is that there is no mandate from the Biden administration or anywhere else forcing folks to buy EVs. What is true however, is that Biden administration and most Democrats and some Republicans supported the already finalized emissions standards that, absent a change in the rules or some other technology being adopted, automakers could have to make sure two-thirds of all new cars sold by 2032 are zero-emission or face hefty fines. Currently, the only "zero-emission" autos are EVs (as defined by the regulators).

Now nuance is lost on the vast majority of the electorate and that's a shame. Is it due to partisanship, ignorance, stubbornness or simply ignorance? It is true that Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Senatorial candidate and current US House member) did vote against legislation that would have blocked implementation of those standards, but primarily because it wasn't clear what they would have been replaced with if anything at all. But she has also said she would support rewriting those rules if they hurt U.S. automakers (who by the way were the ones who helped develop them) and that she's against anyone being told what car to buy. But she also defended the rules as a way for U.S. technology to catch up with China's lead in making and selling EVs worldwide. "I want that manufacturing here. I don't care what you drive, I want to build them," she said during her debate with Rogers yesterday.

So from my vantage view, this is another lie by Republicans (which they know is a lie) and they are banking on an ignorant, lazy electorate (their base) to swallow it. I'm the first to admit Democrats have been guilty of similar tactics in the past albeit at a much lower frequency that current day Republicans (Trump is the champion of lies and fear mongering).

So Republicans, when you hear such statements as "Democrats will require you to buy EVs!" do you think, "Hey, I can't vote for them, they can't tell me what to buy." or do you cringe and say I wish they would speak the truth, it would be much more effective?

My take? Republicans wouldn't make such outrageous claims if they didn't work to their advantage so I put 40% of the blame on Republicans who ignore the truth for political gain and 60% of the blame on the ignorant electorate who lap up such nonsense.

Your take?

The only way for a car company to comply is to produce only electrical vehicles.
Against the wishes of the market, ie that what people want to buy.

Look-- we all get that the 'green agenda' is being gobsmacked by economic realities, which in turn is causing political problems for its advocates.

But please don't say that Democrats are neutral about the types of cars they prefer people to buy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The only way for a car company to comply is to produce only electrical vehicles.
Against the wishes of the market, ie that what people want to buy.

Look-- we all get that the 'green agenda' is being gobsmacked by economic realities, which in turn is causing political problems for its advocates.

But please don't say that Democrats are neutral about the types of cars they prefer people to buy.

No auto manufacturers are being forced to only produce EV’s, and political leaning does not indicate what type vehicle people buy.

 

[acco40]

The only way for a car company to comply is to produce only electrical vehicles.
Against the wishes of the market, ie that what people want to buy.

Look-- we all get that the 'green agenda' is being gobsmacked by economic realities, which in turn is causing political problems for its advocates.

But please don't say that Democrats are neutral about the types of cars they prefer people to buy.

So the only way to meet the two-thirds goal is to go 100%? Let me guess, English major?

An easy way to comply is to simply jack up the price of an IC car until the goal is met. Remember, the auto companies had a hand in creating this goal. Auto companies have been complaining about CAFE goal for decades saying they were unrealizable and then went on to meet those goals.

 

[Athanasius68]

No auto manufacturers are being forced to only produce EV’s, and political leaning does not indicate what type vehicle people buy.

Since the EOs require a percentage of cars they sell to be electric, then yes, they have no choice but to produce electric cars.
Or not sell cars.

 

[Athanasius68]

So the only way to meet the two-thirds goal is to go 100%? Let me guess, English major?

And here are the progressives, running scared from the political consequence of their arguments.

 

[acco40]

And here are the progressives, running scared from the political consequence of their arguments.

Scared? Just dumbfounded by your (ill)logic.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Revoking isn't in action the same as reversing?

Not when discussing EO’s.

I'll bear that in mind when I go to court.

Wouldn’t hurt to bear it in mind when posting here, too.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Since the EOs require a percentage of cars they sell to be electric, then yes, they have no choice but to produce electric cars.
Or not sell cars.

Instead of posting ignorantly, read the actual language of the EO that is included in my post #12.

 

[acco40]

As electric vehicle sales slow, U.S. relaxes plans for stricter auto emissions standards

Mar 19, 2024 3:56 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration this week is expected to announce new automobile emissions standards that relax proposed limits for three years but eventually reach the same strict standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The changes come as sales of zero-tailpipe emissions electric vehicles, needed to meet the standards, have begun to slow. The auto industry has cited lower sales growth in objecting to the EPA’s preferred standards unveiled last April as part of the most ambitious plan ever to cut planet-warming emissions from passenger vehicles.

The EPA suggested that under its preferred alternative, the industry could meet the limits if 67 percent of new vehicle sales are electric by 2032.

But during a public comment period on the standards for 2027 through 2032, the auto industry called the benchmarks unworkable with EV sales slowing as consumers worry about cost, range and a lack of publicly available charging stations.

Three people with knowledge of the standards say the Biden EPA will pick an alternative that slows implementation from 2027 through 2029, but ramps up to reach the level the EPA preferred from 2030 to 2032. The alternative will have other modifications that help the auto industry meet the standards, including the calculation of how EV fuel economy is measured, one of the people said.

The people, two from the auto industry and one from the government, didn’t want to be identified because the new standards haven’t been made public by the EPA.

The changes appear aimed at addressing strong industry opposition to the accelerated ramp-up of EVs, along with public reluctance to fully embrace the new technology. There is also a legitimate threat of legal challenges before conservative courts.

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted the EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution — including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.

Biden has made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency and is seeking to slash carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles, which make up the largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, Biden needs cooperation from the auto industry and political support from auto workers, a key political voting bloc. The United Auto Workers union, which has endorsed Biden, has said it favors the transition to electric vehicles but wants to make sure jobs are preserved and that industry pays top wages to workers who build the EVs and batteries.

Lots of interested parties involved indeed.[/size][/b]

 

[Athanasius68]

Instead of posting ignorantly, read the actual language of the EO that is included in my post #12.

I did. Newsome directs executive agencies to come up with the actual language and regulations of this 2/3 mandate.