Trump administration says people would be exposed to increased risk if gas prices were lowered

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: highvein

. I haven't laughed at the opposition of a President quiet like I have this one.

It's quite.

"Quite like I have this one".

Quiet means shhhhh. Be silent.

fyi

Thats taking liberal nazism to a whole new level.

Ffs

That’s obtuse dialogue to a whole new level — grammar is the descriptor you’re looking for.

FFS, at least bring your A-game (pun intended) — if you’re capable of delineating grammar, syntax, or satire...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SlapMonkey

almost like they're performing an inside joke just to troll certain segments of society who will lose their collective mind over something like this.

Is that a reasonable thing for the United States government to do? Is that the respect we should expect from our government officials?

We have democrat representatives suggesting violence against people on the Right. How far do you wanna take this argument..

a reply to: angeldoll

This is one of those incidents that make me scratch my head. Can they be that stupid to roll back mileage requirements?

I agreed with pulling out of the Global initiative but this is just stupid. We should be working on phasing out gasoline cars not eliminating mileage requirements.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Sookiechacha

On the contrary--I think that he's just unstable enough to tell agencies to do this

Some aspects of the administration's reasoning are a little silly, at least as it is presented in the NYT article. I'm actually chuckling to myself thinking about how Mr. Trump may have directed his subordinates to craft this little excerpt: "Just write up some stupid # to trigger their TDS!"


The citizens' relationship to their government is always shaped by their political leaders. Life in general is just a big PSYOP. Most of the time those psychological operations are used to promote policy, or otherwise control the narrative. In the case of Mr. Trump he has no problem using whatever means he deems necessary to increase his influence.

For the record I'm not necessarily in favor of any of this psychological manipulation. However, it is a fact of life. We need to be aware of it, and try to see through it. Then we should plan our actions based on the facts of the matter, not based on government spin.

-dex

a reply to: angeldoll

Funny this is only news with this story?,a paper known for fake news,it doesn't sound right,sounds more like a liberal giving another false opinion

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: angeldoll

Funny this is only news with this story?,a paper known for fake news,it doesn't sound right,sounds more like a liberal giving another false opinion

Here ya go sweetie

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: angeldoll

This is one of those incidents that make me scratch my head. Can they be that stupid to roll back mileage requirements?

I agreed with pulling out of the Global initiative but this is just stupid. We should be working on phasing out gasoline cars not eliminating mileage requirements.

You mean you don't want to go back to the good old days when cars got 8 miles to the gallon?

But.... but ... Trump!

Just sayin'

The White House proposed dramatically weakening fuel economy standards on Thursday, reversing the only major federal policy to reduce planet-warming emissions from the nation’s top source of greenhouse gas pollution.

The move would clear the way for vehicles to, by 2030, spew an addition 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ― equivalent to the entire annual emissions of Canada.

and

Automakers had scrambled to distance themselves from the scandal-struck EPA’s decision to reopen the emissions rules, insisting they supported stronger standards. Ford Motor Co.’s top executives had even called for “increasing clean car standards” in a blog post titled “A Measure of Progress.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Hm. Maybe this will be another situation in which corporations simply blow this off, and continue to do what's best, instead of focusing on what's best for the oil industry.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: DexterRiley

I agree, and we actually should be happy that Trump's "psyops" are very thinly veiled, if at all. We should be able to see through most of them without effort, unless we are extremists on either side that either see an angel of a devil at every turn.

Being blinded by ideology is a sad state in which to remain for too long.

originally posted by: angeldoll

You mean you don't want to go back to the good old days when cars got 8 miles to the gallon?

But.... but ... Trump!

Right, because that's exactly what's happening

And who cares if car companies write blogs titled "A Measure of Progress"--without governments forcing them to, nothing is stopping these car companies from continuing the MPG goals.

This façade where we think that just because the government doesn't mandate it means that it can't or won't happen is simply silly.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The thread title is the original title in the article, except compacted due to length.

..And nobody is trying to take your big truck away.

...and nobody is trying to take your little Yaris away, so you can feel free to calm right the hell down and not treat government standards as some sort of holy book of sacred texts.

a reply to: Edumakated

I disagree with the alarmist attitude.

I remember when gas was inexpensive, under $2 a gal. I don't want to live thru that horror ever again.

originally posted by: olaru12
I remember when gas was inexpensive, under $2 a gal. I don't want to live thru that horror ever again.

I remember in 2001 when gas was under a buck after 9/11 happened. That was a kick ass winter in AZ and NM for me. I was driving an 84 C10 with a big block and a lift kit that gave me a smoking 8 MPG if I drove with a tailwind. Being able to fill both tanks for less than $40 allowed me to spend most of my weekends either bass fishing or game hunting anywhere I wanted to go within a 150 mile radius.

A good portion of the lower income and unemployed/welfare around my small town all have cars....some will literally drive around all day aimlessly as a recreational activity in their shoody barely running vehicles just for something to do.....and most of them don't have insurance.

The roads here were not designed for this many vehicles and traffic is constant and noisy after everyone wakes up at 10pm.

Not saying I think it should be mandated, Freedom and all that, but speaking as someone who can't afford a car and all the insurance, maintenance and so forth that goes with it, and who has to walk through this chaotic nightmare just to get my errands run it doesn't sound all that bad to have SOME drivers regulated to using the roads.

Maybe it's just jealousy talking, but the "feel good principle" is becoming so prevalent in our society it makes sense that someone somewhere will try to "solve" the congestion and mindless consumption of drivers (the aforementioned recreational non insured)....but I sure as hell don't want to be the one to set that precedent forward.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The thread title is the original title in the article, except compacted due to length.

..And nobody is trying to take your big truck away.

...and nobody is trying to take your little Yaris away, so you can feel free to calm right the hell down and not treat government standards as some sort of holy book of sacred texts.

lol! temper, temper.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

But too, as is indicated in my above post, there will be additional repercussions.

The White House proposed dramatically weakening fuel economy standards on Thursday, reversing the only major federal policy to reduce planet-warming emissions from the nation’s top source of greenhouse gas pollution.

The move would clear the way for vehicles to, by 2030, spew an addition 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ― equivalent to the entire annual emissions of Canada.

Provided, of course, you favor clean air. (I know you do. I do too.)

This is pretty dumb.

Safety standards in automobiles have increased dramatically over the last few decades. We keep saying we want to stop our dependence on foreign oil and quit being raped by Saudi Arabia...they scam us for oil, blow up the world trade towers and still we buy oil from them. LOL We're idiots.

Better gas mileage benefits us all. There is no downside. We actually have the technology to make it happen today. For all the good things Trump does he keeps showing us that he's in the employ of the coal and oil industry. I'm not sure why they have so much sway over him?

originally posted by: amazing
This is pretty dumb.

Safety standards in automobiles have increased dramatically over the last few decades. We keep saying we want to stop our dependence on foreign oil and quit being raped by Saudi Arabia...they scam us for oil, blow up the world trade towers and still we buy oil from them. LOL We're idiots.

Better gas mileage benefits us all. There is no downside. We actually have the technology to make it happen today. For all the good things Trump does he keeps showing us that he's in the employ of the coal and oil industry. I'm not sure why they have so much sway over him?

We get 8% of our oil from the Saudis, so I'm not sure what you are talking about....