California kills off truck sales by 2035

[ptif219]

The only reason: Most Democrats support green energy alternatives. If Democrats are for it, they have to be against it. They'll even lie about their reasoning as you've discovered.

Green energy will not work. Democrats are smart enough to see that

[LurchAddams]

Green energy will not work. Democrats are smart enough to see that

This thread is about EV's.

[T. A. Gardner]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...limit-into-law

"As part of his response to the embargo, President Nixon signed a federal law lowering all national highway speed limits to 55 mph. The act was intended to force Americans to drive at speeds deemed more fuel-efficient, thereby curbing the U.S. appetite for foreign oil. With it, Nixon ushered in a policy of fuel conservation and rationing not seen since World War II."

Carter took the blame, but it doesn't matter which President did it, what matters was the result. The public HATED it. It became a thing of ridicule and rebellion against it. I suspect EV's if forced on people will end up at the same place for the same reason. People simply do not like being unreasonably told, demanded, to do things.

[Nordberg]

They don't want trucks.
You can't even define this 'pollution'.

Of course, they can, but your brain blocks make you unable to understand it. It is simple for anyone else to understand.

[Doc Dutch]

Unalienable rights are enumerated in the 1st amendment. An "unalienable" right is one to which you have access at all times you want it. Things like education, health care, and the like cannot be "unalienable" because they cost money, are available in limited quantities, and can be controlled and rationed by government.

Agreed you don't have a right to my money. Why do you think that gives you the right to dictate if a woman has an abortion or a person does drugs? Gambles or drinks?

[T. A. Gardner]

Agreed you don't have a right to my money. Why do you think that gives you the right to dictate if a woman has an abortion or a person does drugs? Gambles or drinks?

Because society as a whole has to agree on what is an isn't to be allowed. No rules is anarchy and that doesn't work. Too many or too strict rules don't work either. Therefore, if a state wants to put strict limits on abortions and drugs they can do so. Too strict, and there are problems like black markets. Too permissive and you end up with social unrest.

[Doc Dutch]

Because society as a whole has to agree on what is an isn't to be allowed. No rules is anarchy and that doesn't work. Too many or too strict rules don't work either. Therefore, if a state wants to put strict limits on abortions and drugs they can do so. Too strict, and there are problems like black markets. Too permissive and you end up with social unrest.

See? I know you were an authoritarian who seeks to strip Americans of their unalienable rights. There's no difference between you and the wacky Left except polarity. Both of you want to dictate to others how to live, what to think and what to believe.

[LurchAddams]

Carter took the blame, but it doesn't matter which President did it, what matters was the result. The public HATED it. It became a thing of ridicule and rebellion against it. I suspect EV's if forced on people will end up at the same place for the same reason. People simply do not like being unreasonably told, demanded, to do things.

Yes, I'm sure Carter took the blame from you. You're still wrong.

Our supply of fossil fuels is finite. The effect of burning fossil fuels is killing the planet. EV technology is improving. No one is being "unreasonably told" to do anything.