Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Another Insane Story Of Trump's Legendary Pettiness" video.

  1. The light bulb issue is pointless. Most use LED lights as is. I know several conservative people who use light bulbs that are energy efficient. All the light bulb ban did was hurt poor people as they can't afford more expensive light bulbs.
    2
  2.  @user-ue5yw6zb9k  Thom Hartman, really? That guy is hack.
    2
  3.  @user-ue5yw6zb9k  State rights is not code for racism. He strawmans all the time. I don't see how people take him serious. When you play the race card that much the word "racism" means nothing and really makes him the racist.
    2
  4.  @user-ue5yw6zb9k  One speech by one guy, big deal. The Southern Strategy is complex as many claimed things change because of religion or because of economic reasons. And there are questions if the states switch to begin with. Saying state rights, which has been around since the founding of this nation, is code for "racism" is one of the dumbest things anyone can say. Thom Hartman is a hack.
    2
  5. There is the commerce clause. These car companies sell in all states. They will make cars to meet CA's strict standards making cars more expensive in other states. If those car companies only did business in CA then there won't be a problem. But the second they do business over state lines they have to follow federal laws.
    1
  6.  @elizataylor1726  , yes, but then why get the state of CA involved? It becomes an excuse to make those cars only. They can say they are satisfying CA law and thus all cars will follow those standards.
    1
  7. This deals with the commerce clause. If they are going to make a car to meet strict regulations of CA they will do so in all states. This limits choices for others in other states.
    1
  8.  shurednichso  , is it cheaper and healthier?
    1
  9.  @nafaidni  , that becomes inefficient. It is easier to make anything in bulk. Plus, what about neighboring states like AZ or NV?
    1
  10. This violates the commerce clause. Those car companies sell cars in all states. The car companies will generate cars that meet CA's standard which will make them more expensive.
    1
  11.  @darkmantlestudios  , these companies do business in other states. Thus they have to follow federal law over state laws. The idea of the commerce clause was to prevent one state from overpowering other states or harming them.
    1
  12.  @darkmantlestudios  , but why did they talk to CA about it?
    1
  13. , this isn't state rights. This violates the commerce clause. Car companies will develop cars to meet CA's standard where those cars will be much more expensive for others in other states.
    1
  14.  @nafaidni  , I agree that car companies can do what they want. So why are they having discussions with CA? No, banning marijuana does not violate the commerce clause. It is legal in some states and as long as business is done only in those states no laws are broken. It is when sales are done across state lines that federal laws go into effect. In the movie "Tapped" they discuss the issue of water bottles violating federal standards. One company gets away with it because they water bottles they produce are only sold in that state, thus the FDA can't get involved. Another example is with the restaurant I worked for. It was a local one. We saved money by buying eggs directly from a farm. They did not have to meet up with any FDA standards. Same with nutrition information. Companies who do business in multiple states have to display them, we didn't.
    1
  15.  @nafaidni  , no, the standard is this. The federal government is there for two things, 1. Deal with foreign affairs 2. Deal with commerce between states The second a business does business in multiple states they influence more than one state and thus have to follow federal laws. Thus is CA creates strict standards which will drive up costs of a product in other states, they are harming other states. That is where the federal government comes in. If a company resides and does business in just that one state then they influence just that one state.
    1
  16.  @ScoopMeisterGeneral  , so you are against having standards and a system in place to prevent chaos?
    1
  17. The commerce clause in in effect here.
    1
  18. This isn't about state rights. Those car companies do business in all states thus they have to follow the commerce clause. Car companies will make cars to meet CA's strict standards which will make cars more expensive for other states. If those car companies only sold cars in CA then there won't be a problem. Also, it begs the question why won't the car companies just build fuel efficient vehicles on their own?
    1
  19.  @jasonfire3434  , the commerce clause is why the federal min. wage exists. It originally was for businesses who did business across state lines. Then they enforced it on local businesses and it went to court in the US v Darby Lumber Co case. The judges ruled that yes, local companies have to pay the federal min. wage (I disagree with that decision but moot point). Every state has to follow the min. wage. With states with higher min. wage that is their right as they are not doing so in agreement with other companies, and it mainly influences the prices in those states. For example, a widget may be manufactured in a state with a higher min. wage, but is sold in another state with a lower min. wage and thus the price is still low. .
    1
  20. This isn't about state rights. These companies do business over state lines, thus the commerce clause comes into effect and they have to follow federal law. What will happen without the commerce clause is that these car companies will make cars to meet CA's standards making them more expensive in other states. If the car companies only sold in CA then there won't be a problem.
    1
  21.  @user-ue5yw6zb9k  Also, if you want to go down that route why not point to Nathan Bedford Forrest or The Southern Manifesto signed by mostly democrats. I bet Thom Hartman does not talk about that.
    1
  22.  @user-ue5yw6zb9k  That is a low standard to you.
    1
  23.  @SquallAKALeon  , never said I agreed with those people. I feel Peterson isn't too bright. Tucker is and it shows with his success, same with Shapiro. But they are both people trying to sell you something. Hartman just strawmans all the time. All he does is say the political right is always wrong and wants to kill people and are racist with zero evidence. That is why no one listens to him. The commerce clause is a legit issue. It connects us as a nation and prevents one state from harming another. Healthcare is a different issue as the left is demanding that the government runs and funds healthcare. No one on the right is demanding that the government runs and fund the auto industry. They just set federal rules that companies, who do business in more then one state, must follow. It is about having standards and a system to follow. That is much better then just doing whatever you feel is right. The left's system creates chaos and harms people. Having standards is what is best for society.
    1
  24.  @spindoctor358  , again, one guy. Doesn't represent the entire group. I agree, that Hartman is a racist.
    1
  25.  @TheZou42  , when did they apologize? I never heard of one. And yes, this is up for debate. In 1976 Carter won many southern states.
    1
  26.  K2Karakoram  , so why bring up republicans of the past? You are doing the same thing.
    1
  27.  K2Karakoram  , Hartman is a racist. He brings up race on issues where race isn't involved. That is being a racist. When you keep crying racism that makes you a racist. It fits the second definition of you gave.
    1