California Politics: Moonbeam thread?

Gov. Brown Signs Senat Bill 54 making California a "sanctuary state"

Illegal Immigrants are welcome here
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...tes-and-ordinary-californians/article/2637472

By enacting Senate Bill 54 and declaring California a "sanctuary state," Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and liberal Sacramento politicians are draining citizenship of meaning and making a mockery of that history and those aspirations. They have taken a knee to the demands of identity politics ? declaring illegal immigrants a protected class and ordering state and local law enforcement to provide them with special protection.
 
Never knew he signed this bill last year and I follow the antics of what happens in Sacramento too. Guess it was an off day for me. Doesn't surprise me though that he signed the bill. He loves sticking it to the law abiding tax payers.

I'm old enough to remember his first term in office and that was bad enough back then.
 
Brown signed it Oct. 5 as part of a package of bills ?to protect California?s hard-working immigrants.?

I thought it was illegal for them to work? 

Brown's message is pretty damning.  It exposes the lies sold to us.  The sanctuary laws are supposed to make people not afraid to go to the police, or hospital.  The sanctuary laws are not supposed to make them feel safe getting an illegal job.
 
Yeah, don't get me started on the antics of Moonbeam and his bunch up in Sactown.  It's that law then it's the gas/registration tax (sticking it to the EV/hybrid car owns no less) that are annoying.  When it's time to retire, I'm definitely getting the hell out of CA and moving either to Nevada or Texas. 
 
It's now a crime for any business to assist federal immigration agents in any way without a warrant.  Up to a $10,000 fine per incident.

If they ask for access to non public areas of your business, it's a crime to say yes, unless they have a warrant.
If they ask to verify employment, it's illegal to answer them, unless they have a warrant.
...

Link to Assembly Bill 450https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB450

Basically their goal is to try to cripple immigration enforcement in any way possible now that we are a "sanctuary state".  Holy shit...
And don't get me started on them considering pardoning people to prevent deportation.  Batshit crazy TDS.

 
This is going to get fun.....

ICE Responds To California ?Sanctuary State? Law ? CA Businesses Now Face Enhanced Immigration Raids

ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the community. ICE will also likely have to detain individuals arrested in California in detention facilities outside of the state, far from any family they may have in California.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/10/08/ice-responds-to-california-sanctuary-state-law-ca-businesses-now-face-enhanced-immigration-raids/comment-page-1/
 
spootieho said:
If they ask for access to non public areas of your business, it's a crime to say yes, unless they have a warrant.
If they ask to verify employment, it's illegal to answer them, unless they have a warrant.

I would think any business employing illegal immigrants would already deny agents access without a warrant.  Does this really change anything?
 
USCTrojanCPA said:
OMG, you got to be kidding me. And how will they pay for the extra electricity needed for all these electric cars? What about the gas tax revenues? I don't know what to say anymore other than that I'll be long gone from CA by then.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/californi...120400191.html

Link doesn't work but I assume you are referring to the banning of the selling of regular cars by 2040. 

1)  A lot of countries are already doing that:  China (soon and already banned 533 models of cars), UK (2040 new, 2050 all), France (2040), India (2030), Netherlands (2030), Germany (2030 target), Norway (2025). 

2)  California is proposing shift from gas tax to mileage tax. 

3)  A ton of car makers are already talking about not making gas cars anymore.  Volvo is all electric/hybrid starting in 2018.  GM is preparing to have all electric/hydrogen cell lineup in the future.  Toyota has a 2050 deadline to produce only zero-emission vehicles.  Many other companies are ramping up electric car development.

4)  Energy production is slowly being converted to renewable energies and allow the state to be energy independent. 

California has always been a leader.  Glad that it is looking forward rather than burying its head in the sand.
 
Mileage tax is such BS. I'm sure they will get that passed.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
OMG, you got to be kidding me. And how will they pay for the extra electricity needed for all these electric cars? What about the gas tax revenues? I don't know what to say anymore other than that I'll be long gone from CA by then.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/californi...120400191.html

Link doesn't work but I assume you are referring to the banning of the selling of regular cars by 2040. 

1)  A lot of countries are already doing that:  China (soon and already banned 533 models of cars), UK (2040 new, 2050 all), France (2040), India (2030), Netherlands (2030), Germany (2030 target), Norway (2025). 

2)  California is proposing shift from gas tax to mileage tax. 

3)  A ton of car makers are already talking about not making gas cars anymore.  Volvo is all electric/hybrid starting in 2018.  GM is preparing to have all electric/hydrogen cell lineup in the future.  Toyota has a 2050 deadline to produce only zero-emission vehicles.  Many other companies are ramping up electric car development.

4)  Energy production is slowly being converted to renewable energies and allow the state to be energy independent. 

California has always been a leader.  Glad that it is looking forward rather than burying its head in the sand.

Sad as it maybe (as I myself own an old fashioned hunky v8) , electric cars are the future.  And as much as I would like it to be otherwise , California is probably behind China in this regard.

In the absence of US leadership, China is trying its best to take leadership in new tech - things like Solar power , electric cars, and artificial intelligence .  The more we choke ourselves off from the world in sacrificial service to MAGA gods, the more China will catch up.

And it is not just China , India and other countries are moving in this direction in a big way.  And when India and China reach critical mass in this regard , everyone else including US will have no choice but to simply follow.  We will have always have the internal combustion engine but more as a novelty item and hobby car.  If you want to be " on the grid " you will be part of the electric vehicle "system ".

Everyone loves to dump on "crazy, out there " California government but we happily partake in the clean air that CARB emission restrictions had a huge hand in promoting.  Imagine our state with its gazillion cars with no emissions restrictions and the smog that it would generate .  When those regs were first mandated there was similar talk from many quarters on how this was " loony " and " hippie " but now does anyone want to go back to those days .


While CA is leading the way in the US at-least in this regard, I have to say there is a clear conflict between these ideals and the realities on the ground - which are crumbling infrastructure especially in cities like Los Angeles and the fact that building anything new like dedicated automatic driving car lanes, or any new public transportation solutions are extremely prohibitive, thanks largely in part due to the crushing weight of union mandated rules and massive NIMBY-ism.


 
USCTrojanCPA said:
morekaos said:
I just bought a 1986 Ford Bronco... I am not going down without a fight.

Ditto with my gross polluting cars.  haha

Doesn't USC drive a Prius as his daily car?

This is change long overdue... the benefits of driving electric/hybrid outweighs ICE for daily drivers. You can still have your gassers for racing and hobby but transportation vehicles are going to move away from fossil fuels.

My only concern is battery technology and the waste from batteries. The hope is that they become totally re-usable or we'll have land pollution instead of air pollution.
 
Cost Benefits are a marketing ploy to make people feel better about themselves and keep them supporting government subsidies for a failing industry.

Tesla?s Electric Cars Aren?t as Green as You Might Think

ELON MUSK IS unveiling the Tesla Model 3 today. If you?re planning to buy one, you?re probably feeling pretty good about yourself. Not only will you have a sweet ride, but you?ll be doing something good for the environment! No gasoline-powered sports cars to get you through your midlife crisis, thank you very much. You care about global warming.

But how green is a Tesla, really? Devonshire Research Group, an investment firm that specializes in valuing tech companies, dug into the data and concluded that Tesla?s environmental benefits may be more hyped than warranted. Devonshire isn?t saying that Tesla is pulling a Volkswagen, or that its cars are spewing greenhouse gases from invisible tailpipes. It?s arguing that Teslas (and, by extension, all electric vehicles) create pollution and carbon emissions in other ways. Each stage of an EV?s life has environmental impacts, and while they aren?t as obvious as a tailpipe pumping out fumes, that doesn?t make them any less damaging.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/
 
morekaos said:
Cost Benefits are a marketing ploy to make people feel better about themselves and keep them supporting government subsidies for a failing industry.

Tesla?s Electric Cars Aren?t as Green as You Might Think

ELON MUSK IS unveiling the Tesla Model 3 today. If you?re planning to buy one, you?re probably feeling pretty good about yourself. Not only will you have a sweet ride, but you?ll be doing something good for the environment! No gasoline-powered sports cars to get you through your midlife crisis, thank you very much. You care about global warming.

But how green is a Tesla, really? Devonshire Research Group, an investment firm that specializes in valuing tech companies, dug into the data and concluded that Tesla?s environmental benefits may be more hyped than warranted. Devonshire isn?t saying that Tesla is pulling a Volkswagen, or that its cars are spewing greenhouse gases from invisible tailpipes. It?s arguing that Teslas (and, by extension, all electric vehicles) create pollution and carbon emissions in other ways. Each stage of an EV?s life has environmental impacts, and while they aren?t as obvious as a tailpipe pumping out fumes, that doesn?t make them any less damaging.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

Yes...Tesla and electric cars are not perfect but they are far better than the alternatives.  Perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

A failing industry?  Like what the rest of world is focused on including China and Europe?  Just about every auto maker are putting in a ton of capital and energy into developing and building electric cars?  I guess computers and the internet were failing industries when the government heavily subsidized them in the 1950s to 1970s.
 
fortune11 said:
While CA is leading the way in the US at-least in this regard, I have to say there is a clear conflict between these ideals and the realities on the ground - which are crumbling infrastructure especially in cities like Los Angeles and the fact that building anything new like dedicated automatic driving car lanes, or any new public transportation solutions are extremely prohibitive, thanks largely in part due to the crushing weight of union mandated rules and massive NIMBY-ism.

The NIMBY is a far bigger problem.  As for unions...not sure where that is from.  CA is trying to built the first real high speed rail in the US and the people fighting it are not unions.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
fortune11 said:
While CA is leading the way in the US at-least in this regard, I have to say there is a clear conflict between these ideals and the realities on the ground - which are crumbling infrastructure especially in cities like Los Angeles and the fact that building anything new like dedicated automatic driving car lanes, or any new public transportation solutions are extremely prohibitive, thanks largely in part due to the crushing weight of union mandated rules and massive NIMBY-ism.

The NIMBY is a far bigger problem.  As for unions...not sure where that is from.  CA is trying to built the first real high speed rail in the US and the people fighting it are not unions.

High speed rail is another feel good, government subsidized debacle. Farcical!!

California High Speed Rail's Dubious Claims of Environmental Benefits

the first 29-mile construction segment of the high speed-rail system from Madera to Fresno, of 30,107 metric tons of CO2e, from 2013 to 2018, would be offset at the start of construction through a tree planting program that the Authority is developing. This multi-faceted forestry program will introduce enough trees into the region where construction is taking place to honor the Authority?s commitment to offset the direct greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction. The program is planned to include urban forestry and tree planting, through regional tree foundations, which compounds greenhouse gas emissions reductions by providing shade and other amenities with tangible local economic benefits. The program could also include providing shade trees to interested home owners

These will be big leafy trees ? not tall skinny palm trees like the ones now shunned in the City of Los Angeles Million Trees LA program because palm trees don?t provide enough shade. Already state and local legislators are angling for trees in their districts. (They don?t seem to be thinking about the public costs of irrigating and maintaining those trees, though.)

https://californiapolicycenter.org/california-high-speed-rails-dubious-claims-of-environmental-benefits/
 
irvinehomeowner said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
morekaos said:
I just bought a 1986 Ford Bronco... I am not going down without a fight.

Ditto with my gross polluting cars.  haha

Doesn't USC drive a Prius as his daily car?

This is change long overdue... the benefits of driving electric/hybrid outweighs ICE for daily drivers. You can still have your gassers for racing and hobby but transportation vehicles are going to move away from fossil fuels.

My only concern is battery technology and the waste from batteries. The hope is that they become totally re-usable or we'll have land pollution instead of air pollution.

I have the Prius for those long drives to LA/SD/IE for both the gas savings and the use of the carpool lane.  ;)
 
Back
Top