Trump kills NYC congestion pricing

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 100
Topic's author
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Additionally, while the far-left authoritarian argues that the highways south of 60th Street are state-controlled and therefore exempt from federal approval
No one said or even implied that. This is why your arguments, including the ones you didn't bother to write like this one, are always so stupid. Pay attention.
Topic's author
#32
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Y’all are so out of touch with the average American. Please continue doing and saying what you are saying.
Telling us we're out of touch with the "average American" isn't a response to your hypocrisy.
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It's not hypocrisy if he is in touch with the working class poor.
#34
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,881
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
It's not hypocrisy if he is in touch with the working class poor.
They can visit him at the White House of Mara Lago.
#35
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,609
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
A majority of new yorkers take public transportation. Maybe you would know that if you knew anything about this city.
And apparently it will stay that way since we want to raise parking fees to only an amount the rich can afford
Topic's author
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not hypocrisy if he is in touch with the working class poor.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy.
#37
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
the toll program is subject to federal approval because there have been a number of projects on various roads in lower Manhatten that have received federal subsidies. 
As you know and acknowledge the above to be true, I’m not sure how you can argue this is a case of federal overreach.

Topic's author
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The reason the federal government has a say in this is to ensure states are not abusing the subsidies they were given. That's where the approval process came in, and it passed that test. Trump then came in and decided that he knew what was better for New Yorkers than New Yorkers, and it appears all of the small government conservatives agreed.

We know this is what it was about for Trump because he was explicit in giving his reasons for terminating the program. It had nothing to do with ensuring proper use of federal funds, it was a naked and explicit power grab. And that's before he added in his little "long live the king" line. And let's be serious, you know damn well Trump didn't know or care anything about what the subsidies were for or what determinations were made during the approval process. He was told he could do it, so he did. Because that's the kind of person he is.

How every purported "get the government out of our business" right winger is not outraged about this is beyond me. 
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Maybe stop taking federal money and then you can pay for your own roads. Trump's never gonna sign off on a plan that assrapes the working class, so long live the queen and reject the federal money. Do it.
#40
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
It is “subject to federal approval.” Therefor, the federal government can also disapprove without it constituting overreach. To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide. If it is hypocrisy as you claim, I don’t think this is a (mole)hill that limited government conservatives wish to die on. Trump is pursuing smaller government in just about every other respect for this to register.
Topic's author
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
It is “subject to federal approval.” Therefor, the federal government can also disapprove without it constituting overreach.
So... Might makes right?

If it is hypocrisy as you claim, I don’t think this is a (mole)hill that limited government conservatives wish to die on. Trump is pursuing smaller government in just about every other respect for this to register.
The point is not that this is a big deal nationally, it's just as obvious to a violation of stated right wing principals as it gets. If you was a right winger see nothing wrong with this, that's fine. I am just not interested in hearing you argue states rights ever.
Topic's author
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe stop taking federal money and then you can pay for your own roads.
Maybe stop saying stupid things like this
#43
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
So... Might makes right?
Dramatic much? More like “subject to federal approval” means exactly what it says. That fact means there is no violation of state sovereignty here, unless the courts find that the DOT is disapproving the measure for improper reasons, as I have already acknowledged.

The point is not that this is a big deal nationally, it's just as obvious to a violation of stated right wing principals as it gets. If you was a right winger see nothing wrong with this, that's fine. I am just not interested in hearing you argue states rights ever.
So, not a big deal, but big enough to trigger melodrama and binary thinking.
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
 I don’t think this is a (mole)hill that limited government conservatives wish to die on. Trump is pursuing smaller government in just about every other respect for this to register.

Give Trump time. He might still end those subsidies to New York after DOGE audits the MTA and finds out where all the money went. Then Hochul can do whatever she wants.
#45
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess it’s possible…
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
So... Might makes right?
Dramatic much?
No, logic much. It's a tired rhetorical response that Trump defenders turn to all the time; rather than stick to the topic of what *is* right they change the argument to "he *has* the right...". No one here said he didn't, the point of the thread was about how this is a blatant violation of long stated right wing principals, so I find it amusing how right wingers continue to defend it rather than just admit they think it's wrong and have to play all these games instead.

So, not a big deal, but big enough to trigger melodrama and binary thinking.
It has nothing to do with size. "Unjustly killing another person is wrong" is either consistent with your moral principals or it's not. It doesn't become "more consistent" when applied to genocide vs one sick old person.

The scale of a wrong can only be determined after you figure out what the wrong is.
Topic's author
#47
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Give Trump time. He might still end those subsidies to New York after DOGE audits the MTA and finds out where all the money went. Then Hochul can do whatever she wants.
Funny how MAGA cultists revere in delight over the prospect of Trump removing all federal subsidies from blue states. It's almost like they have no principals at all and all this argumentation is just a game aimed at retaining power since their ideas are unpopular and self defeating.
#48
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
No, logic much.
It doesn’t seem like it.

Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means. You just see it as “wrong” because the federal government’s requisite involvement isn’t going the way you wish.

The scale of a wrong can only be determined after you figure out what the wrong is.
You have yet to make your case that it is “wrong” (odd word/concept to bring into a strictly regulatory matter, but whatever).
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If the money saved was being used to funnel white collar crime while the MTA crumbles, it's well worth it.

since their ideas are unpopular
lol, your side has approval in the 20's gtfo.
Topic's author
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.You just see it as “wrong” because the federal government’s requisite involvement isn’t going the way you wish.
I've explained my position on this in pretty fine detail, you seem to have forgotten the entire conversation.

Again, I'm not arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do this.

Again, I have taken no position on whether I am in favor of NYC congestion pricing.

Again, this thread has nothing to do with any objections I have to the program, this thread is entirely about right wing hypocrisy concerning so called states rights and small government principals.

Again, the reason the federal government has a say in this is because some of the roads included in NYC's program received federal subsidies, so their role here was about ensuring states were not abusing those subsidies. They reviewed the program and they approved.

If Trump had come out and say that the program is an abuse of federal funds, then, even though we both know that would be complete bullshit cause Trump couldn't care less about that, at least then you'd have some kind of argument. But you don't because Trump was explicit:

"CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED"

That is Trump's declaration. So what we have here is a president of the United States deciding that it was his role, not local elected leaders, to step in and decide what was best for their city's traffic issues.

This is the epitome of everything you guys claim to be against.

And yet here people like you are, continuing to make excuses. This is why I do not take the political right seriously.
#51
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Wow— that’s a lot of words you’re saying to still not be addressing this:

Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.

Sometimes you have real complaints about Trump. This, however, isn’t one of those times. There is much lower hanging, much bigger fruit than this.
Topic's author
#52
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Wow— that’s a lot of words you’re saying to still not be addressing this:

Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.
You have to be trolling, I  don't see how this is serious.

I addressed it in about 5 different ways. This has nothing to do with the point of the thread and I just finished explaining why. I then moved on to explaining what the thread is actually about and why this example supports my point.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what point you think you just made? Oh, no of course not. Why explain when you can just pretend you made a point and move on.

#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
I addressed it in about 5 different ways. This has nothing to do with the point of the thread and I just finished explaining why. I then moved on to explaining what the thread is actually about and why this example supports my point.
This is Democrat speak for "Ok, you win, Trump was not creating a "constitutional crisis" using Federal authority to approve tolls impacting a federal highway system" and "now let me shift these goalposts a wee bit"
#54
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
My point is this:

The Trump Administration is actually required to be involved in the NYC toll program approval process.

If you already know the above to be the case, then I really don’t know what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could structure it as a syllogism for the most clarity.
#55
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was not creating a "constitutional crisis" using Federal authority to approve tolls impacting a federal highway system"
At least this would be a coherent line of thought as opposed to the mere assertion of “you either agree with me that Trump’s intervention is wrong or you’re a hypocrite!”

As I like to say, there are only two types of thinking:  binary and non-binary.

Topic's author
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The Trump Administration is actually required to be involved in the NYC toll program approval process.
This is false. The federal government (as in the entity) needed (past tense) to be involved in the approval process. It was, and it past the test that was required. That's done, we're beyond that.

If you already know the above to be the case, then I really don’t know what point you are trying to make.
I don't think you are trying to understand it, it is really really simple.

You believe in small government and states rights correct? If not, this thread doesn't apply to you.

If you believe in these principals, then a president of the United States stepping in and deciding that he knows better than an American city what is best for their traffic problems is an issue for you.

That's it, that's all.

What you are doing though is excusing this by making false arguments.

The federal approval process was granted already, that shows that Trump's position is based entirely on politics. The very thing small government states rights conservatives are trying to keep it of the picture.

In fact, the very fact that Trump involved himself personally already tells us this is political. Do you seriously think an NYC traffic program rises to the level of concern that it calls for the president's personal involvement? Of course not.

And if all of that wasn't convincing enough, Trump made it clear by telling us why he did it.

You cannot argue this wasn't political. Therefore if you believe in keeping the federal government out of a state's business, you would take issue with it. You wouldn't be excusing it. That's called hypocrisy.
#57
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
This is false. The federal government (as in the entity) needed (past tense) to be involved in the approval process. It was, and it past the test that was required. That's done, we're beyond that.
Ok. So, because Biden had already approved the toll program, Trump should not be getting involved. Is that your position?

You believe in small government and states rights correct? If not, this thread doesn't apply to you.
That’s a more nuanced matter for me. I am neither strongly for big or small federal government. If I wish to play “devil’s advocate” my own position isn’t even relevant. What is relevant is the strength of your argument, or lack thereof. You are actually going so far as to argue that if your ideological opponents  do not fall into line with your position, they must have a flaw in their character. That is called bullying (and binary thinking).
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Ideological purity tests are a big reason why there are no leaders left in the Democrat party. Nobody can fill all the criteria and check all those boxes. Too many boxes and not enough nuance.

It used to be you could simply say you were against fraud waste and abuse without submitting a resume with infinite references.
#59
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There appears to be another binary frame that Lex is simultaneously trying to construct:  that a Republican is either irresponsible or a hypocrite. Irresponsible if he holds to his allegedly damaging values or a hypocrite if he doesn’t hold to his values. Heads; Lex wins! Tails; Republicans lose!

Topic's author
#60
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Ok. So, because Biden had already approved the toll program, Trump should not be getting involved. Is that your position?
No.

First of all, we have agencies that handle that. You know, as in people who do this for a living and therefore understand what's actually involved in these decisions. There is no reason whatsoever that the President of the United States would be personally involved in any of this, and there is no evidence Biden had anything to do with it.

So no, "Biden" didn't approve anything.

My position is; the fact that the federal agency that handles this approved it gives us good reason to believe the program met the criteria that would have otherwise caused it to be denied.

If that's the case, then Trump's personal involvement is clearly best explained as political.

If it's political, then that is a blatant contradiction to the "states rights" and "small government" principals republicans have been claiming to champion and using to attack democrats over for decades.

If his involvement was not political that would have been fine, but we have absolutely no reason to believe that and every reason to believe it was in fact political.

You are actually going so far as to argue that if your ideological opponents  do not fall into line with your position, they must have a flaw in their character.
No. No. No.

What I'm arguing is that my ideological opponents do not fall in line with their own stated position. That's what hypocrisy means, and I've repeated that point over and over and over again in this conversation.

You did get the last part right though. A hypocrite is someone who does have a flaw in their character, that's why the word carriers weight.