Posted on 01/19/2016 12:47:48 PM PST by Nervous Tick
Donald Trump said Tuesday that federal regulators should increase the amount of ethanol blended into the nation’s gasoline supply.
Speaking at an event hosted by the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Trump, a real estate mogul and the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ought to follow the ethanol volumes Congress set in 2007.
“The EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress under the [renewable fuel standard],†Trump said. The mandate is popular in Iowa, which hosts the nation's first caucuses.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
And has been a US citizen since birth - don't forget that part.
Nobody's perfect.
Cruz is in reserve... California fuel formulas suck!
What conservative candidate?
Is this the Hurricane Sandy emergency fuel waiver?
If so, I think we’d all agree it is an illegal abuse of authority.
(Even if it is a benefit.)
If Congress passed law. Bush signed. EPA should enforce law as written. If it is a bad law, why has it not been repealed?
I’m starting to change my opinion of Trump, with this sort of bottom-of-the-barrel pandering.
“Feed your engine some ethanol, and it will love you for it.” all the way to the engine repair shop or the car dealer - depending on ow much your engine loves ethanol ...
Yikes.
Let us hope the court is favorable and Trump smartens up.
Before it’s over, You’ll have another reason to hate me for being right Laz. Bank on it. ;)
So you think single payer "works great" in Canada and Scotland?
You first accept the fact that the only thing he wants from you is a vote. Not an opinion. Then you act accordingly.
Thank you for referencing that article Nervous Tick. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
Note that while I will gladly vote for Trump for president, Trump is a constitutionally low-information candidate, imo, that unsurpristingly does not understand the following about the feds ethanol mandate.
Not only have the states never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate environmental issues, but even if the states had delegated such power to Congress, it remains that the Constitution prohibits Congress from delegating legislative powers to anyone outside the legislative branch.
More specifically, probably the only reason that the constitutionally undefined EPA is bossing everybody around with legislative branch powers is this. Corrupt Congress is letting EPA steal legislative branch powers to make unpopular regulations. Congress is letting the EPA do this probably so that corrupt lawmakers can keep their voting records clean in order to fool low-information voters into reelecting them.
Trumps supporters need to get him up to speed on these things.
Remember in November!
When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president.
Also consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Ahem...
“Sorry Conservatives.”
Welcome to the club, Laz. Love your posts, BTW.
Bears repeating...
If ethanol were good for your engine, everyone would use it without the force of law.
**** ethanol. I just stopped off at the last oil co in town that sells ethanol-free gas for my lawn mowers. It’s 3.99 gal. but worth every penny -
Hillery is an American too. But I will not vote for her for anything but hard time in prison.
Well kiss my rump, Trump.
Wow, digging deep I see.
It's called playing to win, a concept Trump is well aware of.
Cruz professes to be an outsider for the same reason and I'm for wither man who can destroy the cabal of DC.
All depends on what your goal is and if you can't stand to do what it takes, then so be it.
Do you realize that the EPA waived the ethanol volume provisions because not as much gasoline was being produced so not as much ethanol was needed? And that Trump wants to force the oil companies to still buy more ethanol, even though they don't need it? You would force a company (and ultimately us) to buy a product they don't need and can't use just to subsidize another industry? That sounds a lot like Obamacare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.