• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

It's not a meaningful defeat if the next congress can simply revive the issue again. Nothing is ever truly left to rest, especially not as it concerns big oil.
 
Juanita said:
No, tribal leaders have been all over the news all day! I didn't realize that AIM still existed, must be a new generation. They seem pretty serious in their opposition to the pipeline tho.
Click to expand...

I'll check it out.

Thanks Juanita for mentioning it.
 
Perotista said:
<snip>
But will these Democrats vote AYE again next year
Donnelly IN
Heitkamp ND
Manchin WV
McCaskill Mo
Tester MT
Warner VA
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that they all will vote in favor of it when the GOP brings it back up for a vote in the next session. The only one I think has the potential for a vote change is Warner but how do you articulate voting in favor of something in November and then all of a sudden be against it a few months later. That would play incessantly on his next opponent's ads.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm going to guess that they all will vote in favor of it when the GOP brings it back up for a vote in the next session. The only one I think has the potential for a vote change is Warner but how do yoshou articulate voting in favor of something in November and then all of a sudden be against it a few months later. That would play incessantly on his next opponent's ads.
Click to expand...

I agree that Warner is a question mark, but he doesn't have to explain. He was just re-elected and has a new 6 years, the first five he can do whatever he wants as most Americans have very short memories. The other 5 are probably fairly firm
 
ernst barkmann said:
the orginal purpose of the senate is to place a check on federal power, and the block collective legislation of the house.
Click to expand...

It's purpose was also to give the States a voice in the Federal government. The people have a voice in the House, States had a voice in the Senate.

But then the progressives decided that they were smarter than the founders and decided that the States, who gave rise to the Federal government, should not have a voice anymore. No we have situations where the State is for something, and both their Senators vote against it! The brilliance of the left at work.
 
NIMBY said:
Too bad there isn't a loyal opposition on the other side willing to deal as you've mentioned.
Hasn't been since the night Obama was elected, as you well know .
Click to expand...

Well, really hasn't been since George W. Bush was elected, truth be told.
 
Helix said:
We already subsidize the oil industry. My point was that it was dumb to nix the pipeline, as it could be used as a bargaining chip. Do you need for me to clarify further?
Click to expand...

You know, that word "subsidize" just seems wrong. Are thieves and muggers who do not rob me subsidizing me? I don't think so.
 
Declan said:
No I was referring to if you put an attractive sounding name on a piece of legislation, it makes it hard for people to vote against it--Like No Child Left Behind.
Click to expand...

But that makes no sense that using Obama's name would make it more attractive to vote for in a hyperpartisan congress.
 
beerftw said:
thats not really a defeat,its more of didnt recieve a filibuster proof majority or veto proof majority,or even a reid proof majority.
Click to expand...

Sure it is and the outcome is the same.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
But that makes no sense that using Obama's name would make it more attractive to vote for in a hyperpartisan congress.
Click to expand...

The GOP would have voted for oil and the dems would have voted for the name.
 
beerftw said:
then obama will be put on the spotlight,good or bad,he wont be protected from reid anymore.he will be required to either veto or comprimise,and if hes smart,he would do like clinton and comprimise,which was beneficial to clinton.
Click to expand...

Why would he care? He's not running again is he?
 
Fletch said:
Oh stop. You haven't been protecting them from anything. The pipeline will be perfectly safe. The objection to the pipeline is based upon ideology, not reason. Its about the lefts irrational hatred of fossil fuel not some wish to protect us all from a pipeline. Seriously. Why cant you liberals just be honest about something.
Click to expand...

You're right there is no history of pipelines failing and they last forever. What was I thinking?

PHMSA - Pipeline Failure Investigation Reports

List of pipeline accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you also forgetting the land that will be taken by eminent domain for a paultry 50 permanent jobs?
 
Fletch said:
Support for the pipeline is based upon the idea that human life and human activity relies upon the availability of affordable energy. In short: it exists, we need it, and have the ability to refine it into a useable substance. And the there is no argument that doing so is against the national interest. If anti-progress liberals like you and Obama were around and in charge when the first oil well was drilled, you would have sought to have it capped.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't bother you all that oil will pass through the U.S. and go to overseas markets?
 
Fletch said:
You might actually be able to make a rational case on those grounds. Too bad that isn't the case that is being made. It might be interesting to see how it would play out.
Click to expand...

You keep making assertions that aren't backed up by links. Care to provide any or are we supoosed to take your word for it?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Because the point was made by some the oil will benefit the American people.
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't really matter where it goes, since oil is a world wide commodity. The more we produce, the better it is for lowering the world wide price. So it does benefit us by putting downward pressure on oil prices. In fact, since futures trading affects the price, just the news of us approving the pipeline would put downward pressure on the price of oil.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You're right there is no history of pipelines failing and they last forever. What was I thinking?

PHMSA - Pipeline Failure Investigation Reports

List of pipeline accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you also forgetting the land that will be taken by eminent domain for a paultry 50 permanent jobs?
Click to expand...
And trains derail, and trucks crash and airplanes crash and refineries explode and ships sink...whats your point? Nothing is fool proof. And if we didn't do things because it might fail or break we would do nothing. But my point was, even if there was a certainty that no oil would ever leak from the pipeline, you would still oppose the project. You would simply move on to anther objection. And another. And another. Why? Because these aren't your real objections. Your real objection is ideological.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, it doesn't really matter where it goes, since oil is a world wide commodity. The more we produce, the better it is for lowering the world wide price. So it does benefit us by putting downward pressure on oil prices. In fact, since futures trading affects the price, just the news of us approving the pipeline would put downward pressure on the price of oil.
Click to expand...

How dare you bring fact into the emotional argument....
 
Juanita said:
No, tribal leaders have been all over the news all day! I didn't realize that AIM still existed, must be a new generation. They seem pretty serious in their opposition to the pipeline tho.
Click to expand...

They have every right to be, it's a direct violation of the treaties.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Because the point was made by some the oil will benefit the American people.
Click to expand...
And of course it will, which is why Louisiana is for it. It means work for US refineries as well as the construction and supervision of the pipeline supply jobs. The Unions are for it as are the majority of the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom