• 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


I noticed that a lot of the Democrat "no" votes were made by those who were just voted out in the midterms, and that seemed odd to me, because I read that the public is in favor of the pipeline. Was it a personal conviction on their part, or some other reason? I understand that you can't read minds, but since it will probably pass at some point why vote no now?
 
No question the messaging campaign from Dems has been horrendous.,
Cotton showed that in Arkansas by lying about social security and Pryor letting him get away with it.

Yet Dems are sticking with the top three idiots they have as albatrosses around our necks--Reid, Pelosi and DWS.
Only Dems like Dean are capable of turning this party inside out.
And just wait for the rhetorical knives to come out from DP Republicans over anyone I suggest.

You are aware that we now have DP posters who now identify as Republicans again, right ?

yeah, every time Pelosi and Reid spew their partisan drivel, i am happy that i don't have to carry water for a political party. i understand that there are political realities that i can't see from the outside, but there is also historical precedence. 2008 was a perfect time for another New Deal or Great Society type structured program. however, they didn't package it correctly. hindsight, and all.

i will say that the stimulus helped to keep me from going broke, namely, the COBRA part. i got ****canned from my grant work right as the economy tanked, and it would have been hard to pay the ridiculous premiums to keep my health insurance plan. then i got sick from the stress, and i finally realized how ****ed up our health care delivery system is. was a bit of a turning point for me, politically.
 
I noticed that a lot of the Democrat "no" votes were made by those who were just voted out in the midterms, and that seemed odd to me, because I read that the public is in favor of the pipeline. Was it a personal conviction on their part, or some other reason? I understand that you can't read minds, but since it will probably pass at some point why vote no now?
They voted no, because they are against the pipeline. Just because they were voted out, that doesn't mean their political life is over. What would you do in that situation?
 
The Democrats have demonstrated some of the poorest politicking and messaging in recent memory. They have given the public no clear plan at a time when that is exactly what the voters want. This has only been trumped by the most histrionic hyperpartisanship that I have seen in my lifetime on the part of the Republicans. And that includes impeaching Clinton for a blow job. ****, the idiots on the left even made a snuff film about Bush. How do you top that?

Unreal.

And while the two major parties were playing their hyper-partisanship they have been shrinking while the independents have been rising. Since you mentioned Bill Clinton, here are the party affiliation numbers since 1990:

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…28……28….41………..13…………………..19………………….9…..As of November 9, 2014

This is the first time since when records of party affiliation/identification began to be kept that both major parties have been below 30%. Now the Republicans have been below 30% numerous times, but never the Democratic Party. Not until now.
 
Whatever the senate repubs would give up in return would be nixed by the repubs in the house.

then you take it to the American people, and sell a compromise.

or you at least try to do that.
 
And while the two major parties were playing their hyper-partisanship they have been shrinking while the independents have been rising. Since you mentioned Bill Clinton, here are the party affiliation numbers since 1990:

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…28……28….41………..13…………………..19………………….9…..As of November 9, 2014

This is the first time since when records of party affiliation/identification began to be kept that both major parties have been below 30%. Now the Republicans have been below 30% numerous times, but never the Democratic Party. Not until now.

the choices are pretty poor. the best thing we can do would be to eliminate gerrymandering nationwide and to ease ballot access restrictions. unfortunately, the only people who can do that are the ones who would lose the most if the effort was actually successful.
 
When the GOP wins, they want to limit DEM terms to 3/4 of the last year--no new business.
They're doing the same thing here in Illinois since we have a new governor--just do nothing on minimum wage until the new governor takes over .

They voted no, because they are against the pipeline. Just because they were voted out, that doesn't mean their political life is over. What would you do in that situation?
 
If they named it the Obama Pipeline, it would have passed.

I assume you are referring to Obama Care? If so the republicans originally gave it that name to deride it. It's really the PPACA (Patient Protection Afforable Care Act).

If some of the states it would pass through don't want it and the Native American lands it would pass through don't want it and were never conferred with than I say it should be dead in the water. Not that many permanent jobs and it will help Canada out a lot more than the US at the risk of polluting our land.
 
Good evening polgara, you can address me as Pete, that's my real name.
Mary Landrieu doesn't have a chance of keeping her seat, she is down by 21% in the polls.

Since no one likes to lose without a fight, I can understand her efforts to try and keep her job by trying to convince others to help her. She seems feisty enough to do that, and I commend her for trying! She was a hold-out on voting "yes" on Obamacare, and she did get millions of dollars for Louisiana before she voted "yes", if I recall correctly. Give credit where it's due! Quid pro quo.....
 
They voted no, because they are against the pipeline. Just because they were voted out, that doesn't mean their political life is over. What would you do in that situation?

Probably the same thing, if it were a personal conviction. We all face those moments....
 

Thank You, it is as I thought. Only 4 more yea votes. Not even close to 67. I appreciate it. Keystone, I would like it but it isn't all that important to me. It is how a veto might affect President Obama that I am most interested in. But with all the hoopla I think even a veto wouldn't have repercussion beyond a month and probably wouldn't move his approval rating more than a point or two if that. Unless some of the unions really become upset. But who knows, the world is a mess and this may just be another item to stack upon what has gone wrong over the last year. But as my favorite expression goes, who knows, time will tell.
 
the senate writes its own rules, if republicans wish to lower it down to 51 votes needed to pass legislation, they can do it when they enter office.

And I hope they do. I pray that they do. Kill that ****ing disastrous crap called the filibuster. Let the Republicans lead the legislature as they have won. Let the country move in the direction that they wish to lead. If the people don't like it, they will change leadership. We don't need mitigating BS rules that, IMO, further separate the government's representation of it's people.
 
That would be the same method the GOP used the last four years to filibuster the Democrats, even on GOP ideas.
Not to mention the months Franken was refused his seat in 2009 and when Kennedy's seat was lost to Brown in the 2009 term.
Filibusters are a two-sided coin .

Well you left out that also during that time when the dems were supposed to have had a "filibuster proof majority" Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were hospitalized and their vote was basically vacated.
 
Back
Top Bottom