Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

NIMBY said:

This would be two decades later.
The GOPs in DC have no intention of working with Obama as they had to with Clinton after election losses.
The GOP actions over the last six years are proof positive that this is all-out electioneering war .

Click to expand...

not quite,the democrats have refused comprimise since reid became majority leader,the only logical question is who started the game of no,and why you feel its ok when your party is the party of no but demonize the other party for the same.


i believe the term is hypocrisy

hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

NIMBY said:

He only wants to kill the 17th amendment because more than 30 some state legislatures are GOP.
And would pick the Senators--he doesn't tell you that .

Click to expand...

I was aware of that but what I'm trying to get down to is that he says you cannot lobby a senator with a 17th repeal. I'm trying to find the way he thinks they will vote to represent their state and have him prove that there is no way that lobby money can't infect the senatorial system. I can't believe that it won't.

We have the 17th because state legislatures were terminally Gerry-mandered in the late 1800s and both parties in the Progress--ive era saw that this was wrong.
Without the 17th right now, GOPs would have over 70 Senators due to their Gerry-mandered state remaps.
Obviously, the GM'd House isn't enough for the GOP as they further attempt to polarize DC .

poweRob said:

yeah... no. I like electing my senators.

Click to expand...

jamesrage said:

I oppose the pipeline because I actually respect the property rights of the land owners.

Click to expand...

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.

A law would have to be passed and the GOP will never allow that .

poweRob said:

I was aware of that but what I'm trying to get down to is that he says you cannot lobby a senator with a 17th repeal. I'm trying to find the way he thinks they will vote to represent their state and have him prove that there is no way that lobby money can't infect the senatorial system. I can't believe that it won't.

Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:

the state legislatures, and since the states control the senate, it is no longer a collective body as the house.

collective bodies are full of faction/ special interest.

that is not to say there not going to be corruption in government be it federal or state, however since i know corruption exist i want it as close to the people as possible, because it is easier to expose and correct the problem, then 3000 miles away.

Click to expand...

Well seeing how almost every single GOP state legislator are member of and are entirely beholdened to ALEC, seems like repealing the 17th is pretty much just selling the Upper house to the Koch brothers.

jamesrage said:

I oppose the pipeline because I actually respect the property rights of the land owners.

Click to expand...

That I can understand.

nimby said:

we have the 17th because state legislatures were terminally gerry-mandered in the late 1800s and both parties in the progress--ive era saw that this was wrong.
Without the 17th right now, gops would have over 70 senators due to their gerry-mandered state remaps.
Obviously, the gm'd house isn't enough for the gop as they further attempt to polarize dc .

Click to expand...

so lets see the difference...... 17th and we have people in the senate of wealth and power, doing the bidding of special interest, and violating laws the rest of americans have to obey.........making themselves richer, and acting and grooming their children as if they are better then the people

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...

Please try to use your posts to speak for yourself because you are doing a terrible job of speaking for me.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you support the keystone pipeline? Why THIS pipeline? What is it about THIS pipeline that you are so adamant in supporting?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

poweRob said:

Well seeing how almost every single GOP state legislator are member of and are entirely beholdened to ALEC, seems like repealing the 17th is pretty much just selling the Upper house to the Koch brothers.

Click to expand...

so what you saying is because you dont have people in positions of power you don't wish to do it.....would you do it if the states were controlled by democrats.....i would because it what makes a republic, not an evil democracy.

As long as two posters who mean well feel the other party started it, it's obvious nothing will get done on the National level.
I don't feel like going back through history on this.

I've wished McConnell well since he won yet have had the gloating continually smeared in my face.
Not by you--but I'm sure you see it by the vast majority of righties on DP.

I think DP represents the National pulse with its posters.
Which definitely concerns me going forth .

beerftw said:

not quite,the democrats have refused comprimise since reid became majority leader,the only logical question is who started the game of no,and why you feel its ok when your party is the party of no but demonize the other party for the same.


i believe the term is hypocrisy

hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

It's a defeat, for the time being. You can bet the house will pass it again next year and most likely the senate will pass it. But that is not guaranteed

.00 Democrats who voted AYE on the Keystone

Dem Aye Replaced by Republican Aye
Begich AK
Hagan NC
Landrieu LA
Pryor AR
Walsh MT

But will these Democrats vote AYE again next year
Donnelly IN
Heitkamp ND
Manchin WV
McCaskill Mo
Tester MT
Warner VA

On the plus side Harkin of IA voted Nay, Ernst who is replacing him will vote AYE, the same for Udall of Colorado who is being replaced by Gardner, Johnson of SD nay will be replaced with an AYE from Rounds and Rockefellers Nay in West Virginia will be replace by an Aye from Capito.

So the Keystone should have 57 votes in January. The GOP will need 3 of the 6 Democrats who voted AYE in order to reach 60. I do not see 4 of them changing their vote, although one or two might. Keystone will pass the senate. But there is no way to get to 67 if the president veto’s it. 63 as I see it is the max.

Click to expand...

i dont consider it a defeat as much as i consider it a failure to prevail filibuster,veto,or reids vote blocking.


defeated as in didnt pass yes,defeated as in majority voted it down no.the current means are legit as they are what congress chose as the rules,but i cant conflate defeat with majority support.


i doubt obama would veto it,he would probably pressure changes as a comprimise.without reid,obama either has to comprimise to get what he wants in echange for getting republicans what they want,or he will be labelled the obstructionist.

poweRob said:

Please try to use your posts to speak for yourself because you are doing a terrible job of speaking for me.

Click to expand...

No I didn't.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you support the keystone pipeline? Why THIS pipeline? What is it about THIS pipeline that you are so adamant in supporting?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

Click to expand...

Commerce should be free in a free society and not interfered with by the state unless the state can demonstrate some overriding national interest to stop that commerce. The case hasn't been made. So its not like I support the pipeline. I just don't recognize any rational or legal reason for the state to prevent its construction. Oil, like every other product, needs to be transported from point A to point B. Pipelines are the safest, most efficient means of doing that. I don't need a rational reason to support the construction of this pipeline any more than I would need a rational reason to support someone erecting a shed.

ernst barkmann said:

so what you saying is because you dont have people in positions of power you don't wish to do it.....would you do it if the states were controlled by democrats.....i would because it what makes a republic, not an evil democracy.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not willing to change the 17th regardless of state control. Just because a democracy can be evil doesn't mean that a democracy IS evil. You speak too much in absolutes. Besides, we don't live in a democracy. We don't vote on legislation. We elect people to do that for us. There is a vast difference between a democracy and a representative democracy. The closest thing we have at the national level to being a democracy is the house of representatives. How come you don't want to destroy that evil democracy?

NIMBY said:

The judge hasn't even ruled in Nebraska yet.
Something that GOPs normally fight for.
Not to mention how GOPs are normally against the excesses of eminent domain .

Click to expand...

I think they are against eminent domain when it for something they are against. If Obama wanted a pipeline directly from his favorite bottled spring water company on one side of the country to his residence most of the GOP would scream bloody murder of how day the president use eminent domain.It wouldn't matter how much extra tax dollars the bottled spring water company contributed to the local economies as a result of supplying spring water to the president.Nor would it matter how many people were employed to build and maintain the pipeline and pump needed to pump the water from one side of the country to the other just so the president can have spring water come out of his tap.

Fletch said:

No I didn't.
Commerce should be free in a free society and not interfered with by the state unless the state can demonstrate some overriding national interest to stop that commerce. The case hasn't been made. So its not like I support the pipeline. I just don't recognize any rational or legal reason for the state to prevent its construction. Oil, like every other product, needs to be transported from point A to point B. Pipelines are the safest, most efficient means of doing that. I don't need a rational reason to support the construction of this pipeline any more than I would need a rational reason to support someone erecting a shed.

Click to expand...

Property rights has come up in this thread as a reason. Where are you at on that?

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...

I would have agreed a few years ago, but the risk to the main source of water for America's farmland and millions of people is not worth it. Especially when Canada has proven that it can move the oil by rail and truck successfully on its own. The same reason I'm against the Pebble Mine in Alaska is the same reason I'm against the pipeline. Farm land and fisheries will provide productive jobs and resources long after the oil and gold are gone. Plus, this pipeline will result in maybe 30 permanent jobs. That is not worth risking the billions of dollars of agriculture and related jobs from contamination of the aquifer.

poweRob said:

Property rights has come up in this thread as a reason. Where are you at on that?

Click to expand...

I responded to that already. And I think that would make for an interesting argument that probably has some validity. But that isn't the argument being used to stop the pipeline. The left really couldn't use that argument anyway without looking like total hypocrites. They are advocates of state power, not property rights.

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...

Unfortunately it will not get traction.Because the side that mostly opposes the pipeline generally don't seem to care about property rights. While the side that is generally for property rights could care less in this case because they have their lips firmly wrapped around the cocks of big oil. Big oil tells them to jump and they say "how high?".

Fletch said:

I responded to that already. And I think that would make for an interesting argument that probably has some validity. But that isn't the argument being used to stop the pipeline. The left really couldn't use that argument anyway without looking like total hypocrites. They are advocates of state power, not property rights.

Click to expand...

Please stop trying to speak for your opposition. You are so damn terrible at it. You are not even close to being truthful with your idiotic broad-strokes.

Fletch said:

No I didn't.
Commerce should be free in a free society and not interfered with by the state unless the state can demonstrate some overriding national interest to stop that commerce.

Click to expand...

By using eminent domain the oil company is requesting that the state interfere on its behalf for force property owners to sell to them.

beerftw said:

i dont consider it a defeat as much as i consider it a failure to prevail filibuster,veto,or reids vote blocking.


defeated as in didnt pass yes,defeated as in majority voted it down no.the current means are legit as they are what congress chose as the rules,but i cant conflate defeat with majority support.


i doubt obama would veto it,he would probably pressure changes as a comprimise.without reid,obama either has to comprimise to get what he wants in echange for getting republicans what they want,or he will be labelled the obstructionist.

Click to expand...

When something does not pass regardless if it needs 51 or 60 votes, it does not pass and was defeated. There has been a ton of stuff McConnell has led filibusters on and succeeded as the Democrats couldn't get the necessary 60 votes. Are those victories too? I mean for the Democrats in your minds eye.

Probably not as that suited your political ideology. Just a guess there. If the president veto's it, an obstructionist? That probably depends on which side of the political fence you sit on. The Democrats think the Republican House has been obstructionist these last 4 years. It will take more than one veto of one bill to convince the majority of Americans the president is an obstructionist. Independents must come to that conclusion besides Republicans or that view is just a partisan one.

poweRob said:

Please stop trying to speak for your opposition. You are so damn terrible at it. You are not even close to being truthful with your idiotic broad-strokes.

Click to expand...

Lol. Actually I am pretty good at labeling liberals for what they are. If you think liberals give a crap about property rights, you haven't been paying attention. Liberalism cannot exist if the state secures to each that which is rightfully his own. You cant rob Peter to pay Paul without first discarding the idea that Peter has any right to his property.

Fearandloathing said:

People, this has happened how many times before? The Republicans have been doing this for a few years now, putting it up when they know it will fail, likely for several purposes: to keep the issue in the headlines, to draw out any Democrats whose constituents are telling them they want it.

In any event, two things must be kept in mind, one is that next year the Republicans will have enough votes and will send a bill to the White House so Obama is forced to veto it.

Meanwhile here, there is dwindling support for the the XL, as it employs mostly American workers, where if we go with a Northern route, now being planned all those jobs and lease money stays in Canada. Most economists in the oil patch say the XL is dead, for all intents and purposes Obama has killed it

Click to expand...

Here the Pipeline is still very popular. I wonder, could some of the lack of support in your country be due to the plummeting price of oil? I heard big companies are going to start cutting back on fracking due to the price drop. I know Canada is the king of fracking and has become an important import. Here we are on the verge of turning the United States from an energy importer to energy exporter because of fracking. And we did it on private lands. Those who have been in charge in Washington have put every roadblock they could muster to stop fracking on government lands. The increase of oil produced in America making its way into the market is one reason cost for oil has dropped. But if it drops too low companies will have no choice but to stop production. It costs us a lot more to produce that oil and natural gas than what the Saudis do. Some think the Saudis are purposely lowering the price per barrel to kill our new energy boom in its early stages. Nothing would make a greenie weenie happier than to see that happen. But at the same time if oil drops to $45 dollars a barrel all these big investments in alternatives will have folded because they will no longer be able to compete with cheap gas and oil. Does the name Ivanpah ring a bell? It's a company owned by a couple of greenie cronies Google and NRG. Two billion dollars poured into this company much on the taxpayers' dime and it struggles to produce 25% of the energy it claimed it could. And then wanted extentions on its loans and grants to help pay off their debt.
World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan | Fox News
People aren't going to continue to put up with that crap. Especially if they can get oil at such prices and natural gas on the cheap.

Helix said:

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.

Click to expand...

I could get on board with that.