• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Keystone vote fails in Senate

whysoserious said:
I've already said I'm not 100% opposed to the pipeline. If it is a safer way to transport the oil... whatever. I just am not sure the net benefit is all that worth arguing about. Nor am I 100% sure we should be sitting here arguing about putting more infrastructure in place for a fuel source we are actively researching to move away from.
Click to expand...
The move away from oil will take over 20 years, and that is after we have a viable replacement.
The clock has not started ticking yet.
I hold out hope for man made hydrocarbon fuels, because the distribution infrastructure is already in place,
but we do not have the electrical infrastructure to support that on a large scale, YET!
 
longview said:
The move away from oil will take over 20 years, and that is after we have a viable replacement.
The clock has not started ticking yet.
I hold out hope for man made hydrocarbon fuels, because the distribution infrastructure is already in place,
but we do not have the electrical infrastructure to support that on a large scale, YET!
Click to expand...

Agreed, there is no timetable for a complete shift. Nor does there need to be. A slow, gradual shift, along with investment into research of new technologies is plenty. However, what I'd really like is for there to be a cost-benefit analysis on the entire project. All that's been reported so far is that it will create a few thousand temp jobs, a handful of permanent jobs, possibly lowering risk, and an increase in oil production.

Is the investment worth it? Is the transport of expensive tar oil through imminent domained land going to be a net benefit for the country? How much safer is it? Are we losing on opportunity cost where we could be investing into infrastructure elsewhere that would have a greater benefit to the country?
 
whysoserious said:
Agreed, there is no timetable for a complete shift. Nor does there need to be. A slow, gradual shift, along with investment into research of new technologies is plenty. However, what I'd really like is for there to be a cost-benefit analysis on the entire project. All that's been reported so far is that it will create a few thousand temp jobs, a handful of permanent jobs, possibly lowering risk, and an increase in oil production.

Is the investment worth it? Is the transport of expensive tar oil through imminent domained land going to be a net benefit for the country? How much safer is it? Are we losing on opportunity cost where we could be investing into infrastructure elsewhere that would have a greater benefit to the country?
Click to expand...
The risks of pipelines while not zero, is very low.
While actual crop farming is not allowed, many ranchers run livestock right on top of pipeline runs.
and there is many thousands of jobs directly associated with Alberta Tar sands oil, and tens of
thousands of secondary jobs in the economy from the well paid oil workers.
At this point the best we can do as far as investment, is perhaps a simplified, consistent method
for photovoltaic solar panel arrays to attach to the grid.
net metering is doomed to failure, as it fails the most basic accounting principals.
The government is in effect forcing a vendor to pay the same price for a unit of energy
as they sell it for. there is not profit in it for them.
 
AJiveMan said:
Is it fair to say that the tables got turned on the GOP? :lol:
Click to expand...

A pretty impotent first four weeks for the dear leaders from the GOP all would agree. I'm in between wrestling practice and a school board meeting so it isn't time for beer 30 yet. Talk to you later .
 
AJiveMan said:
Is it fair to say that the tables got turned on the GOP? :lol:
Click to expand...

appears the GOP got in the republicans' way
after the last few years, it became habit
 
justabubba said:
appears the GOP got in the republicans' way
after the last few years, it became habit
Click to expand...

Both are fumbling over themselves like a pair of feet that just got washed and they can't do anything with them. A room full of maroons.
 
NIMBY said:
A pretty impotent first four weeks for the dear leaders from the GOP all would agree. I'm in between wrestling practice and a school board meeting so it isn't time for beer 30 yet. Talk to you later .
Click to expand...

Yep, the GOP is promising to be another tear jerker for those hard righties.
 
Last I did any searching about this issue, I saw an amendment not passing with the democrats voting against it. The amendment provided that the steel and other goods would be "made in the USA," but it appears the democrats didn't want the republicans to boost manufacturing jobs if this bill passed.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Last I did any searching about this issue, I saw an amendment not passing with the democrats voting against it. The amendment provided that the steel and other goods would be "made in the USA," but it appears the democrats didn't want the republicans to boost manufacturing jobs if this bill passed.
Click to expand...

Did you also read the fact that 7 proposed amendments from the democrats were tabled by McConnell.
 
Looks like I'm correct on McConnell so far brother P.
He's already had more votes on amendments in less than four weeks than Reid had all of last year, as I predicted.
The GOP has only one Leader right now, and he's kept his word so far, as I also predicted just after the election.

So take that Mr. Stats Man. :mrgreen:
Though never taking Statistics in college, I helped my Sister through it back in 2009, a year before Politico.

I'm currently cleaning house and all my **** from my teaching career.
My wife and I are both pack-rats .

Perotista said:
Walker is interesting for me in only the fact he might swing Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes from Democratic trustworthy state into the tossup/swing column. I wouldn't count Wisconsin as an automatic gain for the Republicans, but would up the tossup/swing states from 8 to 9. Still, instead of starting off 247-191 behind in trustworthy states, Walker would make that 237 to 191.

If Walker were to win the nomination, if I were him I would look at Rubio from Florida (29 EV) as a running mate. I do not think Kasich from Ohio would accept number two, but Portman looms as a possible number two man for Walker if he is interested in Ohio's 18 Electoral votes.

A governor from the Midwest might be the way to go. Also Ron Johnson is running for re-election in the senate from Wisconsin and a Walker as presidential nominee might help Johnson keep his seat. Interesting, I haven't really given Walker much thought. Here is the latest from RCP on the Republican nomination:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination (With Romney)
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Looks like I'm correct on McConnell so far brother P.
He's already had more votes on amendments in less than four weeks than Reid had all of last year, as I predicted.
The GOP has only one Leader right now, and he's kept his word so far, as I also predicted just after the election.

So take that Mr. Stats Man. :mrgreen:
Though never taking Statistics in college, I helped my Sister through it back in 2009, a year before Politico.

I'm currently cleaning house and all my **** from my teaching career.
My wife and I are both pack-rats .
Click to expand...

My wife is too. We will see about McConnell. I fully expect him to be another Reid. I may be wrong about that, which would be real nice for the nation. There are actually things I do hope I am wrong about. So we shall see.
 
ocean515 said:
The press just reported the Senate passed the Keystone XL deal, despite Obama's veto threat.

This should be interesting.
Click to expand...
Has to go back to the house first.
 
Two choices for the House--accept the Senate bill with amendments or go to Joint Conference.
Joint Conference--something they've refused to do for four years.

McConnell's running this show--Boehner is the ultimate lame duck.

If McConnell and Boehner can't override the veto--GOPs underestimate Pelosi.

Lord of Planar said:
Has to go back to the house first.
Click to expand...

What should happen is to include KXL in a Transportation Bill that DEMs can't vote against.
Not that the Highway Trust Fund going broke in May is a big thing .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom