Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalFighter

(50,950 posts)
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:14 AM Nov 2014

If the Senate Democrats vote to pass Keystone the Republicans win.

If Obama doesn't veto it. (I think he will if it reaches his desk.) They win by getting both Keystone and defeating Landrieu.

If Obama does veto it. The Republicans still win by defeating Landrieu. She is delusional to think she can beat Cassidy when the 14 percent that didn't vote for her or Cassidy is going to for her when they voted for a Teabagger. If the voters didn't think she had the power nearly 2 weeks ago why would they change their mind now?

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
1. Landrieu is a goner either way.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:19 AM
Nov 2014

The Democrats should kill it in the Senate. Then when the new congress is sworn in, Obama can veto it.

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
2. Cassidy's bill will not be popular in the Senate
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:53 AM
Nov 2014

Cassidy's bill (XL), passed by the House,
will not be popular in the Senate.

expect the usual endless bickering

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
3. I support Keystone XL 100%, but I don't support this farce
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:10 AM
Nov 2014

This matter is in the hands of the State Department, no one else.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
4. Of course you support Keystone XL, you live in Canada and you don't want
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:42 AM
Nov 2014

that toxic goo going through your backyard.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
6. Before I retired I use to drive a truck to Grand Haven, Michigan everyday. In 2010
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 07:10 PM
Nov 2014

a Canadian tar sands oil pipeline leaked something horrible for days and polluted the Kalamazoo River not too far away to where it drains into Lake Michigan. Four years later they are still trying to clean it up. At least with a train if something bad happens, it will be a smaller spill and easily contained.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
7. Trains pass through densely populated areas
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:00 AM
Nov 2014

There is no intrinsically safe way to transport much of anything. But this oil is going to get to market and there is no better way to do it.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
10. There very aren't many things less safer than rail
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 06:38 PM
Nov 2014

The potential points of failure and disruption are innumerable.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
11. Well I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong. Rail is proven safer, but
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 07:35 PM
Nov 2014

if you want to keep pushing oil company propaganda, there is nothing more to say here. If you Canadians want to pipeline it across Canada, go for it, but keep it up there!

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
12. railroads pissed out 3,000,000+ gallons of crude oil in spills in 2013 alone
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:48 AM
Nov 2014

Between Canada and the US. Just look at the DOT-111 taker car fiasco. Spills happen.



And for the record, I'm an American from Southern California. Although I'm perplexed by the fury over Keystone XL when similar pipelines moving the exact same product were a source of remarkably little concern.

If you don't want Canadian crude, we're either going to have to kill that peasant whackjob in Venezuela, drill off-shore in California or build new refineries more adept to the lighter product the US is producing.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
8. The State Department is acting on the President's behalf
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:16 AM
Nov 2014

It accepts applications for say pipelines crossing international borders, takes comments, and makes a recommendation to approve or disapprove the application. If the President agrees with a recommendation to approve, a Presidential Permit is issued. If the President disagrees with a recommendation to approve, the Presidential Permit will not be issued and the application will be denied.

The State Department received the authority to process these applications by virtue of an Executive Order.

The Legislature alone cannot usurp an Executive Branch function and vice versa.

Sam

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If the Senate Democrats v...