How would you vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:52:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  How would you vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: See above.
#1
Aye (D)
 
#2
Aye (R)
 
#3
Aye (I/O)
 
#4
Nay (D)
 
#5
Nay (R)
 
#6
Nay (I/O)
 
#7
Abstain (D)
 
#8
Abstain (R)
 
#9
Abstain (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 103

Author Topic: How would you vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline?  (Read 5081 times)
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2014, 01:11:02 PM »

Nay (D). I don't really think it's that big of an issue, but I'm not interested in giving something for nothing. I think our side should get something in return (such as a minimum wage increase). The President should be using this as a bargaining chip and veto any standalone Keystone XL legislation.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2014, 05:29:22 PM »

Nay
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2014, 06:09:20 PM »

Nay (R ). It's not a big issue, and if I were actually a member of the House I would probably vote Aye to avoid giving primary challengers fodder and out of confidence that Obama would veto, but as someone who cares about the environment I'd prefer the pipeline not be built.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2014, 06:11:55 PM »

I'm with Nix in that I never understood why this became the issue it has become for some people. I don't really care if it's built either way.

I suppose it's just one of those things that got traction by being repeated ad nauseam on Fox News or something.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2014, 06:14:53 PM »

I agree with Marokai and Nix. Climate change is perhaps the most important issue in this generation, but I fail to see why this Keystone Pipeline makes a significant difference one way or the other.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2014, 06:24:26 PM »

probably no.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2014, 01:21:11 PM »

Aye (I/O)
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2014, 01:52:06 PM »

How exactly would this pipeline be bad for the environment? It's not like the Albertan shale isn't going to be extracted, transported, sold, and consumed without it.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2014, 02:23:28 PM »

Aye (Environmental Impact is far over-hyped)
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2014, 04:50:48 PM »

There's no real point now. The time to approve it would have been a few months ago to save the Senate majority. I doubt it will matter in 2016.

How about just vote your actual opinion?  Thinking like this is terrifyingly partisan.

Nay (R).
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2014, 05:34:31 PM »

Obviously I think this is a tremendous waste of money and a subsidy of a practise that should end ASAP, but I would be happy for Obama to use it as leverage for some other environmental measure.
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2014, 07:23:20 PM »

Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2014, 07:42:04 PM »

Aye (R), though it will probably hurt production in Texas.

Nay vote is like adding a nickel to every gallon for the rail industry. I have nothing against freight rail, but we have better, safer technology for moving oil.

It's also time for Venezuela to repent. No more subsidizing the Orinoco Oil Sands by insulating them from Canadian competition.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2014, 02:58:07 PM »
« Edited: November 18, 2014, 03:03:31 PM by Mordecai »

Nay (only sane choice).

I'm with Nix in that I never understood why this became the issue it has become for some people. I don't really care if it's built either way.

I suppose it's just one of those things that got traction by being repeated ad nauseam on Fox News or something.

muh freedumb

It's the same reason why you see those gas-guzzling SUVs with the anti-Obama stickers. They oppose anything that he supports and don't like being told what's what by those damn book-reading liberal elites.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2014, 05:26:19 PM »

Emphatic No (D). But it'll probably happen now, or at least the odds are better.

Why we're continuing down this path of environmental destruction so that a handful of multi-billionaires  and numerous millionaires can make more billions and millions is utterly incomprehensible to me and quite stupid, tbh. 
Logged
Kallo
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2014, 06:05:44 PM »

No, all the "jobs" that are being hyped, will be gone after it is build, the 50 odd permanent jobs are not worth the risk. The oil industry in the tar sands in Alberta is not well regulated, we shouldn't be encouraging extraction there.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2014, 11:04:08 PM »

AYE (R)
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2014, 04:06:04 PM »

I don't support making it easier to fuel our oil addiction while simultaneously causing double harm to the environment in its construction.

Amazing how many red avatars here will support anything government funded that might create a job.

Also interesting how many blue avatars are touting laws that will create public-sector, temporary jobs. We missed you during the debate over the stimulus.

Enthusiastic Nay (D).
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2014, 05:18:21 PM »
« Edited: November 20, 2014, 10:21:25 PM by Deus Naturae »

Why do people seem to think that Keystone XL is a government project? It isn't; they just need the government to sign off on it.

Anyway, IMO this issue is highly overrated by both sides. The oil is going to be extracted and consumed regardless, and if it isn't transported by pipeline it will transported via rail, which is more dangerous and produces greater carbon emissions.

On the other hand, it's true that this would create few permanent jobs (though it's interesting to see this argument come from people who champion public works spending as a means of increasing employment). Other pipelines are already being built to transport crude from Alberta, and Keystone XL may not even be viable anymore due to the plummeting price of oil. Another thing which sadly rarely gets discussed is the fact that landowners have basically had their property seized via eminent domain and given to TransCanada to build this thing. That combined with the facts that it's looking increasingly useless and was never going to be an economic boon to begin with push me towards opposing it.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2014, 05:32:26 PM »

Why do people seem to think that Keystone XL is a government project? It isn't; they just need the government to sign off on it.

Anyway, IMO this issue highly overrated by both sides. The oil is going to be extracted and consumed regardless, and if it isn't transported by pipeline it will transported via rail, which is more dangerous and produces greater carbon emissions.

On the other hand, it's true this that would create few permanent jobs (though it's interesting to see this argument come from people who champion public works spending as a means of increasing employment). Other pipelines are already being built to transport crude from Alberta, and Keystone XL may not even be viable anymore due to the plummeting price of oil. Another thing which sadly rarely gets discussed is the fact landowners basically had their property seized via eminent domain and given to TransCanada to build this thing. That combined with the facts that it's looking increasingly useless and was never going to be an economic boon to begin with push me towards opposing it.

Basically the correct post.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2014, 01:34:17 AM »

Nay
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2014, 02:57:57 AM »

Nay (Green Party or "I/O")
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2014, 11:27:51 AM »

Generally, I support policies that make fossil fuels more expensive on the margin, but I've yet to hear why the pipeline is worth fighting over. It just doesn't seem like a big deal either way.

That's because you've never looked at the relationship between household energy expenditures (particularly gasoline) and median household income growth.

Why do you think Congress refuses to raise the gasoline tax? Right-wing conspiracy? lol
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.