Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone

[Ebowed]

This is one of Obama's finer moments.  I hope he doesn't eventually cave on it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Always amazing when Obama forgets to cave.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funny how the Tea Party crowd talks about "infrastructure." How many federal infrastructural projects have they opposed in the 40 years? I've truly lost count.

$70 billion for HSR in CA is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion to help bring ISIS to power in Iraq is a great use of money.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gotta love the Republican outrage in this thread.

Hold the line, Mr. President!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

100% renewable energy is entirely within our grasp.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Gotta love the Republican outrage in this thread.

Hold the line, Mr. President!

[Gass3268]

Shell pulls out of a major Alberta Tar Sands Project

Great news!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I firmly believe we are in the death rattles of the fossil indistry. And I couldn't feel better about it 😛

[Murica!]

I firmly believe we are in the death rattles of the fossil indistry. And I couldn't feel better about it 😛

Indistry?

[Mr. Illini]

I enjoy laughing at the liberal "Keystone won't create jobs and a spill might happen, so don't do it!" argument. By that logic, no construction project should ever be approved because an accident might occur and big job gains won't happen.

Are you aware of what a cost-benefit analysis is?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

From a jobs, safety, and environmental perspective, it might actually be better to continue shipping it by rail rather than build more pipelines.

The railraod industry is booming in part because of the oil boom. Shipping drilling equipment and supplies to drilling sites, and taking the crude oil to refineries. Additionally, the new tank cars required will support thousands of good manufacturing jobs. Over the 2010 - 2019 period, the railroads are investing over $200 billion to upgrade their infrastructure, which is pretty much free (non-government) stimulus. And to my understanding, railroad employees on pretty much all levels are paid very well, and their union contracts and profit-sharing agreements mean they get big bonus checks at the end of the year and pretty solid pensions. After declining from 1947 - 1997 and flatlining, railroads have on a hiring spree (small compared to other industries, but it's still very well paying jobs) since 2007.

Lec-Megantic (SP?) and some other high-profile derailments aside, railroads might be safer and more environmental because when a derailment does happen, it's pretty hard to miss, as opposed to pipelines, which can leak significant amounts of oil before the leak is discovered and fixed, and are more insidious to the surrounding environment because the leak occurs underground and is far harder to clean up than a train derailment. It's easier to require railroad rolling stock to be stronger and safer in the event of derailments/collisions than it is to require "safer" piplines (granted, I don't know much about piplines). It's also less politically charged to regulate the railroads, not being so high-profile politically but very high-profile to all the voters who live in towns through which railroads pass.

Obviously transporting crude is an inherently risky business, and accidents and spills will occur whether we're using railroads or pipelines, but the "less bad" option here is probably railroads.

So as apathetic/lean-against as I am about Keystone, as a supporter of railroads over pipelines and trucking/cars, I guess this might be a small plus in some areas

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's time to suck it to the dumb environmental groups and get building.

It's ironic that you call the opposition to Keystone dumb, considering the scientists who study these projects are against it.

Sure, I'd prefer to eliminate oil one day and be totally on renewables, but that's a LONG ways off.
 
Look, the environmentalists have no actual evidence, backed up by a study, that says that Keystone would significantly harm the environment in any situation that doesn't involve a spill, and I've already addressed why the "it's risky" argument is a ridiculous strawman. The pipeline is no longer being investigated by Nebraska Courts. We've had six years to study its possible effects - and it's clearly not the automatic, guaranteed environment ruiner that the far-left would like it to be.

Look I get that it's not some masterful economy saver and I'd like to see serious regulation of any exporting, but neither of those are big enough concerns for any sensible person to be against the pipeline. It's time for Obama to just tell the Sierra Group, and leftist Senators, and everyone else who opposes it to just give up because there aren't even the beginnings of a logical argument against the pipeline.

Obama likes to think that republicans get nothing after their big victory last year. That's not how things should work. Republicans won big, so they have earned the right to get some of their ideas passed, and it should start with this pipeline. Obama's Veto today shows that, at least on this issue, he only cares about ultra-liberal Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen, and their allies, and doesn't care about what's popular among the people, which is the Keystone Pipeline.

The Democrats won big in 2008 and the Republicans sure seemed to think they should get nothing then.  Obama was elected and re-elected by relatively solid margins and yet many Republicans won't even acknowledge that he is a legitimate President.  The Republican strategy since Obama was elected has essentially been "let's make it impossible for anyone to govern and block everything Obama and/or congressional Democrats support on principle, and then throw in a healthy dose of race-baiting for good measure." 

I know how frustrating it must be for you guys that the Republicans finally have a majority in both houses of Congress, but can't seem to get anything done because the Democrats are refusing to compromise on anything.  All I can really say to that is that pay back's a bitch and I hope you guys enjoy your useless majority for the next two years.

[traininthedistance]

Keystone has acquired totemic significance by far and above more than its actual impact.  It won't make that many jobs, but it also doesn't actually change the cost-benefit analysis for the tar sands that much.  I mean, right now, even with the pipe in place, projects up there just don't pencil out anyway.  But it's convenient to use it as a shibboleth for both sides: the environmentalists can "rally the troops" more effectively over symbolic megaprojects like this better than they can do so for unsexy but important structural things that would actually reduce fossil fuel usage like urban upzoning and cutting down on wasteful sprawl megaprojects (like say the bloated Tappan Zee, to harp on a pet peeve of mine).  Whereas the right can use it as a disingenuous wedge in their attempt to paint careful, science-conscious stewardship as "elitist" or "job-killing" or whatever.

In any case, it would be bad strategy for Obama to just roll over on this one, so Freedom Veto I guess.  Use it as a bargaining chip to beef up HSR funding or something, sure, I'd sign on to that.  I'll happily accept letting Keystone go through as part of a good-faith compromise process.  But don't give up something for nothing, man, have some backbone.

[BaconBacon96]

Wonderful decision.

[IceSpear]

I don't particularly care either way about Keystone, but I agree with a few others here that the Republicans shouldn't get something for nothing. What are they willing to give in return?

[Maxwell]

Honestly - The Keystone pipeline really doesn't matter much. The fact the Republicans have amped it up to be such a big deal is kind of amazing and kind of nonsensical. I'm of mind that it should be passed but if it doesn't happen it isn't the end of the world.

It seems like Republicans have better areas to work with the President on anyways (corporate taxation, for instance).

In other words, Nix is pretty right on this.

[Deus Naturae]

It's time to suck it to the dumb environmental groups and get building.

It's ironic that you call the opposition to Keystone dumb, considering the scientists who study these projects are against it.

Cite?

[free my dawg]

It's time to suck it to the dumb environmental groups and get building.

It's ironic that you call the opposition to Keystone dumb, considering the scientists who study these projects are against it.

Sure, I'd prefer to eliminate oil one day and be totally on renewables, but that's a LONG ways off.
 
Look, the environmentalists have no actual evidence, backed up by a study, that says that Keystone would significantly harm the environment in any situation that doesn't involve a spill, and I've already addressed why the "it's risky" argument is a ridiculous strawman. The pipeline is no longer being investigated by Nebraska Courts. We've had six years to study its possible effects - and it's clearly not the automatic, guaranteed environment ruiner that the far-left would like it to be.

Look I get that it's not some masterful economy saver and I'd like to see serious regulation of any exporting, but neither of those are big enough concerns for any sensible person to be against the pipeline. It's time for Obama to just tell the Sierra Group, and leftist Senators, and everyone else who opposes it to just give up because there aren't even the beginnings of a logical argument against the pipeline.

Obama likes to think that republicans get nothing after their big victory last year. That's not how things should work. Republicans won big, so they have earned the right to get some of their ideas passed, and it should start with this pipeline. Obama's Veto today shows that, at least on this issue, he only cares about ultra-liberal Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen, and their allies, and doesn't care about what's popular among the people, which is the Keystone Pipeline.

Dude, just give up the act already. We know you're not a moderate.

Say what you want about my avatar - I don't like to identify with the Democratic Party. As I've said before, I feel like they pander too much to the rich and don't do enough for the working class. I also don't feel like they do enough to weed out elements that undermine it, and generally believe that they're too moderate. That's why I'm an independent. But at least I admit that I'm on the left. I'm a tree-hugging hippie who believes the working class is the key to prosperity. I have a more libertarian streak than your mainstream Democrat (I believe in guns, am firmly against spying no matter who's in charge, and I believe in a negative income tax). But at least I identify as a left-libertarian.

You, however, spew the same exact things that are indistinguishable from Sean Hannity or Ted Cruz's rants on the government to try and show you don't like who's in power. See your comments on distinguished true leftist (and apparently liberal enough to be mentioned in the same breath as as Elizabeth Warren) Jeanne Shaheen - somehow, you decided that someone who wasn't even from my state, moved to my state in case she could have been removed from office, and left my state for his actual state the moment he lost, was more fit than someone who was from there because "muh Obama vote". Never mind the fact that Scott Brown's stunt was the most blatant act of carpetbagging in recent political history, decided to abandon any sort of moderation he had once he was in a more favorable climate (see: climate change), and that Jeanne Shaheen opposed an internet sales tax (which would essentially mean that NH residents would have to pay a sales tax despite being in their own home). What's important to you is a regurgitated fact that you just happened to hear from an NHGOP press release, and Scott Brown moving to the left four years ago because he was in incredibly hostile climate.

I guarantee you - the moment a Republican gets in the White House, whether it be Bush, Paul, Cruz, Cotton, or some other up-and-comer we haven't heard about, you will finally drop this bullsh*t charade of "reasonability" and go full blue (or red, once you left Atlas). Vomiting Republican talking points does not make you any smarter. Taking the middle ground (and claiming moderation when you go against issues the majority of Americans actually support) does not make you any more reasonable. Making incredibly broad statements about how "there's no reason to oppose this" when we're taking on environmental risks for oil companies and blaming Keystone opposition on stupid environmentalist lobbies does not make you any more "pro-business". Quite frankly, it just makes you look like a goth kid desperately trying to get back at "those damn douchey preps" in high school - pathetic and edgy.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Considering I would never vote for Cruz or Cotton at the presidential level, I'm not going to like them as president either. I don't mind Cotton in the senate because Pryor was a useless DINO who delivered very little for his state, but he's too far right to get my vote to be president.

I don't support Walker or Romney for president. Heck, I'm not even willing to commit to supporting Christie at this point. I'm against the Paul Ryan medicare plan, I don't support repealing ObamaCare, I don't support taking the nation into default over the budget, I don't support tax cuts for the rich, and I'll vote to increase the minimum wage. This idea you have that I'll suddenly join the tea party once a republican gets elected to the presidency is so absurd it's not even funny.

Read that article carefully, it doesn't say Brown is going to live in MA, he just wants his MA pension sent to him.

Brown was leftist enough in MA to have an approval rating over 50% - They just liked Warren even more. I have a hard time believing he'd be far-right as an NH senator.

And Keystone does have majority support, it's not some far-right thing no matter how much you'd like to be. I'm not saying that this is an argument for supporting it, just pointing out the facts:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/joni-ernst/joni-ernst-says-strong-majority-americans-back-key/

[courts]

well thats a relief. one of those rare moments that reminds me of why romney would have been even worse

[Miles]

Brown was leftist enough in MA to have an approval rating over 50% - They just liked Warren even more.

Going into election day 2012, Brown's approval was +16 while Warren's favorables were +7.

[ElectionsGuy]

Brown was leftist enough in MA to have an approval rating over 50% - They just liked Warren even more.

Going into election day 2012, Brown's approval was +16 while Warren's favorables were +7.

The takeaway from this is Republicans always lose in Massachusetts if the Democratic candidate isn't Martha Coakley?

[IceSpear]

Brown was leftist enough in MA to have an approval rating over 50% - They just liked Warren even more.

Going into election day 2012, Brown's approval was +16 while Warren's favorables were +7.

I think his point was that many people who liked both Warren and Brown liked Warren more.

[free my dawg]

Considering I would never vote for Cruz or Cotton at the presidential level, I'm not going to like them as president either. I don't mind Cotton in the senate because Pryor was a useless DINO who delivered very little for his state, but he's too far right to get my vote to be president.

I don't support Walker or Romney for president. Heck, I'm not even willing to commit to supporting Christie at this point. I'm against the Paul Ryan medicare plan, I don't support repealing ObamaCare, I don't support taking the nation into default over the budget, I don't support tax cuts for the rich, and I'll vote to increase the minimum wage. This idea you have that I'll suddenly join the tea party once a republican gets elected to the presidency is so absurd it's not even funny.

Read that article carefully, it doesn't say Brown is going to live in MA, he just wants his MA pension sent to him.

Brown was leftist enough in MA to have an approval rating over 50% - They just liked Warren even more. I have a hard time believing he'd be far-right as an NH senator.

And Keystone does have majority support, it's not some far-right thing no matter how much you'd like to be. I'm not saying that this is an argument for supporting it, just pointing out the facts:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/joni-ernst/joni-ernst-says-strong-majority-americans-back-key/

I never said you'd be a teabagger at all (simply that you'd stop this odd phobia of being a Republican the moment a Republican got the White House), that Keystone was some far-right initiative (in fact, I just said that it did have some risks), or that Scott Brown would transform into some arch-conservative if he won. I just said that he magically transformed from Bill Weld into Kelly Ayotte or Judd Gregg the moment he touched down here. Now, he wants to profit off of Massachusetts taxpayers' money and attends Charlie Baker's inauguration months after losing a Senate race in NH?

If you want to know where I think your actual future is headed, it's Generic R - maybe a Collins-type in the future if you start to form your own opinions instead of being a Frankenstein-esque abomination of LeBron and krazen's lines. But at this point, you remind me more of, say, Orrin Hatch or John Hoeven than Olympia Snowe or Bill Weld.

[Badger]

"Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone"

Congrats Phil!