Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:46:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone  (Read 9810 times)
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: February 25, 2015, 10:03:21 PM »

Theory: Obama is keeping this in his back pocket to offer Republicans a compromise to restore subsidies if King v. Burwell doesn't go well?

Extend subsidies in FFE states through 2017 (probably not going to get forever today, but get it out of Obama's presidency) in exchange for approving the pipeline?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: February 26, 2015, 01:06:05 AM »
« Edited: February 26, 2015, 01:10:44 AM by Mechaman »

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 Tongue

This post is hard comfort for the many livelihoods that have been forever altered by said railroad collisions.  I don't mean to make judgements on your character, but I find it incredibly disturbing how in this post you almost wave off the deaths of dozens of people as collateral damage.

Does that make me a supporter of Keystone XL?  Hell no.  I doubt the construction of that pipeline will stop the practice of transporting crude on railways (likely they would continue that practice along with the pipeline).  Really, the amount of collisions that are happening on these railroads along with the points raised by Politicus show firstly the immorality of crude oil special interests and secondly the inherent danger posed from the transporation and production of crude oil.  Okaying the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would be like pouring gasoline on an already lit fire.

Read moar: http://stories.weather.com/boom

Just because the Keystone XL is wrong doesn't mean we should defend the status quo.  Sure, Democrats have done a somewhat good job of opposing this and this is probably one of the very few times that the President has shown some real testicular fortitude, but where the hell was their alternative to the pipeline?  I certainly haven't heard of any real alternative energy plans or serious efforts to take on big oil, besides responding to those costly oil spills after the fact.

I wish I could be more optimistic about "railroad regulations", but so far the success of recent regulations leave me doubtful if kicking the can down the road is the right solution.

Needless to say, I share Crabcake's enthusiasm.  The sooner the fossil fuels industry dies, the better.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2015, 03:19:37 AM »
« Edited: February 26, 2015, 03:21:22 AM by traininthedistance »

This post is hard comfort for the many livelihoods that have been forever altered by said railroad collisions.  I don't mean to make judgements on your character, but I find it incredibly disturbing how in this post you almost wave off the deaths of dozens of people as collateral damage.

...

I wish I could be more optimistic about "railroad regulations", but so far the success of recent regulations leave me doubtful if kicking the can down the road is the right solution.

Man, just imagine if people were willing to use this sort of logic when it came to cars and trucks and buses.

People would be in the streets.  And not giving them back.

But, no, America is horrified when a freak accident happens on the rails or in the air, while the daily carnage (and let us be clear– carnage is the most appropriate word) on asphalt gets a yawn.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2015, 07:27:26 AM »
« Edited: February 26, 2015, 07:34:11 AM by Mechaman »

This post is hard comfort for the many livelihoods that have been forever altered by said railroad collisions.  I don't mean to make judgements on your character, but I find it incredibly disturbing how in this post you almost wave off the deaths of dozens of people as collateral damage.

...

I wish I could be more optimistic about "railroad regulations", but so far the success of recent regulations leave me doubtful if kicking the can down the road is the right solution.

Man, just imagine if people were willing to use this sort of logic when it came to cars and trucks and buses.

People would be in the streets.  And not giving them back.

But, no, America is horrified when a freak accident happens on the rails or in the air, while the daily carnage (and let us be clear– carnage is the most appropriate word) on asphalt gets a yawn.

For the record, I don't disagree with anything you just said.  In fact I fully endorse such a behavior (as a supporter of a massive public transportation system).

Also, another ftr here, I don't want my above post to be misinterpreted as an blanket "f*** trains" post.  Trains obviously have a useful purpose in transporting people, goods, resources, etc. etc. etc. long distances.  Hell, I am not even entirely opposed to some very limited transportation of crude (ie Rome wasn't destroyed in one day).  What I am opposed to, however, is the mentality that says that expanding crude by rail is a very good thing.  It is not.  If anything it needs to be reduced (but not immediately done away with, again Rome wasn't destroyed in one day) and Americans need to get used to having more limited supplies of it (even if it means paying significantly higher costs).

So far the Democratic response has been lacking on this front.  Supporting speed limits and stronger train containers can only go so far guys.  At the very least there needs to be a significant infrastructure bill to repair/replace old and damaged bridges and tracks around the country.  About the most useful idea I can see somebody advancing in the meantime is limiting the size of crude transportations.

Just my further two cents.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: February 26, 2015, 08:34:21 AM »

Claims about how dangerous the pipeline would be is a bit baffling. The train accidents involving the transportation of oil that occur with some frequency are absolutely horrifying, and in many cases these routes bring massive volumes of oil through major cities, within throwing distance of schools, parks, apartments, etc. It is not obvious why a pipeline over the Great Plains poses a less acceptable risk.

Our patterns of energy use are the underlying problem that the debate about who should get the oil and how it should be transported largely ignores. And changes to that will remain unlikely for as long as none of our major political figures questions the logic of detached housing, single-use zoning, and the personal vehicle. Unfortunately this framing attracts less support than talking about how the evil fossil fuels industry is corrupting the pristine environment like a comic book villain and generally screwing consumers over or whatever.

Huh. You're completely right.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: February 26, 2015, 12:25:56 PM »

Wulfric, you keep asking for Obama to be reasonable but you don't seem to get what that means. The GOP wants something, the president is unwilling. Reasonable would be McConnell offering something Obama wants in return and them making a deal. Reasonable is not Obama just giving in.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: February 26, 2015, 12:29:40 PM »

Claims about how dangerous the pipeline would be are a bit baffling. The train accidents involving the transportation of oil that occur with some frequency are absolutely horrifying, and in many cases these routes bring massive volumes of oil through major cities, within throwing distance of schools, parks, apartments, etc. It is not obvious why a pipeline over the Great Plains poses a less acceptable risk.

The assumption is not that there is a fixed pool of oil to be shipped either by rail or by pipeline, but that by building the pipeline, a larger amount of oil will become economical to extract or ship. "Making the pie higher," as it were.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: February 26, 2015, 12:41:23 PM »
« Edited: February 26, 2015, 12:44:51 PM by Wulfric »

Wulfric, you keep asking for Obama to be reasonable but you don't seem to get what that means. The GOP wants something, the president is unwilling. Reasonable would be McConnell offering something Obama wants in return and them making a deal. Reasonable is not Obama just giving in.

Obama's given no indication that he would agree to such a compromise. Instead he just sits in a back room and whines about 'muh environmental groups' and 'muh procedural preferences'. Obama was even asked if he'd support the bill if the republicans were very cooperative in putting democratic amendments into it, and he said no.

I'd love it if we could reach a point in our technology where we could go completely without fossil fuels. But that's not where we are right now. At thus point, we need to reduce our dependence on saudi arabian oil, and that's exactly what this pipeline will do.

Look, no pipeline is perfect, but I'm optimistic that with careful construction and management of the pipeline, a bp-esque disaster will be avoided, and the pipeline will be an efficient manner in which to transport oil across the country. If we're going to reject this over worries about the worst-case scenario, then we should disable every oil pipeline right now. Yes, that's absurd, but it's what the environmentalists are essentially proposing by opposing the pipeline because of worries about the worst-case scenario.

The opposition from this pipeline comes almost exclusively from liberal congressmen and their environmentalist allies. Obama should instead be catering to the will of the American people as a whole, where there is strong support for this pipeline.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: February 26, 2015, 12:47:11 PM »

Wulfric, can you name something Republicans have compromised on during the Obama administration besides mandatory appropriations bills?  I can't think of anything. 
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: February 26, 2015, 12:50:14 PM »

Obama's given no indication that he would agree to such a compromise. Instead he just sits in a back room and whines about 'muh environmental groups' and 'muh procedural preferences'. Obama was even asked if he'd support the bill if the republicans were very cooperative in putting democratic amendments into it, and he said no.

What exactly is "such a compromise?" He hasn't been offered anything and there hasn't been talk of anything. I'm pretty sure he would do it for a tax increase on upper brackets, a minimum wage increase, or a equal pay act. Or a comprehensive immigration bill. Any sort of red meat for the Democratic base.

Keystone XL is a huge issue for GOP donors. It's red meat for GOP members of Congress, and the President should demand an eye for an eye.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: February 26, 2015, 01:04:29 PM »

Obama's given no indication that he would agree to such a compromise. Instead he just sits in a back room and whines about 'muh environmental groups' and 'muh procedural preferences'. Obama was even asked if he'd support the bill if the republicans were very cooperative in putting democratic amendments into it, and he said no.

What exactly is "such a compromise?" He hasn't been offered anything and there hasn't been talk of anything. I'm pretty sure he would do it for a tax increase on upper brackets, a minimum wage increase, or a equal pay act. Or a comprehensive immigration bill. Any sort of red meat for the Democratic base.

Keystone XL is a huge issue for GOP donors. It's red meat for GOP members of Congress, and the President should demand an eye for an eye.
I personally doubt he'd do it. He'd probably hold up the deal because of my 'muh pipeline-related procedural preferences'.

On compromises that have been reached under Obama, there's the 2012 fiscal cliff deal (not a mandatory thing as going over the fiscal cliff wouldn't cause a shutdown), and the 2010 bush tax cut extension deal. For those who have forgotten, he's a good article on that deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

There's also the 2011 budget control act, but that included an increase to the debt ceiling, so you could argue that it was a mandatory appropriations bill.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: February 26, 2015, 01:30:59 PM »

Obama's given no indication that he would agree to such a compromise. Instead he just sits in a back room and whines about 'muh environmental groups' and 'muh procedural preferences'. Obama was even asked if he'd support the bill if the republicans were very cooperative in putting democratic amendments into it, and he said no.

What exactly is "such a compromise?" He hasn't been offered anything and there hasn't been talk of anything. I'm pretty sure he would do it for a tax increase on upper brackets, a minimum wage increase, or a equal pay act. Or a comprehensive immigration bill. Any sort of red meat for the Democratic base.

Keystone XL is a huge issue for GOP donors. It's red meat for GOP members of Congress, and the President should demand an eye for an eye.
I personally doubt he'd do it. He'd probably hold up the deal because of my 'muh pipeline-related procedural preferences'.

On compromises that have been reached under Obama, there's the 2012 fiscal cliff deal (not a mandatory thing as going over the fiscal cliff wouldn't cause a shutdown), and the 2010 bush tax cut extension deal. For those who have forgotten, he's a good article on that deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

There's also the 2011 budget control act, but that included an increase to the debt ceiling, so you could argue that it was a mandatory appropriations bill.

The 2012 fiscal cliff "deal" and the Bush tax cut "deal" weren't compromises, they were Obama folding like a chair.  By the way, you still haven't told us what the Republicans have offered in exchange for Keystone.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: February 26, 2015, 01:37:55 PM »
« Edited: February 26, 2015, 01:42:59 PM by traininthedistance »

Also, another ftr here, I don't want my above post to be misinterpreted as an blanket "f*** trains" post.  Trains obviously have a useful purpose in transporting people, goods, resources, etc. etc. etc. long distances.  Hell, I am not even entirely opposed to some very limited transportation of crude (ie Rome wasn't destroyed in one day).  What I am opposed to, however, is the mentality that says that expanding crude by rail is a very good thing.  It is not.  If anything it needs to be reduced (but not immediately done away with, again Rome wasn't destroyed in one day) and Americans need to get used to having more limited supplies of it (even if it means paying significantly higher costs).

What I was trying to point is that the sorts of safety regulations that rail is subject to are far stricter than for any other non-air mode (every train crash gets a federal investigation– how many truck crashes do?), and are often counterproductive– such as FRA materials requirements making our trains much heavier than other countries (rather than caring about signal modernization instead), a move that is ostensibly to make them safer but simply makes them more expensive and less energy-efficient.  One of those few cases where the neoliberal "bad regulations" line is actually correct.

While a pipeline would, indeed, be safer than shipping oil/gas by rail, freight rail is generally pretty safe and the common rhetoric that is scared of it while accepting crashes on our road system as just the price of doing business is backwards. 
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: March 04, 2015, 02:41:58 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: March 04, 2015, 02:42:16 PM »


Good!
Logged
Reginald
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 802
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: March 04, 2015, 05:39:27 PM »

Democrats voting to override the veto:

Bennet
Carper
Casey
Heitkamp
Manchin
McCaskill
Tester
Warner
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: March 04, 2015, 07:11:08 PM »

Carper of course has to save his famously swingy and purple state.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: March 04, 2015, 08:58:18 PM »

I'm surprised Donnelly didn't vote for it.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: March 04, 2015, 09:17:41 PM »

I'm surprised Donnelly didn't vote for it.

He didn't vote.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« 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 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.