I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I think the Keystone Pipeline veto was wrong.

[RB TexLa]

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. OK.

So you would be ok with the government seizing your land and turning it over to a foreign corporation?

[BlueJazz]

2. I disagree but tell me/us why you think it was wrong

[RB TexLa]

3. Because I think it should be built

[onyourleft]

4. This was...

...a veto of the process not the pipeline. It could still very well get approval.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. Would you allow it on your property?

Doubtful.

[uppityperson]

9. Why?

[arcane1]

12. Do you have inventments in Canadian oil companies?

Why on Earth would you want this thing built?

[former9thward]

34. Do you have investments in trucking companies and railroads

who carry the same oil?

[arcane1]

39. That Canadian oil is going to China. Do you have Chinese trucks and trains?

[former9thward]

43. The oil is going everywhere.

To your utter dismay. As long as union workers in the U.S. do not get any jobs out of it you are perfectly happy.

[alarimer]

63. They won't.

Only 35-50 permanent jobs out of it.

Unions need to stop being so short-sighted.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. That's fine......as long as nothing flows through it.

[Warpy]

29. Were you up for one of the 35 jobs it was going to create?

I am perplexed about why you'd want such a potential environmental disaster built across this country when its sole purpose was to enrich first Koch Industries and then a bunch of Canadian oil barons.

If it's ever built, let it be built across Canada.

[Calista241]

31. It's like any construction job. There's a lot of jobs while it's being built.

When it's finished, those jobs move on to other projects. Remember the stimulus and all those "shovel ready projects?"

[joshcryer]

35. It would likely hire a few hundred in new refinery jobs.

But yeah it's not a real job creator by any means.

[Warpy]

44. You are mistaken. It will be refined overseas closer to the point of use

We don't have the facilities to refine tar slurry and no plans to build them.

[joshcryer]

47. Nah, the Valero refinery can do 150kbpd from XL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/20/obamas-claim-that-keystone-crude-would-go-everywhere-else-but-the-united-states/

We will export refined products, as that is basically what we do these days: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTPEXUS2&f=A

The US is king at refining the low quality stuff.

[bhikkhu]

33. It probably will be built, and the veto was the right thing to do

the RW has tried to politicize the whole thing and bypass the normal review process. Obama may be ambivalent about the pipeline itself, but allowing it to be rushed through prior to review to satisfy the RW would be stupid.

[former9thward]

36. Rushed though?

It has been "under study" for years. Obama is just trying to stall until the next president takes over.

[bhikkhu]

48. There are good reasons its been under study for years

It has a large impact on a lot of people, and there are unresolved issues. The Sioux still have a significant objection that has not been resolved. I know its traditional for Washington to treat them as if they don't exist, but I'd like to think they are a part of the reason behind the veto. Until all the issues and impacts are resolved, approving the pipeline would be premature - rushing it through.

[joshcryer]

51. The final impact report is out.

A decision was supposed to happen by the end of 2011. Obama's just using the "determine if it is national interests" rhetoric that Bush invented to stop it from being built. Remember, Obama stopped it right before the elections in 2012 to get liberal backing. Since then he's had no reason to stop it but I suspect he's using it as leverage with certain party members who don't want it built. It's one of those public policy issues you can use in campaign ads. So it sits waiting for something to happen.

But to be sure the review process is done, all the meetings, all the impact studies, all the protests, arrests and reports at meetings. It's all on the State department website. You can read hundreds of pages of stuff if you were so inclined.

[joshcryer]

49. He's using Bush's "national interest" EO to "stall."

Executive Order 13337 was Bush's delay tactic to stop anything from happening in perpetuity.

[pnwmom]

52. It has been having the environmental and other studies mandated by law. The bill he vetoed

was trying to override the normal process. He was right to veto that bill, since it was riding roughshod over our environmental laws.

[merrily]

58. That was obvious from your OP, but you haven't made a case for your position.

[CreekDog]

70. this is the last you have to say on it?

2 posts in this thread?

you wanted to create a discussion but not participate in one on this topic.

[Vinca]

71. Are you willing to have it run through your back yard over your water supply?

[LanternWaste]

73. The consistency of your circular reasoning is a comfort in these turbulent times.

The consistency of your circular reasoning is a comfort in these turbulent times.

[SheilaT]

5. You probably are in the minority here.

[stillwaiting]

6. LMAO! nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. OP really wants China to get their oil.

...

[Nye Bevan]

10. I, along with the AFL-CIO, agree with you.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/afl-cio-urges-approval-of-keystone-xl-pipeline/article/2555805

The veto pleases the environmentalists but sticks it to the unions. And yes, the demographics of DU do generally favor the former group over the latter. I think the project should go ahead provided that there are strict environmental safeguards.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

11. This union member disagrees.

Would it provide jobs? Yes. Would it take land from citizens and turn it over to a foreign oil corporation? Yes. Funny how those that support it the most have no skin in the game.


"I support the government taking YOUR land".

[arcane1]

13. That's because the environment is more important n/t

[Egnever]

14. Seems fairly short sighted

Sure there would be a short spurt of jobs but once done they would disappear for the most part and then we would be left with a disaster waiting to happen for what?

[MH1]

18. There might be a lot of jobs in oil spill cleanup.

Not sure if those are union jobs or not.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. They'd probably be H1B jobs

[Starry Messenger]

27. The AFL-CIO isn't a monolith

This federation member and officer of my local is glad for the veto.

[upaloopa]

32. Please show me were safeguards ever worked

where oil is concerned. And once the thing is built where are the union jobs?
And if oil leaks into the aquifer what will be your statement? So sorry ?

[DFW]

42. Strict environmental Safeguards. Ah, there's the rub

The builders of the Pipeline will definitely guarantee any safeguards asked for. No one will check it thoroughly enough to be able to promise with 100% certainty there will be no leaks at all, and when (not if) there is a leak, I promise you the ones who will be drinking the contaminated water will NOT be the same ones who profited from the construction, pushed for it, or live anywhere near it.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Stupid hippies with their stupid breathable air, clean water, and fertile land over project jobs!

Always fussing about mass extinctions, oxygen generation, ocean acidity, and what the climate is, big dumb dummies that are dumb.

If people care about jobs they'd focus on killing "free trade" deals, punishing outsourcing out existence, and put those construction workers and many more to work for a damn long time just catching up our massive infrastructure deficit not to mention upgrading for the future.

[HappyMe]

69. The horror of wanting clean air, drinking water

and soil without contaminants in it!!

[hatrack]

15. Your certainty is well-founded

.

[sendero]

16. What's in it for America?

50 permanent jobs and a lot of risk. No fucking thanks.

[trumad]

17. Nice hit and run.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. The legislative branch was trying to usurp an executive branch power

Even if you think it should be built, this bill needed to be vetoed.

[Cha]

53. Thanks for that Important reminder, MJ.. that was obviously overlooked.. freaking republicons.

[Kalidurga]

21. There is a better

safer, cheaper route through Canada. I suggest they take that route.

[Takket]

22. I agree

Canada wants to run most of this through the US because.... why wouldn't they? Much easier to risk our land than theirs! But if we refuse, they are perfectly welcome to run all that oil across their own farmland if they prefer....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-08/keystone-be-darned-canada-finds-oil-route-around-obama

[Logical]

23. Thanks for your detailed explanation of why! LOL! nt

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. The Koch brothers would like to thank you for your support and also for your

never ending support and promotion on this message board for NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, TPP, and all the other fake free trade and outsourcing agreements that are decimating the American working class.

[Electric Monk]

40. link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/

You might expect the biggest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest non-Canadian lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres.

more

[DFW]

45. A subsidiary of Koch Industries.

Now THERE'S a surprise........

"FORGET the people in your state. Will they contribute $20 million to your next re-election campaign or will I?"

[RiverLover]

25. So do republicans. nt

[jberryhill]

26. Your certainty is well founded

[Kali]

28. but would you drink with him?

[Hekate]

30. Would you want it over your aquifer? or through your property? For reals?

[JonLP24]

37. It is the right move long term

if a legitimate green energy, energy independence push is made. If not.

Then bomb trains will continue to transport the oil with or without the pipeline but unsure how much North Dakota oil would go down since I heard it is entirely about Canadian oil to export which they currently rank by far as our largest importer that won't do much on the bomb train issue since their bomb trains largely move out to Eastern Canada and have an East-Canada oil proposal which the status of which I'm unaware. It would be really stupid to vote for this if Canada already has that Eastern Canada pipeline underway.

[Chipper Chat]

38. Even Ed Schutz was "for it before he was against it."

It's a tough project to kill.

[Rex]

41. Why do you think it should be built? What tremendous gain is in it for Canada and the USA?

[CreekDog]

46. Are we supposed to be surprised by your post?

I'm not at all.

Pretty much gotten used to seeing you post OP's that almost nobody agrees with here.

Fairly sure that you and this community are not on the same page on most issues, why rehash the argument?

Did I, did the rest of us come here to argue against conservative talking points? No. Certainly not over and over again with the same people.

[sabrina 1]

50. It wasn't a veto of the Pipeline. It was a veto of the Republicans attempt to usurp his

authority.

Don't worry, you might still get your Pipeline.

A Veto of the Process is all that happened.

[TwilightGardener]

55. It's eventually going to get built. This veto is politics, today, but nothing

ultimately stands in the way of a project of this magnitude. I don't know why anyone is kidding themselves about it.

[Kablooie]

56. Obama said its only a veto for now.

He said he vetoed it because the environmental impact report isn't finished.
He will reconsider it once all the data is in.

So he had a valid reason for vetoing it even if you want it to be built.

[eridani]

57. Because shitting in reservoirs is always right? n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

60. The veto was the right thing to do

The way the veto was rationalized is what was wrong.

[Ilsa]

61. So you think it's okay for a foreign corporation to

Exercise eminent domain over private property of US citizens? And how will you make them clean up the inevitable disastrous pollution of the Ogallala acquifer?

[alc]

62. veto was right. delaying approval/rejection is wrong

The investigation has been done for a while and the president needs to approve/reject the project. Congress shouldn't be able to force the president to do make the decision, so the veto is right.

If we had a functioning government, congress would politely ask the president what additional information he needs to make the decision. And he would politely let them know. And they would work together to get necessary information to decide if the pipeline should be built or not. Unfortunately both sides would rather have a wedge issue they can use to divide the people. So they don't want a decision and they like being able to tell their supporters that the other side is causing trouble.

[djean111]

64. You will be happy to know that the PIPELINE was not vetoed.

The attempt by Congress to usurp presidential powers was vetoed. Nowhere did Obama say the pipeline was cancelled - it is up to him to say yes or no, that is all that has been firmly established. Congress was trying to make an end run, that's all. IMO, just some whiny fist-brandishing for their supporters. They knew from the start that this would happen. Now, if enough DINOs vote with them to override the veto - then, at least, we can all see what we get by continuing to support and vote for DINOs. We get Republicans with a "D" on their shirt. Stupid us.

[B Calm]

65. You think it's okay for foreign businesses to use eminate domain to take your land? I know

republicans do but, so do you?

[Yo_Mama]

66. It's far safer to transport the stuff through pipelines. Better for the environment too.

Overall less risk, less fossil fuel burned.

I agree with you. But on DU, this is verboten. We must both be shamed.

[B Calm]

67. and it's far safer for Americans for Canada to transport their filthy oil across their own country.

[luckykate54]

68. Yep your wrong

The Keystone Pipeline could really do a lot of damage. The aquifer must be protected PERIOD!

[99Forever]

72. You're right about that.

You are very much in the minority. Are we supposed to be surprised?

[CreekDog]

74. hmm, I guess you really are in the minority here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6856045#top

or did you mean just on this issue?