BREAKING: President Obama Will Veto Congress' Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Source: Mother Jones / AP
President Barack Obama is planning to veto a bill that would force approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline, according to the Associated Press:
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/01/breaking-president-obama-would-veto-congress-keystone-xl-pipeline-legislation-wh
lark
(23,173 posts)Thanks
Yavin4
(35,453 posts)msongs
(67,462 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)but this is actually a pretty definitive statement for Obama. If he's going to waffle, he always puts weasel words in his statements (which of course people can ignore if they want to think he's serious). I don't see any weasel words here.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)He's going to let it get approved through normal (state department?) procedures later, and will say he was only veto'ing this because Congress was trying to override the standard review process.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"The spokesman says there is a "well-established" review process that is being run by the State Department that should not be undermined by legislation.
Earnest also says the pipeline's route through Nebraska also must be resolved."
Enrique
(27,461 posts)he's not vetoing the pipeline, he's vetoing legislation that would take the authority out of his hands.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)their "governance."
I never doubted this would be outcome.
elias49
(4,259 posts)There are lies, and there are damned lies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the laws of Congress with an EO. I think his acceleration of finding countries who will take some of these stateless prisoners is the right thing to do.
I think the Congress should repeal the law that does not allow Gitmo detainees on our soil. Florence SuperMax will hold the guilty, and the rest should be found countries who will take them.
Gitmo is a clusterfuck.....and like DADT, Congress is going to have to repeal its own mess to finally close it.
There's a great article here about Gitmo, and efforts to close it....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/us/politics/decaying-guantanamo-defies-closing-plans.html?_r=0
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)First round of bullshit legislation from the GOP congress - taking 1.5 million workers off of Obamacare, pushing votes in favor of TPP, and giving more tax cuts to 1-2%ers.
The GOP base is absolutely insane.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)at least the 452nd time Obama was going to cave and yet did not cave.
Why can't Obama just cave already and give the whining shitheads who claim he's about to cave a win, just one win. The track record for them is worse than the Knicks...THE GODDAMNED KNICKS!!!.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)If PO caves on the TPP, nobody will ever remember the things he didn't cave on.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)he's been promoting that deal himself.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I guess I should have said if he signs off on the TPP... etc.
Skittles
(153,226 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Every once in a while he throws a bone to the left/environmentalists. Am I right in thinking that TPP is Obama's version of Clinton's NAFTA and WTO?
Now if Obama vetoes TPP, then I will be a bit less skeptical.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)The post-NAFTA era has been marked by growing inequality, declining job security and new leverage for corporations to attack government regulations enacted in the public interest.
But it wasnt supposed to be that way. Back in 1986, when the leaders of the US, Canada and Mexico began talks on a regional trade deal that eight years later would culminate in the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), they sold the pact to the public as an economic win-win for all parties involved.
On signing the treaty in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton said, NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didnt believe that, I wouldnt support this agreement. He promised that NAFTA would result in an export boom to Mexico, and claimed that such trade deals transcend ideology because support for them is so uniform that it unites people in both parties.
Twenty years later, we can test how those claims panned out in the real world. And Public Citizens Global Trade Watch did just that, releasing a comprehensive study of NAFTAs impacts.
Last week, Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach spoke to Moyers & Company about NAFTA at age 20, and what it portends for other trade treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Below is a transcript of the conversation, edited for clarity.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/09/fool-me-once-20-years-of-nafta-show-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-must-be-stopped/
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)and
"The TPP is a potential danger to the planet, subverting environmental priorities, such as climate change measures and regulation of mining, land use, and bio-technology."
http://www.foe.org/projects/economics-for-the-earth/trade/trans-pacific-partnership#sthash.xKpCQDot.dpuf
--take out the word "potential" and the above sentence is correct
daleo
(21,317 posts)To move some of the most expensive oil there is?