Keystone Pipeline Should Now Have 60 Senate Votes

voters already decided who would make those choices, now it's up to congress and the president... the people that the voters picked

Obama is not running in 2016.... he wont look bad if he blocks things republicans try to ram through Congress... only if he tries to block common sense things like republicans were doing the last 4 years

stop trying to excuse republicans bad acts before they have even committed them, lets give them the benefit of the doubt

like it or not, Dems still have 50% of the power.... time for both sides to work together or it will be another two years of nothing getting done

and with the President also being Democrat, Democrats have the final say on any bill passing....

funny, I just say repubs need to give as well as take and you get upset saying no, republicans should get to only take and Obama should bend over for them.... lol

.

 

thanks for submitting such a great post

 

Obama wont veto bill after bill, only bills republicans try to shove through with their agenda......

bipartisan bills Obama will have no issue signing into law.....

the gov is control by both parties, they have to work together, each has equal control now

.

 

Good, he'll see a whole lot more in the next two years. Reid isn't there to play left tackle anymore.

 

think dems and repubs in congress can share that blame each other game

but next year is a new year, lets see if they can do better.... lets hope they can

.

 

If that's what you think, you even more naive than I thought!

 

Yep that's me, the naive poster of politics who's been relentless correct in his assessment of Barack Obama as individual and president from day one and has been dead-on accurate in predicting the nature of Obama's and the Dem Party's political fortunes right down the line, including what would happen if Obama won a second term of office. If only I would cease being correct . . . all the damn time, eh?

 

I think the pipe line should be built and I like the idea of the land owners along the pipeline getting a part of the profits. What percent is fair, I do not know. It is their land it will be on. I do unedstand easements and the fact that they still get use of the land but it is their land the pipeline would be impossible to build with out the use of it.

I also feel that the pipeline was held up by the President as a favor to Buffet. Who owns the railroad the is at max capacity shipping oil from North Dakota. Just my thought no proof just a feeling. Right know South Dakota farmers are pilling grain on the ground because they can not get railroad cars in to ship out.

 

The land owners get paid once.......

and no it would not be impossible to build without them

If they wish to be an ass.............eminent domain can be used and they get nothing.

 

Oh...goody goody gumdrops, OP...

 

Billy... Keystone MIGHT produce 1200 jobs.. It doesn't take 20,000 people to build or maintain a pipeline unless they all morons.

 

It will produce jobs that are outside of the actual pipeline.

There is no downside to building this, only the liberal enviro nuts oppose it, which is exactly who the American people just told to sit down and shut the F up

 

From what I've read about the pipeline, building it would generate about 2,000 jobs for a couple of years and then 50 when it was completed. It would seem that the best chance for jobs generation would be cleaning up after it bursts (in this country) and how to handle the massive mess in Canada. Oh, and from what I further understand, most of the finished product won't even stay in this country. It will be headed to South America. I'm not 100% convinced that I really want that pipeline running across this country.

 

You think it takes 19,000 people to look after 1200 pipeline workers????

 

You do know the oil is being shipped via tanker trucks and trains right? The laughable part about all of this is the EPA study found no reason to believe a pipeline would have a negative effect on the environment. It would have a much less effect on the environment than the diesel trucks and diesel trains that are moving the oil south. You also increase the chances of a spill using trucks and trains. The bottom line is the oil is being shipped south, just not by a more safer method via a pipeline.

 

I feel eminent domain should not apply in this case because this is a for profit company building the project. What gives someone the right to make a profit on your ground because you say so. Were does this stop? Here in Iowa they want to build power lines from a wind farm in the north west part of Iowa to Chicago area. Lots of land owners are upset because they do not want the power lines on their ground. They are hard to farm around and they with divide fields up making farm difficult. I feel that a for profit company should not be able to use eminent domain, this is not the same thing as a school or road. How is sharing profit not at a fair way of doing this. Forever they will be forced to live with what is on their ground. They will be limited to what they can do to thier ground. As a property owner I personally refused to sign wind energy leases for those reasons. And as far as getting nothing if they want to be an a**, really? Who the h*** do you think you are that you think property ownership and rights only apply when you think they should. My guess would be someone who does not own property.

 

if you had a pipeline go by your house, would the value go up or down?

so the pipleline is a job killer, kills all the truck drivers jobs, and replaces them with 30 permanent jobs?

a spill from a truck would be much less than a spill from a huge pipe, question is, why do we have to pay for it, why can't this oil companies pay for it, they are the ones profiting from it

.

 

Will somebody please tell me the benefit to this country from building that pipeline? I see minimal job gains or impact on the GDP, but massive exposure to very expensive clean up work if it blows out and that's not even counting the additional SO2 and NO released during refining that crap.

 

It take 2/3 Senate...67 votes to over-ride a veto. Filibusterer means nothing. If the XL is all about show... then let the GOP look the fool.

I'm sure domestic oil producers are all clamoring for Canadian oil competing for refinery space and more crude flooding the market. Makes perfect sense.

 

The companies pay the US government taxes for this.............

The electric company is for profit..............they use eminent domain and easements

The gas company is for profit..................they use eminent domain and easements

The water company is for profit....................they use eminent domain and easments

Need I go on?

Wind leases and pipelines are like comparing apples to bowling balls.........

 

Actually the Dems that lost their races were the more moderates that might have supported Keystone, the odds of them passing it are slim and getting the President to sign it are ZERO.
Still trying to find someone that can actually state what we gain by allowing the pipeline to run through our Nation.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not go further and use it to build Malls and sports stadiums, oh wait they already do.
Too bad that the company it benefits is Not an American company.

 

To be fair, we don't know which would and wouldn't have supported it because Harry Reid wouldn't bring Keystone to a vote. Which won't be a problem anymore and now those moderates are replaced with Republicans. So this is definitely an improvement for Keystone's prospects. Obama is of course free to veto it but someone has to be living in a bubble to think there would be no political consequences associated with such a veto.

 

Yep....we have 57 now. And Landrieu's race will be decided in December. She will be FORCED to vote FOR it......as she's in a red state and will not get voted in IF she doesn't. So, that makes 58. There are other Dem Senators in red states as well....who might be looking at re-election next time around. Then there's the other couple of races not yet decided, which go for Republicans. It should be pretty easy to pick off 3 or more votes to get this one past a filibuster, signed and onto the prez's desk.

 

The reason he wouldn't bring it to a vote was that he was protecting both the president and the Dem Senators who were up for re-election from having to cast votes. There will be no such "protection" now. We have a solid 57......and Landrieu will vote with us, or else risk losing her run-off. I think there's at least 2 more Dem Senators in red states that would also vote for it. Shouldn't be too difficult.

 

No actually it reduces the chances because the President will Veto it and without the votes to override his veto the Bill is DOA. I seriously doubt he cares, he is not up for re-election and I doubt he cares if it hurts Hillary's changes (if she is the candidate), when most Americans realize what Keystone is really about they will applaud him killing it. There are some issues this might hurt the Dems, Keystone is not one of them, some bought and owned Republican Politicians are going to have to do some might big splaining to do with their owners when they face plant on this one, they do not like losing money.