General Discussion

alc

(1,151 posts)

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

Wed Feb 25, 2015, 09:15 AM

Feb 2015

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I think the Keystone Pipeline veto was wrong. [View all] RB TexLa Feb 2015 OP

OK. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #1

I disagree but tell me/us why you think it was wrong BlueJazz Feb 2015 #2

Because I think it should be built RB TexLa Feb 2015 #3

This was... onyourleft Feb 2015 #4

Would you allow it on your property? ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #7

Why? uppityperson Feb 2015 #9

Do you have inventments in Canadian oil companies? arcane1 Feb 2015 #12

Do you have investments in trucking companies and railroads former9thward Feb 2015 #34

That Canadian oil is going to China. Do you have Chinese trucks and trains? arcane1 Feb 2015 #39

The oil is going everywhere. former9thward Feb 2015 #43

They won't. alarimer Feb 2015 #63

That's fine......as long as nothing flows through it. TheCowsCameHome Feb 2015 #20

Were you up for one of the 35 jobs it was going to create? Warpy Feb 2015 #29

It's like any construction job. There's a lot of jobs while it's being built. Calista241 Feb 2015 #31

It would likely hire a few hundred in new refinery jobs. joshcryer Feb 2015 #35

You are mistaken. It will be refined overseas closer to the point of use Warpy Feb 2015 #44

Nah, the Valero refinery can do 150kbpd from XL. joshcryer Feb 2015 #47

It probably will be built, and the veto was the right thing to do bhikkhu Feb 2015 #33

Rushed though? former9thward Feb 2015 #36

There are good reasons its been under study for years bhikkhu Feb 2015 #48

The final impact report is out. joshcryer Feb 2015 #51

He's using Bush's "national interest" EO to "stall." joshcryer Feb 2015 #49

It has been having the environmental and other studies mandated by law. The bill he vetoed pnwmom Feb 2015 #52

That was obvious from your OP, but you haven't made a case for your position. merrily Feb 2015 #58

this is the last you have to say on it? CreekDog Feb 2015 #70

Are you willing to have it run through your back yard over your water supply? Vinca Feb 2015 #71

The consistency of your circular reasoning is a comfort in these turbulent times. LanternWaste Feb 2015 #73

You probably are in the minority here. SheilaT Feb 2015 #5

LMAO! nt stillwaiting Feb 2015 #6

OP really wants China to get their oil. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #8

I, along with the AFL-CIO, agree with you. Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #10

This union member disagrees. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2015 #11

That's because the environment is more important n/t arcane1 Feb 2015 #13

Seems fairly short sighted Egnever Feb 2015 #14

There might be a lot of jobs in oil spill cleanup. MH1 Feb 2015 #18

They'd probably be H1B jobs Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #59

The AFL-CIO isn't a monolith Starry Messenger Feb 2015 #27

Please show me were safeguards ever worked upaloopa Feb 2015 #32

Strict environmental Safeguards. Ah, there's the rub DFW Feb 2015 #42

Stupid hippies with their stupid breathable air, clean water, and fertile land over project jobs! TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #54

The horror of wanting clean air, drinking water HappyMe Feb 2015 #69

Your certainty is well-founded hatrack Feb 2015 #15

What's in it for America? sendero Feb 2015 #16

Nice hit and run. trumad Feb 2015 #17

The legislative branch was trying to usurp an executive branch power Motown_Johnny Feb 2015 #19

Thanks for that Important reminder, MJ.. that was obviously overlooked.. freaking republicons. Cha Feb 2015 #53

There is a better Kalidurga Feb 2015 #21

I agree Takket Feb 2015 #22

Thanks for your detailed explanation of why! LOL! nt Logical Feb 2015 #23

The Koch brothers would like to thank you for your support and also for your Elwood P Dowd Feb 2015 #24

link Electric Monk Feb 2015 #40

A subsidiary of Koch Industries. DFW Feb 2015 #45

So do republicans. nt RiverLover Feb 2015 #25

Your certainty is well founded jberryhill Feb 2015 #26

but would you drink with him? Kali Feb 2015 #28

Would you want it over your aquifer? or through your property? For reals? Hekate Feb 2015 #30

It is the right move long term JonLP24 Feb 2015 #37

Even Ed Schutz was "for it before he was against it." Chipper Chat Feb 2015 #38

Why do you think it should be built? What tremendous gain is in it for Canada and the USA? Rex Feb 2015 #41

Are we supposed to be surprised by your post? CreekDog Feb 2015 #46

It wasn't a veto of the Pipeline. It was a veto of the Republicans attempt to usurp his sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #50

It's eventually going to get built. This veto is politics, today, but nothing TwilightGardener Feb 2015 #55

Obama said its only a veto for now. Kablooie Feb 2015 #56

Because shitting in reservoirs is always right? n/t eridani Feb 2015 #57

The veto was the right thing to do Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #60

So you think it's okay for a foreign corporation to Ilsa Feb 2015 #61

veto was right. delaying approval/rejection is wrong alc Feb 2015 #62

You will be happy to know that the PIPELINE was not vetoed. djean111 Feb 2015 #64

You think it's okay for foreign businesses to use eminate domain to take your land? I know B Calm Feb 2015 #65

It's far safer to transport the stuff through pipelines. Better for the environment too. Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #66

and it's far safer for Americans for Canada to transport their filthy oil across their own country. B Calm Feb 2015 #67

Yep your wrong luckykate54 Feb 2015 #68

You're right about that. 99Forever Feb 2015 #72

hmm, I guess you really are in the minority here CreekDog Feb 2015 #74