Are you OK with the Democratic Congresspeople voting for the Keystone Pipeline?

[kentuck]

Will you be OK if enough Democratic Senators vote with the Repubs to over-ride a presidential veto?

If the answer is "Yes", then that is what is wrong with this fucking Party!

If the answer is "No", then they should know that they do not have our support in their idiotic votes.

[spanone]

1. absolutely not.

[nashville_brook]

2. nope.

[truebluegreen]

3. NO.

[MineralMan]

4. Keystone is not a major factor for me, really.

The oil will move, either by pipeline or rail. Both methods have serious issues. Here's another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I read that thread, and there were good comments in there...

from people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Opposing this pipeline, however, is approaching religious fervor.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes. I'm not sure all of the opposition is fact-based.

There's no simple answer on how to transport crude oil over long distances. I recognize that many of the opponents don't want the oil transported at all. That complicates things, since it will be transported. I want it transported in the way that has the least potential impact in all areas, from environmental to safety.

It's just not such a simple thing.

[sabrina 1]

66. Can you point out what part of the opposition you're not certain is fact-based?

And why do you want it transported? How will that benefit the people of the US? Where is this filthy product going? And how is it in the interests of the US to destroy parts of our environment, what is the pay-off to this country?

Thanks in advance, I would like to see some of the reasons for any support of this pipeline that I have not seen before in order to consider anything I am not already aware of.

[BeanMusical]

98. :crickets:

[MineralMan]

112. Bullshit! I was away from my computer.

You do not know me. Please do not assume you do.

[BeanMusical]

142. You seem angry.

As for knowing you one thing is obvious, you're very condescending.

[MineralMan]

110. I've been pretty clear on all of that.

I suggest you read what I've written. The oil will be transported, because people use it. Nothing about that appears to be changing. So deciding how it will be moved is the question at hand. I support neither method. Both have serious problems. The oil will move, though.

See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515

[arthritisR_US]

153. Yes the people use the oil, just not in your country.

The Chinese will be very grateful because they carried none of the risk and all of the benefit at the peril of the earth and its people who mean nothing to them. Gee, the companies in my Calgary backyard are the same selfish pigs.

[BeanMusical]

171. Yes, as clear as tar sands:

"I'm not a proponent of the XL pipeline. I'm not necessarily an opponent, either."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515#post12

[RKP5637]

253. I agree! To me the result is the same either way, using antiquated energy sources. That said,

it will move either way. We're in an hour glass transition. Progress is being made, but far slower than I had hoped. In utopia it would happen quite quickly, the reality is there is so much money, greed and selfishness that for some that takes precedence over the future of the planet and humanity. Some days I do wonder what is polluted more, the planet or peoples minds with all of the propaganda and disinformation swirling around.

[1StrongBlackMan]

199. MM didn't say he wanted the oil transported ...

What he said was SINCE the oil will be transported, he wants it transported in a manner that would do/have the potential for the least harm.

People seem to think the U.S. government has a say in what happens with the oil. Recognizing that the U.S. doesn't, is not advocating for the project.

[sabrina 1]

214. The US Government has no say in who takes over land in this country for the purpose of making

money? When did that takeover of our country happen?

I believe MM is capable of speaking for himself. He stated there were problems with what those who oppose this pipeline are saying,

I asked him to inform us as to what those issues are so we could consider them. I oppose it, have researched it for a long time now both cons and pros, he has not responded, so I still do not know what those issues are.

If you are speaking for him, then I am even more concerned, as I have always assumed the US Government, not some Foreign Corporation or Foreign Government not known for their concern for the environment in their own countries, let alone ours, definitely DOES have a say in who gets to use OUR country for profit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

218. Maybe there has been a disconnect here ...

I suspect that MM is rather agnostic on the pipeline; but, the point (I believe MM was making) is the oil WILL come out of the ground ... And that oil WILL be shipped to market ... the U.S. Government has no say over that.

Even if the pipeline project is killed, the oil WILL still be shipped into, and through, the U.S. by rail (and, in a far lesser amount, by truck) ... and that is similarly problematic; but unless it wants to bar shipment of all oil, there is nothing the U.S. Government can do to stop that, either.

[rhett o rick]

226. The point that is coming across to me is that oil will be transported across the US so

give up worrying about it. I say make it as tough on them as possible. Stop the crazy pipeline and make stiff safety regulations on oil tankers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

237. I, mostly agree, ...

But I wouldn't say make it as hard as possible ... rather as SAFE as possible.

[rhett o rick]

238. Good point. I agree. nm

[sabrina 1]

245. No one who understands this issue, this particular oil, can be agnostic about the pipeline.

Except of course, for the unethical, corrupt oil corporations who have zero interest in anything other than THEIR profits.

What no one who is either for this pipeline or agnostic about it has explained to me is 'how does this in any way benefit the US'?

We do NOT have to transport this filthy product by train or pipeline through this country.

The oil is not FOR this country. All we would be doing is to facilitate the destruction of a large part of our own environment so that Foreign Corporations can benefit.

How does this pipeline, or any other mode of transport of this dangerous product, benefit the people of this country?

The original attempt to claim it would provide jobs has been thoroughly debunked, so that is no longer an issue.

Other than that dubious reason, how does the transport of this product benefit the American people?

[AnalystInParadise]

252. Potential to lower fuel costs

keep flow of goods and services moving across the globe

I can go on, oil is the de facto fuel of our civilization, have a problem with that? I wish you luck getting the human race to abandon their comfortable ways.

[sabrina 1]

257. The flow of goods and services moved across the globe long before, what is going to be, the

short-lived, thoroughly destructive Oil Era. And the change to alternative energy sources is happening so rapidly now, (we are always behind the rest of the world on these issues for some reason) that already the demand for oil is down.

Enjoy it while you can, I see Oil Trucks where I live, being replaced with Solar Energy trucks. I didn't expect to see that for many years to come.

It's exciting to be a part of this new era. The Oil Era will soon be history, and a bad part of human history.

Home Depot is now selling do-it-yourself Solar products. When Department stores get into the act, you know the market is there and growing. And as the market grows, the wind and solar products have become much cheaper.

Sorry you are stuck in the past. It was just another blip on history's radar screen, it will pass because it is unsustainable.

IF this disastrous pipeline does come to pass, they are going to lose so much money. That alone has been a real incentive for many people to get off the 'oil drug' and to realize, 'we don't need it'.

Only old dinosaurs of the brief, bloody, greedy oil era are still struggling to justify it. The rest of the world is focused on getting off that particularly dangerous drug.

[AnalystInParadise]

289. LOL

I so enjoy your screeds against reality.

Tell me about your plan to convince the human race to go back to no electricity, no cars, and only sail powered ships.........I find your ways fascinating and quaint.

[1StrongBlackMan]

267. By "agnostic", I simply mean ...

"hasn't voiced an opinion on the issue of the pipeline", itself; but rather, is taking the fact that the Canadian companies WILL pump the oil out of the ground (something that the U.S. Government has no control over), and that once out of the ground, that oil WILL be transported to refineries and, ultimately, to market. The U.S. Government can, however, affect whether the oil travels through the U.S. (and to U.S. refineries) by killing the project, and to a lesser degree by restricting transport by rail (through changing the existing regulatory scheme).

What no one who is either for this pipeline or agnostic about it has explained to me is 'how does this in any way benefit the US'?

How will the oil, once extracted, benefit the U.S.? There will be the refinery work, and if transported by rail, the railroad car sales and the rail transport fees, most of which go to companies domiciled in the U.S.; if transported by pipeline, there will be a short-term realization of construction jobs, along with the refinery work.

We do NOT have to transport this filthy product by train or pipeline through this country.

True ... by killing the pipeline, the oil will be slowed; but again, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.

The oil is not FOR this country. All we would be doing is to facilitate the destruction of a large part of our own environment so that Foreign Corporations can benefit.

The ultimate destination of the oil is, really, irrelevant ... the oil will affect global prices (slightly), as this oil purchased by China is oil China won't be purchasing on the global market.

The original attempt to claim it would provide jobs has been thoroughly debunked, so that is no longer an issue.

Actually, what has been "debunked" is not WHETHER jobs will be created ... everyone agree that there will be jobs ... the thing "exposed" is the nature of the jobs ... the vast majority of the pipeline related jobs will be temporary jobs during the construction phase, lasting 2-5 years, though there will be an uptick in permanent pipeline monitoring and maintenance jobs, plus the gulf coast jobs related to refining the oil.

Now ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.

Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.

[sabrina 1]

271. So in essence what you are saying is that because we have already allowed some really bad

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

environmental damage due to bad policies when it comes to supplying our energy needs, we may as well allow even more?

You are right, this argument will not change the minds of those who KNOW how damaging our energy policies have been. They are the cause of most of our brutal wars, tragic destruction of the Environment, greed, corruption and worse, huge influence over our government by some of the most unethical people on the planet.

Especially since we know, none of it is necessary. That back in the seventies it was known that we could begin the change to alternative energy sources.

Had we put the same amount of money and effort into that change, we would long ago have ended our dependence on oil. But then, there would not have been a need for WAR and the Oil Cartels would not have the power they now have, or the money.

So we are supposed to just throw our hands in the air and say 'oh well, it's already a done deal, the destruction of the planet, so let's just speed it up. Let's not oppose anything they do, like FRACKING, like the Keystone Pipeline, because our destruction is inevitable and we are not capable of finding other ways.

No thank you, those of us who oppose the continued destruction of the planet, may lose, thanks to those who keep on excusing it, but IF there are future generations, I would like them to know that we tried not to leave them with a planet that has been made practically unlivable for them. For whatever that is worth.

Otoh, if all those who put politics before what is right, would join in the effort to begin to halt that destruction, we might actually succeed.

I am far more angry at those who know we should be ending this dependence on oil, who know how ruthless the Oil Cartels are, see their murderous actions in the Third World eg, yet attack US rather than those they should be angry at. For political purposes.

I don't expect anything of BP, Exxon or any of the rest of them, their history shows how unethical they are, but they could keep not on doing what they do without the help of those who continue to make excuses for them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

272. In a word ...

So in essence what you are saying is that because we have already allowed some really bad environmental damage due to bad policies when it comes to supplying our energy needs, we may as well allow even more?

"No" ... that's not what I am saying ... rather, killing the pipeline project will do little to meet the climate change coalition's goals.

[sabrina 1]

287. 'Little' is better than nothing. But it will do more than a little to protect this environment. We

have enough evidence of the potential environmental disasters it will create to know that just stopping it will protect our country's environment from what has happened already in theirs.

We were told, airc, 18 days before the Gulf Oil Spill, that we no longer needed the ban on Offshore Drilling because 'technology, according to my advisers, has advanced since 30 years ago and will prevent the kind of disaster the ban was supposed to prevent'.

Of course we knew that was not true. Who WERE these 'advisers' anyhow, Oil Corp shills? And then 18 days later 11 men died and our Gulf was destroyed for generations to come.

Keeping the ban in place, we were told, would 'do little' to protect the environment. What we know now is, the ban was not extensive enough to protect the environment.

So forgive me if I am supportive of even a 'little' environmental damage. We need MORE protection from these oil corporations, not less.

[TheKentuckian]

269. Canada has no right to transport shit over our nation. If they want to ship it China so bad then use

their lands to do it.

No, we allow it. Isn't a damn thing in existence about must for this. How would they go about forcing us to?

[1StrongBlackMan]

270. True, Canada has no "right" ...

but there are two considerations: first, their "plan" is/was to transport the oil to the gulf coast for refining.

That was why (soon to be former) Senator Landrieu (and most other gulf coast politicians and a significant portion of gulf coast residents) favored(s) the project, i.e., refinery JOBS.

Secondly, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products, i.e., oil, to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.

Again ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.

Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.

[TheKentuckian]

282. I obviously don't give a fuck about their plan as I oppose it.

Nor do I give a damn about "trade wars", what the hell are they going to do and why do I care if they do it? Keep your "bacon", syrup, your boring ass hockey, and your fucking Labatts Blue.

How about we stop providing security for international trade and let them pay for it?

If our neighbors to the north want to poison or water supply and wreck the habitat for a few bucks then they are welcome to more than a trade war, in my opinion. At that point, it is a water matter and they would pose an existential that makes them subject to hot war.

[1StrongBlackMan]

283. Okay ...

that is clear ... And the luxury of those NOT having to exist in the real (political) would where "F@#% it" is NOT an answer, as every decision has down stream ramifications.

[TheKentuckian]

285. In the real world water is required for life. You threaten the water you threaten life.

Put that downstream ramification in your pipe and smoke it.

Canada can't do a damn thing but suck it, if we tell them to suck it or face existential threat themselves and one a lot quicker and more final than what they want for us to make a few bucks.

They can all go to hell and if they jump bad then send them there. Good enough for ISIS, good enough for those wishing to kill us for filthy lucre.
In fact, that poison is orders of magnitude greater direct threat than a bunch of yahoos half a world away running around in light trucks and trying to go back to the stone age.

[1StrongBlackMan]

286. I agree ...

(all except for the "Put that downstream ramification in your pipe and smoke it." part)

In the real world water is required for life. You threaten the water you threaten life.

And that is the basis of my reservation with Keystone, in particular, and ALL transport of oil through the U.S., in general, However, my solution is NOT to ban this particular project/transport; but work to find an environmentally safe(r) mode of transport, as we work to transition to green/renewables.

[TheKentuckian]

296. Hoping for magic future fixes does not address the actual threat no matter how well intentioned.

You are damn near a generation out, at best with that being fantasy because who is trying to do any such thing but rather as much as they can as cheaply as possible. Add in development and implementation and you are most likely solving yesterday's problems tomorrow.

It is unavoidable that the threat to the already under more than extreme duress water supply is magnifying while this approach plays out.
In fact, if one were serious about safe(r) forms of transport they would cut off and putting gremlins in the gears of unsafe ones and allow necessity to be the mother of invention instead of doing nothing but allowing threats to increase. "Who could have seen this coming" and some resigned hand wringing won't mean a thing when the shit hits the fan.

It is sort of like the Chinese "agreeing" to only ramp up the pollution for another 15-16 years. Have you out seen what it looks like on a good day with the factories on shutdown now? That'll fix it, that's the ticket.

[Mojorabbit]

259. Then let Canada make a pipeline across their country. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

268. They can ...

But their plan is/was to transport the oil to the gulf coast for refining.

That was why (soon to be former) Senator Landrieu (and most other gulf coast politicians and a significant portion of gulf coast residents) favored(s) the project, i.e., JOBS.

[Mojorabbit]

273. I was just reading about this on forbes

"This presumably accounts for some of the spin-off jobs. In the case of Keystone XL, it seems as though the intention is to export significant amounts of this petroleum abroad after it’s processed into gasoline, diesel and other products at existing Gulf Coast refineries, so it’s not clear how many additional jobs might be created. The notion of spin-off jobs is so vague and imprecise that it is impossible to predict beforehand or even estimate after the fact." http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/2/


If existing infrastructure is used at the other end, there may be no need for significant new jobs in the refineries. mojo

[DeadEyeDyck]

216. is your heat on?

That is one place it is going.

[AnalystInParadise]

250. Oil makes gasoline

Gasoline goes in cars, goes go Vroom-vroom on the highway.........

I don't think I can make it any simpler as to why I want this "filthy product" that powers our civilization transported.

The pay off is oil transported from the source to refineries.

[sabrina 1]

256. Get a horse, the world survived without cars that go 'vroom-vroom on the highway for

all but about 100 years of its entire history. Sorry, but the days of 'vroom-vroomers' are numbered.

All over the world people are taking matters into their own hands and finding out that not only can they live with that filthy product, but life is a whole lot better once the stop being dependent on it.

I am thrilled to be among those who are moving away from dependence on what was after all, just a very short period in the history of the world.

[AnalystInParadise]

288. I don't want a horse

I want an internal combustion engine and fortunately you have no power to deny one to me. Thank Goddess for that.

[sabrina 1]

291. Admittedly it takes a little skill to handle a horse. Anyone can handle a combustion engine. So I

understand. Not to worry, when all the combustion engines are out of commission, or piled up in landfills around the world, those of us who have those skills will be happy to help you get acquainted with a horse.

They are wonderful creatures, they don't run out of gas, break, stop running on the highway, cost a fortune, they work with you and they are far less dangerous than combustion engines.

[AnalystInParadise]

292. LOL

yeah.....I will be dead long before the world runs out of oil. I have another 40 years in me minimum and I am not worried.

AND I know how to ride a horse, I did grow up in West Texas, I just don't need one when I have a car that runs of gasoline. As always I enjoy your rants disconnected from reality.

[sabrina 1]

293. You can't hug a combustion engine!

[AnalystInParadise]

294. Well you can

but you might get burned.

[arthritisR_US]

154. Speak to my good mates in Quebec, the ones who

are left, after the derailment, see if they see the oil industry as being good stewards of public safety?

[jeff47]

19. Without the pipeline, less of it will move.

The oil will only move if it's cost effective to do so. With the pipeline, that break-even point is much lower. So keeping it on the tracks keeps more of it in the ground.

Additionally, running a railroad creates more jobs than running a pipeline.

[MineralMan]

24. The current low prices for crude won't last, and it will again

be profitable to produce and transport this crude. It's not necessarily true that less will move if the pipeline is not built, but it is true that less of it will move in tank cars on our railroad lines. We're one disaster away from people understanding just how dangerous rail transport of crude oil actually is. St. Paul or Seattle could be that disaster location. I hope not.

[jeff47]

29. I'm not basing that on the current price.

No matter what, it costs more to move by rail than to move by pipeline. That's why they want the pipeline so badly.

Yes, moving by rail won't keep it all in the ground forever. But it'll keep more of it in the ground than the pipeline.

We're one disaster away from people understanding just how dangerous rail transport of crude oil actually is.

Because a neighborhood near my childhood home didn't explode from a pipeline leak. It was raining gasoline. Then something caused a spark.

Neither pipelines nor rail transport are safe.

[arthritisR_US]

157. Finally someone with knowledge. The problem isn't

the transport, it's the energy. Time to get real about alternatives and give them all the breaks the oil whores have had!

[Art_from_Ark]

158. I wholeheartedly agree

If only we had stayed with Jimmy Carter's visionary energy policy that was implemented in 1978 and then trashed by Ronald Reagan a few years later, our energy situation would be so much better!

[arthritisR_US]

160. He was light years ahead and people mocked

him. Looking at the disgusting breathing environment the Chinese now live in, Carter would literally been a breath of fresh air if his policies had been implemented. Alas, greed won out.

[arthritisR_US]

156. Create jobs for Koch and Calgary, thanks. The

universe will see it differently, but who gives a feck.

[Voice for Peace]

189. Don't you mean

create profits for Koch?

[arthritisR_US]

232. You are correct. A few CEO's benefit and that's

it.

[NYC_SKP]

140. This is true, they will find a way to move the oil.

I would object to it traveling through my city county or state by rail or truck or pipeline.

Let Canada run it through their own goddamn country.

Some folks seem to think, however, that shutting down the pipeline will stop the extraction of product and that's just not so.

Similarly, others think that supporting the pipeline is like supporting the extraction of product, and that's not exactly so, either.

The sludge will flow, no matter what.

Same with fracking, it's been going on for years and will keep happening.

The smart thing to do is to press for full disclosure of the specific admixtures to the fluid, we have the right to know and that's a very realistic objective to have.

[Voice for Peace]

194. one big difference unless it's my imagination between rail and pipeline

You can get a leak in a pipeline that goes on for years and
years undetected until one day you are taking a bath and
light a smoke and BOOM.

Now I realize that's hyperbole; of course you would taste
or smell something funny sooner. But probably not until
you had been drinking cooking and bathing in it for months.

A train accident is terrible and can be catastrophic of
course in a different way. But the danger is not hidden,
and the causes are not disputable.

[NYC_SKP]

196. Correct. AND...invisibility of it is preferred by the owners and transporters.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[aikoaiko]

190. That's where I'm at.

[ctaylors6]

275. Thank you very much for that other thread

It was an informative discussion of facts that are relevant to this issue.

[L0oniX]

5. Will they say they are voting for the Keystone Pipeline because the people want and need it?

[brooklynite]

73. People want it...

Keystone XL Pipeline Has Wide Public Support, Poll Finds

A significant majority of Americans support building the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a ABC/Washington Post poll released Friday.

Despite relatively widespread concerns about its potential effects on the environment, 65 percent of Americans said the government should approve construction of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to Texas. That is an increase over a June 2012 poll that found 59 percent supported its construction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/keystone-xl-poll_n_4919025.html

[alarimer]

83. Because they are misinformed.

Deliberately so, by our Koch-run media.

The public at large will not benefit. It will further degrade the environment, which we can ill afford to do.

[brooklynite]

86. Perhaps so, but it puts a crimp in politician's ability to say no...

[Bluenorthwest]

118. And yet many, many things with majority support from the people are simply ignored for years on end

So there's that. They could always do it that way. Like they do with virtually everything that people actually want.

[arthritisR_US]

159. Not if the politician has a spine. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. LOL ...

We want politicians to do what "the people" want ... except when the people want something we don't want.

[SunSeeker]

205. Every American I know who supports KXL mistakenly thinks it will move American oil.

Has any poll asked respondents if they are aware KXL will only move CANADIAN oil?

[Octafish]

210. Who paid for that poll? American Petroleum Institute?

That might affect the results. Just saying.

[arthritisR_US]

162. Which people, the Chinese? If you think it's

destined for American consumption you are misinformed.

[B Calm]

6. As far as I'm concerned this pipeline is an illegal immigrant.

[Travis_0004]

36. Will obama grant it ammensty

[Autumn]

7. No I am not, at this point in time I am not OK with the Democratic party on the whole

[NV Whino]

8. No.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Kindly explain WTF is so bad about yet another pipeline

added to the thousands of miles of pipelines we already have?

I just don't get why this one has become the Last Stand of Liberalism.

[FSogol]

14. +1. It is also described as the end of all life on planet earth. I don't get it.

[kentuck]

15. Besides the dirty crap going over aquifer in Nebraska and Oklahoma..

this:

Robert Reich asks question about Keystone Pipeline.
"Question: Who’s the largest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands region of Alberta, Canada?

Answer: Koch Industries, which holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- capable of producing tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next few years. The Keystone XL pipeline will lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering the Koch’s profit margins. Do you think this might explain why Republicans (as well as some Democrats like Louisana Senator Mary Landrieu) are so eager to have the pipeline approved?"

[snooper2]

22. So, Kocks are bad- so we must oppose- ignore the 100's of other pipelines being built

Some would say that is hypocritical!

[rpannier]

94. Some would say???

Throw in the word people after some and I know where I've heard that before

The thing is going to built over the most important aquifer in the United States. That's what makes this pipeline a bigger issue
Support for it has been built on a series of lies. My favorite two being the jobs created, if not the here the pipeline will be built to Vancouver. Both of which (along with many others) have been debunked. It will not create massive jobs and it will not get built west, because it's too expensive to build through the Rocky Mountains and it would have to be built through First Nations land and most of the councils will not let them.

30-40 years ago people thought it would be safe to dump crap into the deep wells in places like California and now with the drought conditions and water shortages, that water is being drilled into and that water is not not safe for people.

As to the other pipelines being built, they are not relevant to the conversation. Each project stands on its own merit, not on the merit of some other project. Some are safer than others. This particular one has a lot of potential for disaster that if it occurs cannot be undone easily and the consequences could be massive.
In this day of less regulation being the mantra of the Republicans it's even more dangerous.

It's not hypocritical to oppose this pipeline and be okay with another one built somewhere else (despite what some would say).
I would argue it's intellectually weak to say if you don't oppose all or most of the pipelines then you shouldn't be opposing this one

[joshdawg]

184. Very well said.

Thanks.

[bobduca]

222. but, "intellectually weak"

is his schtick

[bobclark86]

225. Because there are no pipes over it now...

And the trains -- which have a safety record of blowing up neighborhoods and derailing into important tributaries -- don't run over it now. '

It's not hypocritical to oppose this pipeline and be okay with another one built somewhere else (despite what some would say).

Did you miss the part where they're already there? Did you not LOOK at the map above?

As the price rises (and it will), the stuff is going to flow. One way or the other -- trains or pipes. And pipes are safer. And more trains from a lack of pipe will only make the number of accidents increase.

[rpannier]

233. Yes I did

And the map provides no context
It doesn't say when they were built
It doesn't say who built them
Were they built by a company like Keystone who had 25 moil spills in the US and Canada in their first year of operation (2010)?
Do those pipelines carry tar sands oil?
Does it say how much oil is piped through each of those every year?
It contains no analysis of any kind. It just says here are the oil pipelines.
The Enbridge Pipeline dumped 800,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River and the Exxon Mobile pipeline spilled 420,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River -- Does the map include that information?
Does the map include any information on the safety record of each pipeline?

Your analysis of their safety is not included in the map and it's the responsibility of the person who posted the map to show that it's relevant in this instance.
To claim that opponents of the pipeline treat it as religion when supporters would use a map that provides no proof of its relevance.

In conclusion, I could provide a map of High Security Prisons around the country and argue that its safe to build one across the street from an elementary school because there are so many. And, like with the map, provide no analysis as the potential risks and leave out safety completely.
There are thousands of prisons/pipelines, they're going to be built anyway, opposition is almost a religion... etc

[bobclark86]

258. Trains kill people more often.

Our nation's rolling stock and infrastructure are a joke. And they're getting older. And they're being used more. Which leads to data like this: More oil spilled from trains in 2013 than in previous 4 decades, federal data show

Including major derailments in Alabama and North Dakota, more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in 2013, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Oh, and blowing up a small town is preferable?

Lac-Mégantic rail disaster

The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, located in the Eastern Townships of the Canadian province of Quebec, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 74-car[3][4][5][6][7] freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-two people were confirmed dead, with five more missing and presumed dead.[8] More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed.[2] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.62 mi) blast radius.[9]

More people died in one day from an oil train than from all transmission line accidents in 20 years. One. Day.

In conclusion, pipes are cheaper, more reliable and less likely to kill off whole towns. And there are NO alternatives to pipelines other than 50- to 100-year-old railroads. Unless we all go back to the horse and buggy tomorrow.

If you have a better idea, please share.

[cally]

280. Yes, but we need to upgrade our rail lines

because rail transport is better for the environment than trucks. Saying our rail lines are old is the point. We have a public policy of subsidizing oil and gas and highways which harms us. Upgrading our aging infrastructure is needed.

I just traveled in France on rails. World of difference. Fast, efficient, smooth, and relatively cheap compared to driving.

[bobclark86]

297. I fully agree, but it's unlikely.

You know there haven't been new rail lines built in this county for decades, right?

Besides, pipes are cheaper to build and maintain. And they kill fewer people. Personally, I'd be more pissed if they built a rail line through my neighborhood to haul crude oil than a pipeline. Not a huge fan of either, but if given the choice between rail and pipe -- which we are being given, since the oil will flow -- I think a new pipe is better than an old rail line.

[woo me with science]

265. Good post. Thank you.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. OK, so the thing is to beat up on the Koch brothers...

That's the real problem with the pipeline-- Koch's make more money.

Well, they're going to make money no matter what we do or don't do. And then they will die and the world still goes on about its business.

The better place to put our energy and feeble demands might be in finding ways to reduce our dependence on oil.

[larkrake]

21. unlike the other pipelines, WE do not get the oil, We do not get the jobs

We do not get any money, only the Koch brothers get paid for refining it. They pay their workers shit. Trans Canada will use their own crews to build it and will take the lowest bid from US companies to work as diggers. Low bidders do not incorporate the safety equipment needed to prevent spills, oil companies do not go the extra mile to insure the land is safe-they do not care. Canadians voted to disallow the oil to go to their coast. Why do we have to carry Canada's dirty oil? Why continue oil recovery at all when wind and solar are better. If we subsidized clean energy like we do oil, we wouldn't need oil at all. There is enough plastic in the world to carry on, and vasaline is corrosive.Synthetic oil is strong for lubing equipment. Why carry on with the farce of oil?

[LondonReign2]

26. You're overlooking what we do get

Namely, a bunch of contaminated water being dumped in the LA wetlands.

[AnalystInParadise]

254. So Jefferson County Texas is not Louisiana

The good people of the Golden Triangle would loudly object to your geographical skills.

[jwirr]

33. There is a huge fresh water aquifer that it crosses right over. We do not have the technology to

even understand how to clean it up if there is a leak. And while they are telling us that they have the latest in new safe technology - I do not believe them. That is what they told us about the BP Gulf spill also. Those of us who live around and above that aquifer want it preserved.

We do not want to destroy one of our greatest natural resources so an oil company in Canada and the Koch brothers can get richer by transporting someone else's oil to the Gulf to be sold on the world market to the highest bidder.

They are also lying to us about how many jobs will be created. I have a pipeline a mile from my home. About 50 workers spent one summer here and the only workers we have seen since came to fix a leak.

[Enthusiast]

52. +1! Excellent post.

[MatthewStLouis]

56. Well said!

[TreasonousBastard]

133. It crosses over a small part of the High Plains Aquifer...

which we're already depleting faster than any oil will get to it. By the time the damn pipe is built it could be dry.

OK, probably not, but it's not going to last for long and no one seemed to care about depletion, or the other pipelines crossing the Ollagalla, until this one came up.

I'm not friends with the Koch's either, but there are bigger problems in that area than one more pipeline.

[jwirr]

169. This is dirty oil this time and there are many of us who do not want the farmers etc to continue

depleting the waters. Yes, there are bigger problems but this is one we can do something about.

One of the big issues is the continued use of fossil fuels instead of using money to move toward alternatives. I think you can divide the two groups along this line just as much as about the safety of the aquifer. It is not just one issue. There is seldom any issue that is.

[LovingA2andMI]

70. Thank you for this information....

Fair point indeed, considering thousands of kids are starving in America day after day, and some are laser focused a pipeline, when it appears, thousand of feet of existing pipelines are across the U.S.A.

[rpannier]

97. Your map is irrelevant to the topic

As I said in another post on this topic, other pipelines have nothing to do with this one.
In fact, you can readily argue, that not opposing all of them, shows a little more thought went into the opposition.
Each pipeline should stand on its own merits as far as safety goes and necessity goes.
This project is built over the most important aquifer in the United States. A disaster over the aquifer is likely unfixable, and even if it were, the economic and environmental damage would likely be huge and long lasting.
In the 70's and 80's, crap was dumped into the deepest wells in California, with the belief that any damage would be non-existent. Now, with the severe drought conditions, that water is being pumped into and it's unsafe.

The argument is over the Keystone Pipeline, not the other ones. Some maybe safer than others, and/or have less potential for long term disaster than this one does. The project has been sold on a pack of lies: the pipeline will not get built to British Columbia, it's too expensive and it would have to go through First Nation lands, which most of the First Nation councils oppose. And, again, even if they didn't, building through the Rocky Mountains would be a financial loser.
It also will not create the amount of jobs its supporters have claimed. And even when that figure is shown to them, they just ignore it.

[TreasonousBastard]

134. That there are almost 200,000 miles...

of pipelines already working (that map is only the big ones) is irrelevant?

Maybe you have a specific objection to the petition to have thinner steel in some sections? Maybe you think this one will be less safe than all the other ones working without spilling or damaging?

But, do you have specifics? It's not a bad thing to take extra steps for safety when experts disagree, but just how many expert hydrologists actually say there will be damage if there is a spill in that small stretch over a small corner of the aquifer.

And how many engineers have put together damage assessments and calculated the probablitlites of a spill?

"Oh the smallest chance is too big" you say. Well, that could be said about any major project.

I don't see any compelling economic or logistic reason for this pipeline, but neither do I see any compelling reason to stop it.

Of course, if you just hate the Koch brothers, that could be cause enough...

[rpannier]

136. A Fairly decent argument on your part that failed at the end

Where did I mention the Koch Brothers?

NOWHERE

Decent arguments die when you throwout shit that wasn't said or even inferred in my argument
I guess it's easier for you to take the low road

[arthritisR_US]

150. I can't believe you are thinking this is ok and I

am from Canada, living in Calgary and disgusted by this assault on the environment and people's property and well being.

[Dustlawyer]

178. I object! I live 20 minutes from Port Arthur, Texas where the Koch refinery will refine this extra

dirty oil. The pipeline will join the other hundreds or thousands under my community here on the Texas Gulf coast. This refinery already dumps tons and tons of pollution into OUR environment! Let Canada do it!

[IronLionZion]

276. Its an artificial issue with no economic justification

they can't make the case for it. Go ahead, ask them how they calculated their numbers and who benefits.

They just spun it out of nothing, so they can have something to run against. Those dirty hippies are killing your jobs is like how Obama's going to get your guns and turn you gay. It appeals to a certain type of voter during election season.

[2naSalit]

10. Nope

not at all okay with that. And I am not okay with the whole political system we now have either.

[Jackpine Radical]

80. That is a rapidly growing sentiment

just about everywhere I've been lately.

[2naSalit]

91. Indeed.

I spoke to my local legislative candidate who lost his race last week. We both are not happy about the "talking points" employed by many in our party and the whole government in general.

It's sad, and one of the big problems is that civics is no longer taught in schools so that citizens understand their role in this allegedly representative government. In fact, it sucks.

But cheer up, democracies seem to fade away after about two centuries.

[whathehell]

11. No, and Hell NO!

[99Forever]

13. Well beyond not okay. n.t

[Maedhros]

17. Some believe that continually excusing Party betrayals of core constituencies

(in this case, the environmentalists) comprises the best strategy for strengthening the Party and (at least theoretically) subsequently advancing progressive causes.

The last 20 years have demonstrated the bankruptcy of that strategy, but here we are...

[Louisiana1976]

18. No way. It'll be bad for the environment.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. I'm very lucky to have

Menendez and Booker for my Senators.

They know better than to vote for this.

[FarPoint]

23. No...

Uhmmmm No, not one vote by a Democratic Congress member PLEASE!

[jwirr]

25. No. I am in MN and I doubt any of my reps are going to vote for it.

[ISUGRADIA]

119. Three did

Waltz, Peterson and Nolan

[jwirr]

121. Nolan is my rep. The other two I do not have anything to do with. I am surprised at Nolan - he is

strong union.

[Maineman]

172. I read that Senator Amy Klobuchar is going to vote for it. She needs to hear from you.

[jwirr]

173. Okay. I will do that right now.

[jwirr]

176. Done.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. That's not why I voted for them. So, no.

[malaise]

28. +1,000

Rec

[whatchamacallit]

31. GOTV!

"Cuz dem policies are always different and preferable to republicans!"

[closeupready]

32. No, I am not. I will NOT forget. They vote for it, it's on their record,

and they can account for that vote as they wish, but no, I would not be okay with it.

My reps are voting against, IIRC, so there's that.

[woo me with science]

34. I see the Third Way pivot from denying it will happen to defending the pipeline is in progress.

Ugly predictability from the familiar Third Way talking point machine.

Shun Third Way talking points and spin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

[Union Scribe]

44. Yep. It has begun in earnest.

There's a thread right now basically saying if you're against the pipeline you're for hazmat truck accidents. Like you said, predictable and ugly.

[Jamastiene]

89. Exactly. That is their MO.

They've been doing this for a long time now. It is so transparent and predictable. Imagine that lying bunch going door to door for GOTV. No damn wonder Democrats lost so much in this last election. Shysters, verbally abusive jerks, and cold-hearted obviously conservative lying snobs representing the party is no way to win. And now, here we are.

[Marr]

105. Yep-- same play we've seen about 100 times now./nt

[BrotherIvan]

144. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.

Fuck, how low will they go? I can't believe this thread full of authoritarians in the truest sense of the word, trying to justify something so harmful. For what? Isn't Obama supposed to veto it? Why are the talking points foaming the runway already out?

DU, you have jumped the shark!

[RufusTFirefly]

35. Naw, man

I'm pretty f&%kin' far from OK.

[wavesofeuphoria]

108. +1

Kudos for the Pulp Fiction reference

[madashelltoo]

37. No. No. No.

[Mr.Bill]

38. To those who say it will reduce gas prices,

I say remember how gas prices came down when they built the Alaska pipeline? Yeah, neither do I.

[Sunlei]

39. I don't think there is anything congress can vote on. They have to have permits approved to refine t

They have to have permits approved to refine that tar sands crap/sludge.

[vlyons]

40. They stink!

Peee Uuuuu

[on point]

41. No. The pipeline is a terrible infrastructure investment and money better spent on renewables

[hughee99]

113. What money? The pipeline isn't supposed to be built with taxpayer money. n/t

[on point]

116. The money society has, public and private. The incentives are all wrong if this seems good

Our society has limited investment potential. We need to see to it that we de-invest from carbon and invest in alternatives. If the pipeline seems like a good deal to private people then incentives are all wrong. I suggest a HEAVY import tax and a HEAVY per mile transport tax to help them get it straight.

[WillyT]

42. NO !!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. no

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. kentuck, I'm bookmarking this thread so that DU will remember when it passes

Congress and Obama vetoes.

I'm also bookmarking to remind DU that not all Democrats are liberal and those non-liberals stood in the way of adopting Medicare for All or universal health care; they also rejected a public option.

Bottom line: We can blame Obama all we want, but it is those Democrats who resisted these progressive policies. I will never forget those weeks I spent calling the offices of Blue Dog Democrats--and even many so-called moderate Democrats--who were rejecting a public option outright. Well, if they were rejecting the public option, what makes us think they'd support universal health care?

[Iliyah]

81. Agreed

"Democratic" Party. We do not march to the same tune unlike the GOP. Most Senate Dems will vote against it but a few will vote for it. As frustrating as it is, I'm glad I belong to a party that believes in Democracy. Like it or not, and for pete sakes not all of the Democratic congress voted for it. Damn.

[TheKentuckian]

88. Shit, I was writing & calling fucking McTurtle and the far worse Dumbing at least weekly for months

and it turned out that I couldn't even support the final mark myself.

Gah...The whole situation makes me sick.

[Fla Dem]

46. No, No, and No. Oh and did I say NO! nt

[ybbor]

47. Hell fucking no!

[TNNurse]

48. No,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no.

Was I clear?

[CanonRay]

49. Hell no

and we should kick their collective asses out of office.

[Enthusiast]

50. The pipeline does nothing for us, as a nation. And it could result in an environmental disaster.

I am not okay with Democrats voting for the pipeline.

[irisblue]

51. No....

The Ogallala aquifer is too vitally important to trust that a pipeline will not eventually leak and contaminate it. And my (good) Senator Sherrod Brown and idiot troll Senator Portman and Rep Joyce Beatty will be getting phone calls and letters from me on this.

[hamsterjill]

53. No. And this very discussion is indicative of what is wrong with the party.

Because there is not agreement on this subject. That's not a condemnation, but merely an observation.

I am against the Keystone Pipeline being built. Yes, there are other pipelines. Yes, I want the Koch Brothers to suffer in just about any way possible. If they are successful, that only gives them more money to use against Democratic candidates. For me personally however, the devastation to habitat and wild life is a great factor to be against the pipeline.

But mostly, I want oil dependence to become a thing of the past. I want the focus to be on renewable energy. If we keep building pipelines, there is less emphasis placed on changing the way we drive.

[MatthewStLouis]

54. No. I don't want my reps voting for the Koch brothers' dark money payday.

The temporary American jobs, the oil jobs for Canadians, and the oil profits for the Koch brothers aren't worth the likely billions and billions of dollars worth of environmental disaster waiting to happen. Let 'em pump it across Canada.

Remember the crass saying "you don't sh_t where you eat".

[Tsiyu]

55. No, but the betrayal is heaped on many such betrayals

how can we keep track?

I hope the young people can start a new party that makes sense and really represents the people. The Congress are bejilionaires who don't give five fucks if society and this nation cave as long as they have their bank accounts and private enclaves.

What can you do but tell them off and hope for better from better, more ethical people in a brand new people's party?

Imagine if all the people who didn't vote, voted instead for a REAL party, not just the US Olympics Legal Team for corporations that our political parties have become?

[ffr]

57. Yes and No. You have two questions.

The first one falls under 'representation.' They represent their state's interests and that of the public inside their state. So yes, they could very well support whatever it is that their constituents are in favor of.

The second question is certainly not, but that's based on 'opinion.' The Keystone Pipeline is a shortsighted destructive project.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. No

Thast won't keep it from happening.

It only proves that all of the Republicans and about half the Democrats should be booted from office. Our representatives simply no longer represent us.

[MatthewStLouis]

59. Just a rhetorical question: who remembers the 2013 Mayflower, Arkansas oil spill?

Just those pictures alone should make sane people take pause.

[H2O Man]

60. No. Definitely not.

I consider any vote in support of Keystone (or hydrofracking) to be a betrayal of the ethical standards for democrats.

Recommended.

[trueblue2007]

61. NO, NO, NO, NO!!!

[Thinkingabout]

62. We may want to ask ourselves is it better to continue to transport the oil by rail and road

Since there have been so many accidents or to go ahead with the pipe line. The crude is still going to the refineries on the gulf coast so the method of transportation could be questioned. I realize environmentists has concerns but where are their concerns on shipping by rail.

The stories if the number of jobs created is questionable, becoming free from foreign oil will not be realized by USA in cutting fuel cost.

[B Calm]

96. Let the Canadians figure it out. Maybe they could ship it by rail to their coastline.

[Thinkingabout]

107. Oh, yea that would fix the problem. In the meantime is it better to ship by rail or

Through a pipeline?

[B Calm]

130. Rail the toxic goo through Canada would be my choice.

[grahamhgreen]

146. They can send it to Vancouver, and from there to China.

[Thinkingabout]

165. Perhaps it would be better to just shut down oil production worldwide,guess we could revert to horse

and buggy. Oh, this would require more fossil fuels which would really be good for the environment. Foot power could overtake again.

[grahamhgreen]

230. Renewables are already cheaper than oil. It's a fact.

[Thinkingabout]

231. I'm all for renewables for those who wants to do without the luxuries

Like driving, flying,etc, I need to arrive faster. All who wants to live and use other means of transportation, go for it. Oh, it means living off the grid.

[grahamhgreen]

239. Driving is cheaper with electric cars and renewable energy by a factor of 10!

[Thinkingabout]

241. I forgot, how do you charge electric cars?

Sounds good, don't think all vehicles will be electric within the next five years. Solar sounded very good 20 years ago but you got the same bunch fighting solar who wants to keep oil based files in vehicles.

I have not been for the pipeline but they are still transporting the crude on rail and by truck, this isn't as safe as a pipeline so if I am really concerned about the environment I go with safer method of transportation.

[grahamhgreen]

242. If safety is your concern, then you should want to leave the tar sand in the ground

Burning it will cause lots of cancers, respiratory illness, drinking water contamination, and may well be the death Nell for civilization due to global warming. Also, there will be serious devastation to wildlife and the environs surrounding the tar pits.

You charge electric vehicles with wind energy (cheapest way to produce electricity, save natural gas, or hydro), and solar, and hydro.

It costs 1/10 - 1/3 the amount per mile to drive electric vs gasoline!

I give you flying though.... No good alternative there that I know of.

[democrank]

63. No

Absolutely not

[Boom Sound 416]

64. Yes. If the people want it. It's our country

Not Congress's

Not the president's.

[1monster]

65. No.

[roody]

67. No

[sabrina 1]

68. Absolutely NO!

[pampango]

69. Hypothetically, yes. In reality, no.

If a congressperson voted as a liberal 99% of the time but, for some unfathomable reason, was under intense local pressure to vote for this, I could at least accept it. If a liberal felt that kind of pressure, any conservative alternative would vote for it in a heartbeat and would not support any of the liberal causes.

In reality, there is no reason for there to be any intense local pressure to approve it, since it does no locality any good.

[rosesaylavee]

71. Hell no

And any one of them that does vote for it, they will be campaigned against by every single climate activist... and those ranks are growing daily.

And in addition, their vote on that will be historically noted - if they are concerned about a legacy to show their grand kids, that sure as hell won't be something they will ever be proud of...

[pnwmom]

72. As long as it is NOT PASSED

I won't care if some Dems in vulnerable districts are allowed to vote for it.

That's politics.

[mckara]

74. No!

[shallwechat]

75. whats in it for us?...payback for alaska oil pipeline in canada.

From what I understand, it will create few permanent jobs besides those in Louisiana (i guess), usa takes all risk in pipeline spills.

[onecaliberal]

76. Not only no, Hell NO!

[williesgirl]

77. FUCK NO!

[MissDeeds]

78. Absolutely not

[LiberalArkie]

79. Nope and no to Tester also

[ISW]

82. NO!

[Omaha Steve]

84. Ditto on the nopes

I see a trend here.

[Drunken Irishman]

85. The problem is that this isn't a winning issue for Dems.

A huge majority of the country supports it. It's not important enough issue to draw battle lines like abortion or marriage equality or other issues that have been in the focal point of politics recently. Ultimately, I do think Obama should veto it - but he can afford to take the hit.

[Martin Eden]

92. The problem is the Dems haven't figured out HOW to make it a winning issue.

For the most part they have tacitly accepted the false narrative that the pipeline is a job creator and will lower gas prices while making America more energy independent. It simply isn't true.

The real winning issue here for a Party willing to make it a major platform is moving away from dirty fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy technologies that are better for our economy and absolutely imperative for the health of our people and our planet's ecosystems.

The importance of this issue goes far beyond a few races that might hinge on the pipeline issue among voters who believe the false narrative. We may have a very difficult time persuading some of them, but I think there is a tremendous opportunity to attract a big chunk of the 63.4% who stayed home in the recent election.

[Marr]

106. The problem is the potential environmental disaster, and the fact that the only upside to the

project is enormous profits for the already enormously rich.

It amazes me that some see this as just another political sports event, and their opinion is based solely on what it means for their fucking team.

[RufusTFirefly]

111. +1

Moreover, how is public opinion being shaped? Are there thoughtful, in-depth investigations into the ramifications of the pipeline in between splashy stories about the Kardashians and celebrity baby bumps?

I seriously doubt it.
We are going to be undone by our own shallowness, conformity, and incuriosity.

[U4ikLefty]

260. a-freakin-men!!!

especially your last sentence

[grahamhgreen]

147. Link to people who vote dem being for it, please.

[Drunken Irishman]

148. Considering only 30% or so oppose it, it's a good bet a lot of Dem voters support it.

But Dems are pretty divided on it. 43% support it. 45% oppose it according to a recent Pew poll.

[grahamhgreen]

151. So, it loses us votes, especially among those that sat out the last election.

[Drunken Irishman]

217. It's the definition of a lose-lose political issue.

The amount of support you gain is offset by the potential support lost either way. At least among Democrats.

[LWolf]

87. NO.

I think they do know, and they don't give a flying fuck.

[gwheezie]

90. They're fucking cowards

how disappointing

[BeanMusical]

93. Nope.

[onethatcares]

95. no, but when it breaks

and it is sure to break at one time or other, I will tell my reps "I told you so" in big letters.

they have bought into the jobs at any cost bullshit and they do nothing but piss me off anymore.

[florida08]

99. First of all this isn't crude

Extraction of tar sands emits three times more planet-warming carbon dioxide than conventional crude oil,

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/06/220248/rail-carries-canadian-crude-while.html#storylink=cpy

And hell no I don't want anyone voting for it but money trumps everything. I despise that a foreign entity can come in here and with eminent domain take whatever they hell they want including private family lands, destroy their drinking water with no redress or recoup. Most of all I absolutely abhor those with no skin in the game make a comment like...it's not in my back yard so why should I care? What the fuck is wrong with this country??

[old guy]

100. No,

but then I am reminded daily that Congress doesn't really give a damn what I think. I feel like I'm shouting at the wind to stop blowing.

[MFM008]

101. NO

No no no

[Agnosticsherbet]

102. I do not support the Keystone XL Pipeline.

It will be a mark against any Congress critter that votes for it, and a makr for any one who votes for it.

[PDJane]

103. No. That's one of the dumbest ideas ever.

[Marr]

104. No. /nt

[abelenkpe]

109. Nope. Ny

[DonCoquixote]

114. HELL NO

bury Landrieu under it!

[IronLionZion]

115. Do red states deserve what they voted for?

Keystone XL would run mostly through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.

Plus not enough people realize that the Keystone pipeline already exists. They want to build another pipeline (XL) across a shorter route, to apparently replace the one they just built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

[LeftInTX]

249. So, it's already there they just want a shorter one

That's a load of fuuueeeyy

And conservatives are pushing this to the Nth degree....

There aren't going to be any jobs from this, except to build the shorter pipeline. The refineries are already guaranteed of getting their oil.

[IronLionZion]

255. Oh yeah its there, they claim its not big enough

and they found more oil than expected so they need a bigger shorter pipe. Anyone who reads up on it will quickly realize there are many other bottlenecks in the system, like the oil ends up in massive storage tanks since the refineries can't refine it fast enough.

These assholes mainly spun pure bullshit into a political issue. The truth is that Koch industries stands to profit handsomely from the new pipeline and associated business, and pipelines don't create many jobs, and a lot of people depend on the Ogalalla aquifer for their drinking water so it's just idiotic to route an oil pipeline over it.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. No. nt

[GoCubsGo]

120. No. n/t

[tenderfoot]

122. Not at all!

[scarletwoman]

123. No, absolutely not! Who do they think will benefit? Certainly not any of us!

Obama put it exactly right - the Keystone Pipeline is about a foreign company building across OUR land, to sell their oil to other foreign countries.

Why the hell should we put OUR land at risk for THAT??

[truebrit71]

124. Fuck no.

Anyone that votes for this climate-killing project needs to get the fuck out of the party.

[bhikkhu]

125. Its definitely not a deal breaker

keeping in mind:



one more pipeline isn't going to change things.

For the most part, we build pipelines to make the transportation of crude more efficient. The argument against them is, effectively, to keep the transportation of oil inefficient. Its a difficult argument to really get behind, as the main thrust of most energy conservation goals is to make our use of oil more efficient, and clean.

An argument I've heard is that if all of the extractable oil sands were burned it would lead to an increase of .5 degrees in global temperature. But this is if all of it were burned. I've read in the past that only 5% or so was under development.

[Triana]

126. NO. n/t

[JDPriestly]

127. No. I am not OK with that.

As Obama explained, it won't really increase the number of American jobs or benefit Americans in any way. The risk of serious environmental damage to our precious water resources is not worth it.

[Kath1]

128. Hell No!

Bad for the environment and does nothing for energy prices.

[djean111]

129. Not Okay with that. i have been assured, though, that policy and issues do not matter as

much as winning, so why bother having an opinion, right?
Anyway, the pipeline pales against the TPP. With the TPP and other Investor State-enabling "trade" agreements,, the Keystone folks can sue us and either put in the pipeline or take our tax money in lieu of expected profits.

So I will be watching who is for and against it. The TPP is something that will keep me from ever being okay with Hillary. And the TPP is bigger than a whole her of glitter-shitting ponies.

[99Forever]

131. In no way,shape,or form.

Traitors to our party and our planet, butmost of all, traitors to each and every decent person.

[ms liberty]

132. No. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

135. Yes

I've never had a problem with this pipeline. The extracted petroleum is going to be consumed somewhere on this planet, and there's nothing that's going to stop that. May as well have some American jobs out of it.

[tokenlib]

137. NO! n/t

[sweetapogee]

138. I'm ok with this pipeline

An oil pipeline runs less than 2 miles from our place. In the past 10 years I have probably given 60 seconds thought about it.

[RiverLover]

164. Does it run through your water source?

[sweetapogee]

243. we have a private well

and it's <2 miles from our place so probably.

[Maineman]

175. Are you also ok with global warming and corporate control of politicians?

Expand your horizons beyond the quadratic formula.

[sweetapogee]

244. thanks!

for the advice!

[cascadiance]

198. You like higher gasoline prices, and only more jobs to stop terrorists...

... who will be wanting to try and create a big oil spill in the midwest and screw up our big water aquifer there. The ONLY people benefitting from this POS are the Koch brothers and other rich people invested in it!

Senators representing people and not big money need to JUST SAY NO UNEQUIVOCALLY!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

139. Only one way that it matters

That's if my one of my Senators vote for it. I'm from Washington State so I pretty much doubt they will. None of the Democratic Congressman from my state did.

[Rhiannon12866]

141. No and I'm extremely disheartened that they're even considering it.

[glinda]

143. No N O! Against Fossil fuels continuing and the damage that that project is doing and will do.

I am not even getting into the argument about "they need to move the oil that people use". No NO NO No and NO!

[grahamhgreen]

145. No. It's not even oil. It's tar sand. Highly abrasive.

No. Leave it in the ground.

[davidpdx]

149. Here are the 31

John Barrow (Ga), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Robert Brady (Pa.), James Clyburn (S.C.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Mike Doyle (Pa.), Al Green (Texas), Gene Green (Texas), Ruben Hinojosa (Texas), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Dan Lipinski (Ill.), Dave Loebsack (Iowa), Sean Maloney (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Patrick Murphy (Fla.), Ricard Nolan (Minn.), Donald Norcross (N.J.), Bill Owens (N.Y.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nich Rahall (W.Va.), Cedric Richmond (La.), David Scott (Ga.), Terri Sewell (Ala.), Albio Sires (N.J.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Marc Veasey (Texas), Filemon Vela (Texas) and Tim Walz (Minn.).

[ZombieHorde]

152. No, but it's not a major issue for me.

I respect the argument that says we shouldn't have one more threat to our environment, even if there are already so many threats currently in place, since it will not benefit those who are most at risk. I think that is a good argument.

[Iggo]

155. Nope.

Not even.

[IdiocracyTheNewNorm]

161. A vote for Keystone should be reason enought for removal from the Democratic Party

[RiverLover]

163. NO. & we will know they were purchased by Koch & Friends if they do. ~nt

[djean111]

166. It is none of our business, any more, how people vote once they get into office.

The only thing that concerns us voters is that our team "won". What happens after that? Mind your own business until it is time to vote for a "D" again.

[fredamae]

167. Nope.

I've called all of mine-One Senator (Dem) said "Oh hell No" and the other "Dem reserves position statement until later" and that one got an ass-chewing for failing to define his position in a timely manner before he votes to allow constituents to weigh in...and in a Stunning move-the one blue dog voted NO....

[bigwillq]

168. No (nt)

[Scuba]

170. Nordstrom's says they're better off without some customers. Similarly, the Democratic Party ...

... would be better off without the neocons who have infiltrated for the last 35 years.

[Maineman]

174. No.

The upstream excuse that there are already numerous pipelines is a sorry bit of logic. It is like saying a hundred persons have been shot for no good reason, so why is it a big deal if a couple more are shot?

Investment in the carbon industry needs to stop. Invest in solar, wind, energy efficiency, etc.

Energy is one issue among many, all based on corporate control of a democracy on life support.

We must work to change the system -- like elections based on votes rather than money.

[albino65]

177. No!

[zentrum]

179. Hell No. n/t

[LadyVV]

180. No Way

[obietiger]

181. No...n/t

[lonestarnot]

182. Are you fucking kidding me?

[joshdawg]

183. Not just no, but

HELL NO!

[A Little Weird]

185. No

I'm kind of shocked at how many people on this thread seem to be ok with it. It's one of the many projects that privatize the profits while socializing the costs. That seems un-democratic to me.

Yes a lot of pipelines already exist. Just because those battles have been lost doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up.

[Voice for Peace]

186. ABSOLUTELY NO.

I hate to have these horrible thoughts but there it
is; I do. I wish ill upon those who poison our planet.

May all of those who vote for this pipeline wake up
sick to death from the poisons they so love. May they
have flammable bath water, and inexplicable pox.

They think a little poison here, a little poison there,
no big deal because AMERICA! Yet a sizable portion of
humanity currently is ill from these toxins. Many have
lived their whole lives with environmentally caused,
crippling autoimmune disorders, cancers, and brain
disorders manifesting as mental illness.

Just as soldiers in Vietnam knew the agent orange
had made them sick -- these commercial poisons are
increasingly implicated in cancers, hormone dysfunction,
miscarriages and birth defects, autism spectrum, CFIDS
et al. And that's only the human population. All the
creatures who depend in the wild on air land and water..
poisoned. This can not go on.

[Fearless]

187. No.

[elzenmahn]

188. Absolutely NOT...

...the only jobs might come from construction of the pipeline itself. Afterward, only a fraction might stay behind for maintenance. Also, does the US or any of her states get anything in the way of royalties or anything else for having foreign tar sands byproduct transported across our country's interior?

This whole thing stinks - on so many different levels.

[turbinetree]

191. NO

[kentuck]

192. And they wonder why Democratic turnout is so low...

Just look at the confused, addled comments of some on this thread. For example, the Koch Bros just spent a fortune to defeat Obama and the Democrats and some morons, yeah morons, are ready to reward them for it. Forgive and forget. Idiots.

[B Calm]

193. +1 Couldn't agree more!

[BeanMusical]

195. Yes, morons is appropriate.

Just saw that on Facebook:

[cally]

281. NO!!! When will politicians stand for the environment

and against oil and gas industries.

[cascadiance]

197. NO! Why should the rest of them want to lose for the same reason corporatists lost this election?!

STUPID!!!

[classykaren]

200. Can we have their names?

[Cleita]

201. No. But I'm coming to the opinion that they don't care

about our support or what we want and that has been for more than a decade now.

[Stainless]

203. Keystone XL is why the Kochs spent many millions to buy the election

Thom Hartmann had a cost benefit analysis on his program before the election. The benefit for the Koch suckers was mind boggling. Spend 50 cents to make a hundred dollars was the equivalent ratio! The sad part is that no one pays any attention to this.

[SunSeeker]

207. Yes. I heard that show. It needs to be shouted far and wide.

But don't hold your breath for the MSM to do it.

[whereisjustice]

204. This pipeline will hurt middle class jobs, exactly why Democrats and Republicans want it

China and India are complaining energy costs are making it too expensive to do business there.

They wanted to send the oil to Vancouver across Rockies. The stupidity of that plan plus fact that Vancouver has no real refining ability killed it. For a brief time they said from Vancouver it could go to Ferndale - deep water, and at least one refinery. But they would need to build more.

From Houston it will go to China and India to fuel the economy created by shipping all of our jobs there. China has already signed a deal for Russian gas, now they get our crude oil as well. Texas (Houston) is already most polluted state in nation and they have near zero regulations and labor law enforcement.

Ironically, it will lead to higher energy costs here.

Democrats, like Republicans, just want money from Wall Street. Both parties will continue to fuck us over as long as Wall Street pays them to do it.

In the meantime, write to your Democratic representative and ask them why they are giving people another reason to not vote for Democrats. Republicans will get the credit for forcing Democrats to give up their principals. In the end, it will help Republicans more than Democrats.

Thanks to spineless unprincipled Democratic leadership 3rd way and "centrists" for continuing to fuck over the middle class.

[G_j]

206. No way in hell... nt

[Octafish]

208. No. Greed is the opposite of Democratic. (NT)

[ecstatic]

209. The world seems to have enough pipelines

We should be transitioning away from oil, not digging in deeper.

That being said, we're still heavily reliant on oil. I would need to see a comparison analysis of the safety of transporting oil cross country by train/truck vs. the safety of traveling through pipeline to make a truly informed decision.

[cantbeserious]

211. No

eom

[Spitfire of ATJ]

212. We need something like the NRA that scores votes....

Oh wait,...we do.

The Sierra Club.

http://content.sierraclub.org/beyondoil/keystone-xl

Damn shame they're considered to be "Liberal" because the DC Villagers feel it's okay to point and laugh at them.

[WestCoasterDude]

213. Let me add to this chorus- NO!

No f*#^ing way!

[Faux pas]

215. No way!

So many reasons:

The Ogallala Aquifer-Why take a chance at ruining the water source of so many States. (He who owns the water owns the world)

It's a Canadian Company-They wont' be responsible for any clean up or compensating farmers or anyone if the damn thing blows.

It's Canadian oil-Seems to me that it's Canada's problem to transport where it needs to go.

People over profit-Should ALWAYS be the test of any projects here.

Etc, etc, etc.

[kiranon]

219. No if it endangers the aquifer in any way. Water is the most

precious resource this country has. Reroute the pipelline to not cross any part of the aquifer. And, the Democrats need to get immigration reform passed in return.

[Andy823]

220. No, I am not happy

But it would not be worth not voting simply because the didn't do what I want them to do on this issue, just like many other things I would like to see, such as universal health care, more regulation on Wall Street, etc. Other things, like making sure a republican president will not be replacing members of the Supreme Court, are much more important when it's time to vote.

[Piedras]

221. Hell No

Nor do I support fracking. I live in a currently drought stricken area of California. I think we should strongly support conservation and renewable resources. We need to protect clean water sources. I do not want to further enrich the Koch's, and their ilk, and their polluting businesses.

[cheapdate]

223. Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA,

enact the Ryan budget, separate food assistance from the farm bill, abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, privatize Social Security, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families, etc. etc.?

I oppose the Keystone. It goes against my environmental ethics. It encourages the incredibly destructive practice of oil sands mining. It put even more pressure and risk on the already severely compromised environment in the Mississippi delta and the Gulf of Mexico. It prolongs our dependence on fossil fuel and delays our transition to saner alternatives.

The Democratic Party is by necessity a big tent and not everyone agrees on every question.

But I'll take a red state, Blue Dog, Democrat over any Republican every time. Winning control over congress is hugely important. Even a conservative democrat caucuses with the Democrats.

[still_one]

229. right on

[woo me with science]

234. More Third Way talking points conveniently omitting Third Way corporate complicity.

Corporate Democrats pretend to share liberal outrage at corporate policies enacted by Republicans, but conveniently omit their complicity and parallel betrayals. We have united oligarchy now, not gridlocked democracy. You wrote with indignation:

Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA, enact the Ryan budget, separate food assistance from the farm bill, abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, privatize Social Security, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families, etc. etc.?

But let's be honest about the corporate Dems' actual record:

1. Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA,

Oh, please. No way the ACA gets repealed. It is a corporate plan written by the insurance companies, and the mandate (which was the salivated-after goal in the first place) is already reaping the bloodsucking middlemen profits beyond their wildest dreams. No WAY the corporatists allow it to be overturned. Look instead for more "loopholes" like the one The Obama administration *already* carved out in order to help the companies shift even more costs to patients.

"Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310

Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789

ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/

So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.

Obama administration quietly approves new Obamacare loophole benefiting insurance companies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024970298

2. enact the Ryan budget

We *already* watched the Obama administration and corporate Democrats collude with corporate Republicans during the debt ceiling Kabuki to demand austerity *even more severe than Paul Ryan originally asked for.* That was the POINT of Obama's putting Social Security on the table! ...So they could slash in the way they did and get cover for it by saying, "Well, at least they didn't cut Social Security! Let me repeat: Corporate Democrats sought austerity *greater* than that originally sought by Paul Ryan:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023791304#post14

3. separate food assistance from the farm bill.

Ahem, you sure are trying hard not to notice that Obama just signed *another* round of food stamp cuts *AND* a farm bill based on "pension smoothing."

Feb 2014: President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law | MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-signs-food-stamp-cut

Democrats Accept More Cuts in Food Stamp Program | BillMoyers.com
http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/28/democrats-accept-more-cuts-in-food-stamp-program/

4. open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling,

And Obama sells off the Gulf of Mexico for the same reason, PLUS expands drilling and fracking, PLUS advocates privatizing the Tennessee Valley authority, PLUS is pushing to enact the most serious threats to the environment in recent memory: the TPP and the TISA. Psst: You CANNOT get on your high horse and claim to care about and be protecting the environment while pushing these devastating trade deals that cede our ability to use our own LAWS to protect against environmental abuse by corporations.

5. amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage

Sure took Obama a good while to evolve on gay marriage. And corporatists on both sides of the aisle will continue to cynically use important issues of human rights as wedges to keep the people divided and unable to unite against the bipartisan corporate economic, war, and police state agenda that both corporate parties are using to loot and exploit us.

6. move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families

And double that comment on using and abusing immigrants! We have been waiting for SIX years for Obama to take a stand on this issue, and we were just devastated in the *second* midterm elections of his presidency because corporate Dems colluded with Republicans by not pushing these issues and instead sending out "Accept Doom" emails through the DCCC and deliberately insulting the base in online campaigns. Meanwhile, Obama has continued arbitrary quotas *in his own 2015 budget* for private prison beds and is aggressively expanding private prisons that overwhelmingly house immigrants and people of color.


What an ugly charade corporate Democrats' denial of their actual record and agenda is. What a vicious corporate oligarchy pretending to be a democracy. What pathetic Third Way corporate talking points, when the actual relentless advocacy of corporate policy by corporate Democrats, in collusion with corporate Republicans, is so clear and in our faces.

[kentuck]

236. Thanks woo...

I never had the energy to respond to such a nonsensical response.

[cheapdate]

247. Yes, asserting that despite the Party's imperfections and disagreements

that one is still a Democrat is so nonsensical here on Democratic Underground.

[woo me with science]

251. Thanks, kentuck.

I know I've been posting all over the place to ignore the Third Way talking points when they're repeated here (and honestly I am still trying to do it most of the time), but sometimes the messaging is so brazenly hypocritical and insulting to anyone who's followed recent history that IMO it's worth exposing it point by point, if only to underscore what we are really dealing with in this corporate infiltration of the party. It has to end, because it's killing not just the party, but human beings and democracy itself.

Thanks for an excellent thread. A LOT of good stuff here.

[cheapdate]

246. Why exactly are you posting on Democratic Underground?

It sounds like you've made a complete break with the Democratic Party and with anyone who would dare to suggest that for all it's faults and disagreements, they still support the Party's overall electoral success.

You know, the Democratic Party? The party of Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Alan Grayson, Kieth Elliston, Sheldon Whitehouse, Raul Grijalva, Chris Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Jan Schakowsky, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Barbara Lee?

You can shove your false and idiotic "third way" accusation right up your ass. I'm a Democrat. What the fuck are you?

[U4ikLefty]

261. Insults. Is that all you've got?

[cheapdate]

263. In case you have any actual interest in this discussion, context is important.

I gave my insult-free opinion on the OP in an earlier reply. Woo me responded with insults. That's context.

I said I oppose the Keystone pipeline for ethical reasons, and I said I will always support a Democrat over Republican.

Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you just wandering randomly into conversations with nothing to add?

[woo me with science]

284. Yup.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[joshcryer]

264. The pipeline is already built.

It is literally paperwork at this point.

[IronLionZion]

266. third way is different from blue dog

third way is more corporate-friendly and most are liberal on social issues like choice and gay marriage.

Blue dogs tend to be social conservatives but hold traditionally liberal views on issues like social security, medicare, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, education, unions, etc.

[Marr]

298. +1, wish I could rec your post. /nt

[valerief]

224. Of course not. nt

[mindem]

227. No.

I am disappointed that Nolan voted in favor of this. I suppose the next thing will be support of the Enbridge pipeline. I'm getting sick of this shit.

[still_one]

228. Only if it goes through their backyard.

[craigmatic]

235. It won't pass so it doesn't matter.

[Segami]

240. NO!!

[femmocrat]

248. I am completely opposed to it.

Democrats voting to override the veto would be considered traitors to me.

[herding cats]

262. For the sake of my possible future grandchildren, no.

We're currently facing the failures of some of our older pipelines in the US and seeing tragic results. We obviously can't be trusted to be responsible when it comes to things such as this. Since we're not going to be gaining anything from this, but we will be accepting the all the risks associated with the pipeline not to mention the added carbon being created by expediting the amount of tar sands to get to the refineries, I'm a firm no.

For the sake of our future generations, I'm not OK with the Keystone Pipeline being finished. I don't approve of any votes to approve its completion by Democrats I've supported.

I have a question, if our current senate does pass it, and it doesn't have enough votes to override a pocket veto is it dead, or can it just be brought back up as a new order of business by the incoming Republican Congress next year?

[Douglas Carpenter]

274. The AFL-CIO and big labor in general is backing the Keystone Pipeline - so I suspect that many

strongly union oriented Democrats in Congress may very well vote for it.

[peacebird]

277. No

[BlueCaliDem]

278. No. Absolutely NOT ok with it. eom

[bowens43]

279. NO, of course not.

[mmonk]

290. No. I'm someone who bases my position

on facts and right over wrong.

[Old Nick]

295. Only if they move to within 2 miles of it

[woo me with science]

299. Disgust for sellouts and liars

trading the lives of others for their political and monetary gains.