Senate passes Keystone XL pipeline bill despite Obama promise to veto

[fskimospy]

Dude, please. 2012 was 47.6% to 48.8% win for the Dems and that was supposed to be enough to undo a 49 seat advantage? That 49 seat advantage came about from a 51.7% to 44.9% win in 2010.

Uhmm, it should undo an 435 seat advantage if you care about majority votes. Every House seat is up for election every time.

 

[rudeguy]

I also sincerely doubt you want to go with what the majority of people vote for as a basis of what you want to do. (hint: the Democrats win the majority of votes nationally most of the time too) Odd that I didn't see you arguing against the legitimacy of the Republican house majority despite the fact that the Democrats won the majority of the House votes in 2012.

Republicans owe their majorities in large part to the built-in advantages given to sparsely populated areas.

So then democracy has failed? Its time to just seat a dictator who can tell us what we need?

Polls don't matter.
Elections don't matter.

What in the hell does matter?

 

[Bowfinger]

So then democracy has failed? Its time to just seat a dictator who can tell us what we need?

Polls don't matter.
Elections don't matter.

What in the hell does matter?

Dollars.

 

[fskimospy]

So then democracy has failed? Its time to just seat a dictator who can tell us what we need?

Polls don't matter.
Elections don't matter.

What in the hell does matter?

You're the one bringing up arguments about what the 'majority' wants. I'm telling you that your political viewpoint hugely benefits from our system expressly avoiding giving political power based on 'majority'.

This is a simple fact. Look at the House seat advantages. Look at how many people Republican Senators represent vs. Democratic ones. If you apportioned all those seats based on 'majority' votes, you would have a profoundly different country on your hands.

Might be worth keeping in mind, no?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's ironic that you would be use the lack of ability to have up or down votes for things in defense of the filibuster, being that the filibuster's entire purpose is to prevent up or down votes.

I did not say the lack of up-or-down votes was a defense for their filibusters. The inability to amend bills was what I was getting at as a defense for many of their filibusters. I suggest that you reread what I posted.

 

[Matt1970]

Uhmm, it should undo an 435 seat advantage if you care about majority votes. Every House seat is up for election every time.

Nice hyperbole.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not say the lack of up-or-down votes was a defense for their filibusters. I suggest that you reread what I posted.

If it wasn't a defense of their tactic that information was irrelevant.

Can you explain why it wasn't irrelevant?

 

[Matt1970]

Yes I have been. There is in fact overwhelming support for a bunch of new gun control laws like universal background checks, etc. There is overwhelming support for increased minimum wage, mandatory paid sick time, and all sorts of other increased regulations.

If you look at polling on the ACA, when people are asked if they support reforming it or keeping it as it is (broadly the Democratic position) or repealing it (broadly the Republican position) they overwhelmingly choose the Democratic position on that as well.

I'm not arguing that we should use polls to make policy, but I also know that someone who is broadly conservative should DEFINITELY not want to do that, as you'd lose. A lot.

Gun control support on the decline.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/cnn-poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-fades/

The ACA has never polled positive that I know of but now that we have it there are some things people want to keep.

 

[fskimospy]

Gun control support on the decline.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/cnn-poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-fades/

The ACA has never polled positive that I know of but now that we have it there are some things people want to keep.

And yet polling for specific gun control elements that you likely oppose remains extremely high. (around 90%+ for universal background checks for example)

Again about the ACA, if you ask people if they want to keep, amend, or repeal, they choose keep or amend overwhelmingly. The GOP position of repeal is very unpopular. Guess that means you think the ACA should stay, right?

 

[boomerang]

Truth. Good start to the new GOP Senate when the first order of business is doing the bidding of foreign corporations.

Concern for American infrastructure/jobs/wage growth/equality? Not so much.

How many bridges do we need built, but Republicans are busy using eminent domain to seize land to give away to foreign oil companies, as their top priority no less....

So the GOP isn't doing things the way you wanted them to and it's bad, bad, bad, but what did the Dem's do for "American infrastructure/jobs/wage growth/equality?"

The prism on your lens need cleaning.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If it wasn't a defense of their tactic that information was irrelevant.

Can you explain why it wasn't irrelevant?

My point was that Reid was not only aggressively blocking bipartisan legislation from the House but he also prevented Republican input on Democratic legislation in the Senate which left Republicans with few options. I see that I was less than clear previously.

 

[fskimospy]

My point was that Reid was not only aggressively blocking bipartisan legislation from the House but he also prevented Republican input on Democratic legislation which left Republicans with few options. I see that I was less than clear previously.

The House also blocked bipartisan legislation from the Senate, just so you know.

Regardless, Reid's undemocratic actions in no way excuse the Republicans' actions. (and let's be serious here, they were filibustering like maniacs from the get-go, regardless of Reid's actions)

 

[Matt1970]

And yet polling for specific gun control elements that you likely oppose remains extremely high. (around 90%+ for universal background checks for example)

Again about the ACA, if you ask people if they want to keep, amend, or repeal, they choose keep or amend overwhelmingly. The GOP position of repeal is very unpopular. Guess that means you think the ACA should stay, right?

Pre ACA when asked if the wanted it passed it was no. It cost the dems dearly doing stuff like passing unpopular healthcare laws when unemployment was being reported at 10%. There are some things in the ACA I like but we didn't need thousands of pages of legislation for that. I also support a background check but I think limiting magazine capacity and banning certain guns because they are scary looking.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The House also blocked bipartisan legislation from the Senate, just so you know.

Regardless, Reid's undemocratic actions in no way excuse the Republicans' actions. (and let's be serious here, they were filibustering like maniacs from the get-go, regardless of Reid's actions)

I wouldn't say their filibusters absolve them of guilt for their partisan antics...but they were elected to represent their constituency and had a duty to do their best to represent those interests with the only real tool they had in many cases. In general, I find their actions to be much more honorable than Reid's.

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldn't say their filibusters absolve them of guilt for their partisan antics...but they were elected to represent their constituency and had a duty to do their best to represent those interests with the only real tool they had in many cases. In general, I find their actions to be much more honorable than Reid's.

Reid is also elected to represent his constituency and as the majority leader it is also his responsibility to advance the agenda of his party as a whole. If your logic is simply that engaging in undemocratic action is justified by the will of your constituents, then Reid is perfectly fine too.

What the GOP was doing was profoundly irresponsible. We should all be able to join in condemning their behavior. The Senate is undemocratic enough as it is, we don't need majority leaders stuffing bills in their pocket or a minority (that already represents minorities disproportionately) trying to grind the country to a halt.

Shame on them both.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Reid is also elected to represent his constituency and as the majority leader it is also his responsibility to advance the agenda of his party as a whole. If your logic is simply that engaging in undemocratic action is justified by the will of your constituents, then Reid is perfectly fine too.

What the GOP was doing was profoundly irresponsible. We should all be able to join in condemning their behavior. The Senate is undemocratic enough as it is, we don't need majority leaders stuffing bills in their pocket or a minority (that already represents minorities disproportionately) trying to grind the country to a halt.

Shame on them both.

Agree...nobody is blameless here. I'm just glad that Republican leadership is being much more inclusive.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reid is also elected to represent his constituency and as the majority leader it is also his responsibility to advance the agenda of his party as a whole. If your logic is simply that engaging in undemocratic action is justified by the will of your constituents, then Reid is perfectly fine too.

What the GOP was doing was profoundly irresponsible. We should all be able to join in condemning their behavior. The Senate is undemocratic enough as it is, we don't need majority leaders stuffing bills in their pocket or a minority (that already represents minorities disproportionately) trying to grind the country to a halt.

Shame on them both.

I find the whole idea of how democracy is put into action to be at odds with representation and freedom. That would be the fault of our system, where roughly half of the nation are citizens with representation and the other half are effectively alienated. Democracy is a choice of candidates, not the spoils system. Even the first is a sham if parties control the elections. There are many things I like about our Constitution but I believe the absolute power of the two party system and almost complete unaccountability while in office, combined with loyalty to party interests superseding the interests of all citizens (not just those of their own party) to be a horrid mistake.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find the whole idea of how democracy is put into action to be at odds with representation and freedom. That would be the fault of our system, where roughly half of the nation are citizens with representation and the other half are effectively alienated. Democracy is a choice of candidates, not the spoils system. Even the first is a sham if parties control the elections. There are many things I like about our Constitution but I believe the absolute power of the two party system and almost complete unaccountability while in office, combined with loyalty to party interests superseding the interests of all citizens (not just those of their own party) to be a horrid mistake.

A Constitutional convention is the only way out I see, and I don't see it anywhere coming. What I see coming is fewer and fewer people voting and some sort of mass psychosis event bringing down everything.

 

[Jhhnn]

I wouldn't say their filibusters absolve them of guilt for their partisan antics...but they were elected to represent their constituency and had a duty to do their best to represent those interests with the only real tool they had in many cases. In general, I find their actions to be much more honorable than Reid's.

Obstructionism takes many forms, one of which is flooding the system w/ bills that have no chance, debating & amending them endlessly until such time as they're finally put down as was known from the beginning.

If you want to actually understand that rather than just posture for your team, recall the time McConnell filibustered his own bill minutes after introducing it. He never intended it to pass, obviously.

Reid, or any majority leader, has the right to do as he did & I'm sure many others have. Repubs just tried to make him look bad by building a bigger pile of shit for him to deal with.

To say that they have not fulfilled the role of the loyal opposition would be an extreme understatement.

 

[compuwiz1]

Can't Obama only veto it once, then if it passes again, he has to go with the vote?

He actually hasn't vetoed much, but then again most bills sat on Harry Reid's dust pile and never got to the floor for a vote.

 

[nickqt]

Can't Obama only veto it once, then if it passes again, he has to go with the vote?

He actually hasn't vetoed much, but then again most bills sat on Harry Reid's dust pile and never got to the floor for a vote.

By "sat on Harry Reid's dust pile", you mean were fillibustered and not given cloture by Republicans, right?

You can repeal the ACA 50+ times in the House. It isn't going to pass in the Senate. Period. And, even if it did, the President vetoes it, and there is no chance of 2/3 majority in House/Senate to override.

Also: McConnell filibustering his own bill was priceless. Total hero move.

If Boehner is allowed to not bring up bills that would pass in the House, because he's the Speaker, than Reid is more than justified in not bringing bills in the Senate that won't pass.

 

[sportage]

Whats the problem with Keystone? It seems like it will bring a lot of cheap oil directly into the country.

Yeah, directly entering one end and exiting the other end.
That is, except for the oil that leaks into your water supply.
And guess who pays to clean that up?
Canada? Guess again...

 

[Orignal Earl]

There is hundreds of American companies working in the oil fields in Canada.

 

[Blanky]

This bill isn't far from being veto proof. Congress may keep trying until they can give the middle finger to obama on the matter.

 

[CLite]

Whats the problem with Keystone? It seems like it will bring a lot of cheap oil directly into the country.

That's not really how it works. A private company is using eminent domain to build a private pipeline to ship private crude to a private holding facility in Texas that can sell the crude to whomever pays the most anywhere in the world. It's really not a win for the American people in terms of "cheap crude".

TransCanada is basically saying we can't get western Canadian governments to allow us to eminent domain over their land to ship this crude to the world market so let's go shit all over private American landowners because eminent domain is easy in that country.