• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How bad a decision was putting off Keystone? This bad...

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When MSNBC's Morning Joe panel unanimously disagrees with Obama (including even Mika) and criticizes his politically motivated decision to once again put off approving the Keystone pipeline until after the mid-terms, you know the man has really stepped in it "big time".

 
Odd CON POV. The headline is the delay puts DEMOCRATS in oil states in a tough place so that seems to fly against the CON theory. Far better would be to approve the pipeline and give the Dems a chance in their upcoming elections. THAT is politics over policy.

I'd say it has gotten to the point for some CONs that ANYTHING the President does will be seen as politically expedient... :roll:
 
To be fair, Mika (who's Valerie's little protege) didn't say much. I think they're right though, the only reason to delay is politics and money. 100 million is still a good amount of money from a powerful left wing donor.
 
Prosperity flows from conservatism. Success breeds success breeds conservatives. Obama doesn't want to create a conservative constituency that would flow like the oil out of that pipeline.

Poverty, misery and squalor flows from liberalism. Failure breeds Democrats. Ask FDR. The worse the economy, the better for Democrats.

.
 
Actually, the worst thing that could have happened for Republicans would have been to lose this issue heading into midterms. I'd bet they're not THAT upset that they can run on it now.
 
Grim17 said:
When MSNBC's Morning Joe panel unanimously disagrees with Obama (including even Mika) and criticizes his politically motivated decision to once again put off approving the Keystone pipeline until after the mid-terms, you know the man has really stepped in it "big time".

Click to expand...

This is great proof that you hear what you want to hear. They were not criticizing him because his decision was politically motivated, it was just the opposite. They said they didn't understand the politics in his decision. You should have listened to Joe when said the decision leaves two Democratic Senators out to dry.
 
Respecthelect said:
Prosperity flows from conservatism. Success breeds success breeds conservatives. Obama doesn't want to create a conservative constituency that would flow like the oil out of that pipeline.

Poverty, misery and squalor flows from liberalism. Failure breeds Democrats. Ask FDR. The worse the economy, the better for Democrats.

.
Click to expand...
I find it quite interesting that conservatives who are normally concerned with property rights of people don't seem to give a damn about the property rights of the folks who will be displaced by the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
 
rocket88 said:
Actually, the worst thing that could have happened for Republicans would have been to lose this issue heading into midterms.
Click to expand...

True Republicans run to accomplish freedom and prosperity. What good is winning elections and losing issues?

True Republicans want to boot Rino's who put elections over issues. That includes Mitch McConnell. Vote Matt Bevin, Kentuckian's.

Speaking for the Republican Party as a whole, if Kentucky elects Matt Bevin (over McConnell), we will agree to make Kentucky's Rand Paul the Majority Leader. Kentucky doesn't lose a thing. They get to keep the Senate Leadership position for their state. How's that for an offer?

(disclaimer: only Ted Cruz speaks for the Republican party, but ask him and see if TC doesn't agree?)

.
 
pbrauer said:
I find it quite interesting that conservatives who are normally concerned with property rights of people don't seem to give a damn about the property rights of the folks who will be displaced by the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Click to expand...

First, it's my understanding rights for pipeline land are already secured

Second, Republitarians are not opposed to the righteous use of eminent domain. When in the broad interest of the vast majority (not majoritarianism, where the slight majority pushes around a minority), eminent domain is fine. The government must pay fair market value and I would argue to err on the high-side, since the big, powerful government is pushing the little guy around. Highways, bridges, pipelines and canals are all in the public interest (Wall Mart's are not). Especially when publicly debated and every attempt is made to accommodate owners. For example, if a landowner doesn't want to sell and it's a minor inconvenience for the government to go around, they should go around. This is especially true for pipelines across vast stretches of empty farmland.

Too often eminent domain is used to push the little guy around. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Objections are out of the State Department, not landowners. If environmentalists truly want a valid objection, they should buy blocking land and demonstrate more than a mosquito sanctuary. Use the land to build something of productive value. As it is, they have no (moral) standing as far as I can see.

.
 
Respecthelect said:
True Republicans run to accomplish freedom and prosperity. What good is winning elections and losing issues?

True Republicans want to boot Rino's who put elections over issues. That includes Mitch McConnell. Vote Matt Bevin, Kentuckian's.

Speaking for the Republican Party as a whole, if Kentucky elects Matt Bevin (over McConnell), we will agree to make Kentucky's Rand Paul the Majority Leader. Kentucky doesn't lose a thing. They get to keep the Senate Leadership position for their state. How's that for an offer?

(disclaimer: only Ted Cruz speaks for the Republican party, but ask him and see if TC doesn't agree?)

.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Serious, or Sock


futuramafry.webp
 
Another nice deflection from reality by the radical left funded by defend obumbler forever committee. Fact is anyone displace by the pipeline is paid for their land, and if they don't like the offer it can be determined by a judge. You of course knew that, but it didn't fit the DNC narrative.


pbrauer said:
I find it quite interesting that conservatives who are normally concerned with property rights of people don't seem to give a damn about the property rights of the folks who will be displaced by the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Another nice deflection from reality by the radical left funded by defend obumbler forever committee. Fact is anyone displace by the pipeline is paid for their land, and if they don't like the offer it can be determined by a judge. You of course knew that, but it didn't fit the DNC narrative.
Click to expand...

Republicans are thrilled that this is on the table still. Seriously, thrilled.
 
Respecthelect said:
First, it's my understanding rights for pipeline land are already secured

Second, Republitarians are not opposed to the righteous use of eminent domain. When in the broad interest of the vast majority (not majoritarianism, where the slight majority pushes around a minority), eminent domain is fine. The government must pay fair market value and I would argue to err on the high-side, since the big, powerful government is pushing the little guy around. Highways, bridges, pipelines and canals are all in the public interest (Wall Mart's are not). Especially when publicly debated and every attempt is made to accommodate owners. For example, if a landowner doesn't want to sell and it's a minor inconvenience for the government to go around, they should go around. This is especially true for pipelines across vast stretches of empty farmland.

Too often eminent domain is used to push the little guy around. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Objections are out of the State Department, not landowners. If environmentalists truly want a valid objection, they should buy blocking land and demonstrate more than a mosquito sanctuary. Use the land to build something of productive value. As it is, they have no (moral) standing as far as I can see.

.
Click to expand...

There have been landowners that have protested being eminent domained by the pipeline. From what I understand, the oil will be refined and exported for profit. So how is this in the national interest?

Texas landowners fear the worst with Keystone XL pipeline | State | News from Fort Worth...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Obama voted against a war based on politics so it's no stretch to believe his position on the pipeline is politically motivated.
Click to expand...
But IT appears as though his decision was NOT politically motivated; all you need do is read the text at the bottom of the TV screen to know it was likely not a political decision. "OIL STATE DEMOCRATS IN TOUGH SPOT OVER STATE DEPT. DELAY"
 
pbrauer said:
But IT appears as though his decision was NOT politically motivated; all you need do is read the text at the bottom of the TV screen to know it was likely not a political decision. "OIL STATE DEMOCRATS IN TOUGH SPOT OVER STATE DEPT. DELAY"
Click to expand...

Oil state dems are being thrown to the wolves to protect the majority of dems.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Obama voted against a war based on politics so it's no stretch to believe his position on the pipeline is politically motivated.
Click to expand...

Everything Obama does is politically motivated. It's one reason why he doesn't have a foreign policy at all. There's no political aspect of his ideology that addresses anything much outside this country's exclusive political environment - that is US left vs US right.
 
I thought conservatives were against eminent domain and big government forcibly acquiring individuals' private property?
 
I believe we should advance boring technologies and place such infrastructure, underground. We can advance fusion energy in support.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I thought conservatives were against eminent domain and big government forcibly acquiring individuals' private property?
Click to expand...

Read post #9 for the definitive conservative position. And read the thread before posting next time.

.
 
Respecthelect said:
Read post #9 for the definitive conservative position. And read the thread before posting next time.

.
Click to expand...

Post # 9 is just a conservative opinion. How is eminent domain being used so that a private company can profit be justified? Especially a foreign private company. I hear some say that it will help America be energy independent, but from my understanding, the refined product goes on the world market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom