Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Obama, while I respect your desire to tell the Republican Congress to STFU, and this has become more about political posturing than actual science, the facts on the ground don't really support a veto. Then again, this was never about facts in the first place.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm glad he vetoed it. It would not be environmentally sound or a long term solution to our needs.
I rather us take the effort and investment into clean energy and long term employment with sustaining said energy.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurIt's more environmentally sound to not have the pipeline, because the oil ends up getting transferred via less safe channels like trucks, that are more prone to spills that damage the environment.
The arguments for the pipeline are entirely crap, but most of the arguments against it are mislead as well. I'm a bit concerned about the eminent domain issue, though.
Yes, the problem is that the oil, which is going to be dug up anyway, is going to get to the refineries somehow, whether we have a pipeline or not, and pipelines are safer than other forms of transportation in aggregate. Vetoing Keystone is a symbolic gesture, nothing more. It won't meaningfully affect greenhouse emissions and, if anything, will result in more spills.
Neither will Keystone produce "vast economic benefits": it will employ a few thousand short-term workers, a very tiny number of long-term workers, and will reduce the cost of transporting the oil to some degree, possibly reflected in a generalized price reduction that won't even be noticeable to the consumer at the pump.
The only genuinely controversial issue, as Tomu noted, is the flagrant abuse of eminent domain to seize the lands on which the pipeline will be constructed, but neither side seems to be making a point of that one — perhaps because conservatives generally dislike eminent domain.
edited 24th Feb '15 1:15:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"15 minutes down the road from my home, one of those nice oil pipes burst and spewed all over the town of Mayflower. My best friend's husband used to work on pipelines in Bolivia.
People have a tendency to just put shit in the ground and forget about it for a generation or two until it causes a problem.
I rather keep the problem in people's faces where they cant forget about it and will hopefully do something positive about it.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurSo you'll accept more frequent, smaller spills as a tradeoff for greater awareness of a problem that is inevitable as a result of the fact that we transport oil, period? Your argument is an appeal to emotion, not reality.
edited 24th Feb '15 1:20:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Someone I know suggested the construction of a new rail line because it can be used for commercial and public transport, and people from Alberta would probably love to travel to the southern States using a relatively cheap method. (Alberta is sometimes so much like Texas that it's kind of creepy). Yes, trains derail sometimes, but it's safer than trucking it.
![]()
Given the fuck-huge spills happen from pipelines, I'd disagree. Smaller ones are more easily contained.
Plus, Yellowstone River just had 50,000 gallons of oil spilled into it from a pipeline recently, that's not exactly the distant past. You can't write off valid concerns as "emotional".
I'm baaaaaaackAs it was noted earlier, the greater solution to all of this is to ween ourselves from oil and develop cleaner energy transportation, but that's "too difficult" (note the scare quotes).
There is no such thing as purely clean energy or a so-called hydrogen economy. I'm aware of that. However, I always find it both interesting and disheartening that the United States doesn't take the initiative to become a leader - if not THE leader - in green energy, especially considering how private industry could benefit from it. That's a pretty pro-American, pro-business model to adapt, yet it is strangely rejected in our current political environment for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention here.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:04:03 PM by Aprilla

I was fired from my job with the local newspaper under right to work "personality conflicts". I was getting complimented by the editor on my first day. However that made my boss leery. So I was axed.
They give no damns.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur