Where do you think Clinton/Trump stand on the Keystone XL Pipeline, are they for

1. 68

   Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years ago

   Where do you think Clinton/Trump stand on the Keystone XL Pipeline, are they for or against it?
   
   In September 2015 Clinton said she opposed it. Does she still oppose it? 
   
   June 19, 2016 Grabbing 'a piece of the profits' of the Canadian-backed project is 'how we're going to make our country rich again,' Trump says.
   
   The United States 'Per se' does not benefit at all from this pipeline and the properties that it crosses would be taken by 'eminent domain' that would not enrich America at all.

   replyreport
2. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   We don't have to think, as you can google what both of them have said about it.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How doesn't this pipeline help us get free of OPEC and global instability.? What doesn't help the US is all of this misinformation. Your premise is without foundation or facts, sorry.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The XL pipeline will not benefit the USA.  Kansas City’s water source is the Missouri River.  Lee’s Summit receives up to 14 million gallons of water a day from Kansas City. I did my research. & I noted my resources in my hub.
      FACTS.

      replyreport
3. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 7 years ago

   The "Keystone PIPELINE" is an incredibly Misguided & ILL-Conceived and Potentially Disasterous Idea for Obvious REASONs ~
   
   Two PRIMARY Concerns are the FACTs that the Current "BLUE-Prints" call for the OIL Pipeline to be placed UNDERNEATH the Missouri RIVER, a Vital Drinking Water SUPPLY for Tens of THOUSANDs of AMERICANs & I HOPE we've LEARNED OUR Lessons from the Exxon Valdez SPILL & the MORE Recent B.P. GULF Disaster which has PERMANENTLY Damaged OUR Environment & ECO-System, that Digging for OIL is an Extremely DANGEROUS Undertaking & Attempting to TRANSPORT it via Vulnerable Pipeline Structured UNDERNEATH National Water Supply is Simply an INSANE Notion ~
   
   In addition, Eminent DOMAIN would be LITIGATED for DECADEs ~ Two REASONs WHY HIllary Opposes this Murky Unecessary Project ~

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Alternative Prime, I appreciate you, I agree, I did extensive research for my hub about this, but don't know if Trump is still for it and Clinton is still against, so I thought I would ask. Blessings my friend

      replyreport
   2. 90

      Patty Inglish, MSposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In Alberta, the area of the pipeline is called the Cancer Corridor for all the new cancer hospitals it created via poisoning the water supply with carcinogens. Entire communities are sick, many people dying. Same In Galveston. More in US? I hope not.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Patty, I appreciate your answer to my question.  I wish they would get rid of that pipeline.
      Blessings and Hugs dear friend.

      replyreport
4. 83

   Au faitposted 7 years ago

   One thing I have noticed about Hillary, and some people have complained about it, is that she tends to change her mind every now and then. 
   
   Of course it is natural for people to change their minds when they get new information that changes the issue at hand in some important way.  Well, people who are open minded sometimes change their minds when they learn new things about a situation or issue.  People with closed minds like at least half of the electorate won't usually even listen to anything different from what they want to believe, and their opinions are usually set in stone -- facts (old or new) be damned.
   
   Anyway, I have also noticed that while Hillary tends to change her mind on things now and then, that those changes tend to go along with the way the public is leaning at the time, as well as any new information she has learned on the issue. 
   
   Now a lot of people would say she changes her mind according to the way the wind is blowing because they don't believe new information should matter or that people should ever change their minds about anything for any reason.
   
   In a manner of speaking, many people believe that once you've made your bed you should just lie in it and shout up.  I say, if you don't like the way the bed is made, or you learn new ways to improve it, then get up and make it over!
   
   Do we not elect these people to represent us?  Is that not their entire purpose, supposedly?  So should they not change their stance on an issue if the majority of us, their constituents, change our minds?  It's not a matter of being wishy-washy, or a flip-flopper.  It's a matter of being sensitive to the preferences of the majority of voters.  Wouldn't it be nice if all of our elected officials were sensitive to our opinions, rather than their own political PACs?
   
   I can imagine that both of the Clintons may have favored the Keystone Pipeline at some point and disfavored it at another point, depending on the way the majority of the electorate's opinions were leaning at any given time.
   
   Politifact, 101415:  "Throughout her campaign in 2015, Clinton has avoided taking a position on the pipeline -- until she announced in September [2015] that she opposes it. Prior to that, Clinton’s last substantial comment on her Keystone position was in 2010 when she was secretary of state," [when she made no assertion either way as an investigation of the issue was not yet concluded].

   replyreport
   1. 75

      always exploringposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I really do not know how Hillary stands on the pipeline, but I agree wholeheartedly with Alternative Prime. I remember well when George W allowed the Exxon Valdez crime to happen. I do know that President Obama is against it.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Au faitposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ruby, as I stated above, in Hillary's most recent statement on this issue, she was/is against the pipeline, very probably for the reasons Alternative Prime listed.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Au fait, thank you for answering, I think this is in my hub Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for America, but I have not heard recent comments.
      
      Ruby, I thank you for answering also.

      replyreport
   4. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      n 2008 the country exported 1.8 million barrels a day of refined products, according to EIA. By 2012 that number jumped to 3.2 million barrels.
      
      "That trend will continue whether Keystone is built or not," said Brian Milne, a refined fuels editor at

      replyreport
   5. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol @ bradmaster ~ "SLUDGE Oil" will be OBSOLETE as we TRANSITION to WIND, Solar & other SAFE ALTERNATIVEs ~ The JOBs CREATED will EXCEED the Current OIL Refinery JOBs in Pay etc ~ The PERMANENT ECO Damage RISK this PIPELINE Presents is too GREAT

      replyreport
   6. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Supporters say the oil is no dirtier than other forms of heavy oil the country is currently importing.

      replyreport
   7. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Alternate Prime, thank you so very much I really appreciate you.

      replyreport
5. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   Yes, Trump supports it. Developing our own energy reserves means less money sent to Muslim nations who raise up fundamentalist extremists and export them to mosques abroad, and creating more skilled / blue collar jobs here.
   That's why the unions supported the Keystone Pipeline even though Obama delayed it for years because environmentalists would rather we all freeze in the dark than hurt a deified mother earth.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The ILL-Conceived Pipeline which would have been placed under a VITAL Water Supply would CREATE Very FEW Permanent JOBs and would NEVER Offset the DESTRUCTION of a "SPILL Catastrophy" just ask GULF Residents whose Lives were Essentially Destroyed

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes Alternative Prime the Keystone XL Pipeline is bad for America.

      replyreport
   3. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Tamara
      I commented to Ruby that the Missouri river is already being polluted by fertilizer from the ground running into it. The river is only 20 feet deep, it is not an ocean. People would have you believe you can drink water from that river???

      replyreport
   4. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      THX Shyron ~ In Addition to the Potential Disaster an ILL-Conceived Pipeline like this would present is the FACT that SOME, Most or ALL the OIL Extracted and or "Shuttled" through the Pipeline would be EXPORTED Outside the USA ~

      replyreport
   5. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks largely to better fuel economy and higher prices, the long-term demand for gasoline in the United States is either flat or declining. That means the nation's refineries are producing more gasoline, diesel fuel and other oil products than the

      replyreport
   6. 68

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ms. wilhite the keystone XL pipeline will not benefit the USA one iota.  TransCanada may have bribed Trump into supporting it, if he is but it is to the detriment of all Americans if this pipeline is laid across our country.

      replyreport