Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil" [View all]Spazito
(49,750 posts)31. He may well do a straight up veto as opposed to a pocket veto, I suspect he will...
certainly his spokesperson has indicated that is the direction he is leaning for sure.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil" [View all]
Samantha
Nov 2014
OP
Excellent point, and same with Canada, where federal elections are a year away. Congress votes
Fred Sanders
Nov 2014
#5
If the president does not sign a bill, it almost always becomes law 10 days after passage.
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#18
If Congress adjourns before the 10 days, the bill fails, it's often called a 'pocket veto'...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#22
The timing of the Landrieu's December 6th runoff make a pocket veto strategy very unlikely
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#25
Bringing a bill before the Senate for a vote doesn't necessarily mean a vote takes place...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#27
He may well do a straight up veto as opposed to a pocket veto, I suspect he will...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#31
The media is playing this up as if it is a strategy to help Landrieu win her runoff
Samantha
Nov 2014
#36
If there are constitutional issues with the bill, that would have to be resolved in the courts
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#37
I have been doing a lot of research on this and it is clear this pipeline has to have Presidential
Samantha
Nov 2014
#43
To reach the goals agreed to by 2030 China can no longer afford tar sands oil. Well played, Obama.
Fred Sanders
Nov 2014
#3
Good for China. I've seen pictures of air pollution over there and it is terrible. Tar sands oil
Louisiana1976
Nov 2014
#4
I visited Bejing...June 2003? ... 2PM... I could look directly into the sun
HereSince1628
Nov 2014
#11
Isn't it just too wonderful? If it doesn't happen, the Koch Brothers would lose
Samantha
Nov 2014
#8
That sounds like a lot, but for the Kochs $100,000,000 is about 2 days investment earnings
Electric Monk
Nov 2014
#19
I guess we will just have to take our consolation in the fact they are making no money
Samantha
Nov 2014
#38
I think a bigger consolation would be if the oil sands stop polluting the fuck out of the north.
Electric Monk
Nov 2014
#39
It is possible he did, great move too, a shiv to both the GOP and the Koch Bros.
IdiocracyTheNewNorm
Nov 2014
#9
He's been stalling them for years, now it's come to a head. Bush wanted it in 2007.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#14
Thanks. I didn't post it in GD at the time as many were mixing up apples and oranges.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#21
When this controversy first erupted, one of the Ivy League law schools had someone
Samantha
Nov 2014
#32
Thanks, I also heard the figure 50 on the jobs, as well. You did great, hope you saved the links.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#33
It appears plain that the Legislative Branch cannot approve the Keystone Pipeline
Samantha
Nov 2014
#44