If Sanders amended the Keystone XL bill to include his infrastructure jobs language

[Recursion]

and that amendment passed, how would you advocate your Senator vote on it?

(Unlikely, but then again Sanders is actually very good at wrangling amendments through committees -- exceptionally good. And if this peeled off enough D support to uphold a veto, it's not entirely out of the question.)

[pampango]

1. The benefit in terms of jobs, wages and repaired infrastructure would probably outweigh the bad, but

the long term damage to the environment would make that a hard deal to swallow.

I doubt either side would be on board with that deal. It smacks of 'compromise' which is not in vogue these days in DC - perhaps for the best in the hypothetical you propose.

[krawhitham]

2. Since Sanders does not want Keystone to pass and would want a Veto if it does why would he add ...

his amendment that would garner Dem support and make it harder to kill the Keystone bill?

[Recursion]

4. Because until 6 years ago, you passed bills by giving both sides something they want

So, in this case, the idea would be to both attract enough Democratic support that a veto wouldn't be upheld (though I'm not even sure Obama would veto with the amendment), while keeping enough Republican support to pass it in the first place.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. If duck were goats would they quack?

[brooklynite]

5. How exceptionally good is he when Republicans control the Committee?

[Recursion]

6. In the House he was good at amendments in committee and on the floor

I don't think we've seen him in a GOP-controlled Senate before this week, have we?