3 ms·

Unfortunately this issue has multiple factors that contributed, and weakening the legislation and regulations that were put in place to avoid issues like this b

Unfortunately this issue has multiple factors that contributed, and weakening the legislation and regulations that were put in place to avoid issues like this by the Obama administration: "The sequence of events began a decade ago in the wake of a major uptick in derailments of trains carrying crude oil and hazardous chemicals, including a New Jersey train crash that leaked the same toxic chemical as in Ohio. In response, the Obama administration in 2014 proposed improving safety regulations for trains carrying petroleum and other hazardous materials. However, after industry pressure, the final measure ended up narrowly focused on the transport of crude oil and exempting trains carrying many other combustible materials, including the chemical involved in this weekend’s disaster." [0] Subsequently by the Trump Administration: "The AAR lobbying group concurred that “the costs of the ECP rule substantially outweigh its benefits,” and claimed the mandate would cost them about $3 billion — or roughly 2 weeks of their operating revenue in a typical year. The FRA estimated the brake requirement would cost about half a billion. Trump’s Transportation Department ultimately rescinded the brake rule in late 2017." [0] According to federal investigators, there was a mechanical issue with a car's axle, which basically ends with a derailment. The ECP brakes may have lessened hazard by braking all the cars immediately, classifying the train as HHFT may have meant the train would be going slower than it was, I couldn't find any data about the speed the train was moving at. This seems to be an area of bipartisan consensus, putting the interests of big business above those of the people. [0] - https://www.levernews.com/rail-companies-blocked-safety-rules-before-ohio-derailment/ https://www.levernews.com/rail-companies-blocked-safety-rule...

themitigating 4y ago
"This seems to be an area of bipartisan consensus, putting the interests of big business above those of the people." So Obama added the regulations, Trump removed them and that's your conclusion?
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  Yes it is, if Obama’s regime had the strength of their convictions to enact the rules they wanted, that train would have been classified hazardous. I found out that classification would have meant it would have the better brakes as well as being shorter and speed limited more. I think an objective look shows multiple failures by 3 different governments to reign in the greed of railroad execs and protect the people in Ohio. What do you see?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Again. Obama tried and couldn't whereas the republicans don't even care. False equivalence which is a typical strategy of republican traitors like you
    - MarkMarine 4y ago
      Obama had a super majority. He could have done anything he wanted. You’re looking at this through blue colored glasses, go check out my comment history and re-evaluate that last comment.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        "Yes it is, if Obama’s regime had the strength of their convictions to enact the rules they wanted, that train would have been classified hazardous. I found out that classification would have" Do you remember when democrats had just Manchin blocking legislation and everyone blamed them. However they ignored that every republican was also against it. That's basically what you're doing for this.
        MarkMarine 4y ago
        Republican leaders believe that government is bad, regulations are bad, and advocate for a world where basically the strong survive. They don’t give a flying f if people who live next to a railroad track in Ohio get cancer, if the tried harder they’d live in the fancy alcoves they live in, where poison carrying trains don’t run through. They are pretty consistent about this and enacted policies that align with that view when in power. Can’t fault them for that right, frog and the scorpion. The Democratic leadership says the opposite. Government is good for people, regulations protect underprivileged people from exploitation of a monopoly transporting poison in the backyard, among other things. When in power, they capitulated to the chemical lobbyists that wanted trains carrying these obviously flammable chemicals not classified as hazardous flammable. They could have put that rule in place, they wanted to, and they bent. They folded. I don’t understand, other than blind party loyalty or just a fear that any critical thought or speech about the democrats is akin to helping republicans, why you can’t see what I’m saying here. I know I can’t bend republicans, but I can sure bend the people who already agree and are feckless in implementing their goals. I do remember when Manchin was blocking legislation. It was quite literally his fault that we don’t have the child credit that lifted 50% of the kids in poverty in the country out of it, because he thought that giving money to underprivileged kids could result in the mothers using the money for drugs. It’s quite literally his fault.

themitigating 4y ago

"This seems to be an area of bipartisan consensus, putting the interests of big business above those of the people." So Obama added the regulations, Trump removed them and that's your conclusion?

MarkMarine 4y ago
Yes it is, if Obama’s regime had the strength of their convictions to enact the rules they wanted, that train would have been classified hazardous. I found out that classification would have meant it would have the better brakes as well as being shorter and speed limited more. I think an objective look shows multiple failures by 3 different governments to reign in the greed of railroad execs and protect the people in Ohio. What do you see?
- themitigating 4y ago
  Again. Obama tried and couldn't whereas the republicans don't even care. False equivalence which is a typical strategy of republican traitors like you
  - MarkMarine 4y ago
    Obama had a super majority. He could have done anything he wanted. You’re looking at this through blue colored glasses, go check out my comment history and re-evaluate that last comment.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      "Yes it is, if Obama’s regime had the strength of their convictions to enact the rules they wanted, that train would have been classified hazardous. I found out that classification would have" Do you remember when democrats had just Manchin blocking legislation and everyone blamed them. However they ignored that every republican was also against it. That's basically what you're doing for this.
      - MarkMarine 4y ago
        Republican leaders believe that government is bad, regulations are bad, and advocate for a world where basically the strong survive. They don’t give a flying f if people who live next to a railroad track in Ohio get cancer, if the tried harder they’d live in the fancy alcoves they live in, where poison carrying trains don’t run through. They are pretty consistent about this and enacted policies that align with that view when in power. Can’t fault them for that right, frog and the scorpion. The Democratic leadership says the opposite. Government is good for people, regulations protect underprivileged people from exploitation of a monopoly transporting poison in the backyard, among other things. When in power, they capitulated to the chemical lobbyists that wanted trains carrying these obviously flammable chemicals not classified as hazardous flammable. They could have put that rule in place, they wanted to, and they bent. They folded. I don’t understand, other than blind party loyalty or just a fear that any critical thought or speech about the democrats is akin to helping republicans, why you can’t see what I’m saying here. I know I can’t bend republicans, but I can sure bend the people who already agree and are feckless in implementing their goals. I do remember when Manchin was blocking legislation. It was quite literally his fault that we don’t have the child credit that lifted 50% of the kids in poverty in the country out of it, because he thought that giving money to underprivileged kids could result in the mothers using the money for drugs. It’s quite literally his fault.