EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1180
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke Sunday about Israel's ground operation in Gaza, the White House said in a statement. According to the White House, Obama raised concerns about the number of casualties in recent days. As the New York Times reported, Sunday marked the deadliest day in the conflict so far, with 87 Palestinians and 13 Israeli soldiers killed. "The President discussed Israel’s ongoing military operation, reiterated the United States’ condemnation of attacks by Hamas against Israel, and reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself," the White House said. "The President also raised serious concern about the growing number of casualties, including increasing Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and the loss of Israeli soldiers." The president also said Secretary of State John Kerry would travel to Cairo, Egypt in order "to seek an immediate cessation of hostilities based on a return to the November 2012 ceasefire agreement." During the call, Netanyahu thanked Obama for his support. Sunday's call was the second between the two leaders in three days. During a Friday call, Obama urged Netanyahu to minimize civilian deaths. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'd also like to try switching to approval voting. | ||
Falling
Canada11426 Posts
http://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps/mapprov.asp?map=35903&b=n&lang=e But then I see these absolutely haywire ridings in the US- whether it favours Democrats or Republicans, it hardly matters, that sort of thing must go. Certainly, it's harder to rig the system, systematically: Instead, it is likely that the key to the difference between the two nations is that Canada's House of Commons is given the responsibility of drawing its own ridings. Because of this, parliamentary gerrymanders will be simultaneously more pervasive and more obvious on a national scale. In contrast, gerrymanders in the United States are done by state legislatures far from Washington. Although districting is usually done with an eye to keeping favored incumbents in power, the incumbents themselves are always able to point to someone else who actually drew the map. And, because it is not Congress that draws the grossly gerrymandered congressional maps, there is no single place to target for reform The Gerrymander and the Commission: Drawing Electoral Districts in the United States and Canada Charles Paul Hoffman McGill University - Faculty of Law http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272836 Very interesting paper, even if it was published before the more recent redistribution. But it clearly shows that gerrymandering was much, much worse in Canada until the 60's and the adoption of an independent commission. Whereas the gerrymandering the states, while less continued to be tolerated. (Perhaps one reason because of the separation of executive and legislative power- even if you gerrymander the legislature, you still need to elect the president in separately.) Also interesting- the paper posits that the +/-25% flexibility in population numbers actually allows for better, non-partisan districts. Whereas the strict interpetation of Baker and Reynolds Because the Court has been unwilling to permit even slight variances in population in order to follow traditional political boundaries, state legislators have felt free to draw oddly shaped districts for partisan purposes. So while gerrymandering might not be as efficacious in the States due to many different reasons, I still think it must go. | ||
|
sc2isnotdying
United States200 Posts
On July 21 2014 10:28 Introvert wrote: That's because "conventional wisdom" in the political sphere is basically whatever the Democrats spew out. From the Koch brothers to gerrymandering, we never hear another side unless we go looking for it. I'm not sure what you think the conventional wisdom on the Koch brothers is. The Koch brothers spend a shit ton of money advancing conservative causes. Is this in dispute? They seem pretty upfront about it. You'll see liberal commentators characterize the Kochs as evil, but I think it's a stretch to say that's any different than a conservative commentator calling Obama evil. On July 21 2014 10:28 Introvert wrote: Gerrymandering was the culprit long before the analysis was done, if my memory serves. Now that the math is finished, I think we can call that claim, if we were to use Politfact's nomenclature, "mostly false." (I'm being generous with that too. I'd go for "false.") So to be clear, your position is: Despite having every incentive to do so, Republican controlled state legislatures did not redraw districts lines in a politically advantageous fashion, or even if they did, it didn't matter. On July 21 2014 10:28 Introvert wrote: It goes from "Republicans just won 'cause the game is rigged" to "well the electorate is sufficiently angry about something." Then you have to consider if Obama's policies are, in fact, part of the issue. Here, your position is a little confusing. The claim I was making (which may have gotten lost) was that the obstructionist congress is not a result of Obama's specific policy decisions but rather the shift to the right in the Republican party spurred on by redistricting. I would revise that by replacing "redistricting" with "safer districts". (Safer districts seems to be a phenomenon we both agree exists.) I have no doubt Republican primary voters are angry with Obama's policies; my point was that the views of Republican primary voters (who like this hardline obstructionist stance) wouldn't be as represented if it weren't for those safer districts. I'm not sure where you disagree. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On July 21 2014 11:30 Nyxisto wrote: That may all be true but I don't think that kind of attitude will impress the electorate. Sure, these single winner systems are not meant to be a 'nation race', but the general idea of a democracy is still that the majority of people is fairly represented. The difference between the actual votes and the seats in 2012 was freakishly big. If a party then goes on to obstruct the rest of the government in desperate fashion 'just because we can' that doesn't look very clever to me. Everyone has internet access today. Just making the current government look bad is not going to cut it. Again, national opinion is important only insofar as the district voters see their candidates as part of the national problem. The difference was ~1.5%. That's not "freakishly big" in my book. It seems to me that any system that is similar to ours has the same potential issue. Democrat districts are more heavily Democrat- that's really the simple explanation. To make the House a body based on the national popular vote is to fundamentally change its form- and it leaves the individual constituencies entirely out of it. Anyway, this issue of majority popular vote not aligning with majority party control is fairly rare, anyway. On July 21 2014 11:55 Falling wrote: Introvert- is your contention that Gerrymandering cannot account entirely (or even for the majority) of the political shifts against Obama? Or is that Gerrymandering hardly exists/ isn't significant to matter. Because I can agree with the first- that there is much more than gerrymandering at work, but I would not agree. When I look at the ridings in Canada's densely populated areas, I see: http://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps/mapprov.asp?map=35903&b=n&lang=e But then I see these absolutely haywire ridings in the US- whether it favours Democrats or Republicans, it hardly matters, that sort of thing must go. Certainly, it's harder to rig the system, systematically: The Gerrymander and the Commission: Drawing Electoral Districts in the United States and Canada Charles Paul Hoffman McGill University - Faculty of Law http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272836 Very interesting paper, even if it was published before the more recent redistribution. But it clearly shows that gerrymandering was much, much worse in Canada until the 60's and the adoption of an independent commission. Whereas the gerrymandering the states, while less continued to be tolerated. (Perhaps one reason because of the separation of executive and legislative power- even if you gerrymander the legislature, you still need to elect the president in separately.) Also interesting- the paper posits that the +/-25% flexibility in population numbers actually allows for better, non-partisan districts. Whereas the strict interpetation of Baker and Reynolds So while gerrymandering might not be as efficacious in the States due to many different reasons, I still think it must go. Thanks for all the sources, but yes- my contention is that the 2012 election results are not the result of gerrymandering, for the most part. That's not to say I like gerrymandering. I know California (my state) adopted the independent board idea and managed to screw up at least one district (one near me). So if the states want to do that, then sure. The Constitution gives large leeway, IIRC. I haven't read that section in some time. Anyway, it's a state issue in my mind. I'd go with the board idea first, before I started addressing the idea of flexibility. I will read the paper you linked- I'm certainly not supporting gerrymandering. I also like the idea of judges staying out of the process. However, until gerrymandering can be shown to be of significant impact, I would put it on the back burner of pressing concerns. On July 21 2014 11:57 sc2isnotdying wrote: One more post, and then I'll leave you alone. I have a few things I think you can clear up. I'm not sure what you think the conventional wisdom on the Koch brothers is. The Koch brothers spend a shit ton of money advancing conservative causes. Is this in dispute? They seem pretty upfront about it. You'll see liberal commentators characterize the Kochs as evil, but I think it's a stretch to say that's any different than a conservative commentator calling Obama evil. + Show Spoiler + On July 21 2014 10:28 Introvert wrote: Gerrymandering was the culprit long before the analysis was done, if my memory serves. Now that the math is finished, I think we can call that claim, if we were to use Politfact's nomenclature, "mostly false." (I'm being generous with that too. I'd go for "false.") So to be clear, your position is: Despite having every incentive to do so, Republican controlled state legislatures did not redraw districts lines in a politically advantageous fashion, or even if they did, it didn't matter. On July 21 2014 10:28 Introvert wrote: It goes from "Republicans just won 'cause the game is rigged" to "well the electorate is sufficiently angry about something." Then you have to consider if Obama's policies are, in fact, part of the issue. Here, your position is a little confusing. The claim I was making (which may have gotten lost) was that the obstructionist congress is not a result of Obama's specific policy decisions but rather the shift to the right in the Republican party spurred on by redistricting. I would revise that by replacing "redistricting" with "safer districts". (Safer districts seems to be a phenomenon we both agree exists.) I have no doubt Republican primary voters are angry with Obama's policies; my point was that the views of Republican primary voters (who like this hardline obstructionist stance) wouldn't be as represented if it weren't for those safer districts. I'm not sure where you disagree. My point about the Koch brothers was that we only ever see the left's version of something. Of course they are involved, just like all the Democrat supporting millionaires/billionaires, companies, etc. So to be clear, your position is: Despite having every incentive to do so, Republican controlled state legislatures did not redraw districts lines in a politically advantageous fashion, or even if they did, it didn't matter. My point is that the redrawing was largely irrelevant to the election results. That's what my sources said. Here, your position is a little confusing. The claim I was making (which may have gotten lost) was that the obstructionist congress is not a result of Obama's specific policy decisions but rather the shift to the right in the Republican party spurred on by redistricting. I would revise that by replacing "redistricting" with "safer districts". (Safer districts seems to be a phenomenon we both agree exists.) I have no doubt Republican primary voters are angry with Obama's policies; my point was that the views of Republican primary voters (who like this hardline obstructionist stance) wouldn't be as represented if it weren't for those safer districts. I'm not sure where you disagree. We may have had a misunderstanding (indeed, I wasn't sure what you meant at that part I quoted). I said the relevance of Obama's particular polices is debatable (though I agree with Danglars)- that's the discussion you were having with him. As to your point about primaries- one of the sources I linked talks about political polarization. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
That the US shouldn't return huge amounts of territory to the Sioux or Mexico and that US history shouldn't solely be something of shame, although we mostly did beat up on peoplethataren'tus. That's basically it, but I think that those opinions are generally accepted anyway. Overall a shit movie though | ||
|
sc2isnotdying
United States200 Posts
You think the mainstream media is too harsh on the Kochs while ignoring similar stories about liberal billionaires. That's a fair piece of media criticism. There is some truth to the media treating the Kochs unfairly, but it's also true that this is seen as a conservative issue because Citizen's United was a conservative group and conservative justices took their side . All Democrats do is call for campaign finance reform. It scores them easy points with the base and independents. The Koch story is always really just a story about Citizen's United. It sort of makes sense that the Media doesn't associate this type of stuff with Liberal Billionaires(Although that doesn't really excuse them from just kind of ignoring them) As to the rest, I'll concede that political polarization is more responsible for safer districts than gerrymandering, but I still contend that this specific obstructionist congress wouldn't have happened if not for gerrymandering. What we really have is a disagreement of degrees. Your theory, as I understand it, is that Obama's specific policies, by being so radically to the left, has accelerated political polarization more than gerrymandering has swung districts. Adding just one heavily republican county to a district can turn it from competitive to safe in an instant. That's a pretty visible effect. And I really don't think Obama is more polarizing than say, Bush was. Obamacare(or any number of things) is not more enraging on the right than the War in Iraq(or any nubmer of things) was enraging on the left. The point is he's about as polarizing as any president would be. That's the reality of the US political climate. Do you think Hillary Clinton, even if she was governing with more moderate policies, wouldn't have enraged the Tea Party crowd? Honestly, I would speculate people getting their news from heavily slanted sources is the biggest driver of polarization. (I would also contend that Fox News counts as heavily slanted while the NY Times doesn't, but you'd probably disagree and we don't need to have that fight) | ||
|
YoureFired
United States822 Posts
Is it really a good political system that does not give parity to each individual voice, in as proportional a fashion, as possible? Introvert, I find it ridiculous that you on one hand blast the Left for using its political power to enact certain reforms (saying that it does not represent popular opinion) while tacitly endorsing a system that does not adequately represent the political opinion of the country as a whole. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-10.png) ![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/06/FT_Polarization.Opposing.Party_.png) In both parties, the shares expressing mostly ideological views have increased, but in very different ways. The percentage of Democrats who are liberal on all or most value dimensions has nearly doubled from just 30% in 1994 to 56% today. The share who are consistently liberal has quadrupled from just 5% to 23% over the past 20 years. In absolute terms, the ideological shift among Republicans has been more modest. In 1994, 45% of Republicans were right-of-center, with 13% consistently conservative. Those figures are up to 53% and 20% today. But there are two key considerations to keep in mind before concluding that the liberals are driving ideological polarization. First, 1994 was a relative high point in conservative political thinking among Republicans. In fact, between 1994 and 2004 the average Republican moved substantially toward the center ideologically, as concern about the deficit, government waste and abuses of social safety net that characterized the “Contract with America” era faded in the first term of the Bush administration. Since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal. A second consideration is that the nation as a whole has moved slightly to the left over the past 20 years, mostly because of a broad societal shift toward acceptance of homosexuality and more positive views of immigrants. Twenty years ago, these two issues created significant cleavages within the Democratic Party, as many otherwise liberal Democrats expressed more conservative values in these realms. But today, as divisions over these issues have diminished on the left, they have emerged on the right, with a subset of otherwise conservative Republicans expressing more liberal values on these social issues. As an editorial note, I would submit that the Obama administration has been very good at politics but very poor at deal-making and crisis management, which is a good way to anger the opposition party because it means they fail to make deals or something bad happens for a variety of reasons but they pin the blame solely on Republicans for failures to make deals or some kind of sabotage, even if it's not necessarily their fault. Sure, Bush did it too and it drove Democrats crazy that it worked, but last I checked, Democrats weren't accusing Bush of being a good president. On a more hopeful note, the political bitterness has toned down considerably in California with Jerry Brown in office, so it's clearly not impossible to overcome a hostile minority party. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On July 21 2014 13:48 sc2isnotdying wrote: You cleared everything up, Introvert. + Show Spoiler + You think the mainstream media is too harsh on the Kochs while ignoring similar stories about liberal billionaires. That's a fair piece of media criticism. There is some truth to the media treating the Kochs unfairly, but it's also true that this is seen as a conservative issue because Citizen's United was a conservative group and conservative justices took their side . All Democrats do is call for campaign finance reform. It scores them easy points with the base and independents. The Koch story is always really just a story about Citizen's United. It sort of makes sense that the Media doesn't associate this type of stuff with Liberal Billionaires(Although that doesn't really excuse them from just kind of ignoring them) As to the rest, I'll concede that political polarization is more responsible for safer districts than gerrymandering, but I still contend that this specific obstructionist congress wouldn't have happened if not for gerrymandering. What we really have is a disagreement of degrees. Your theory, as I understand it, is that Obama's specific policies, by being so radically to the left, has accelerated political polarization more than gerrymandering has swung districts. Adding just one heavily republican county to a district can turn it from competitive to safe in an instant. That's a pretty visible effect. And I really don't think Obama is more polarizing than say, Bush was. Obamacare(or any number of things) is not more enraging on the right than the War in Iraq(or any nubmer of things) was enraging on the left. The point is he's about as polarizing as any president would be. That's the reality of the US political climate. Do you think Hillary Clinton, even if she was governing with more moderate policies, wouldn't have enraged the Tea Party crowd? Honestly, I would speculate people getting their news from heavily slanted sources is the biggest driver of polarization. (I would also contend that Fox News counts as heavily slanted while the NY Times doesn't, but you'd probably disagree and we don't need to have that fight) Glad to make that clear. I won't go over the minutia. On July 21 2014 14:13 YoureFired wrote: Does it truly matter if its gerrymandering or district polarization causing the change in who gets voted in, from a functionalist perspective? I am of the opinion that both go hand-in-hand (that the reason that Democrat districts vote majority Democrat is because they've been gerrymandered that way) but let's just throw that out for now. Is it really a good political system that does not give parity to each individual voice, in as proportional a fashion, as possible? Introvert, I find it ridiculous that you on one hand blast the Left for using its political power to enact certain reforms (saying that it does not represent popular opinion) while tacitly endorsing a system that does not adequately represent the political opinion of the country as a whole. We're set up as a Republic, not a Democracy- and I prefer it that way. They represent smaller majorities. Besides, as I've pointed out 3 times now, the occurrence of a discrepancy between House control and the national tally is a rare occurrence. There is nothing tacit in my support for the current system, even with its flaws. Where have I done that? Can you not distinguish a policy criticism from a procedural criticism? I value a stable system, with rules that should be adhered to. I don't advocate ignoring the rules when politically convenient. Moreover, where have I done that which you criticize? I haven't said anything about politically unpopular opinions in this discussion. My focus has been to address this claim of gerrymandering and its effects. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 21 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote: Glad to make that clear. I won't go over the minutia. We're set up as a Republic, not a Democracy- and I prefer it that way. They represent smaller majorities. Besides, as I've pointed out 3 times now, the occurrence of a discrepancy between House control and the national tally is a rare occurrence. There is nothing tacit in my support for the current system, even with its flaws. Where have I done that? Can you not distinguish a policy criticism from a procedural criticism? I value a stable system, with rules that should be adhered to. I don't advocate ignoring the rules when politically convenient. Moreover, where have I done that which you criticize? I haven't said anything about politically unpopular opinions in this discussion. My focus has been to address this claim of gerrymandering and its effects. That much is abundantly clear. As Madison said: In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. The Kochs are just the latest in a long line of the opulent trying to protect themselves from the majority. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On July 21 2014 15:43 IgnE wrote: That much is abundantly clear. As Madison said: The Kochs are just the latest in a long line of the opulent trying to protect themselves from the majority. Somehow I thought this quote might make its way here. I'll just say what you view as evil, I do not. Indeed, the context of what Madison was saying with that was entirely opposite to your whole philosophy. The government (lead by the people) should not get to so easily take from those with wealth (because they knew the impulse was there). You view this redistribution and enforced evenness of means as essential. I can only assume that, since you were so short in your presentation, your use of this quote was supposed to be rhetorical- because in today's America, the average person may see that quote and feel the same indignation you do when you read it. I view that the idea behind it as good. You see it as the founders ensuring their own material wealth (which in part it was, as a natural result of the broader principle). But let's not tread old ground. People will view that quote in different ways, depending on their already determined political outlook. Edit: Also, it's not just the Kochs. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 21 2014 15:58 Introvert wrote: Somehow I thought this quote might make its way here. I'll just say what you view as evil, I do not. Indeed, the context of what Madison was saying with that was entirely opposite to your whole philosophy. The government (lead by the people) should not get to so easily take from those with wealth (because they knew the impulse was there). You view this redistribution and enforced evenness of means as essential. I can only assume that, since you were so short in your presentation, your use of this quote was supposed to be rhetorical- because in today's America, the average person may see that quote and feel the same indignation you do when you read it. I view that the idea behind it as good. You see it as the founders ensuring their own material wealth (which in part it was, as a natural result of the broader principle). But let's not tread old ground. People will view that quote in different ways, depending on their already determined political outlook. Edit: Also, it's not just the Kochs. You say we've had this discussion before, and we have, yet you still don't seem to know what my philosophy is. You say that the left-leaning liberals here do not understand conservatism except in caricature, and yet your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse me of some kind of Stalinist politics of redistribution (which coincidentally has little to do with democracy, a fact that doesn't seem to bother you or many of the other conservatives on this forum). I think people view that quote in much the same way, no matter their politics. You can't actually contextualize it away. It is what it is. The intersection between property and democracy is what produces the difference. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On July 21 2014 17:05 IgnE wrote: You say we've had this discussion before, and we have, yet you still don't seem to know what my philosophy is. You say that the left-leaning liberals here do not understand conservatism except in caricature, and yet your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse me of some kind of Stalinist politics of redistribution (which coincidentally has little to do with democracy, a fact that doesn't seem to bother you or many of the other conservatives on this forum). I think people view that quote in much the same way, no matter their politics. You can't actually contextualize it away. It is what it is. The intersection between property and democracy is what produces the difference. I've never made you out to be a Stalinist. You've talked about how acquiring and desiring wealth is evil, that the system we have now is oppressive and exploitative, etc. You support higher taxes, a more progressive tax policy, more safety net spending, etc. Those things are closely linked to redistribution- often they are posited as a means to that end. To borrow from one of our first interactions, "you are free to disown redistribution at any time." All of that can be achieved through the current republican system (whether it was intended in 1789 or not). Not to mention the constant critique of capitalism as fundamentally flawed, instead of just being "in need of adjustment." But no, I've never accused you of being a Stalinist. Other posters have called your views Marxist, but I've never gone that far either, precisely because I acknowledge that I don't have enough information to make a positive determination. You only ever give snippets... most of your comments are criticisms or posts about inequality. Or the NSA, which we happen to agree on, for the most part. which coincidentally has little to do with democracy It's not so much that I don't understand as that I disagree. Wealth, property, and democracy are quite related in the political realm, as you say. Thus, so is redistribution. I think people view that quote in much the same way, no matter their politics. You can't actually contextualize it away. It is what it is. The intersection between property and democracy is what produces the difference. I should have been more clear- you view it negatively ("look how horrible they were!") and I view positively (look how smart they were!"). If I am misunderstanding what you are writing at this hour, my apologies. I should just stop responding to posts that are less than a full paragraph. I'd make a terrible fish, always falling for the bait. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 21 2014 15:43 IgnE wrote: That much is abundantly clear. As Madison said: The Kochs are just the latest in a long line of the opulent trying to protect themselves from the majority. Yeah, and as undemocratic as it sounds, Madison had it basically right. And if you think about it, he and Jefferson agreed upon the basic premise that it is a bad idea to let people vote who are not vested in the state. They just had different ideas regarding what to do about it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
SLINGER, Wis. (AP) — A Canadian National Railway Co. train struck another freight train as it rolled through a small village in southeastern Wisconsin, causing cars to derail, injuring two people and spilling thousands of gallons of diesel oil that prompted the evacuation of dozens of homes. The southbound Canadian National train struck several Wisconsin & Southern Railroad cars around 8:30 p.m. Sunday at a rail crossing in Slinger, according to Patrick Waldron, a Canadian National spokesman. Three engines and 10 railcars derailed, Slinger Fire Chief Rick Hanke said. Slinger is about 35 miles northwest of Milwaukee. An engineer and conductor on the Canadian National train were taken to a hospital with injuries that were not life threatening, Waldron said Monday. About 5,000 gallons of diesel spilled from a locomotive fuel tank, Hanke said. Hazardous materials crews placed booms around the spilled fuel and crews worked to upright the derailed cars Monday morning. Some 100 people who live near the crash site were evacuated from their homes as a precaution but they were allowed to return around 1:30 a.m. Monday, Hanke said. The Wisconsin & Southern engineer applied the brakes after an onboard computer sensed something was wrong before the collision, said WSR spokesman Ken Lucht. "There was an emergency situation prior to impact," Lucht said. Source | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On July 22 2014 01:08 Wolfstan wrote: Pipelines are still 100x safer than rail or tanker. Use your pen and phone to show you care about the safety of your citizens and the environment. Or have decent safety regulations. But thats evil and socialist. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2014 01:41 Gorsameth wrote: Or have decent safety regulations. But thats evil and socialist. This is rather presumptuous given that it's unclear what the cause of the crash is. Besides, that a regulation exists does not necessarily mean that it will always be complied with. I'm just going to out on a limb and say that, given how heavily regulated the rail industry is in the US, there was at least one applicable regulation that was breached. Regardless, and to help people feel better, be assured that the offending railroad company is going to be sued like crazy. And when the enterprising lawyers suing the company find out what the precise violations are, there will likely be a nice path to punitive damages. | ||
| ||
