Why is Blankenship the leading GOP senate primary candidate in West Virginia?
According to the polls, Blankenship is ahead of two other GOP candidates. Why?
the former chief executive of Massey Energy, served a year in federal prison after being convicted of conspiring to violate mine safety rules in connection with the Upper Big Branch mining disaster in 2010 that claimed 29 lives.
He objects to political correctness and likes to
1) call Americans of Chinese descent "Chinamen"
2) make up his own designation of races - Races are Negro, white Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian. There’s no mention of a race. I’ve never used a race word.”
Trump Weighs In on West Virginia Senate Race in Sign of Republican Anxiety
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/us/p … ginia.html
Blankenship's campaign inspired the following:
VOTE FOR DON BLANKENSHIP Anonymous (ID: iPWqdsQU) 05/08/18(Tue)06:42:05 No.170859328▶>>170859431 >>170859723 >>170859799 >>170861348 >>170861670
He is our f**cking guy.
Despite what Trump says, Blankenship CAN win the general election and Trump probably lowkey wants you to vote for Blankenship.
If you are not with Blankenship then you are with the Jews, its as simple as that. Blankenship called Mitch McConnel, "Cocaine Mitch".
VOTE FOR DON BLANKENSHIP
"If Democrats don’t start playing hardball, they may find themselves watching from the sidelines as Republicans continue to use anti-majoritarian features to entrench conservative power"
If the GOP is serious about getting behind such a man as this Blankenship, it's says a lot about them and their REAL agenda in regards to the " man in the street".
Hi Cred! There should be nothing wrong with saying, "This guy is a racist and has no place in the GOP." Some years back they were saying they need to reach out to other ethnicities. I think it is ok now to say that people will vote for him for deplorable reasons.
That is just the beginning, who is this "Little" guy neo-Nazi, anti-Semite who is so comfortable wearing the Republican label in the Senate race in California against Feinstein?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 579612002/
In all fairness, the California GOP is trying to clearly disown him, as the ugly ducking that while not wanted seems to know where "Home" is.
Put these two together and people will get the see even more so, who the GOP actually are.
The idea of ethnic outreach has always been just so much mumbo-jumbo on their part.
Funny how this is proven wrong in the end. Blankenship is out. It appears the polls, yet again, were wrong.
I wonder how much mileage liberals can get out of accusing candidates of being ;
Is that the limit of liberal's political intelligence ?
If the name has an R -in front of it , it must be one of the above ? My nephew continually calls his elderly mother "stupid " because she voted for Trump. You gotta love that element of compassion from the left.
Are you defending these guys, Ahorseback, are they your political kindred? What is your excuse, this time? There is only one SIDE capable of offering such human rubbish to the electorate, and are you on it?
Ever heard of a trial , evidence , due process , jury , judge ?
I didn't think so .
I have heard of dodge, stall and excuse. Why are you defending these people are you really one of them in your heart? Their records are quite obvious and public? Unless, you want to blame liberal media for that, too. Conservative/ rightwingers have a way of making me vomit, trying as hard as I can not to.
You CHOSE to vomit hatred for the right , so it just happens Credence .
I have seen the looks on the faces of mega liberals a few thousand times. If it wern't for your one thought hatred you would have no collective party attachment whatsoever , remember ? I once belonged .
I know .
No, I did not choose it, my ire against the Right, you've all earned it by unceasingly putting forth effort to that end.
If this country and society is to survive, I am duty bound to put you down at every opportunity.
Sadly, it is attitudes such as that which will ensure our country does not survive. Putting each other down is not the solution.
Did Blankenship run the following ad?
"Swamp Captain Mitch McConnell has created millions of jobs for China people. While doing so, Mitch has gotten rich," Blankenship says in the ad. "In fact, his China family has given him 10s of millions of dollars."
Is Arthur Jones, a Holocaust denier, on the ballot in the Third Congressional District?
Is Patrick Little, who wants to make America "free from Jews", running against Diane Feinstein?
Is the "pro white" Paul Nehlen running for Paul Ryan's seat?
Again, we need to look at both parties to see that problems are rampant, throughout.
Does it bother you that a Democrat in Washington believes Jews control the weather and were 'protecting' the Jewish people they took into custody?
Does it bother you that a revered democrat figure filibustered against Civil Rights legislation and was a firm opponent of integration?
Does it bother you that the DNC wanted to use the fact that Sanders is Jewish against him?
Does it bother you that Louis Farrakhan, a renowned and outspoken anti semite is highly revered in the democrat party?
Do Hillary Clinton's public statements that have been deemed racist, over the years or her stated respect for prominent anti semites bother you in the least?
If not, please explain.
It bothers me when people take my comments out of context. I was responding to Horse's attack on "liberal intelligence" and his claim that liberals smear all Republicans.
A black DC councilman is wrong for making anti-Semitic remarks. At least he apologized, unlike anyone on my list. He also isn't running for the U.S. Senate or Congress.
A Democrat from 50 years ago isn't relevant to the discussion.
The idea that Farrakhan is revered in the Democratic party is nonsense.
The idea that Clinton is racist for using the word "deplorables" also is nonsense.
Otherwise, I agree that racism and anti-Semitism shouldn't be tolerated in any political candidate of either party.
I don't think using the term 'deplorable' to identify everyone who didn't vote for you is racist.
But, your statement appeared to be a stand alone comment. You didn't allude to anything ahorseback said. I apologize if you only meant your statement to be in response to his post and do not feel the comments you listed have any bearing on your opinions, otherwise.
Are you saying that right-wing, capitalistic Republicans have plenty of compassion? Or that socially-minded, willing-to-share, "lefties" liberals have no compassion?
What about intelligent awareness? Does that come into the equation?
Horse, have you looked at any of this guy's campaign ads or heard him speak on tv? I don't think Fox would let him on there.
I read that Chelsea Manning is running for Congress. An ex con, someone who leaked thousands of classified documents, had the US taxpayer foot the bill for gender reassignment surgery.
Just as bad, to me. The voters in those states will determine what is, and is not, acceptable behavior from those they choose to elect.
I wouldn't vote for either. But, I'd be willing to attempt to understand the reasons for supporting them. Because, if we just used mud slinging and unsupported allegations as our standard for voting we'd never do it.
L to L, I made no reference to the race in Maryland nor have I investigated the issues and the candidates there.
I am referring to the races in West Virginia and California. Stating the facts is not mud slinging. I am going to naturally get "touchy" about racists and convicted felons, who through criminal malice of forethought have blood on their hands.
I hadn't read your post. Sorry. I think I probably think like you, on being outraged that those morally unfit should not be allowed to hold public office. But, let's be realistic. It happens. Every day. On both sides of the aisle. People overlook all types of pecadillos. If we both named those with unfavorable ideas we'd have a very long list.
People rarely vote for the person, or their private lives. They vote for the ideas they publicly bring to the table.
You cannot complain about the unfit nature of one candidate without viewing all candidates.
There is a thing as magnitude and degree. Everybody has skeletons in their closet, but they are not the skeletons, themselves. Obviously, Manning, Blankenship and Little cross that line and I as such will call them out. I was unaware of the Manning situation.
The value of any ideas that Blankenship and Little bring to the table are superceded by their records, which any serious voter has to take into account. I won't vote for a neo-Nazi or felon economic terrorist regardless of what they say they are going to do, or their platform.
Manning may well promote ideas that I would consider radical ever from the standpoint of the progressive left. But, if the potential GOP running mate is a Trump clone, I may be forced to look at the lesser of the two evils as you did when selecting Trump over Hillary Clinton.
The point I make is that some candidates are more unfit than others.
The issue, LtoL is about more than moral unfitness, I wonder why so many states deny parolees the right to vote but an a convicted felon is allowed to run for a Senate seat? Sorry to digress.
What boggles my mind more about Blankenship are his sins against a coal mining state. Of all the states in the union, I would have thought W. VA. would be one he'd never have a chance in.
I can just say that the power of money and its inappropriate influence in politics is overwhelming. This is just a reason why true campaign finance reform continue to elude us. As Conservative see this influence as their 'ace in the hole', a way of short circuiting the democratic process.
The "money barons" are not interested in the welfare of working people, they never have been. The fact that such a man could rise to so much prominence in a coal state like West Virginia has to give one reason to pause.
Credence, with what we now know of Hillary's behavior and influence within the DNC and the blatant attempts to circumvent campaign finance rules can you honestly slap a 'conservative' label on the problem?
Again it is a matter of degree, I think that you find more support for concept of Citizens United, money considered as "free speech", far more on Conservative side of the isle.
Also, conservatives have not really been seen as the champion of working people more than as the advocates for plutocrats and oligarchs. The clearly are of House of Lords and not the House of Commons. I don't share much in common with the "Lords".
It is not a matter of degree except in the head of one making such an argument. What that argument boils down to is.....it is a matter of how much I agree with the desired outcome of the use of such funds.
I am interested in what the money is being used for or who is being bought and influenced at the expense of the man in the street.
I haveread an article that said that there are 5 lobbyists from the finance industry/ corporate banking and Wall Street for every Senator or Representative. How much money is being thrown around, is it no surprise that Wall Street and the big money people always dodge the bullet or are never successfully reined in or made accountable? It is all found to a degree on both sides, but which side clearly states a position of always giving these folks the benefit of the doubt or a free pass?
I consider all politicians responsible for the problems with lobbying. Funny, because I firmly believe Obama, during hammering out the details for the Affordable Care Act, gave everyone a seat at that table other than the American people. He wasn't a Republican.
Conservatives do not so much give big corporations a free pass as much as they do believe in the principles of free market and capitalism. I don't always agree with things they do but I do not chalk that part up to being more corrupt than the next politician.
I thought that Obama was attempting to rein an out of control heath care industry for the American people, in the spirit of The Social Security Act or Medicare supported by earlier Presidents. But again, the difference in our perspectives is what makes you conservative and me progressive in outlook.
The unrestrained, unfettered operation of capitalism and the free-market is a problem in itself. In my opinion, everything requires a leash of some sort. You conservatives have your man and your legislatures in power, so we on the outside are not in a conciliatory mood. Is that not to be expected, 5 years ago, that was the stance of the other side? I have come to the conclusion that oil and water will never mix. We must play hard ball and defeat advocates for the Right through education and at the polls.
What do our opposing groups really have in common outside the need to maintain rule of law, popular sovereignty as part of the foundation of this republic?
The people rule here, and I am content to ultimately let them decide. But, I clearly have my point of view and duty to bring my perspective to the public forum as do you.
I'm afraid I do agree that the unrestrained, unfettered operation of capitalism and the free-market is a problem in itself. I, personally, think that capitalism is an imperfect system on a global scale and will eventually need to be replaced. But, I disagree with a lot of how the left thinks this can be accomplished.
I tend to agree, but for perhaps different reasons. When a government uses tax monies to subsidize a business, and that business operates internationally, there is a major problem in competing with it. When a government decides that their product, whether steel, cars, computers or anything else, needs a boost and applies tariffs to competing, foreign, products, there is a major problem in competing with it.
The free market will work internationally only when governments stop interfering with the process. Of course, that will leave this country dependent on that country for what it wants or needs, and that raises another problem in itself. And when it comes to labor, well, we see the result in that our own industry dies out as people go to cheaper labor for what they want. In the world today, then, the free market can only work with similar countries; when the capital from the US and labor from a third world country is behind the product we have a major problem.
Again conservatives and progressives disagree, there is some merit in what Wilderness says, when you believe in unfettered capitalism, I don't.
Watering the power of government regulatory agencies is now what the Capitalists want to do, and why?
You give the man in the street less recourse against polluters, without the law what chance do you have against the Koch Brothers and their operations when they can do what they want without challenge?
There is a natural conflict between what is in the interests of society and basic foundation of greed and exploitation that is synonymous with free wheeling Capitalism.
An interesting example, in 1986 I was driving through Michigan during a road trip. I met a man who worked for Kelloggs of Battle Creek. He told me that the corn flakes were subject to federal inspection by lot. It is true that there was the need to contain extraneous matter, rat droppings and such to a minimum. We knew, of course, that this objective could not be performed perfectly.
He said that under "market concepts" extraneous matter would be controlled only to the extent that people could visibly recognize it as such. Only then would that have an effect on sales, and have an effect on their process. Because, a more stringent standard set by their own volition cost more money. Why spend it if people can't really tell the difference?
But, we know that what you don't see can hurt you. The federal requirement raises the standard up to having a product be effectively safe without attempting to attain to an impossible standard of cleanliness.
And I agree with you. Go figure. But, even the do gooders (when they attain power) have to make choices they were against, previously.
I will say that, after working closely with the USDA in the meat industry, appearance was the last reason we had inspectors. Quality and the absence of contaminants was the focus. Contaminants defined as things which could adulterate the product and render it unsafe.
People worry too much about appearance. I was eating cereal with friends once. I found a sugar smack with a bug on it. It looked as if it realized, a moment too late, that the sugar coating phase of production had started. It made a valiant attempt at escape, only to be caught forever in a preflight pose, trapped by a clear sugar coating holding it precariously perched on the smack. We laughed hilariously, but didn't stop eating.
No one can stop some things. What the government is worried about, and conscientious corporations should also, is health and welfare of the consumers.
And I agree with you. Go figure. But, even the do gooders (when they attain power) have to make choices they were against, previously.
I think that you mentioned you were in the restaurant business once. From your perspective, do you have any idea what we take for granted on any typical trip to the grocers? Since, I don't have a bio-chemist lab at home. We just take things from the shelves without having to think about whether they are safe to eat or drink. That requires regulatory standards and regulatory agencies. Who is responsible for regulating traffic lights or making sure that when I strap in to a jet, that I do not become "spam in a can". Are we not glad for the protections these agency provide, do we really want to return to life as it was in the early 20th century as conservatives seem so fond of referring to as "the good old days?" Sweat shops, people with money being free to do whatever they like to anyone short of killing them.
A nd while there is not perfection in anything (your cereal example) wouldn't you value the protection rather than the belief of a certain conservative who seems to believe in an all or nothing scenario. If it does not work perfectly we should discard it in its entirety?
Honestly I'd say you take way too much for granted. We are poisoned, daily. Even with all the regulation. Regulations give us a false sense of security that their is some invisible Big Brother who is watching over us.
I did own a restaurant. Everything I've done, in businesses I've tried, has been predicated on the belief that serving your neighbors bears a responsibility. Monsanto doesn't live next to you. Their kids don't go to the same school as yours. If you get sick, they don't suffer,also. And the closer to home you eat, the safer the food supply. Local meat, from local growers can ensure many, many things are not present in your meal. Local produce, also.
But, we don't care. Cost is usually our bottom line litmus test to where we spend our money. And, I get that too. Those willing to spend more do so more in the spirit of enjoying that they can afford more, more so than wanting to eat healthy. I've seen some pretty disgusting things done by those who sell within the market where there is much less regulating. And, if your sales pitch is on mark, no one cares about that. Unsafe product is found locally just like in the grocery store most of us shop at.
So, let the buyer beware. You can't count on anything, anywhere. Both regulated and unregulated product has dangers. But, bottom line, of you take anything for granted, as to belief in the safety of anything you consume, you are willfully blind.
Credence, no one has ever proposed that business not be governed by laws: that "unfettered capitalism" you keep saying you can't agree with doesn't exist, cannot exist and should not exist.
But that doesn't mean that government should close a small business because their bathroom stall is 1/4" smaller than the handicap laws require. It doesn't mean that a business must remove stairs and install a ramp for the handicapped...in a location without a single job a wheelchair could perform. It doesn't mean that government gets to set prices for labor or products.
Problem is that we've gone way too far in what government demands of business. It has stifled manufacturing to the point that it is unprofitable to provide too many jobs (at no real return to the public). It is nearly impossible to open a new small business, and doubly so in anything resembling manufacturing. We tend to think of business as nothing more than a source of tax revenue and without ever considering what that business needs to earn those taxes.
There are places, in the business world, where government is either absolutely necessary or where public safety requires it rather than every citizen be responsible themselves. We don't check restaurant kitchens before eating, for instance, having delegated that task to government. But we've gone too far.
Schools are emphasizing STEAM (math, science, computers, technology) and trying to steer kids in those areas. We will see how that goes in another 20 years. They are selective in putting kids on that career path. The special ed students and those that are problems are kept off the paths and corraled into classes that won't interfere with the learning of others.
People are going to have to pursue different careers, become inventors, learn IOT (internet of things), and thing completely out of the current box.
There won't be many service industry jobs. It's interesting that houses can now be manufactured in a production facility and be better built that construction on a lot.
I would disagree that service industry jobs will disappear. We used to be a nation of generalists; everyone took care of their own needs. If your car broke down, you fixed it - now we can't even change a flat tire. If your house needed a new faucet you put it in - now we can't even smear some paint on. We can't even mow our own yards - I'd guess that a third or more of the homes around me hire that task done.
No, the service industry is growing, and growing rapidly.
And no, houses cannot be "built better" in a factory than on site. That they can be is all about cost cutting, not that "stick built" can't be built better. The materials and even the tools used on site are pretty much the same as used in a factory, and the people are just as skilled if not more so for the people outside have far more experience in far more designs/types.
macDonald's has kiosks to order and pay. Restaurants have minicomputers on tables from which you can order and pay for your food. THe only thing missing - a robot to deliver the food Robots are doing inventories. there are now apps that scan items as you place them in your basket and run a tally of what you purchase. you pay through the app and walk out the door.
What jobs are being taken over by robots and computers?
Updated: 01/24/2018 by Computer Hope
RobotFor companies looking to save money, the idea of being able to replace a human with a computer and robot that can work 24/7 with little pay, no benefits, and often faster with fewer errors is enticing. Robots can also be helpful to employees as they can easily do jobs the are repetitive, monotonous, or dangerous and leave the interesting jobs to the humans.
Over the last few years, robots and computers have made tremendous leaps in their performance and capabilities and have replaced more human jobs. Below is a full list of jobs that are have been replaced, being replaced, or being assisted by robots and computers.
Modular homes - materials not subjected to elements, quality control at every step of production
Use of Innovative Technology
As prefab homes are built in indoor factories, all the materials to be used are protected from various weather conditions. This setting also allows faster build-time, as it is usually the weather that’s responsible for certain on-site construction delays.
Since these are factory-built, prefab homes also boast of superior quality in materials. Prefab homes are now known for having a cutting-edge architecture, as well as eco-credentials.
Most prefabrication factories have in-house engineering departments that use Computer Aided Design (CAD). This particular technology allows the owner to visualize their home even before materials are measured. The use of new technologies in prefabrication also provides a higher precision in the home construction.
https://revolutionprecrafted.com/blog/w … f-housing/
I want to see where the $4.5M was distributed from Cohen's account. Follow the money!
I was wondering the SAME thing about a parolee being able to run for office. The man is unconscionable. He didn't not use proper safety measures and it caused 29 to die. I'm sure the family members, regardless of political affiliation, had to restrain themselves.
by Credence2 5 years ago
See video linkhttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/ms … 5#52776545Otherwise to recap-After watching Chris Matthews :Steve Lonegan is supposed the be the GOP standard bearer against Democrat Cory Booker for the upcoming NJ senate race. Is this just more GOP merchandize being put up for sale...
by ga anderson 2 weeks ago
In a recent interview, Joe Biden says his family wants him to run for the presidency.As a non-affiliated conservative-minded fella, I would vote for him.As a Maryland resident that had meetings with him when he was just a Delaware Representative, (beers and Elk's Club Boy Scout dinners), I would...
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Is it time to consider a coalition government?It is my opinion that neither party, Democrat or Republican, can win a national election with just their base. Both parties need some part of the Independent or undecided vote to gain an election victory.The far Left seems to think that only they know...
by mio cid 6 years ago
So the republican party is not only trying to suppress the vote of minorities,but now they have also been caught red handed trying to commit voter fraud in Florida.
by H C Palting 2 years ago
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
by Josh Ratzburg 3 years ago
How in the HELL does Donald Trump lead in the Republican primary polls?People who support him have to be trolling, right?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|