Trending red in Minnesota

Trending red in Minnesota

There are 95 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Nov 6, 2010, titled Trending red in Minnesota. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Has previously true-blue Minnesota opted for a redder shade of politics? We look at Tuesday's seismic shift in the state Legislature, and our very close gubernatorial race, and we see a lot of Republican red mixed in with shades of blended purple.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
DoveGirl

United States

#1 Nov 7, 2010
We can only hope and pray that Minnesotans will (finally) open their eyes and see the DFL for what they really are: pro big government.
The Loon

Lindstrom, MN

#2 Nov 7, 2010
I have developed a whole new, 100% orthodoxy. Under no circumstances will I give the government any more of my money. I do not care who "dies", who "suffers", who is "lying in the gutter". Governments of all levels, in all circumstances, are going to have to make do with what they have of mine. Not one penny more, no matter what. The next DFL person who wants my vote will have take a "no new taxes pledge" in order to have any chance (slim) of me trusting him or her.
here we go

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Nov 7, 2010
The Loon wrote:
I have developed a whole new, 100% orthodoxy. Under no circumstances will I give the government any more of my money. I do not care who "dies", who "suffers", who is "lying in the gutter". Governments of all levels, in all circumstances, are going to have to make do with what they have of mine. Not one penny more, no matter what. The next DFL person who wants my vote will have take a "no new taxes pledge" in order to have any chance (slim) of me trusting him or her.
Sounds like a plan, and I'm right there with you. Trouble is, when was the last time anyone in government asked to take your money? They just take it. And take it. And take it....
here we go

Saint Paul, MN

#4 Nov 7, 2010
Oh wait. Last year the state asked if they could take our money for the artists and hunters, and the good voters of MN begged them to take it.

I guess this is, afterall, still Minnesota.
Duh

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Nov 7, 2010
That is one moronic editorial. Can't you say something interesting, or is that beyond your scope?
Common Sense

Las Vegas, NV

#6 Nov 7, 2010
I think deep down most Minnesota people know that sometimes Government is the best way to make things better, and sometimes the free market is best. They know that education is extremely important and they share the cost. They know that many big businesses in the state cherish our educated workforce, and that more than balances the taxes thay pay. Except for the Bachmann area of the state,(but just 55%) people are quite filled with common sense. That bluish tint is always there regardless of the ever swaying votes. We should be very proud of that. It makes us special.
Big Brother

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Nov 7, 2010
The Loon wrote:
I have developed a whole new, 100% orthodoxy. Under no circumstances will I give the government any more of my money. I do not care who "dies", who "suffers", who is "lying in the gutter". Governments of all levels, in all circumstances, are going to have to make do with what they have of mine. Not one penny more, no matter what. The next DFL person who wants my vote will have take a "no new taxes pledge" in order to have any chance (slim) of me trusting him or her.
Sorry buddy, but you ain't got much choice paying various taxes. If you don't pay up, the Government will find out someday (they always do) and come after you. Then believe me, you'll pay and pay big!
Hypocrites R Us

Minneapolis, MN

#8 Nov 7, 2010
The Loon wrote:
I have developed a whole new, 100% orthodoxy. Under no circumstances will I give the government any more of my money. I do not care who "dies", who "suffers", who is "lying in the gutter". Governments of all levels, in all circumstances, are going to have to make do with what they have of mine. Not one penny more, no matter what. The next DFL person who wants my vote will have take a "no new taxes pledge" in order to have any chance (slim) of me trusting him or her.
So are you just against paying taxes that are used for social programs, i.e. welfare, or are you against ALL taxes? Where do you think the money comes from for our roads, bridges, police and fire, etc., etc.? I'm sure you use these things too. People such as yourself, seem to think that the majority of their taxes are going to the stereotypical Baby Mama's with multiple kids by multiple fathers and that's just not true. Of course some of our tax dollars go for social programs but the majority of them do not. Just look at how much our two wars have cost us and are still costing us. It says allot about your character when you post such ignorant, selfish comments like this. As long as you get yours, everyone else can just go to h/e/l/l is your attitude and that's just sad.
The Loon

Lindstrom, MN

#9 Nov 7, 2010
Big Brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry buddy, but you ain't got much choice paying various taxes. If you don't pay up, the Government will find out someday (they always do) and come after you. Then believe me, you'll pay and pay big!
If you knew money you would know that what you wrote is not true in many, many cases. We are free to make decisions in our lives that influence the legal ways we pay or do not pay taxes. For example, we now buy many things on line to avoid sales taxes. We have drastically lowered our income so as to lower the taxes we need to pay. We have moved money from earning income (and being taxed again on those new earnings) to spending the money on tangible assets. The list is nearly endless. We have cut our taxes by over one half in the last four years.

But, my point was simpler than that. I do not want your government services and I will pay no more no matter how you vote. You can not have any more of the wealth that I have given you by being a good, taxpaying, legal resident.
The Loon

Lindstrom, MN

#10 Nov 7, 2010
Hypocrites R Us wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you just against paying taxes that are used for social programs, i.e. welfare, or are you against ALL taxes? Where do you think the money comes from for our roads, bridges, police and fire, etc., etc.? I'm sure you use these things too. People such as yourself, seem to think that the majority of their taxes are going to the stereotypical Baby Mama's with multiple kids by multiple fathers and that's just not true. Of course some of our tax dollars go for social programs but the majority of them do not. Just look at how much our two wars have cost us and are still costing us. It says allot about your character when you post such ignorant, selfish comments like this. As long as you get yours, everyone else can just go to h/e/l/l is your attitude and that's just sad.
Perhaps if you had learned to read you would have better understood my message. The word "more" means additional, extra, plus, etc. And yes, I do believe you and your ilk can waste my money faster than I can. No matter what you say or do, I will not give you more. Get your hands out of my pockets. Do not like that? Too bad. I would rather burn my money than give you more. It is mine, I earned it and saved it.

As to your last comment, I do agree with you. Go out and earn your own money. I owe you and yours nothing, zero, above what I have paid for the fifty plus years I have been paying taxes. I will give you no "more" (see above). Now, go ahead and die in the gutter if that is what you want to do. Please.
Hah

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Nov 7, 2010
The Loon wrote:
I have developed a whole new, 100% orthodoxy. Under no circumstances will I give the government any more of my money. I do not care who "dies", who "suffers", who is "lying in the gutter". Governments of all levels, in all circumstances, are going to have to make do with what they have of mine. Not one penny more, no matter what. The next DFL person who wants my vote will have take a "no new taxes pledge" in order to have any chance (slim) of me trusting him or her.
Like you've ever voted for a democrat anyway
here we go

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Nov 7, 2010
Hypocrites R Us wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you just against paying taxes that are used for social programs, i.e. welfare, or are you against ALL taxes? Where do you think the money comes from for our roads, bridges, police and fire, etc., etc.? I'm sure you use these things too. People such as yourself, seem to think that the majority of their taxes are going to the stereotypical Baby Mama's with multiple kids by multiple fathers and that's just not true. Of course some of our tax dollars go for social programs but the majority of them do not. Just look at how much our two wars have cost us and are still costing us. It says allot about your character when you post such ignorant, selfish comments like this. As long as you get yours, everyone else can just go to h/e/l/l is your attitude and that's just sad.
Ya just gotta love a lib. When one says we pay enough taxes, a lib turns around and says conservatives don't want taxes to pay for fire and rescue, police, roads, and schools and spout off how greedy and selfish the conservatives are. Is there never any middle ground with a lib?

Clearly, taxes are needed and most of us are willing to pay for services needed to maintain safety, education and transportation. What's overlooked by pillow biting hand wringers such as yourself is we're tired of the waste involved with our hard earned money, and yes, that includes the waste in social programs. IT'S NOT your money! We earned it; it's ours. And we have our own food to buy, we pay for our own roof over our heads, and we have our own families to raise.

It says a lot (not allot) about YOUR character when you post such ignorant and selfish comments. When you whine and moan because you aren't getting enough of my money,when you already take more than you deserve, who exactly is the greedy one in this argument?
Print More Money

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Nov 7, 2010
Indebted states stay blue. Do they hope to be bailed out?

Thirteen Democrat candidates for the United States Senate won on Tuesday. Ten of them were from the eleven most indebted states in the union. Not one state in those eleven elected anyone but a Democrat. Those eleven states are, with their per capita debt in parentheses, in order:
Connecticut ($4,490)

Massachusetts ($4,323),

Hawaii ($3,675),

New Jersey ($3,621),

New York ($2,981),

Delaware ($2,128),

Washington ($2,087),

Illinois ($1,877),

Rhode Island ($1,812),

California ($1,805).

and Oregon ($1,606).

(Rhode Island and New Jersey didn't elect any senators; New York elected two Democrats.)

The Democratic success runs far deeper than the U.S. Senate races. Although Republicans could make marginal gains in Oregon and New York, not one legislative chamber in any of those eleven states is controlled by Republicans. And whereas the rest of the Union replaced almost 700 Democrat legislators with Republicans, any Republican gains in these states were mostly quite modest; Hawaii, in fact, now has but a single Republican legislator in its upper chamber.

It might be easy to write these eleven states off as hopelessly liberal, but Minnesota had massive Democrat majorities going into last Tuesday, yet now has Republican majorities in both chambers. And that state has never in my lifetime voted for a Republican presidential candidate... not even Ronald Reagan! So what separates these states from Minnesota? It's not demographics. It's not income levels, demographics or unemployment. It's debt.

So why would the states that are on the verge of insolvency due to their debt crises keep electing the same people who drove them into such debt? One frightening yet simple answer leaps to mind: they expect us to pay for it.

A state couldn't really go bankrupt. The United States government, headed by the Obama administration couldn't possibly allow that to happen, right? That must be what they're thinking: why make the difficult spending cuts when Uncle Sam will always bail you out, right?

----------

If a state demands a federal bailout, there should be a price. Because the voters of the state have proven that they are not ready for republican self-government, Congress should invoke Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where the federal government guarantees the states a republican government.

The state should lose its statehood and be demoted to territorial status.
Its senators and congressmen should be expelled from Congress.
Its governor, legislature and judges should be fired and replaced by traditional territorial governance from Washington.
The federal government should call a constitutional convention for the territory, or perhaps split the territory into more governable units and have each new territory hold a constiutuional convention.
From there the usual procedures would be followed in admitting new states.

Hmmmm

La Grange, IL

#14 Nov 7, 2010
So you're saying the Federal Government is going to take money from the fiscally responsible states and give it the the liberal states.

Isn't that how LGA works?
Middle of da Swing

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Nov 7, 2010
The Tea Party is made up of a bunch of overly excited, half-rationale people.

The Dems will be BACK in 2012, taking BACK the state of MN, taking BACK the US House and putting Obama BACK in for 4 more Glorious years.

The pendulum swang to the Reptile Party this cycle and will swing back to the Righteous side, in 2012.
Abe

Wickenburg, AZ

#16 Nov 7, 2010
Your pain is evident, PP!
Lewis Sinclair

Burnsville, MN

#17 Nov 8, 2010
Duh wrote:
That is one moronic editorial. Can't you say something interesting, or is that beyond your scope?
I take it you don't read this page very often.
x-nutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#18 Nov 8, 2010
Middle of da Swing wrote:
The Tea Party is made up of a bunch of overly excited, half-rationale people.
The Dems will be BACK in 2012, taking BACK the state of MN, taking BACK the US House and putting Obama BACK in for 4 more Glorious years.
The pendulum swang to the Reptile Party this cycle and will swing back to the Righteous side, in 2012.
So an example of half-rationality is balancing a budget ?

So an example of half-rationality means you are againist crony capitalism ?

So an example of half-rationality is basing laws within the framework of the U.S. Constitution ?

How many Tea Party meetings have you been to ?
Neek

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Nov 8, 2010
After the election...I still have some hope in the people of MN!
Finally, most are realizing the Government is not the solution but it is the problem!
Government...wastes taxpayer dollars and then tries to raise taxes...so they can pad their pockets and create more "social programs"?!?!!?
Maybe, we should try to import more immigrants to help our state?!?!?
What a joke!?!?!?
Wake up Liberals...MN hates you and your government loving attitude!
Less...much less Government is better Government!!!
Rice St

Minneapolis, MN

#20 Nov 8, 2010
Print More Money wrote:
Indebted states stay blue. Do they hope to be bailed out?
Thirteen Democrat candidates for the United States Senate won on Tuesday. Ten of them were from the eleven most indebted states in the union. Not one state in those eleven elected anyone but a Democrat. Those eleven states are, with their per capita debt in parentheses, in order:
Connecticut ($4,490)
Massachusetts ($4,323),
Hawaii ($3,675),
New Jersey ($3,621),
New York ($2,981),
Delaware ($2,128),
Washington ($2,087),
Illinois ($1,877),
Rhode Island ($1,812),
California ($1,805).
and Oregon ($1,606).
(Rhode Island and New Jersey didn't elect any senators; New York elected two Democrats.)
The Democratic success runs far deeper than the U.S. Senate races. Although Republicans could make marginal gains in Oregon and New York, not one legislative chamber in any of those eleven states is controlled by Republicans. And whereas the rest of the Union replaced almost 700 Democrat legislators with Republicans, any Republican gains in these states were mostly quite modest; Hawaii, in fact, now has but a single Republican legislator in its upper chamber.
It might be easy to write these eleven states off as hopelessly liberal, but Minnesota had massive Democrat majorities going into last Tuesday, yet now has Republican majorities in both chambers. And that state has never in my lifetime voted for a Republican presidential candidate... not even Ronald Reagan! So what separates these states from Minnesota? It's not demographics. It's not income levels, demographics or unemployment. It's debt.
So why would the states that are on the verge of insolvency due to their debt crises keep electing the same people who drove them into such debt? One frightening yet simple answer leaps to mind: they expect us to pay for it.
A state couldn't really go bankrupt. The United States government, headed by the Obama administration couldn't possibly allow that to happen, right? That must be what they're thinking: why make the difficult spending cuts when Uncle Sam will always bail you out, right?
----------
If a state demands a federal bailout, there should be a price. Because the voters of the state have proven that they are not ready for republican self-government, Congress should invoke Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where the federal government guarantees the states a republican government.
The state should lose its statehood and be demoted to territorial status.
Its senators and congressmen should be expelled from Congress.
Its governor, legislature and judges should be fired and replaced by traditional territorial governance from Washington.
The federal government should call a constitutional convention for the territory, or perhaps split the territory into more governable units and have each new territory hold a constiutuional convention.
From there the usual procedures would be followed in admitting new states.
Nice, You get an A+ I love people that have the ability to THINK!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mark Kennedy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kennedy Pushing Funeral Protests Amendment (Mar '06) Sep '14 swedenforever 5
News Ex-RI Rep. Kennedy lobbies against legal marijuana (Jan '13) Jan '13 Sheik Yerbouti 1
News Ex-RI Rep. Kennedy lobbies against legal marijuana (Jan '13) Jan '13 Sheik Yerbouti 1
News Gov. Robert Bentley: 'I would have voted agains... (Jan '13) Jan '13 KILLERS 1
News Pat Shortridge elected new chair of Minnesota R... (Jan '12) Jan '12 DENG 1
News Alabama senator apologizes for 'aborigines' rem... (Sep '11) Sep '11 Village Mystery 1
News Minn. GOP desperately seeking strong Klobuchar foe (Aug '11) Aug '11 jack 2
More from around the web