November 1-3, 2018
Nov 01 01:39 Dave Masters' campaign manager speaks out -- against Masters Nov 01 02:36 The DFL's health care proposal, Part I Nov 01 03:22 The DFL's health care proposal, Part II Nov 01 08:12 The DFL's health care solution? Nov 01 09:08 Why politicians aren't economists Nov 02 02:39 WJON debate: Brandmire vs. Libert Nov 02 08:43 Donald Trump's genius Nov 03 11:16 Tim Walz, the dishonest candidate Nov 03 20:05 Skip Humphrey, Walter Mondale disgrace themselves for Ellison
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Dave Masters' campaign manager speaks out -- against Masters
In 2014, Dave Steckling was Dave Masters' campaign manager. The times have definitely changed since then. This evening, the St. Cloud Times published Mr. Steckling's LTE , which endorses Dr. John Palmer, Masters' opponent.
In his LTE, Steckling wrote "Two years ago I was campaign manager for Dave Masters' St. Cloud City Council re-election. Masters says his primary council job is 'public safety - what a joke. His lackadaisical attitude the past 11 years has done nothing to solve the serious problems facing our city; yet he continues to utter useless dialogue at council meetings. I no longer feel safe to walk downtown or in certain neighborhoods, or to drive certain streets. For a fresh, much-needed change we welcome John Palmer. Palmer comes fully qualified to sit on this council."
First, Masters is an empty suit. When Liz Baklaich handed out hats that had a logo on them, Masters took offense. What did the logo say that so offended Masters? "Make St. Cloud Great Again." Masters' complaint? "St. Cloud is already great." Right.
Electrolux is leaving. Herbergers has shut down. The neighborhood west and south of Tech High School isn't safe. More properties are being turned into rental properties each year as the middle class abandon St. Cloud. That isn't the average middle class voter's picture of living the American Dream.
Frankly, that isn't the portrait of a thriving city. That's the portrait of a city that needs new leadership. I've spoken with friends of mine who live in the First Ward. They've told me that there's a 2-tier system in the First. The people living near Lake George get treated like royalty. The people who don't live near Lake George don't get treated very well by Masters.
If you believe that everyone is entitled to being treated respectfully, voting for John Palmer is your only option.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2018 1:39 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 01-Nov-18 09:06 AM
Dave Masters has been on the council far too long. He repeatedly states, 'I feel...' What matters is what WE THE PEOPLE he represents feels and thinks. Masters also squelched conversation about refugee resettlement by calling the question for an immediate vote on Council member Johnson's moratorium in which he was ambushed. Masters continues to vote against any council study session topics on resettlement. This isn't representative government...it's a dictatorship. Clearly, John Palmer understands Robert's Rules of Order and finance. Masters does not. We will soon find out if St. Cloud voters want business as usual or change.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=22600
Comment 2 by Dave steckling at 01-Nov-18 11:06 AM
Thank you Gary for your support of John Palmer. As the best qualified candidate he gets a 10 whereas Masters rates a zero.
Comment 3 by Steve at 01-Nov-18 04:39 PM
The LTE writer said that he didn't feel safe in downtown St Cloud anymore.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a resident but I come up there enough times a year that I haven't seen anything wrong with the downtown. To me, it looks like new businesses are coming into St Germain. I didn't see a lot of scuzzy or dangerous looking people hanging around.
Yeah sure there's gotta be the occasional problem(s) with drunken or belligerent SCSU students - but that's always been the norm, right?
Maybe the writer is seeing something that I can't. After all, he lives up there. But IMHO, it doesn't seem that bad to me - even in the evening.
Comment 4 by Dave Steckling at 01-Nov-18 08:16 PM
Steve- ask any cop in St. Cloud if the city has changed in the past 12 years. Turn on a police scanner and hear what's happening from time to time. Drive by shootings, muggings, rapes in the college area, attendance at SCSU down 5000 students in 8 years, terroristic stabbings at Crossroads Mall, 1690 students leaving Tech High because of racial problems, etc. Dave Masters has done NOTHING to address these problems in the last 11 years and it's time someone with guts and good ideas takes his place. That man is my friend John Palmer.
The DFL's health care proposal, Part I
This legislation stands in opposition to the Minnesota Constitution. The Minnesota Constitution proclaims that all political power is inherent in the people. It provides for the regular election of public officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial divisions. It is democratic and good that legislators and the governor are accountable to the people at the next election.This fall, the DFL has run ad after ad trying to scare people into not voting for Republicans because, allegedly, Republicans want to deny people with pre-existing conditions health insurance. In the DFL's ads, they try frightening people into thinking that Republicans will deny people coverage, which is a lie. What's frightening is the DFL's Minnesota Health Plan .
The Minnesota Health Plan has a lengthy list of benefits, including "inpatient and outpatient health facility services; (2) inpatient and outpatient professional health care provider services; (3) diagnostic imaging, laboratory services, and other diagnostic and evaluative services; (4) medical equipment, appliances, and assistive technology, including prosthetics, eyeglasses, and hearing aids, their repair, technical support, and customization needed for individual use; (5) inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care; (6) emergency care services; (7) emergency transportation; (8) necessary transportation for health care services for persons with disabilities or who may qualify as low income; (9) child and adult immunizations and preventive care; (10) health and wellness education; (11) hospice care; (12) care in a skilled nursing facility; (13) home health care including health care provided in an assisted living facility; (14) mental health services; (15) substance abuse treatment; (16) dental care; (17) vision care; (18) hearing care; (19) prescription drugs; (20) podiatric care; (21) chiropractic care; (22) acupuncture; (23) therapies which are shown by the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health to be safe and effective; (24) blood and blood products; (25) dialysis; (26) adult day care; (27) rehabilitative and habilitative services; (28) ancillary health care or social services previously covered by Minnesota's public
health programs; (29) case management and care coordination; (30) language interpretation and translation for health care services, including sign language and Braille or other services needed for individuals with communication barriers; and (31) those health care and long-term supportive services currently covered under Minnesota Statutes 2016, chapter 256B, for persons on medical assistance, including home and community-based waivered services under chapter 256B."
Prof. John Spry wrote this article about the Minnesota Health Plan. FYI- Prof. Spry is considered by may to be the best tax economist in Minnesota. He's served on tax reform boards in the past. Here's what Prof. Spry wrote about the MHP:
Minnesota Democrats have a plan to create a statewide single-payer health plan funded with state taxes, without lawmakers voting for tax hikes. Minnesota Democrats' legislation would give an appointed Minnesota Health Board the unlimited power to tax. This unelected board would run the entire health care system in Minnesota with both tax and spending authority. This unelected board would enact the massive tax hikes that Democratic legislators are unwilling to support publicly.
Article IV deals with the Plan's funding. Here's the language from the actual bill:
Subdivision 1. General provisions. (a) The board shall establish a Minnesota Health Fund to implement the Minnesota Health Plan and to receive premiums and other sources of revenue. The fund shall be administered by a director appointed by the Minnesota Health Board.
(b) All money collected, received, and transferred according to this chapter shall be deposited in the Minnesota Health Fund.
(c) Money deposited in the Minnesota Health Fund shall be used to finance the Minnesota Health Plan.
(d) All claims for health care services rendered shall be made to the Minnesota Health Fund.
(e) All payments made for health care services shall be disbursed from the Minnesota Health Fund.
(f) Premiums and other revenues collected each year must be sufficient to cover that year's projected costs .
In other words, if the premiums and other revenues aren't sufficient "to cover that year's projected costs", the unelected board has the authority to raise taxes to cover that year's projected costs. According to this bill's language, they don't need to go to the legislature to raise taxes. This panel would have the authority to raise taxes on its own! Think about that a minute.
Prof. Spry then said this:
This legislation stands in opposition to the Minnesota Constitution. The Minnesota Constitution proclaims that all political power is inherent in the people. It provides for the regular election of public officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial divisions. It is democratic and good that legislators and the governor are accountable to the people at the next election.
More on this in Part II.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2018 7:23 AM
No comments.
The DFL's health care proposal, Part II
Prof. John Spry's op-ed talks about the DFL's Minnesota Health Plan . In Part I of this series, I highlighted the fact that this bill, if passed and signed into law, would have the authority to raise taxes unilaterally:
(f) Premiums and other revenues collected each year must be sufficient to cover that year's projected costs .
Prof. Spry then notes this:
The Democrats' legislation says that regional health boards would select eight members of the new Minnesota Health Board. The first eight members selected by regional health boards would then appoint seven additional members who would have to be members of specified health care interest groups. These 15 appointees would never be accountable to the voters at a ballot box. They would have control over life and death decisions for every Minnesotan.
This bill provides for a lengthy list of 'benefits' for Minnesotans. See Part I for the benefits. The DFL doesn't hesitate in telling Minnesotans that they have to buy expensive health care plans. This is especially unfair to young healthy people. Why do they need policies with 31 different coverages?
Prof. Spry then writes:
Americans have proudly rejected authoritarian rule by unelected officials. Our Revolutionary patriots proclaimed "No Taxation without Representation." In that American tradition, the Minnesota Constitution gives the power of taxation to an elected Legislature. It further requires that this "power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away." It is democratic to never let the elected Legislature surrender its power of taxation to an unelected Minnesota Health Board.
The thing that must be noted is that this takes virtually all decision-making out of the hands of families (in terms of what policies they want to purchase) and the legislature (in terms of taxation.) There is nothing democratic about the DFL's bill. The DFL's legislation is more fascistic than democratic.
That's why it must be immediately rejected. Prof. Spry then asks this important question:
Why do Minnesota Democrats want to give the power to tax and spend to the appointed members of the Minnesota Health Board?
Then he provides their answer:
They explain at the marketing website for the single-payer Minnesota Health Plan (MHP):
"The Legislature and Governor would have no authority over the MHP revenues. This is necessary in order to prevent the use of MHP premiums to balance the state budget, and would also prevent politicians from starving the health plan of needed funds, a problem that occurs in some of the countries where politicians are responsible for funding their national health plans."
In other words, they don't want accountable people exercising control over their health care plan.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:22 AM
No comments.
The DFL's health care solution?
Special thanks to Prof. John A. Spry for writing this op-ed that highlights the constitutional weaknesses of the DFL's health care legislation.
First things first: the bill being proposed by the DFL is HF358. The text of the bill, known as the Minnesota Health Plan, is found here . What's interesting is the bill's funding mechanism, which is explained "at the marketing website for the MHP." It says "The Legislature and Governor would have no authority over the MHP revenues. This is necessary in order to prevent the use of MHP premiums to balance the state budget and would also prevent politicians from starving the health plan of needed funds, a problem that occurs in some of the countries where politicians are responsible for funding their national health plans."
It isn't surprising that Prof. Spry notes this:
The advocates of the Minnesota Health Plan want to take away your current health insurance and replace it with the health insurance the unelected government board decides you will have. They even want to take away your right to vote for the people who will make these decisions.
The single-payer Minnesota Health Plan puts health care decisions in the hands of people who are never accountable to the people at the ballot box. That is a terrible way to run a government.
If this is the DFL's health care 'solution', then that's proof that the DFL doesn't care about We The People. It's proof that they care most about bureaucracies and unaccountability.
The DFL's single-payer health care solution creates more problems than it solves. On top of that, its funding mechanism is unconstitutional. Rather than the DFL scrapping the bill, I'd rather just scrap the DFL this Election Day.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2018 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by ERIC Z at 09-Nov-18 11:50 AM
SINGLE PAYER. Why pay more? For less.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 09-Nov-18 05:55 PM
I really hope you get your wish and then get to see friends and family suffer because they can't get the medical attention they need because the government deems you are no longer worth spending money on to keep alive. Maybe they'll get that magic pill that the lying dipshit Obama talked about while shoving Obamacare down our throats. Those who look to the government for something for nothing will get nothing. Continually amazes me that progressives believe government is the answer to the problems created by the government.
Why politicians aren't economists
This MPR article highlights what happens when politicians dabble in economics.
The article starts by interviewing a couple of business owners about the effect that the Trump/GOP tax cuts have had. Ultra Machining president Eric Gibson told MPR that he's happy for the tax cuts, saying "From a business owner perspective, we've got a lot of great things going on right now. From a tax perspective, as an example, a lot of what we can reinvest in the business is from those tax reductions."
At Yeager Machine in Norwood Young America, company president Mike Yeager said "I like what the Republicans and President Trump have done for me personally and my business. I will vote for people that support the current administration's policies."
Rather than listening to her constituents, Tina Smith thinks that she knows better, saying this:
"It doesn't feel like a difficult position to me." Smith said she would not have voted for the bill because it showers wealthy people with tax breaks at the expense of the middle class and will add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.
"It's not like that money was sitting in a bank somewhere waiting to be passed out. That's money that we borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. I do not think that's responsible." Smith said increasing investment in workforce training and innovation would help more people get ahead.
How stupid is that? Tina Smith wants the government to "invest" our taxes in government workers because : government has such a great track record of "workforce training and innovation"? Let's get a little serious. Then there's this:
President Trump inherited a growing economy, and the tax cut has helped sustain the growth, said College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University economics professor Louis Johnston.
Technically, the economy was growing but it was the worst growth rate during a recovery in 75 years. The average annual growth rate during the Obama years was 1.9%. That's pathetic. Since President Trump got rid of President Obama's policies, the economy has been growing at a 4% average annual growth rate.
Republican Karin Housley (right) is a big fan of the Republican tax cut and is convinced that campaigning on it will help her win. Democrat Tina Smith said she's not a fan because it showers wealthy people with tax breaks at the expense of the middle class. Mark Zdechlik | MPR News
Also, wages are rising during the Trump administration. They were stagnant during the Obama administration. Finally, small business confidence, which had been trending downward during President Obama's second term, are skyrocketing under President Trump's administration.
This is why leftists like Tina Smith and Prof. Johnston aren't qualified to be economists.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2018 9:08 AM
No comments.
WJON debate: Brandmire vs. Libert
WJON's debate featuring incumbent John Libert and challenger Paul Brandmire was quite instructive. It exposed Libert as being mean-spirited and willing to attack people who weren't there to defend themselves. Here's what happened.
During the debate, Mr. Brandmire said that he didn't like how the Council treated Jeff Johnson when he proposed his moratorium resolution. Mr. Libert replied by saying that Councilman Johnson's resolution was a PR stunt. Attacking someone who isn't there to defend themselves is just mean-spirited. Further, Mr. Libert isn't even close to the truth.
I'll stipulate that Councilman Johnson wanted to highlight the fact that the governmental agencies involved in the refugee resettlement program were about as transparent as a piece of granite. At the local level, I'd hope that people would put a high priority in transparency. Lutheran Social Services, aka LSS, the school district and the county haven't told us what the resettlement program is costing us in increased taxes. Here's Part I of the Libert-Brandmire debate:
[Video no longer available]
Libert actually said "The moratorium was actually a publicity stunt by Mr. Johnson, plain and simple, because we've had 12 attorneys look at what he was trying to do and it was illegal and unconstitutional and all it would do is give the city of St. Cloud a reputation of being a hatred, racist community and it didn't make any sense to do it."
First, calling a resolution illegal and unconstitutional is BS. I'd love hearing Mr. Libert's explanation telling me what part of the Constitution Councilman Johnson's resolution violates. Further, Councilman Johnson notified the Council that he'd bring up the resolution at a future City Council meeting as new business. There's nothing improper about that. Third, Councilman Goerger's resolution was brought up for the first time the night it was voted on. It was an ambush. Period. People weren't given the opportunity to read Councilman Goerger's resolution.
Thanks to Councilman Masters calling the question, discussion of Councilman Goerger's resolution was extremely limited. Clearly, the Council didn't want to discuss the issue. That's proof that Councilman Johnson's criticism that this wasn't a transparent process was accurate.
Frankly, Libert is a spineless politician who doesn't have an ounce of integrity. It's time to fire him next Tuesday.
Posted Friday, November 2, 2018 2:39 AM
No comments.
Donald Trump's genius
This article outlines President Trump's positions on the major issues.
- People know the president said he would move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - and he did.
- President Trump said would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico - and he did.
- Trump stands for lower taxes, stronger law enforcement, cutting government regulation and eliminating red tape.
- The president thinks the Federal Reserve shouldn't raise interest rates as fast as it is or it will cause a recession.
If you think about it, you probably know President Trump's positions on almost every major issue. And obviously, he has doubled down on immigration as the make-or-break issue for him and his party. Then we're treated to some criticism of Democrats:
What exactly does Barack Obama stand for ? Bernie Sanders at least has free college as an idea you can remember, albeit vague. What about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.?
Other than investigations and impeachment, what are the Democrats running on? They have made an issue of health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions. Trump has said he too would cover them. The Democratic idea is not a health-care plan, but an attack. Nor do Democrats have an economic plan many people can remember. Nor a plan on immigration. Nor a plan to deal with jobs migrating to China and Mexico.
Republicans in swing districts should spend the last few days constantly asking these questions. It isn't because they'll flip hard-core Democrats. The goal should be to excite and entice independent voters to vote.
If I asked who made these comments, who would you bet made them? Karl Rove? These criticisms weren't made by Rove or any other Republican. They were made by Mark Penn, Clinton's old pollster. Here's how he finished out the article:
It looks like the Democrats will likely win majority control of the House in the midterm elections. So the battle of insults vs. issues may be moot in today's rough-and-tumble politics. But if the Republicans win more seats in the Senate, that will be a victory compared to what happened in 1994 or 2010.
As surprising as it was in 2016, there's only one candidate really running on detailed issue positions and he is not even on the ballot this year. Given how the presidential election turned out, it's all the more surprising that the Democrats would again leave themselves open on the ideas front. Voters want progress, not just partisanship.
Frankly, I'm skeptical of the Democrats winning the House. Still, while I disagree with Penn on that prediction, I wholeheartedly agree with him when he says "voters want progress, not just partisanship." I'd also add that nonpartisans see something in Trump that Democrats don't see. It isn't that nonpartisans think he's a nice guy that they want their son to emulate. It's that they appreciate the things he's accomplished.
Posted Friday, November 2, 2018 8:43 AM
No comments.
Tim Walz, the dishonest candidate
Friday night, Tim Walz tried being the 'I'm all things to all people' candidate during his debate with Jeff Johnson on Almanac. On one of the first questions, Walz talked about single-payer health care being where most people finally arrive at. Then Walz went into a long-winded spiel about how preventive care drives down health insurance premiums, which is why we need single-payer.
That's BS. What drives up premiums is aging. As we get older, we reach our high-use years. Preventive care is a worthwhile thing to do because, theoretically, it keeps us healthier longer. Still, it doesn't drive down health insurance premiums. Then Walz totally stepped in it, saying "everyone knows that there's no plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions unless you have the ACA in place."
Johnson jumped in at that point, saying "That's utterly ridiculous. We did it for 30 years in Minnesota before the ACA and we did it better before the ACA. But let's be honest about what single-payer is. Single-payer means that everybody loses their insurance. There is no private insurance and we're all forced onto one government plan."
That's true. I wrote about the DFL's single-payer bill in this post . That bill has 31 coverage requirements for each policy. Think of it this way. It's the ACA except that it's totally run by bureaucrats. After the rollout disaster of the ACA, that can't sound appealing.
Next subject up was immigration. Mr. Walz went first, saying this:
I spent 24 years on national security and numerous trips to the border to actually witness how we do security in-depth and how we do it electronically and with surveillance. Every sovereign nation has the right and the need to control its borders but the issue is about stoking fear and telling us we're not stronger because of immigration. It doesn't matter what your plans are. The next governor of Minnesota must have the capacity to bring people together to solve problems. Immigration has always been an issue that has bound us together and what we see is this fear of telling people that they are in danger instead of coming up with real solid plans like comprehensive immigration reform that passed in the Senate but was never heard in the House.
Notice that Walz criticized President Trump, criticized House Republicans, tossed out the Democrats' favorite go-to phrase on immigration but didn't actually tell the moderators whether he'd advocate for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state. Eventually, Walz admitted that he's for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state before lying about what a sanctuary state or city is.
Jeff Johnson immediately highlighted the fact that "there are only -- what -- 5-6 states in the nation that are sanctuary states in the country. We'd be the only one in the upper Midwest and what that means is that we would prohibit our law enforcement officers from cooperating with law enforcement from the federal government in any way."
Walz denied that description, insisting that violent felons would go to prison. That isn't at question. What's at question is what state law enforcement officials would be allowed to do when these violent felons are released from prison.
After hearing Walz insist that Republicans have been stoking fear amongst citizens on immigration, I'd love hearing how Tim Walz would "bring people together to solve problems."
At other points in the debate, Walz's answers were more word salad than serious policy prescription. At one point, I hit pause on the DVR and told my roommate that "this guy is 'The Babbler'."
I highly recommend you watch the entire debate. Tim Walz was all over the place. Jeff Johnson's answers were short, concise and actually fixed problems.
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2018 11:16 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 03-Nov-18 02:26 PM
Walz will become governor for no other reason than people will believe his lies and don't like the truth Johnson is telling. That and too many people are willing to believe they are going to get something for nothing.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 05-Nov-18 08:34 PM
I remember when HMO's first came to Minnesota, with the same promise that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. Once again, Dr. Thomas Sowell's scenario ("Vision of the Annointed") played out.
The proponents promised wonderful benefit A. The critics predicted awful result X. HMO's were adopted, and sure enough, we got X. Enhanced prevention simply does not preclude later spending, as even Democrats admitted some years later.
To dutifully comply with Sowell's final phase, the Democrats explained how health care is actually quite complicated and that however bad it turned out, the outcome was still better than without the HMO's.
Back then, this was almost funny. All we really lost was money with HMO's. But now we're starting to lose lives.
Comment 3 by eric z at 07-Nov-18 07:02 AM
Elections are over. Time to govern. If you post a dump on Pelosi, I will not post a comment in disagreement. A fresh speaker would do nicely.
Ryan's gone. Good news abounds.
Skip Humphrey, Walter Mondale disgrace themselves for Ellison
It's amazing that 2 men with legitimate legacies would throw them away for a politician like Keith Ellison. Still, that's precisely what Skip Humphrey and Walter Mondale did in this counterpoint op-ed .
It proves beyond a doubt that there aren't any moderates left in the DFL. Humphrey and Mondale open their counterpoint op-ed by saying "The Star Tribune Editorial Board erred in its decision not to endorse in the Minnesota attorney general's race ('Two deeply flawed AG candidates,' Nov. 2). As two former Minnesota attorneys general, we can say with confidence that Keith Ellison is well-prepared to fulfill the important duties of this essential constitutional office and is the only reasonable choice for Minnesota voters in this election."
Here's a question for Mssrs. Humphrey and Mondale: What makes Ellison "well-prepared"? His frequent support for cop-killers?
[Video no longer available]
Keith Ellison has always told Minnesotans exactly where he stands, and has acted on his word. He has been a strong advocate for equal opportunity and justice for all in Congress. He has the legal experience necessary to lead this public interest law firm. Over a 16-year career of civil rights and defense law, Ellison headed the state's premier nonprofit public defense organization, the Legal Rights Center, for five years. He has real experience trying dozens of cases before the court and juries, experience that Mr. Wardlow lacks. Keith Ellison has the right priorities for the office, pledging to protect consumers and workers, and to enforce Minnesota's strong civil rights laws to protect the rights of all.
Mssrs. Humphrey and Mondale, is it a Minnesota priority to file lawsuit after lawsuit against the federal government because you disagree with a president? Mssrs. Humphrey and Mondale, is it a Minnesota priority to support cop-killers like Assata Shakur and Sharif Willis? Mssrs. Humphrey and Mondale, is it a Minnesota priority to you to support a man credibly accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend?
As far as I'm concerned, Mssrs. Humphrey and Mondale are just typical politicians who put the DFL first and Minnesota last. How disgraceful.
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2018 8:05 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Nov-18 10:50 AM
All that matters to democrats is power so they'll do and say anything to get and retain that power no matter the candidate. I'm not sure what the democrats would have to do for their loyal minions to stop blindly following this morally and ethically bankrupt party.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Nov-18 06:59 AM
Wardlow now can go back to his hate group.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-18 10:19 PM
If the SPLC is the determiner of who's a hate group, I'll proudly call myself a hater. The SPLC is a despicable, unprincipled, organization. They've essentially labeled anyone who believes in the Bible a hate group.
I hope Ellison is quickly exposed as the hater he's always been. If the DFL wants to continue defending that dirtbag, then I hope for their quick demise.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 07-Nov-18 05:54 PM
Yeah so the real hater can take over the AG's office.
Comment 4 by eric z at 09-Nov-18 11:46 AM
Hopefully this is a wood stake through the heart for Wardlow. He's a ghoul.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Nov-18 07:05 PM
I've met Doug. If you call him a ghoul, then you have to call me one, too.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 10-Nov-18 02:34 PM
Sorry you feel that way, Gary. You're backing a throwback.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-18 09:09 AM
I'm supporting a principled, Godly man. You aren't. God hasn't changed. 25 years ago, Keith Ellison would've been rejected everywhere in the US except in SF. Now, Walter Mondale trashes his legacy by saying he's prepared for the job. Since when is a man who still supports cop-killers qualified to be in law enforcement?
Comment 6 by eric z. at 12-Nov-18 11:13 AM
He's a skunk.
