Government Needs to Accomplish More?

 MP Parliamentary Moment  If you don't know, Eric is a big fan of the parliamentary type governments.  His rationale is that the "in charge" government has more power to implement "the will of the people".  Whereas I am a big fan of the US system where things move slowly and all of the States have power to slow change to some degree.

Of course Liberals are excited by the idea of absolute control and the GOP says they also want this.  Whereas it makes me nervous when either side has "the power"...  They both seem to want to act like tyrants, totally forgetting that ~ half the population voted against them...  No wonder that pendulum just keeps moving back and forth... :-)

"Eric, Since I am a fan of the gridlock you usually are critical of, be careful what you ask for... You may get it... Even I will likely be wishing again for that gridlock soon. Both parties seem to let the power go to their head whenever they get control..." G2A

"Indeed, split government seems to cause less harm,...though accomplishing less as well." Steve

"I always wonder what people want government to "accomplish"?

We live in one of the best countries in the world, and yet the far right and far left folks seem to always want "big changes".

I have a simple goal for government and public employees: provide all the services you do today with better results while reducing the money you need to take out of the US GDP to do it. This is what we have been asking from the Private Sector for years as the Global Competition increased.

And yes the wealthy will need to continue paying most of the bills of our country because they have the money to do so. The rest of us can also help the country by reducing the costs.
- have only children you can afford
- get married and stay married
- be responsible in raising your children
- learn, work, save, invest, etc

Doing otherwise and sending the bill to the tax payers is not fair either." G2A

Make Them SUFFER

MP Revolt  Charles and Joel seem of like minds.  They seem to think that all of us Church going Conservatives are actual closet Sadists who are out to cause suffering... Here are Charles' thoughts and my response.

"Too Call It a revolt Against the Elites

Is true but completely misleading. If you understand why the middle and lower classes have been economically and culturally eviscerated over the past 40 years, you supported Sanders. If the Republican base understood, there’d be a majority for a true populist movement inclusive of all ordinary folks regardless of skin color.

But for 40 years, the Republican base has had its existential fear and atavistic hate stoked by the Republican elites and the establishment media against everyone except those who actually are screwing them. They revolted against the Republican elites not because the elites failed for 40 years to make their lives better, but because the elites promised for so long that they’d make others suffer, and they haven’t come thru. The base voted for Trump not because they actually have any conception of what will result from his economics, but because they believe that he’ll keep his promise to truly cause others to suffer.

Since Trump is as economically elitist as they come, their condition will continue to decline. But if he does keep his promise to make others suffer, all will be good." Charles

"Who do these folks want to suffer and in what way?

Now I do agree that many Republicans disagree with the government policies that transfer negative consequences from the person making poor choices to other tax payers. Some easy examples are:

- a single Mom who has 3 children from 3 different Men receiving money from tax payers

- people who failed to learn in school or are unwilling to take on harder jobs receiving higher "minimum wages" that must be paid by all Americans and/or receiving Medicaid from the tax payers

- public employees making more than a market based wage, having high job security and few performance requirements at the expense of the tax payers.

I don't think anyone is interested in seeing people suffer. But there is a real desire to transfer these personal consequences back to the individuals and off the backs of the tax payers. Please remember that tax payers are people too." G2A

God Help Us and Exit Polls

As you are painfully aware, I disliked both of the candidates for different reasons. So I would have been saying a prayer no matter who would have won.  I explained it to my Chinese co-worker in an email as follows.

Well… My guy won… I wish I could be happier…

The vote was kind of like some asking you if they should cut off your finger or your toe…

No matter which choice you make it is not good.

Hopefully he is a better President than he has been a person. (ie more humility, more patience, think before speaking, etc)

Me being fascinated with human nature. I personally find the exit polls fascinating. All this talk of Hispanics and Other races being against Trump and he got ~30% of their votes.  Only the Blacks were significantly pro-Democrat which I think says a lot unfortunately. (88+ %)

What a Nail Biter

Apparently it is much closer than thought.  How Exciting !!!

President of All?

Just assuming that the odds makers are correct and that Hillary wins, Laurie's comment from a previous post got me thinking. Hillary's says she wants to be a President for all American's, however how is she going to do this if "she has NO CHOICE but to CAVE to the FAR LEFT"?  It is not like Warren, Sanders and the Black Congressional Caucus are going away anytime soon.

"Hillary had no choice other than to lean farther left as this was needed to win the primary against Bernie.

About "With Hillary we know exactly what we get... More taxes and government control, less personal choice, more regulation, more poor unqualified immigrants (possible terrorists), stronger public employee unions / bureaucracy, etc... In short, a certain continuing of the warming water.."

GOP congress will not go along with a tax increase, any increase in regulation will be minor and mostly necessary, stronger unions are a good thing, I don't know the response to bureaucracy etc." Laurie

Of course I think she has always had a choice, and her decision was to pander to the Left.


As for "strong unions" are important...  If the Liberals truly believed strong unions were important they would be driving cars built in strong UAW plants...  Not cars built in foreign countries or weak union states.   

Latest CNN and Fox Maps

CNN is on top and Fox is below.  They are close but different.  I think I trust CNN's more since I can't see MN being even close.

Stuck in the Middle with You...

Here is what Laurie thinks Moderates should do.

"I think that a true middle or moderate view in this election is a person who strongly dislikes both candidates but is firmly in the never Trump camp. I think they would grudgingly vote for Hillary."

And she may be correct?  However I think that a true moderate should look both the policies and character of these poor candidates and make their own decision.

In the comments at MP Lonliness, Rachel made the following argument.

"I'm sorry that Ms. Carnahan is lonely. But, if she's really running on the idea that she can be someone that goes beyond politics, then she should have the courage to say who she is voting for for president. Quite frankly, it will probably say everything her potential constituents need to know about her. If she's voting Trump, the liberals won't vote for her because of what he stands for and they know that she's ok with what he stands for. If she's voting for Clinton, the Republicans won't vote for her because Hillary (she's an old school Republican, so it's not what she stands for that's distasteful). Personally, I couldn't vote for Ms. Carnahan because I believe that anyone who hasn't made up their mind on the presidential race has some significant problems." Rachel

"Do you really believe this? "she's an old school Republican, so it's not what she stands for that's distasteful"  Have you looked at her Web site's issues page? She was Left of center initially and went only further Left to placate Bernie's supporters. I can't think of any Republican who supported higher taxes, tax payer funded college, tax payer funded healthcare for working age adults, nominating Liberal Justices, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention her questionable character.
And yes Trump's character is also questionable... That I do not deny." G2A

"Yes, Really. Remember Reagan? If she ran on the same platform as Reagan (and she's not that far off already, honestly), the GOP would still hate her because Hillary. Put another way, the GOP would hate Reagan if his name was Hillary Clinton, because quite frankly, the policies, including the "liberal justices" are not terribly different. Let's face it, though, Ronald Reagan is the GOP Jesus--more of a legend than a role model." Rachel

"Facts and Data. I think they are pretty far apart. At least based on this policy document.1980 GOP / Presidential Platform"

"Really. I must be reading the wrong document. Got a different link?" Rachel

"Funny. In that document they promote: Lower taxes, Reducing government spending, Supply side economics, Reduction of welfare, etc. 

All the normal GOP stuff that looks nothing like Hillary's platform which promotes: Higher taxes, Public investment in technology / companies, Increase in free college, free healthcare, etc, etc 

Yep. They are pretty different, or do have a source to help me understand your view?" G2A

I guess my point is that people who are still undecided need to ignore all the emotional vilifying that both parties are doing and get back to basics.  And if anyone says that Hilary is an "Republican" from any era, just say NO...  As GovTrack shows, she was a moderate Liberal as a Senator and has only gone Left from there to chase the Bernie supporters.
On the Issues Clinton
Clinton GovTrack

With Trump it is a bit more challenging since he bounces around...  But if you really don't want Hillary and her policies to be the way we head.  Then he may be worth taking a chance.

I wish you luck on coming to a final decision, and encourage you to make your vote count by...

• Voting for Trump / Against Hillary
• Voting for Hillary / Against Trump

Because doing anything else means you have wasted your vote in our 2 party system.

Electoral Maps

Things definitely are looking bleak for Donald.  It will be humorous though if he loses worse than McCain did in 2008 and Romney did in 2012. Especially after all the insults he has hurled their way. I mean he is running against a very poor Democratic candidate and still gets whooped...  I wonder if he will be able to be introspective and take personal responsibility for the loss. (if only to himself)

CNN Interactive Electoral Map

Repent Thee Sinners

From Laurie:

It is not to late to change your mind and vote the right way on Tuesday.

The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton

Now for Something Completely Different

Adam makes a very interesting argument in


MP It’s not OK: How men enable rape culture at work


I already have a couple of comments there...  Thoughts?

Stop Hitting Myself

CNN Candidate Hubris

This piece is so true...  And what do you think of the latest "potential" Clinton email issue.

Trump Revitalizes Feminist Movement

It is interesting how Trump reminded a bunch of women how stupid some men can be...
MP Women Most Important Voting Block in MN
CNN Trump and Feminism


Of course, I guess I would add that Hillary has reminded many people just how conniving some women and self serving career politicians can be...


Now the question is what are these folks going to do with all that new found passion?

Apparently Trump is Capitulating?

This is an interesting article.
NYT Trump Donations Down : Even is Own
CNN Trump Not Contributing




Maybe he thinks his war chest is adequate, however I doubt it.  It is more likely that he is accepting the low probability that he can win.


However I heard this interesting twist on MPR last night.
Bloomberg: Trump Owned Database Worth a Fortune

More Hacked Emails

I think I need a shower after reading this one...
MSN Hacked Emails Bill Inc

The Farmer in DFL?

Doug wrote an interesting piece here.  It seems farmers like Trump more than Clinton... From my recent visits out West, that certainly is the case. MP: WTF: Where’s The ‘Farmer’ in DFL?

"Please remember: A vote for Clinton is likely actually a Vote against Trump... and A vote for Trump is likely a vote against Clinton...

Most of my farming family and friends see Clinton as everything that is wrong with the US government... (ie life long self serving politicians padding their wallets at the expense of us citizens) Therefore all the "Hillary for Prison" signs in rural MN.

And the ever increasing number of land use regulations sure isn't helping their opinion." G2A

"I can't argue with that first sentence, which is too bad. I can't remember even a single presidential candidate, much less a pair of them, with so many negatives, whether real or perceived.

Unfortunately, your farming family and friends, like mine, are not looking beyond the immediate. "…Everything that is wrong with the US government…" is a criticism more accurately aimed at BOTH political parties, not just the DFL. Self-serving politicians, lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of us, serve as purported representatives of the population under the aegis of both Republican and DFL parties. If Hillary deserves prison, so did/does George Bush, but not only do I not see "The Shrub for Prison" signs now in rural areas, nor did I see them in rural areas during the Bush administration. "Cheney for Prison" is also richly deserved, but I don't, and didn't, see those signs, either.

I don't think Ms. Clinton should have been paid $200,000+ to give a speech of any kind, to any audience, but doing so is perfectly legal, and more importantly, Ms. Clinton did not make those speeches while working for the United States government. She made those speeches as a private citizen, and isn't even a little bit unique in doing so, nor was her fee among the highest paid for that sort of speech. Dozens of wealthy businessmen have been paid that much and more to give similar speeches to similar audiences.

Why should farmers, being citizens of the same society as the rest of us, and being subsidized to some degree by the rest of us, be exempt from land-use regulations that the rest of us are expected to pay attention to, especially those regulations that affect the health and safety of their fellow-citizens?" Ray

"I often find it amusing when city folks talk about "farm subsidies" like the farmers are getting them for free and that they are the only folks who benefit from them. The government uses them to incent private property owners to behave in a certain way and to stabilize the US agricultural system. I think all of us citizens can appreciate that, especially those who struggle to pay their grocery bills.

Increasing the buffer strip requirement from 16 feet to 50 feet was pointless and just frustrated many farmers even more. It would have been much more effective to just enforce the 16 foot buffer. Most farmers are great stewards of their land and want to keep the good top soil / fertilizer in their fields where it can earn them a profit.

I have a friend who is on one of the watershed boards, he is always fascinated at how high the allowed run off is in the cities as compared to in the rural areas. Please remember that most of the run off from fields flows through the soil into perforated tile and them into the water stream. (ie filtered) And most of the stalks and grain are harvested or plowed under... Unlike all the fertilizer, salt, oil and grass clippings that are washed off our asphalt / concrete roads into our local water shed." G2A