Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Democrats Cannot Believe the Results

Mr. Trump won the election and we have Democrats protesting out in the street even before he takes office. I remember when Obama won, and I sucked it in and said he’s our President now. What he did over the next 8 years irritated the hell out of me! To say the least.

I get the feeling from these protestors that Democracy is great, only if your candidate wins. And the sad thing is that most of the losers in this race were one issue voters; global warming or the woman President fulfilment goal. I get the feeling that the protestors are either incredibly stupid or have been brainwashed by all of the nonsensical ads about Trump. Many are students that were confused as to why they can’t get a job after spending big bucks on college.

The issue we have here, is that the present protests are over a candidate that has never held a political office and has not yet taken the oath as the next President. He has no political record to censure but yet these disrupters of our Democracy, do not give a damn. They want him out before he has even been in.

What we really need to look at, is that we have Donald Trump, a dyed in the wool Democrat, elected as a Republican to be President. He did not fit into the liberal establishment of being politically correct. If you say something that the establishment doesn’t want to hear, you are labeled racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynist and so on. Most people in this situation, shut up and keep quiet. Donald in this case, said bring it on, it won’t stick.

We have come to a point now, where this politically correct police force is visible. Tell a black joke and you are a racist. Tell a religious joke and you’re anti-Semitic. You’re not graded on how funny the joke is.

The real joke is on the political system. It was too corrupt to select real people to run for office. The Democrats had morphed into socialists. Trump was considered harmless. He beat all the Republicans in the Republican primary, got on their white horse and then slayed the Hillary dragon.

The one thing that really stands out, is that the news media failed us and showed everyone how manipulative they are as a group. The misinformation they fed us during this election, calling it news, was deplorable. Everyone thought The Donald was exaggerating and bashing the media unfairly.

The Democrats became the party of the rich with socialism for the poor, while the party ignored the middle class. The socialistic Democrats that voted for Hillary, didn’t see Trump as a Democrat. The Republicans were wondering what made Trump a Republican; they were satisfied with the fact that he wasn’t a “damn Socialist” and liked the second amendment. Sooner or later the people of this country will come to realize that the Republicans, without knowing it, put a Democrat into the Oval office.

The good thing is, we have elected a President with a lot of common sense that will speak his mind and is not beholding to the lobbyists in Washington D.C. Obama the politician can probably take credit for the Trump Presidency. He pissed off the wrong person one to many times. Obama, your fired!!

The neat thing is that both parties won. The Republicans got the man they voted for and the Democrats are too stupid to recognize a Democrat, unless he's holding his hand out for a bribe. "Draining the swamp" just might cure that.

Editors note:
I define a true Democrat as representing the middle class


dearieme said...

"the Democrats are too stupid to recognize a Democrat, unless he's holding his hand out for a bribe": that's an excellent line, Jim. Congratulations.

dearieme said...

I suspect that the lesson is that if you run an absurd candidate against an appalling candidate, the absurd one has a chance of winning.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi dearieme

Thank you, glad you liked it.

If you examine carefully is appears as if both parties lost their mission statement. The Republicans use to be for the Rich and big business and the Democrats were for the middleclass and the poor.

This time around, the Republicans were with big business and the middle class, whereas the Democrats were for the rich and poor with great emphasis on government socialism.

I think the middle class woke up and realized who was going to pay for all of this. This election might have been more for Trump if the news hadn't been so blatantly biased for Hillary. People usually want to align with the perceive winning side. It was supposed to be a slam dunk for Hillary and it wasn't. And that makes it hurt even more.

dearieme said...

I see people on the web exulting at what they expect from Prez Trump. People never learn, do they? Mostly they'll get disappointment. But with any luck at least they won't get war with Russia., which was on the cards with Mrs Criminal.

Joseph Oppenheim said...

CA voted an overwhelming 2-1 for Hillary. CA had become solidly blue after getting rid of gerrymandering and then allowing tax bills to pass with a simple majority, rather than 2/3 vote, thus allowing tax increases on the wealthy which erased the massive debt the Terminator left and now a surplus and money for education and healthcare. CA already has embraced ACA and now has its own health exchange with 2017 premium increases about 1/2 the national average. And, embraced Common Core - my local new public k-8 school gives even kindergarteners free tablet computers..

Plus, CA has just expanded 15 community colleges to offer 4-year degrees, with discussions to offer them in 150. Since the crash, CA now has the most talented and healthy workforce on the planet with CA passing France as the 6th largest economy and now probably 5th after the British pound collapsed.

Calexit fever is moving forward, the latest being Canada adding WA, OR and CA. This is possible with WA and OR joining CA, then by referendum exiting the US. If needed an amendment to the Constitution would pass since then Trump states can have a solidly red racist country. Anyway, such referendums are gaining popularity around the world, so likely something can be worked out, maybe an exit tax....Trump would love that.

Anonymous said...

Hey Joseph,

"have a solidly red racist country"

It seems you are as lost as many americans are, one that is in love with the current corrupt setup in DC, but i would be careful what i would wish for.
With a nose like yours, the EPA might tax the hell out of you for breathing more clean air than is allowed per average person.
Reading your comments of the past three years, I really thought you were a analytical, free thinker, one that looks at facts and makes a decision, but now I realize that you are as misguided as every cnn/msnbc/fox watching american.

Good luck to you, i am a Californian, and a professor at a community college. Many of us don't think like you and are proud of our country, no matter whom it elects, and we don't start crying and taking our ball home, just bc we voted for the person that lost.

now stop breathing more than your fair share, jeeeeez....have some charity.

Sackerson said...

Republished on BOM!

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Sack

Thank you

AIM said...

Let's be positive. I'm for anyone and anything that diminishes or dislodges any part of the establishment and Deep State in this country. The status quo must go. We've been on a runaway train to disaster for decades. If Trump just accomplishes 1/10 of what he plans to do we'll be so much better off. The Rep and Dem parties, the mainstream media, the economic "experts" and "advisors" are all imploding and being exposed for all to see. The globalist/socialist agenda is taking big hits with Brexit and Trump election. Things are beginning to seriously unravel. We don't have a corrupt, owned, globalist career politician in the White House now. We have a unowned, renegade, outsider who is going to throw a monkey wrench into the works. I couldn't be happier.

Jim in San Marcos said...


I can't quite figure it out. All of these minorities that were kicking ass and shooting everyone are scared of the Trump Presidency. If they were to read the paper, they'd find out he won't even be in office for another two months. Still plenty of time to loot, rape and burn.

Trump has his own corporate Jet and is a successful businessman. I believe he can implement and project his success into the political arena of Washington D.C. The trouble is, it is massive unemployment for an awful lot of leaches (lobbyists).

Jim in San Marcos said...

Not sure if anyone else is having a problem besides me, but copy and paste your remarks to notepad before you publish. This saves the aggravation of the site fails to publish it and tells you that nothing is there to publish. I've had this happen three times this week. not sure who to hang this on, but it is a problem.

Joseph Oppenheim said...

Not only do we have a president elect who is unqualified to be president, but one of things which unqualifies him is his resistance to TPP, TPIP, NAFTA, etc.

That is also one the unqualifiers of Bernie Sanders.

It was up to Hillary to make the case for TPP, but the nationalist/isolationist trend is sweeping the world, part of the anti-technology, and ant-globalization resistance to a new Renaissance.

So, not much Hillary could have done.

Meanwhile China is flexing its muscles, once a great civilization and could overtake the US, not because of any advantages, but our retreat from being the most open civilization ever.

Also, interconnecting the world in trade increases the chance for a more peaceful world, retreating risks a more warlike world.

The only current hope I see at this point is that the anti President Elect movement/protests finds a leader, a leader for a more open, globalistic society and more connected to the technology/creativity which made us #1

Jim in San Marcos said...

There are only two qualifications for President, Being over the age of 35 and born in the USA. No experience necessary.

It is easier to conjecture that many people are unqualified to vote. You can't play if you don't know the rules.

Anonymous said...

Trump is unqualified to be president based upon what valid, logical reasons? Do you think the Bushes, Clinton and Obama were qualified? Hillary or Sanders qualified? If so... why? America has been falling apart and opening itself up to more and more negativity for decades. It took a wrong turn a very long time ago. It's time to break the mold, escape the status quo and make a fresh attempt to bring things into better balance with the intention and hope of guaranteeing a better future for America, and the rest of the world.

TPP, TPIP, NAFTA, The WTO, etc. are all imbalanced and unfair agreements launched by special interests. We need fair balanced trade agreements for an even playing field where all countries can win and prosper. We need sovereignty, nationalism, cultures, decentralization and separate entities all working and trading together on a sane paradigm.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Anon and Joseph

The election is over. I didn't like Obama for 8 long years, someone else can dislike Trump for 8 years

Engaging in political or religious discussions are a waste of time. Each person will become more ensconced in their views, hoping to convince the other to change and agree with their view. When I was young, I would spend hours in political arguments believing that I could win my point of view over the other persons--it never happened.

I have come to notice that my views have very slowly changed over 50 years. Just watching a pack of cigarettes rise in price from 23 cents a pack to over $9 dollars a pack, gives me the perspective to understand my grandfathers views way back when.

I think that the one conclusion that both sides can agree about in this election is that the Press was a very biased source of news. This blog is about the Great Depression of 2006. Right now we have 18 percent unemployment and 45 million people on food stamps. No food kitchen lines like the 1930's. History is now referring the the time between 2006 and 2009 as "The Great Recession." The newspapers claim that unemployment today is at 4.5 percent and everything is just great.

While I was studying the great depression of the 1930's it became very apparent to me that no one at the time knew that they were in a great depression. We are in the same situation right now. Denial.

The political dialog is over. What happens from here on out is real. IMHO I would hope that a successful businessman can do a better job of governing than a politician that is worrying about the funds needed for re election.

Anonymous said...

Yes Jim. I'll take a non-politician 8 days a week over one of our career politicians (who are the puppets of bankers and lobbyists). Our mainstream media is a joke: a tool of the liberal globalists. They and the Democrats are in free-fall and continuing to prove how corrupt and self-serving they are. Credibility is lost and they are both falling apart. The Dems lost "the little people, the blue collar workers, the down and outers" to the Republicans. They've lost their brand. They've been exposed. If Trump and team just do a half-assed job at their promoted agenda it may be that we don't see a Democrat president in office for the next 50 years, or maybe never.

Joseph Oppenheim said...

Average Trump supporters, per studies, had average incomes of about $70k. Poverty, with social programs included, is only about 4.5-8.5%, near or at an all time low. The anger felt by most Trump supporters, not all, was because of Affirmative Action, people of color and women saw their incomes rise higher, relatively, than white men. and women of color vs white women. Obama being black fueled much of the racism for those who wanted radical change from Obama. Since immigrants are mostly non white, hence "build the wall. At least much of Brexit was about non white immigration. Muslim immigrants, mostly non white, but worse, not Christian.

Anonymous said...

New paradigm is being birthed right now. Lots of dynamics and variables in play on our national level as well as on the global level. No one can predict the future. What you hear is all merely speculation based on fear, miseducation and bias. Lots of headwinds are blowing our way. I hope that Trump surprises us all and turns out to be a man of character and a leader. I hope he can rise to the occasion. I hope his advisors and teams come from a more healthy and objective point of view and throw off the perversions and impediments that have taken root in our country. The spirit of man, the survival instinct of man and the goodness of man still exists and may begin to shine again as we go through many changes and confront many obstacles. This is what we do. I'm hoping for the best.

dearieme said...

"There are only two qualifications for President, Being over the age of 35 and born in the USA." There's no need to be born in the USA. It's enough to be a natural-born US citizen.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi dearieme

You raise a very interesting point. "Natural-born US citizen" is not really defined in the Constitution.

The English have common laws that have evolved over time that are probably used by our judicial system that accept the idea of land held as a protectorate entitles one to citizenship of the country holding it.

The real question is; do the courts have the right to define a natural born US citizen or does the Congress? At the present time I think the question is unanswered.

dearieme said...

I understand that it means "citizen by right of birth" probably with both you and us. On that interpretation anyone born abroad to a US citizen would be natural-born. Or the child of foreigners born in the US - such as our current Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. I think Trump should hire him. He'd add to the gaiety of the nation. He's a one-man diversity team: WKPD -

His father, the British Stanley Johnson, was studying economics at Columbia University. Stanley was the grandson of the Circassian–Turkish journalist Ali Kemal on the paternal side while on his maternal side he was of mixed English and French descent and was a descendant of King George II of Great Britain. Stanley had married Johnson's mother, Charlotte Johnson Wahl (née Fawcett), in 1963, before they moved to the United States; she was an artist from a family of liberal intellectuals. She was the granddaughter of Americans Elias Avery Lowe, a palaeographer of Russian Jewish descent, and Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, a famous translator.

And his wife is half-Indian. What more could you ask for?

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi dearieme

I agree with you, but would like to point out that our interpretation of the law is imported from British common law (which has no legal basis), not from what the US Constitution states. I could see a court ruling that a birth in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, citizenship would be determined by the parent’s nationality. Normally people born in a country are considered citizens that are the property of that state. I haven’t seen a discussion on how you would turn a foreign birth certificate into one conveying American citizenship to the bearer. By default, the person has the right of choice of which country to claim citizenship, but they can’t alter the fact that they were not born in the US.

If such a case for President were to arise, I would expect the Supreme court to ask Congress for a law defining “Natural born US citizen.” What we are discussing here is the ambiguity in the interpretation of the law. Many people could interpret it differently. And that’s why we have lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Where did you get the "Trump supporters - affirmative action" assumption from? It is so out of touch.

It is great that the liberals / socialists / globalists can not figure out how Trump won. They try to rationalize it using their own politically correct terminology. That method does not work for Trump supporters.

-Anon on a New Mexico Mountain

dearieme said...

Jim, you wouldn't exclude from the presidency someone born overseas to an American soldier, would you? Accept that, and you probably have to accept the rest of the logic - all American citizens are citizens either by birthright or by naturalisation. Only the latter are excluded from the presidency.

There are clearly all sorts of things about his life that your current Prez wants to keep hidden, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that he isn't an American citizen by birthright. In fact, but for his own odd actions it's hard to see why there's any doubt at all.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi dearieme

My common sense agrees with you. But on the Supreme Court, a strict constructionist would rule against you and a liberal Constructions would rule with you.

All I am pointing out is that lawyers make good money deciding questions like this. Both sides think they are right and only one will walk away the winner.

I don't think for one moment that our thoughts on the issue could settle a point of contention in a court of law.

Just your example shows how things can be different than they appear, many American soldiers have been granted citizenship after their service.

Anonymous said...

The important point is what is the INTENT or THE CORE MESSAGE of "natural born US citizen"? What did the framers of the Constitution intend by this statement? What where they trying to prevent? protect? guarantee?

dearieme said...

"What did the framers of the Constitution intend by this statement? " They probably meant the usage as a reference to what Blackstone, the great legal scholar, said.

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

dearieme said...

Here's an interesting point.

'The Naturalization Act of 1790 complicated the issue even farther:

“The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”'

It seems to me that if you take it that the constitution-writers intended to extend English citizenship law - the law of the colonies before independence - to the federation, then you conclude that they intended what Blackstone reported. Later the Naturalisation Act narrowed the definition a little, but in an entirely clear way. The only thing that might persuade me otherwise would be a demonstration that the English law on the subject had changed between the publication of Blackstone's book and the achieving of independence.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that anyone coming from anywhere who becomes a legal citizen of the USA should have the right to run for president of the country. Why does it have to be someone who was born here? All that would matter to me is a deep concern for the people and the future of the country, the platform (economics, foreign policy, etc.), the person's life experience, accomplishments, work ethic and leadership skills.

dearieme said...

@Anon; but that's not what the Constitution says. If you don't like what it says you are at liberty to try to amend it.

AIM said...

It isn't the president that matters. It's the people and it's the peoples' education level, responsibility level and ability to observe what is going on and participating in their local, state and federal government. It is all about establishing and maintaining The Rule of Law. It is all about who they vote into Congress and the SCOTUS. All about calling foul and demanding corruption be dealt with when it appears. No one man can do anything. The people can do more, and do even more with a good benevolent leader. The condition of the average American is the condition of our country and the harbinger of the future to come.

AIM said...

I'm wondering... will all of the prop-up and PR actions of the establishment to obfuscate the facts and cover up our US depression and "recovery" continue during the Trump administration or will the facade be blown away and will it all unravel with economic hell breaking loose?

Jim in San Marcos said...


I'm not sure, I'm going to wait and see. See my next article, I kind of address some of your concerns. Admitting that we know nothing is a step forward I believe.