Dems' downfall: People care more about the economy than social-justice wokeness

The Democrats running for president in 2020 seem to be all in on their devotion to social justice, which is at best an ill defined topic but seems mostly to consist of redistributing the wealth of white males.  I have yet to hear of anyone suggesting that Oprah's money should be taken away and given to those who have nothing.  It seems there is a lot of energy put into finding ways to abuse white men for any imagined deficiency in the world, and then to agitate for punishing them.

I grew up thinking people were all people, and any of them, regardless of race, could be virtuous or vile.  Integrity is not limited to one race or denied to any race, or ethnicity, or sex, ad nauseam.  In most cases, it has always seemed to me that virtue and its opposite are a matter of choice.  Some choices support and improve society, while others do the opposite.  The former correlate with virtue, and the latter do not.

But there is a growing disconnect in what is considered to "support and improve" society.  In the name of social justice, there is an ongoing harangue about providing equality of outcome.  Most of us just want to be able to work and earn our way without being directly dependent on the government.  We don't all want to be rich, but no one seems to want to be poor.  When one is, it's painful to take responsibility for how his life turned out and to have no idea what he could have done to make his dreams come true.

Trump started out with more than many people, but not as a billionaire.  He worked for it.  He learned the real estate game in New York and succeeded, "yugely."  He had setbacks when the market tanked, but he recovered.  And he seems egalitarian enough to think all are able to succeed if they apply themselves.  They may not get as far as they dream of going, but they can keep trying.  It's not a matter of who you are diversity-wise, but how well you do what the job requires, and of course, God's blessings on your efforts.

No candidate for president, regardless of how many diversity boxes he can check, should be handed the presidency or anything else.  Compete for it; don't expect it as a gift.  Trump competed.  He won.  Hillary lost.  And that is the crime, the social injustice of the presidency going to another white male.  Democrats thought that was a thing of the past when Obama was elected twice, and when he blessed Hillary, she was supposed to be a shoo-in.  High crime!  Impeach!  But there's no law broken except in liberal-leftist minds.

I suppose the members of the House of Representatives can impeach a ham sandwich if they want to.  They can't force the Senate to convict.  They could try to time the impeachment so it happens as an "October [2020] surprise," hoping to pick up enough Senate seats in the 2020 election to actually convict, even if they don't take back the presidency.  They could start earlier and try to prolong the Senate's hearings so Trump goes into the election under an impeachment cloud.  If it drags on past the election, maybe that works out better for them.

But with most people more interested in improving their income than improving their wokeness quotient, I look forward to the libs getting their hearts broken yet again in 2020.

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.

The Democrats running for president in 2020 seem to be all in on their devotion to social justice, which is at best an ill defined topic but seems mostly to consist of redistributing the wealth of white males.  I have yet to hear of anyone suggesting that Oprah's money should be taken away and given to those who have nothing.  It seems there is a lot of energy put into finding ways to abuse white men for any imagined deficiency in the world, and then to agitate for punishing them.

I grew up thinking people were all people, and any of them, regardless of race, could be virtuous or vile.  Integrity is not limited to one race or denied to any race, or ethnicity, or sex, ad nauseam.  In most cases, it has always seemed to me that virtue and its opposite are a matter of choice.  Some choices support and improve society, while others do the opposite.  The former correlate with virtue, and the latter do not.

But there is a growing disconnect in what is considered to "support and improve" society.  In the name of social justice, there is an ongoing harangue about providing equality of outcome.  Most of us just want to be able to work and earn our way without being directly dependent on the government.  We don't all want to be rich, but no one seems to want to be poor.  When one is, it's painful to take responsibility for how his life turned out and to have no idea what he could have done to make his dreams come true.

Trump started out with more than many people, but not as a billionaire.  He worked for it.  He learned the real estate game in New York and succeeded, "yugely."  He had setbacks when the market tanked, but he recovered.  And he seems egalitarian enough to think all are able to succeed if they apply themselves.  They may not get as far as they dream of going, but they can keep trying.  It's not a matter of who you are diversity-wise, but how well you do what the job requires, and of course, God's blessings on your efforts.

No candidate for president, regardless of how many diversity boxes he can check, should be handed the presidency or anything else.  Compete for it; don't expect it as a gift.  Trump competed.  He won.  Hillary lost.  And that is the crime, the social injustice of the presidency going to another white male.  Democrats thought that was a thing of the past when Obama was elected twice, and when he blessed Hillary, she was supposed to be a shoo-in.  High crime!  Impeach!  But there's no law broken except in liberal-leftist minds.

I suppose the members of the House of Representatives can impeach a ham sandwich if they want to.  They can't force the Senate to convict.  They could try to time the impeachment so it happens as an "October [2020] surprise," hoping to pick up enough Senate seats in the 2020 election to actually convict, even if they don't take back the presidency.  They could start earlier and try to prolong the Senate's hearings so Trump goes into the election under an impeachment cloud.  If it drags on past the election, maybe that works out better for them.

But with most people more interested in improving their income than improving their wokeness quotient, I look forward to the libs getting their hearts broken yet again in 2020.

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.