Really? Let it go, you guys

Monday, November 16, 2020

You'd think by the title of this post I'll be talking about tRump and his pathetic refusal to admit his loss and proceed with the peaceful transfer of power to President-Elect Biden. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. I'm past being shocked or even surprised by that misanthrope's behavior, and so will probably never write about it again. He lives for attention to stroke his ego and massive inferiority complex, so like Mary MacGregor in Rob Roy, "I will think on you no more."

No, this post is about the counter-protesters in Washington, DC over the weekend. 

I read that approximately 300 counter-protesters showed up to the MAGA March on Saturday, and - surprise, surprise - violence ensued

Here's the deal, liberals. This "Million Man MAGA March" or whatever they called it consisted of tens of thousands of die-hard, incendiary, violent tRump acolytes. These were the true believers, the Proud Boys lunatics, the frothing at the mouth hero-worshiping cultists that consider tRump the second coming, the racist non-critical-thinking brain-washed followers, the believe anything he says enablers. There certainly wasn't a million of them, but the ones that were there were convinced the election was "rigged" and "stolen," lack of evidence to the contrary. They believe the lies and the spurious claims without question or analysis, and here's the thing: You will never change their minds, no matter what you do, no matter what evidence you present, no matter how many election legal challenges are thrown out of court, no matter what happens. You will never, ever change their minds. The most you can hope for is some publicity for your cause, and even that's a double-edged sword, as shown by the coverage of the altercations. 

Why, exactly, was it necessary to personally confront these people as they railed against reality? To rub in the fact that Biden will be our next President come January 20th? To try and force them to admit their hero is, in fact, a big fat loser? To gloat? What possible good would come of that strategy, especially if you incited violence? 

Here's the thing. If you think tRump was a classless, lying asshat of a President, and his supporters don't know how to act, why are you yourself acting in such a way that echoes his cult members' behavior? 

From where I sit, the time has come to try and rebuild. As I said in my post-election blog post, I have hope for a Biden presidency. I think bridging the division in our country is the one of the primary tasks of the next four years, and I think liberals have an obligation to lead in this. It's up to us to behave fairly, respectfully, and compromise with the loyal opposition. I'm not talking about the tRumpism cult of personality members - they will never try to find common ground with people they oppose. I'm talking about the individual citizens who voted for tRump for what they believe are economic reasons, or policy reasons, or single-issue voter reasons. I'm talking about the reasonable conservatives who held their noses and voted for tRump because they couldn't bear to vote for a Democrat. I'm talking about those who continue to be misled by tRump's lies, and may be convinced he was nothing but a grifting demagogue if presented with the evidence. Why are you deliberately antagonizing these people by inciting violence against people who are "on tRump's side" on national television? 

You're not helping the cause. You're hurting it. If you have ANY expectation of tRump voters accepting defeat graciously and moving on to focus on governance, then you have to be gracious winners. 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

What, specifically, is the "cause" you mentioned in the closing of this most recent post ?

And, to add an additional question: In your bio on this page, you mentioned being a 'tax & spend' liberal. If that is your core belief: have you never claimed any IRS deductions or sent in an additional $$$$ contribution to the IRS in the past. Neither are prohibited by law.

Janiece said...

The liberal cause, of course.

The cause that holds the belief that prohibits discrimination of any kind, the belief that people should have an equal opportunity to succeed whether that's in education, professional life, or any other endeavor, the belief that the rule of law applies to everyone, equally, regardless of station or bank account, the belief that healthcare is a human right rather than something only rich people get to have.

My tax situation is a big ole cup of Nunya, but you can rest assured that my household pays enough in federal and state tax each year to keep a free clinic with approximately 5,000 patients a year open for 6 weeks. We pay a lot because we choose not to take advantage of tax shelters or loopholes, with the exception of our tax-deferred retirement savings. Unlike some people, who pay less than $1K over many years while still insisting they're Richy Rich Rich.

How much do YOU pay in Federal and State taxes?

Anonymous said...

Well ,then, it appears you're doing nothing more than virtue signaling when it comes to my tax question.

If you deeply believed in the tax & spend premise you mentioned, why aren't you sending in more $$$ VOLUNTARILY rather than forcing those of us who disagree with your premise because of governmental/bureaucratic duplication of programs that burn so many tax dollars unnecessarily, as is my belief ?

As to your belief in the rule of law & the premise it should apply equally, why then don't you object to the concept of 'progressive' tax tables ? Those should should draw your ire, also, because they are based upon judgemental & biased parameters that you appear to disagree with by your declaration of support for equality. Equal opportunity & equal taxation should apply.

To answer your question about my taxes - I pay the maximum, while taking my only two allowed exemptions allowed & I do not use the other methods you mentioned.

The vitriol in debate that currently exists removes the possibility of coming to logical (for both sides) solutions. Until that can be achieved, this country is in DEEP trouble.

More than anything, debate on these topics need to be conducted honestly.

Janiece said...

Anonymous, do not come to my on-line home and accuse me of dishonesty or inconsistencies in my belief system. You know nothing about me other than what I choose to share here, which gives a limited vision of who I am, what I believe, how I execute on my belief system, what drives my values, and how I manage my life. I have and will take criticism of this type from those who know me, but not from complete strangers, as they have no defensible basis for their criticism.

My choosing to not share my household's tax strategy is not "virtue signaling." It's creating boundaries with a random, unknown person on the Internet. You don't know if I pay extra taxes or not, because I choose not to share the answer with you, just as you don't know how much my household gives to charity, how we support causes we believe in in other ways, or how many hours we volunteer in a year. Because that level of detail about my personal life is - as I said before - none of your business. You choose to post anonymously - as is your option, at least on this page - so you don't get to come here and declare that I should be more open about my personal finances when you won't even share your name.

As for your comment regarding progressive tax tables and equity, progressive tax tables ARE the law, and I consider them equitable from a Kantian point of view. A flat tax (which is what I think you're suggesting, but correct me if you're not) is NOT equitable. Taxing a millionaire 20% does not damage their ability to maintain a decent standard of living, educate themselves and/or their children, and save for retirement. Taxing a family who lives below the poverty line 20% is a different matter. Such a tax burden does prevent the low income family from having a decent standard of living, investing in education, and saving any amount of money, either for emergencies, or for retirement. From an equity point of view, the two scenarios are very different in outcome, especially when poor people can't afford any expert advice on how to manage their money effectively. I have a financial advisor, whom I pay to provide me guidance on how much I need to save/invest to live my retirement years in the way I want to live them - and I'm pretty financially literate in my own right. A poorly educated, poverty stricken family often can't afford to even pay their utilities, let alone a fee based service to help them. And when you put generational poverty into the mix, the situation is even more dire.

Not to be all Uncle Ben about it, but the axiom "With great power comes great responsibility" applies in this case from a moral point of view. Approve or disapprove, but in this society money = power. As someone who has money, I consider it my responsibility to help other members of my society achieve at least the bare minimum of security and opportunity. And that is my belief system. How I choose to help others on a personal basis through charity, volunteer work, etc. is based on my beliefs, as is the case for everyone.

But my belief system informs my opinions about policy, not the other way around, and while I would love for the United States to become the liberal democracy I envision, clearly that's not going to happen. I recognize that other people's belief systems also inform their opinions about policy and compromise is an absolute necessity. As you note, liberals and conservatives of good conscience should be able to reach a compromise on these matters, based on facts and desired outcomes without demonizing individuals with whom they disagree. So we agree on that premise, at the very least.

Anonymous said...

For the record, I do personally know you.

My questions are asked honestly & in the quest of debating the ideas you post about.

My question about how you deal annually with taxes didn't ask for specific details, just if you felt strongly enough in your beliefs to act upon them without the IRS forcing you to.

I respect your charitable & volunteer work deeply, I also do the same.

More than anything, my tax question was asked based upon my disgust with how both parties who allegedly represent us & so wantonly SQUANDER our tax dollars . . . & don't do so to benefit us. Their prime objective is re-election.

One point needing delineation, tho - your comment concerning taxing 'millionaires' ignores the reality that many retirees have achieved that level of financial success only to have the government return them to less than luxury levels of life because of tax policy.

Above all, my hope is for a more limited government with limited regulations so as to allow more of our fellow citizens to achieve the levels of success we've both arrived at.

Janiece said...

To correct the misunderstanding, when I referred to "millionaires," I was referring to those who make $1M or more per year, not to those who have assets of $1M or more. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

So. You claim to know me personally, and yet you chose to engage me in a public debate, here, on my personal website, anonymously, instead of reaching out to me directly, or identifying yourself publicly, or identifying yourself to me privately. Does that about cover it?

I'm not even sure what to call this behavior. Prelude to gaslighting? Lying by omission? Manipulation? General fuckery? You claim to be asking questions honestly in the quest of debating the ideas I write about. But you intentionally came here to do so in a duplicitous manner, intending to mislead me about who you are. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the 'millionaire' clarification. I agree.

No duplicity on my part . . . I chose to avoid using Google for their selling of user data & search result manipulation for ideological reasons several years ago and chose to also not create an identity on their platform for the same reasons in order to reply to your blog post, thus my use of the 'anonymous' option offered.

Janiece said...

Yeah, I think we’re done here. If you really do know me, you would have guessed that I would consider your decision to engage me anonymously a really bad idea.

While I recognize your privacy concerns regarding Google, you had the option of identifying yourself to me privately, and you didn’t. And still haven’t, actually, which implies to me that you have an ulterior motive. But I’ve lost interest in parsing it out, since I have far more interesting and enjoyable things to do than participating in your reindeer games.

I’m turning off anonymous commenting, and I will ask you not to return to my comments section unless you’re prepared to do so in a more forthright manner. I’m not interested in engaging in debate with someone I supposedly know who thinks hiding behind anonymous comments is the right way to “honestly” discuss politics.