jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (34 posts)

Should the Democratic Party Work Toward Peace?

  1. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 12 days ago

    With the DC shooting, the riots and the general unrest in America since Trump's victory...all of it coming from those supportive of the left; should the Democratic Party be doing more to work toward helping those participating in the violence to find peaceful outlets for their dissent?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Yes, we should, we all should. But that goes for the rightwingers and their gunslingers as well. But, that does not mean that legitimate dissent and debate is to be squelched just because Trump and his people do not like it, yes? To blame this shooting on the Democratic party, because of the actions of some elderly disgruntled white man is inappropriate. The GOP are the ones that promote the unregulated proliferation of firearms, so could it be that the chickens have come home to roost?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        No, the chickens have not come home to roost, in my opinion. I am not going to blame a handgun on a shooting. Just like I wouldn't blame a knife on a stabbing. I do agree that a disgruntled white guy is not completely the responsibility of the Democratic party but I do think that the toxic atmosphere in the political arena is responsible and I do believe the Democrats could go a long way toward making this violence go away whereas the Republicans wouldn't get much traction.

        I will say that during the Obama years, no matter how much grumbling and complaining we heard from the right I don't remember riots being the result of their displeasure.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

          Yes, riots and violence is never acceptable, but everything else against the conservative GOP regime is fair game. Peaceful marches of protest for example....

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

            Well, of course. Peaceful dissent is always good.

            But, honestly, we have to work together. Right now the American public is working against each other. God knows I wish a third party would start up. A party which was committed to not allowing lobbyists to control their interests, a party which reflected the middle America which votes more in frustration at the inaction of Washington than any fervor for any candidate either party shoves in front of us. A people's party which pulls in as many alternative views as possible and has them work together to create solutions. As it stands we have the left and the right demanding their way or the highway. It's so wrong.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 12 days ago in reply to this

              I certainly appreciate the sincerity that you have addressing this topic.

              Third party politics have not yielded much, to date. Is there really a middle way in the world of American politics? In modern times, I have to wonder.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                You are correct. Third party politics have been a disappointment, thus far. However I do believe the Republicans and the Democrats have found a way to stoop to such lows over the last two decades that a third party is slowly looking to be the only solution to make both of them realize what has become business as usual must end.

    2. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      If by peaceful outlet, you mean, thorazine or exorcism, then yes I would agree.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        You're not helping. smile

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 9 days ago in reply to this

          I disagree. They tilt toward the windmills.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 9 days ago in reply to this

            Maybe. But, I've always considered tilting at windmills to be a noble endeavor which is fruitless because you are up against odds greater than could be surmounted. Since I don't consider much of the democratic party's agenda to be noble I'd find probably use a different term.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 9 days ago in reply to this

              I guess. If one were to differentiate twixt good windmills and bad.

    3. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      I think it is the President's duty to put a stop to the Democrats civil war, and stop the increase of radicalization of the left.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        I'm afraid I wholeheartedly disagree. How would you have the president go about doing it? Send out troops?

        1. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 12 days ago in reply to this

          I believe he needs to control the narrative.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

            Control the narrative? That doesn't sound very democratic.

            1. colorfulone profile image89
              colorfuloneposted 12 days ago in reply to this

              Well, that was worth a tummy laugh!  lol

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                smile I'm rather confused but smile

  2. Aime F profile image84
    Aime Fposted 11 days ago

    I seem to remember colleges and universities trying to organize activies for students to peacefully work through their anger and disappointment, and the right immediately calling them snowflakes, entitled millenials, etc.

    I agree with you that people need to work together. Completely. But it's not just on one side to make that happen. There's just as much divisiveness coming from the right and I'd say maybe even to a greater extent in America because your president is so divisive himself.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      roll

      A safe place to run to hide from the world does sound a bit snow flakey. But, blaming the Republicans for riots, shootings and what not is unfair. As I've pointed out the entire time the Democrats had the White House you didn't see violence coming from the disgruntled people backing the other side.

      Blaming anyone for violence, other than the perpetrators is ridiculous. I suppose the Congressman injured in the shooting in DC is somehow responsible for his injuries? Does that also mean the person shot by a drug addict in search of money for a fix is responsible? How about the rape victim?

      1. Aime F profile image84
        Aime Fposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        I'm confused... where did I blame anyone else for violence? That was a weird jump.

        I also don't believe having activities set up to work through things is "hiding," quite the opposite, actually. The whole point is to work through whatever you're feeling in a way that acknowledges those feelings and allows you to direct them into something positive. I'd argue that it's the lack of ability to process those thoughts and feelings in some people that leads to aggression and violence. So which is it? You want "snowflakes" or people shooting up a baseball game?

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 11 days ago in reply to this

          Well, they shouldn't have named them 'safe zones'. It sounds rather pansy.

          But you said the Republicans were just as divisive. I'm not talking about divisiveness but about violence. So, if their divisiveness is instigating riots in support of them I'll expect them to do whatever it takes to make it stop. Not use rhetoric which seems to egg it on. As much as a problem as I have with ultra conservatives their rhetoric hasn't inspired riots and shooting of senators.

          I'm sorry. We have to figure out a way to restore calm. This is out of hand.

          1. Aime F profile image84
            Aime Fposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            In your original post you said "and the general unrest in America since Trump's victory" which I took to mean literally that: general unrest. Obviously the push from both sides, violent or not, contributes to the overall unrest. There seems to be an incredible amount of stubbornness coming from both ends when it comes to just talking at each other rather than having a conversation where both parties listen, and it's not just in the States. I notice it getting worse here in Canada. It's been getting worse in the UK. And that doesn't fall solely on the left.

            Again... I find it kind of funny that you say we need to be helping people find peaceful outlets for their dissent but then you turn around and nitpick about it when they do. "You guys need to figure out how to be peaceful but not in this specific way because it makes you sound like pansies." Nice. What's your suggestion on how to help people channel their thoughts and emotions into something peaceful and productive? Can you name any solution that the right won't still complain about besides "sit down and shut up"?

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              Probably not good to put quotation marks around something, implying that it was said, when it wasn't.

              As I've said before. They all grumble and posture. I don't remember any moment where those who listen to the right march, tear up vehicles, refuse to let speakers from the other side hold a function, etc etc etc.

              The problems I see are from the left. Disagreement is not a problem. Voicing opposing opinions is not a problem. Peaceful protest is not a problem. When you seek to cause damage you become a problem. When you seek to inhibit the free exchange of ideas, that is a problem.

              1. Aime F profile image84
                Aime Fposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                I agree that all of that is a problem but they are not the only problems.

                I can sit here all day ready to have an open discussion and genuine conversation with someone but if they're not willing to do the same it's utterly pointless. It takes at least two people to have that kind of conversation. I can count on one hand how many conservatives I've spoken to over the last year who were actually willing to have a "free exchange of ideas" while honestly considering what I have to say instead of just trying to talk over me or convince me that one day when my poor, lost soul matures I'll finally come around. That's not my problem. That's not the left's problem. That seems to be a human problem.

                Alternatively, I don't think I could count on twenty hands how many times your president and/or his family has tweeted something extremely negative or divisive about the left. That's also a big problem, wouldn't you say?

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                  Trump is definitely a foot in mouth guy. And I agree that the far ends have no interest in conversation. They have minds set and think attempts at reason are simply examples of no one caring about their stand.

                  But, what both sides fail to recognize is that most of America is in the middle. That majority sees good in both parties, bad in both parties. That portion (and it is the majority) see politicians as not interested in tackling the issues we need tackled. Which is why neither party maintains control long.

                  You say you are interested and willing to have an open discussion but violence is not open discussion. Rationalizing why violence is acceptable, pretending that it isn't happening or acting as if it isn't a serious problem is what I perceive to be the stand of the left. That, to me, is a dangerous problem.

                  The young adults you say deserve these 'safe spaces' need less coddling. Part of growing up involves understanding you can't have everything your way and throwing tantrums won't change reality. Selfishness will only create an atmosphere where others feel disenfranchised.

                  We have to accept that if the left is going to foment unrest which manifests with violence, simply in an attempt to get what they want, the result will be more violence in response; if it appears the tantrums are producing results. This violence is not part of a democratic process. The system here is fraught with problems already. This violence is not a solution but stands to be a catalyst for more serious and dangerous problems to our republic.

                  1. Aime F profile image84
                    Aime Fposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                    Well, I agree that the violence is unacceptable. And I believe that most people do. But it's not really possible to reign in everyone as individuals and control them. If a vast majority of liberals were out setting things on fire or shooting politicians then I can see why you'd hold us accountable as a whole, but that's not the majority. All we can do is condemn it, which a lot of us have, and try to find ways to help people deal with those feelings of aggression.... I don't think that's "coddling." I also don't think anyone is telling anyone that they can change reality or need to have everything their way, rather giving them the tools to accept it and move forward in a positive way.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      Hello Aime F, you mention a point that might be an interesting discussion - without any Left or Right perspective involved. Although it may involve Liberal or Conservative ideologies... Or it may just be a generational thing.

      You are right, some colleges and universities did offer programs/counselling/group gatherings to do what you mentioned.

      I qualify as a Baby-boomer, and my thought is something is wrong with our young adults' perspectives when such an effort is even considered, much less considered  necessary.

      With a small minority percentage, these students are at least 18 years old. Old enough to join the military, old enough to vote, to get married, old enough to do most things, except legally drink -  in my generation these were young adults.

      But now... they need counselling to deal with election results... to deal with their choice not prevailing... I haven't jumped on the snowflakes, or entitled millennials name-calling bandwagon, but  this topic certainly makes me consider it.

      In the healthcare arena, young adults up to 26 can stay on their parent's plan, as dependent minors. This seemed like just a mechanism to help young adults until their work experience qualified for jobs that offered health coverage, but now can it be wondered that 26 is the new 18 relative to maturity levels?

      GA

      1. Aime F profile image84
        Aime Fposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        I do believe that emotions around this particular election for most people were much more than winning/losing. I truly believe that had any other candidate won the nomination and won the election we wouldn't be seeing such a massive fallout. I think Trump has said and done a lot of things along the way that made people legitimately fearful for their rights and their safety. So to write it all off as "oh these kids just don't know how to lose" is a bit dismissive.

        I really don't see anything wrong with providing counselling for people who are feeling fearful or anxious. I think it's something that's actually greatly missing in most societies. I hate the notion that talking about things or saying "I need help navigating through this" is weak or some sort of character flaw. As I mentioned previously, I have no doubt that a large majority of violent outbursts are a result of people having no idea how to channel their anger/fear into something productive. If we made it easy for people to learn how to do that and didn't attach the stigma of being "pansies" or "snowflakes" to it then perhaps we could actually see a generation of people who are more peaceful.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 10 days ago in reply to this

          I understand your point Aime F, but I just don't agree with it.

          I am not a big believer in "counselling," in general, although I can see the reality that there are particular instances where it would be helpful.

          I can also see your point about Pres. Trump's victory being more impactful(sp?) than opposing party wins of our past. But I still don't see it as so serious as to need counselling - relative to the maturity of a college-age young adult..

          I know it is a silly example, but it does bluntly illustrate my perspective: "What's next, counselling because  you can't stand the chosen school mascot?"

          With the risk of parroting cliches', labels, and denigration, I do not think it should be so casually accepted that a generation of young adults need; "safe zones," crying towels, or counselling, to get through the ordinary stress of living in the real world. 

          GA

          1. Aime F profile image84
            Aime Fposted 10 days ago in reply to this

            I mean, that's the thing about people. They're complex. We all live under different circumstances, we all have different experiences, we're exposed to things that make us feel things and process things differently. Some of it comes down to basic biology which can vary greatly from person to person.

            Take people who undergo cognitive behavioural therapy for something like a fear of flying. I can't understand being so afraid of flying in an airplane that I would need to seek therapy just to step foot on one. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do are any less capable of dealing with life in general, it's just something particular that really stresses them out for whatever reason when most people don't think twice about it.

            I contacted a psychologist about grief therapy after my father passed away, not necessarily because I would have crumbled and been incapable of functioning like a normal human being without it, but because I was struggling and I thought it might be helpful for myself and those around me if I tried to find a way to help me cope better. Most people don't get grief therapy. Most people move on over time and I have no doubt I would have as well, but I saw no issue with asking for a little extra help.

            I think that's probably the case with people who took advantage of the counselling after the election. They probably were not frantically running around with no idea how to cope. They probably just wanted to talk out their fears and concerns and see if there was a way to channel it into something better.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              You are right Amime F, people are complex, and we do have different perspectives. What you see as no big deal, I see as a worrisome indicator.

              GA

  3. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 10 days ago

    Maybe that's what 66y/o James T. Hodgkinson, 35y/o Jeremy Joseph Christian, 28y/o James Harris Jackson, 62y/o Stanley Vernon Majors, 46y/o Craig Hicks, etc., needed.

    You know, cause this young adults are so violent...


    (Back to voluntary retirement)

 
working