Democrats are More Divisive

[evensaul]

Democrats and their supporters in the media routinely accuse Republicans of using "divisive" rhetoric and supporting "divisive" policies.

I contend that it is Democrats and their "progressive" agenda proposals that are inherently divisive. They seek to change American beliefs and traditions of a majority to effect changes in laws through legislation, or to have existing laws changed through judicial rulings. All of that creates increases in division among people who were previously less divided. (Note that whether increasing division among people ends up a net positive or negative is not relevant to this op.)

As groups, Democrats are more divisive then Republicans.

[CowboyX]

Any example?

[Ibelsd]

Democrats and their supporters in the media routinely accuse Republicans of using "divisive" rhetoric and supporting "divisive" policies.

I contend that it is Democrats and their "progressive" agenda proposals that are inherently divisive. They seek to change American beliefs and traditions of a majority to effect changes in laws through legislation, or to have existing laws changed through judicial rulings. All of that creates increases in division among people who were previously less divided. (Note that whether increasing division among people ends up a net positive or negative is not relevant to this op.)

As groups, Democrats are more divisive then Republicans.

I think what you are observing is that, currently, Democrats are being driven by a Socialist ideology which is, by definition, divisive. People are so focused on the economics of socialism that the underlying social ideology gets lost. Marx and Engels didn't merely describe an economic system, they described a social system which required two groups of people, the owners and the workers. Everyone belongs to one group or the other and people in the out-group (the owners) get demonized which is typical of any ideology based on in-groups and out-groups. So, I'd agree that right now, the Democrats are far more into divisiveness, but it is a feature not a bug of the ideology they have allowed to enter into their party. There is another thread on here which already covers this somewhat, so I won't belabor the point, but right now, the Democratic party is a scary. Not merely because they house a few (or quite a few) socialists. Rather, they are scary because they have no idea how to limit the left. They have no idea when too far is too far. As an example, consider the group Antifa. To my knowledge, and maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I have yet to hear a single influential Democrat denounce this organization which routinely uses violence in the name of what appears to be little more than a socialist/Marxist front. How far is too far? When Andy Ngo, a reporter, was beaten by this organization, name a single Democrat who specifically condemned Antifa.

Andrew Yang, a Democratic nominee made a general statement expressing that reporters shouldn't be attacked
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/1/andrew-yang-condemns-antifa-attack-andy-ngo/

He didn't actually go so far as to condemn the group. At the Democratic primary debate not a single candidate spoke up.

For a decent comparison, consider the Charlottesville incident where a white nationalist ran over that woman. While Trump's comment was squishy as hell, lots of Republicans were much more resolute. This matters because the GOP party made it pretty clear as a whole, through the number of members who spoke out, that the white nationalist groups didn't represent the GOP nor the GOP's views. In other words, while it was probably fair to state that not everyone at the Charlottesville demonstration was a white nationalist and that not everyone on the left was their peacefully, the only group who separated themselves from either group were Republicans. You certainly didn't hear any Democrats trying to separate themselves from any of the radical left groups present that day.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/brutal-examples-of-violence-that-occurred-by-both-sides-in-charlottesville-video/
The article describes both extremist right and left wing groups were there. Did any Democrat distance themselves from Antifa or the Workers World Party? Plenty of Republicans certainly made it clear they didn't support the nationalist groups in attendance.

My point isn't that the right can't go too far. Certainly, we have seen plenty of examples where nationalism has, indeed, gone way too far. Right now, though, and this is what you are witnessing Even, the left has no idea what too far is and that is a really scary thing because there are plenty of examples of the left going too far and really bad things happening as a result.

[CowboyX]

Runaway capitalism (aka plutocracy, oligarchy, or even an aristocracy) is in anyway better in securing the most benefits to the many people?



Funny, there wasn't anyone condemning the D-Day landers and subsequent invasion force - except on the Nazi side. Both were there to do violence, no?

[MindTrap028]

The video is such a propaganda piece, I don't know why it should be taken seriously.

For example, consider that on odn you have to support your claimed when making an argument. In the first six min if the clip they argue that Trump's message is racism, but offers no support, no quote, no video evidence. It isn't "news" it is opinion presented as news. This news piece would even make it past the casual debator on odn... How did it make it last a professional editor? Answer.. because it is propoganda not actual news.

Other than that, I don't understand the post or how it is connected to the video or how the video supports it.

[Belthazor]

My point isn't that the right can't go too far. Certainly, we have seen plenty of examples where nationalism has, indeed, gone way too far. Right now, though, and this is what you are witnessing Even, the left has no idea what too far is and that is a really scary thing because there are plenty of examples of the left going too far and really bad things happening as a result.

[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Great point. I do think you see limits on the conservative side how far right they will go.

I don't see this on the liberal side. Every year the extreme gets more extremer. Add to that the percentage of liberals that don't think certain liberals (think Clintons for instance) are even capable of doing anything wrong. Now most hard core supporters of the Donald wouldn't say that.

[CowboyX]

Other than that, I don't understand the post or how it is connected to the video or how the video supports it.

Clarification of Ibsleb's point - "they described a social system which required two groups of people" - the syatem Marx and Englel's was describing was capitalism, not socialism. Support being given as to the possible kinds of people capitalism produces who are glorified by the right.

I apoligize, watching the video isn't necessary and I should have explained that wasn't the point. Just the title is all you need to see.

---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

Every year the extreme gets more extremer. Add to that the percentage of liberals that don't think certain liberals (think Clintons for instance) are even capable of doing anything wrong. Now most hard core supporters of the Donald wouldn't say that.

Why do you keep repeating that? Support both please {challenge thingy}

[MindTrap028]

I apoligize, watching the video isn't necessary and I should have explained that wasn't the point. Just the title is all you need to see.

That is even more misleading.
I mean.. if the title was "Video of Tump kissing women not Melania", that would be very salacious. But without context.. it isn't news.
same thing here. A click bait title, in a video that lacks context = Propaganda.

you should discard such sources.

[CowboyX]

That is even more misleading.
I mean.. if the title was "Video of Tump kissing women not Melania", that would be very salacious. But without context.. it isn't news.
same thing here. A click bait title, in a video that lacks context = Propaganda.

you should discard such sources.

Yeeeah, no. Trump partying it up with a convicted pedophile with accusations from that time period against both of them is entirely news and appropriate. Creepily standing around, watching, and palling around does nothing but bolster my argument as to the types of people that rise to the top (and are admired by you) in your "traditional" system. As long as they are rich (makes them smart) who cares how they got it or what they do with it.

[Freund]

I contend that it is Democrats and their "progressive" agenda proposals that are inherently divisive. They seek to change American beliefs and traditions of a majority to effect changes in laws through legislation, or to have existing laws changed through judicial rulings. All of that creates increases in division among people who were previously less divided. (Note that whether increasing division among people ends up a net positive or negative is not relevant to this op.)

So what?

To my knowledge, and maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I have yet to hear a single influential Democrat denounce this organization which routinely uses violence in the name of what appears to be little more than a socialist/Marxist front.

Nancy Pelosi's statement condemning Antifa violence in Berkeley.

I don't see this on the liberal side. Every year the extreme gets more extremer. Add to that the percentage of liberals that don't think certain liberals (think Clintons for instance) are even capable of doing anything wrong. Now most hard core supporters of the Donald wouldn't say that.

'Extreme' is relative. I don't understand the point you're making here.

Regarding hard core supporters of the Donald, have you ever read r/t_d?

[mican333]

Democrats and their supporters in the media routinely accuse Republicans of using "divisive" rhetoric and supporting "divisive" policies.

I contend that it is Democrats and their "progressive" agenda proposals that are inherently divisive. They seek to change American beliefs and traditions of a majority to effect changes in laws through legislation, or to have existing laws changed through judicial rulings. All of that creates increases in division among people who were previously less divided.

I disagree with this assessment.

I agree that change can lead to division but one just as easily put the blame on those who resist change as those who promote change.

As an example of a recent controversy, gay marriage, I see no reason to blame the disagreement of those who promote gay marriage moreso than those who resist gay marriage. Either side could have avoided division by dropping their position in the face of the other side but since neither side did, they are equally to blame for the division.

And really, I don't see how one can determine which side is more divisive based on objective criteria which means all we can do, both the left and right amongst us, is offer our opinion which will certainly be heavily influenced by OUR OWN IDEOLOGICAL view. The right will say the left is more divisive and the left will say that the right are more divisive. And one can point to divisive things on the other side but since it's a comparative argument to say one side if more divisive than the other, if one is ignoring the divisiveness on his side of the political aisle, he's not really making an argument that the other side is more divisive. So is it possible to debate this issue without one's position being primarily subjective? I doubt it. But if one can come up with an objective standard of divisiveness and accurately weight which side is more divisive, let's hear it.

[MindTrap028]

@ cowboy, except "partying it up" again lacks any context. There is nothing wrong with partying or even being around bad people. I mean he wasn't convicted at the time and there is no evidence that trump had any knowledge or involvement. So no it doesn't support that absurd narrative, any more than it supports every other person at the party.. which there were plenty of parties this guy went to.
So far you have Trumo went to a party that this guy was at. That isn't news by definition because it doesn't distinquish that event from ANY of the other people in the same situation. That is why it is propoganda. An attempt to use a convicted criminal to hurt a political opponent to the exclusion without justification of all others in the same or worse boat.
Further it is dangerouse because it hida the real story, namely that this guy had customers of his sex traficing and focusing on speculation is a destruction from finding them.

So where is the list of names from the media of every party and every attended? Where is the list of names for people who rode his jet?

[evensaul]

I agree that change can lead to division...

No, you've got it backwards. Division can lead to change. If everyone believes the same thing, there is no change. Only when opinions become divided can change occur.

[CowboyX]

@ cowboy, except "partying it up" again lacks any context.

It has plenty of context with everything else that has been reported.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

That isn't news by definition because it doesn't distinquish that event from ANY of the other people in the same situation.

Does anyone else have allegations of child rape against them and is a known philander, user, and abuser of women?

[mican333]

No, you've got it backwards. Division can lead to change. If everyone believes the same thing, there is no change. Only when opinions become divided can change occur.

That's not what the OP forwards. It says the Dems seek to make changes and that creates (increases) division.

"They seek to change American beliefs and traditions of a majority to effect changes in laws through legislation, or to have existing laws changed through judicial rulings. All of that creates increases in division among people who were previously less divided."

And I would say that it's kind of chicken-egg and it goes both ways. There are changing opinions amongst the population (division) and Democratic politicians tend to enact legislation based on the progressive ideals of their constituents and then that moves the issue into a more debatable situation which can increase division.

But I don't see what's wrong with that. I think in the case of gay marriage, it worked out as it should. People became more accepting of gay marriage, the progressive wing of our government changed the law to legalize it after it became clear that the population in general were for it (The Dems for the most part lacked the political courage to officially be for gay marriage until it was safe to be for it) and it got legalized. Whether it caused people to argue during the process is inevitable and didn't really cause a problem since it's all pretty much quieted down now and the right societal decision (assuming you agree with legalized gay marriage) got made. So inevitable division that occurs during beneficial societal changes is nothing to be upset about and if I were to be upset about the division, I would lay the blame at the feet of the anti-gay marriage side since they needlessly caused division since they were on the wrong side of the issue (from my subjective viewpoint of course).

And likewise from my subjective viewpoint (I believe I've made it clear that we can only judge this stuff from a subjective view) Trump is causing unnecessary division for the sake of exciting his base. He is quite intentionally trying to rile up his base against immigrants with his heated rhetoric (Mexicans are rapists, etc).

But again, that's what I think and even if one were to accept my view at face value, it doesn't really show that Republicans are more divisive because I admittedly have not taken the full extent of divisive actions from both parties and added it up with some kind of objective (or agreed-upon) criteria to make a full measure of either side.

So as it stands, the OP is basically unsupportable. Either of us tossing out examples of divisiveness from either side won't really support anything.

[evensaul]

Okay, you're probably right in that I mis-wrote the op. Dems seek to create divisions to produce change.

Chicken or egg doesn't much matter. It's the Left that is doing it in either case.

Whether something "worked out as it should" is purely opinion, and not relevant to the op.

[mican333]

Okay, you're probably right in that I mis-wrote the op. Dems seek to create divisions to produce change.

I don't find that notion to be supported.

That certainly was not the case for gay marriage. As I said, the Dems followed the opinion of the public and the notion that they brought the issue into the political realm in order to create division to lead to change seems to be directly contradicted by what happened. The division created by the gay marriage controversy, if anything, slowed the changed to gay marriage being legalized.

In general, Democrats promote what their base wants and the division that inevitably results from those who oppose their agenda hampers the change they want, not helps it.

As another example, universal health care. It's a change that the Democratic constituency wants so the Democrats are trying to make it happen. The resistance/division from the conservatives is slowing down this agenda (and might even stop it entirely), not helping it.

From what I can tell, division is something that hampers the change that Democrats want, not something that they seek to create to forward their agenda.

[MindTrap028]

It has plenty of context with everything else that has been reported.

CORRECTION.. "Gossiped".

Does anyone else have allegations of child rape against them and is a known philander, user, and abuser of women?

Well.. yea. They just aren't being targeted by their political opponents in the news.
that is of course, unless you think that Trump is the ONLY person in America right now that is a known consumer of women AND has an accuser for the charge of child rape. .. and honestly, if we don't get some names in the next few months of equal or greater quality to the speculation on Trump... then something is fishy.

Now, suppose for a second that Trump is guilty in conjunction with (What's his face with lolita express). ...
Wouldn't you agree with me that if Trump was the only person to go down, that would be a travesty of justice? Because this guy clearly catered to an elite class of people who all deserve to go to jail for their rolls in abusing children.

Now, assume trump is innocent. Wouldn't it also be a travesty of justice if all the energy of the media's attention was placed on an ultimately innocent man, allowing for others to escape as the issue fades in the minds of the people.

Clearly, the only thing that would service both scenarios best, is if our focus was on the guy who did the peddling and EVERYONE he is connected to, instead of focusing on the speculation of a clear political opponents of the media.

As it stands, we have no evidence that Trump should be the focus of the media attention on this. This should be a wide net, not the lazer focus of a biased media trying to harm their political opponent.

[evensaul]

In general, Democrats promote what their base wants and the division that inevitably results...

Yep, that's my op in a nutshell. I really hate it when people do this, but :mic drop:

[mican333]

Yep, that's my op in a nutshell. I really hate it when people do this, but :mic drop:

I guess, but you haven't shown that Dems are more divisive than Republicans.

Using the gay marriage example, the Democratic party just followed the will of the people and the divisiveness is due to a disagreement between the pro and anti gay marriage side. And there is no reason to think that one side is more to blame for the division than the other. Either side could have conceded and ended the controversy but neither did so they are both equally to blame for the controversy.

And from what is an admittedly biased perspective (which really is the only kind of perspective there is here no matter which side you fall), since it was right to legalize gay marriage, the Dems were necessarily divisive (fighting for what needed to be fought for) while the Republicans were unnecessarily divisive (fighting a losing battle against what they should not have opposed to begin with).

So as I've said before, there is apparently no way to settle who is more divisive in any neutral objective sense here. If you are conservative, then the Dems are more divisive. If you are liberal, then the Republican are more divisive. And to everyone here (including me) - your opinion is noted.