Do Progressives Want Conflict or Unity?

[Lutherf]

I keep on hearing Progressives saying they want unity and are mad that their opposition for being ''divisive''. Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives. None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

They want unity, provided we are all united behind their ideas.

 

[Mustachio]

But it is all True.

Obama tried Unity. Republicans told him to go **** himself every single solitary time he tried to offer an Olive branch. We're through playing nice with you people.

We are the Majority, and if you want us to listen to you now, it's your responsibility to be diplomatic and kiss our ass, not the other way around.

From where I'm sitting right now, the best way to achieve Unity in this country is to work with moderates and a few reasonably sane Republicans that still exist to run the MAGA Cult into the ground.

We are no longer under any obligation to prove to you that we deserve respect, it is up to you to prove to us that you still deserve it. Every minute you spend with your lips sucking Trump's dick puts you farther and farther from ever being relevant again.

this is dope

 

[Pippi Longstock]

I keep on hearing Progressives saying they want unity and are mad that their opposition for being ''divisive''. Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives. None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

Progressives and the Democrat party want their opposition silenced.

 

[Phys251]

View attachment 67412525

Good advice for you.

 

[noonereal]

View attachment 67412523

Insecurities

 

[MrNiceGuy]

i didnt vote for corpse of biden and this looks like a parody

the crazy far-left anti-everything elitist suburbanites suck but there is no equivalence to 15% of the nation being pro-domestic-terror

Nobody is pro-domestic terror, except for a few idiots and evildoers, and there are measures of those folks on the Left as well as the Right. The Right, in today's world, though, acknowledges and rejects the evildoers on their side of the spectrum, descrying Nazism, fascism and racism, etc., and descrying the use of political violence by its extreme element. The Left, however, in today's world, celebrates their evildoers, because of the supposed rightness of their "causes." That's a difference I see. I don't see any measurable portion of our electorate supporting the American Nazi Party or the Klan. I do see plenty on the Left who, even if they won't sign on to the methods of Antifa radicals, do, in fact, still support Antifa and refuse to condemn their methods precisely because of sympathy with their causes.

 

[Mr Person]

Are you concerned about your opposition's feelings?
Do you mean like the people who said the 2016 election was stolen, that Trump was an illegitimate President, that Trump colluded with Russian intelligence and Putin to steal the election? That kind of assault on Democracy? LOL.
Doesn't democracy mean that people with vastly disparate viewpoints vote on the outcome of elections and referenda, and then the one who wins the most votes gets elected?
Or, do you think it means that once the election is over, everyone who disagrees must shut up and fall into line behind the elected person?

No really, it’s great. Trump and his Trumpists spend several years loudly (and stupidly, and dishonestly) hating “leftists”, aka all non-Trumpists. They attempt to tear down the first republic and install an unelected person as Leader. They’re busy simultaneously fighting so much as the mention of gay peoples’ existence while calling gay people and everyone who stands up for them groomer-pedophiles. Or commie marxist socialist fascists. Really, any word a Trumpist vaguely remembers is supposed to be a bad thing. Etc etc etc.

Then they’re like “waaaa, but Biden said unity. Why aren’t you being nice to me?”



Just another stupid trolling thread.

View attachment 67412519

And that would be more concise.

 

[Ren]

I keep on hearing Progressives saying they want unity and are mad that their opposition for being ''divisive''. Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives. None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

Progressives are addicted to chaos. It's why they see a crisis in everything they disagree with.

 

[Mr Person]

Wait, did I say several years?

Oh no, it began with Gingrich's push for permanent Republican majorities, but went crazy when it turned out that Bush's tits-up invasion of Iraq was based on bullshit about non-existent WMDs. It's hard to say "oops", so they did the next best thing: channeled all that embarrassment into rage and aimed at other people.

Then it ended up looking like a black dude was going to win the presidency and hoooooooly shit, it's been dialed well past 11 since then.




"But why won't you unify with us?"

Gee, maybe stop telling us to all go crawl in a hole and die.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Progressives are addicted to chaos. It's why they see a crisis in everything they disagree with.

 

[PoS]

Supporter of "**** your feelings" Trumpism and a literal attempt to overthrow the government to install an election loser whines about unity. Haven't heard that before.



If you want unity in a democracy, you need to stop assaulting democracy.

LOL thanks for proving the OP's point.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

LOL thanks for proving the OP's point.

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it proudly!

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies,

Indeed. Much of the Republican platform doesn't exist outside "own the libs".

that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives.

And some of them, I assume, are good people.

None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

I want some paperclips and a subway coupon.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

No really, it’s great. Trump and his Trumpists spend several years loudly (and stupidly, and dishonestly) hating “leftists”, aka all non-Trumpists.

Wow, that's awful. I know that people on the Left and Democrats would never loudly and stupidly and dishonestly hate "the right" aka, anyone who doesn't agree with them, aka fascists, Nazis, racists, phobes, misogynists, etc., and they would never buy into debunked conspiracy theories about Trump colluding with Russian intelligence and Putin to "steal" an election, they'd never loudly proclaim that Trump hired hookers to pee on a hotel bed, they'd never loudly proclaim that Trump had back-channel communications to various iterations of Russian banks, servers, and Russian intelligence, that he was Putin's Pal, that his supporters are Putin's Pals, that he was Putin's butt-boy, that he was a Traitor, that he was committing crimes every two seconds throughout his Presidency....no no... the Democrats and the American Left would never go off the deep end like that..... /s/

They attempt to tear down the first republic and install an unelected person as Leader.

Oh for god's sake. It was Putin, silly. Putin installed his boy, Trump, in the white house, and he basically ran the White House for Russia's own policy goals for four years, but when they saw that Trump was on his way out, it was Putin who orchestrated 1/6, looking to further "attack democracy" and "foment discord" by using his Manchurian Candidate Trump to try to bring down the Republic from within. Don't you know that?

They’re busy simultaneously fighting so much as the mention of gay peoples’ existence while calling gay people and everyone who stands up for them groomer-pedophiles.

LOL, fighting the mention of gay people's existence? Have you been under a rock the last 5 years? Jesus, you can't step outside, open a magazine, turn on a TV or go on the internet, without hearing about homosexuality and transgenderism. Trust me, whatever fighting anyone has been doing to reduce the mentions of gay people has not been working....

And, there are such things as groomers. Saying so says nothing about gay people. Gay people aren't groomers. Quit conflating them.

Or commie marxist socialist fascists. Really, any word a Trumpist vaguely remembers is supposed to be a bad thing. Etc etc etc.

Well, y'all think communism, Marxism and socialism are good things. You get it right by descrying fascism, but your side's adherence to far left ideology is obvious. I bet you won't denounce communism, Marxism or socialism right now. You'll go off on a tangent, or ignore the issue altogether. Do you condemn communism, Marxism and socialism? Yeah or Nay?

Then they’re like “waaaa, but Biden said unity. Why aren’t you being nice to me?”

He did say that he was going to unify the nation. Why wouldn't he be nice? Are unifiers normally acting like dicks and demonizing those that disagree?

Just another stupid trolling thread.

It's a duplicate of the same thread about conservatives. Go complain on that one.

And that would be more concise.

 

[Ren]

View attachment 67412526

Glad to see you taking a more chill stance. Good for you.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Indeed. Much of the Republican platform doesn't exist outside "own the libs".

If you were a person who didn't take a minute to read the first thing about your opponents' positions, you might think that.

And some of them, I assume, are good people.

Fair enough, some are.

I want some paperclips and a subway coupon.

Good for you. I do, too.

 

[Ren]

No really, it’s great. Trump and his Trumpists spend several years loudly (and stupidly, and dishonestly) hating “leftists”, aka all non-Trumpists. They attempt to tear down the first republic and install an unelected person as Leader. They’re busy simultaneously fighting so much as the mention of gay peoples’ existence while calling gay people and everyone who stands up for them groomer-pedophiles. Or commie marxist socialist fascists. Really, any word a Trumpist vaguely remembers is supposed to be a bad thing. Etc etc etc.

Then they’re like “waaaa, but Biden said unity. Why aren’t you being nice to me?”



Just another stupid trolling thread.



And that would be more concise.

It's a crisis! A goddamed CRISIS!!!

-- The Left

 

[StillBallin75]

I keep on hearing Progressives saying they want unity and are mad that their opposition for being ''divisive''. Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives. None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

Maybe try not BEING racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or fascist instead of mad at others for pointing it out?

In any case I don't want "unity" with people who stand in opposition to everything I stand for, and who represent everything I stand against.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If you were a person who didn't take a minute to read the first thing about your opponents' positions, you might think that.

I grew up in a red state, lived around conservatives my entire life and interact with conservatives on a near daily basis. I'm well aware of what conservatives say they stand for and what they actually stand for.

 

[Ren]

I grew up in a red state, lived around conservatives my entire life and interact with conservatives on a near daily basis. I'm well aware of what conservatives say they stand for and what they actually stand for.

Well, talk about it. I'm always curious about liberal interpretations.

 

[post]

I keep on hearing Progressives saying they want unity and are mad that their opposition for being ''divisive''. Yet they keep on talking about how their opposition doesn't offer any policies, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and fascist or fascist-adjacent, and being evil misogynists who want women to die instead of allowing abortions, and who want to take away the freedom of Progressives. None of that promotes unity. So what do Progressives want, unity or conflict?

Basta! Capisce?

McConnell's recent chair of senate Homeland Security Oversight Committee...

Senator angered Democrats allowed to go to college and church, work in government agencies

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is angered Democratic voters are allowed to go to church, college, and be employed by those institutions and even the federal government, saying they have "infiltrated" these essential areas of American life and many others.An elections and COVID conspiracy theory...

www.rawstory.com

Senator angered Democrats allowed to go to college and church, work in government agencies​

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
September 12, 2022

"U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is angered Democratic voters are allowed to go to church, college, and be employed by those institutions and even the federal government, saying they have "infiltrated" these essential areas of American life and many others.​

An elections and COVID conspiracy theory promotor, Senator Johnson, appearing on far-right-wing talk show host Mark Levin's Sunday night Fox News show, declared, "what this entire election is about is fighting for freedom."

It's a common refrain for the Wisconsin Republican who infamously spent the Fourth of July in 2018 in Moscow, "posing for propaganda photos with Russian officials" as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank noted at the time, while posting a tweet for his American constituents proclaiming, "What does July 4th mean to me? Freedom."

Milbank observed Johnson's Moscow visit came on "the same day it was reported in Britain that two more people had been poisoned by a Russian nerve agent British officials say came from Vladimir Putin’s regime. On the day after the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the election to help Donald Trump."

WATCH!:

Louis O. Giuffrida - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
"Louis Onorato "Jeff" Giuffrida (October 2, 1920 – November 20, 2012) was the Ronald Reagan administration's first director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from 1981 to 1985.
....He had a lengthy career in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of colonel in 1968.

As originally reported by Alfonso Chardy in a newspaper article in the Miami Herald, July 5, 1987, at the US Army War College, Giuffrida wrote a thesis outlining a military plan for the forcible relocation of millions of black Americans to concentration camps in the event of a national emergency involving racial strife. This is debatable as the thesis referenced below states it would take 14 years to relocate them forcibly. The thesis appears to refer to 500K self-described militants (see page 38) being relocated. On page 41, he appears to question whether this is even realistic. Much of the thesis appears to be devoted to the history of racism and concludes that the treatment of blacks in the army offers a positive example to society (see pages 1 and 47) Prior to September 2014 the Miami Herald article was the only publication to share details about Giuffrida's thesis.

In 1971 he left the Army and organized the California Specialized Training Institute for then California Governor Reagan. ..."

 

[Jredbaron96]

Well, talk about it. I'm always curious about liberal interpretations.

Right now American conservatism is in a Flux, torn between the nationalist populism of Trump and the older neoconservative ideals of the Bushes era.

Part of that has resulted in a bit of an own goal. Conservatives spend decades granting corporations as much legal protection and political influence as possible under the idea that big business is good for America, but nowadays much of the conservative base rails against big business, especially big tech or any global enterprise under the concern that they are undermining American society either through social influence or economics (moving jobs overseas).

This has cast a shadow of doubt on the whole free market worship the GOP formerly engaged it: the term "the freer the market the freer the people" has come under scrutiny since it inevitably leads to the situation where American Jobe are lost to foreign competition, and suddenly protectionist measures are on the table for the Party of Free Enterprise.

That leads into foreign policy, the same party that once said "if you can't stand behind the troops stand in front of them" now calls the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal. Go far enough and you see the isolationist sentiment that seemed only the domain of the far left just a decade ago.

That's why I'm curious what's going to happen once Trump finally dies. No one on the right really encapsulates the movement like him.

 

[Ren]

Right now American conservatism is in a Flux, torn between the nationalist populism of Trump and the older neoconservative ideals of the Bushes era.

Part of that has resulted in a bit of an own goal. Conservatives spend decades granting corporations as much legal protection and political influence as possible under the idea that big business is good for America, but nowadays much of the conservative base rails against big business, especially big tech or any global enterprise under the concern that they are undermining American society either through social influence or economics (moving jobs overseas).

This has cast a shadow of doubt on the whole free market worship the GOP formerly engaged it: the term "the freer the market the freer the people" has come under scrutiny since it inevitably leads to the situation where American Jobe are lost to foreign competition, and suddenly protectionist measures are on the table for the Party of Free Enterprise.

That leads into foreign policy, the same party that once said "if you can't stand behind the troops stand in front of them" now calls the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal. Go far enough and you see the isolationist sentiment that seemed only the domain of the far left just a decade ago.

That's why I'm curious what's going to happen once Trump finally dies. No one on the right really encapsulates the movement like him.

Neoconservatism isn't real conservatism. I wanted Alan Keyes for president, not Bush, and so did a lot of us.

My side of the spectrum doesn't hang on Donald Trump, but you're right; he encapsulated things quite nicely. We just need to find someone even better than him when he steps down for good.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Neoconservatism isn't real conservatism. I wanted Alan Keyes for president, not Bush, and so did a lot of us.

I mean you day it isn't conservatism, but that like of thinking dominated the Republican Party from Reagan to Romney.

 

[post]

Neoconservatism isn't real conservatism. I wanted Alan Keyes for president, not Bush, and so did a lot of us.

My side of the spectrum doesn't hang on Donald Trump, but you're right; he encapsulated things quite nicely. We just need to find someone even better than him when he steps down for good.

Scary shit, but you're up front about it, FWIW. You "could find someone even better than him," ... "better," at doing what... lying, bankrupting, political arson, undermining trust in election results, dismantling the rule of law, making the 188 combined seats of the two highest courts, "white for life"?

(take the bitches to literally within an inch of their life, huh?)

Alan Keyes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Keyes, who opposes abortion in all cases "except as an inadvertent result of efforts to save the mother's life", said in a September 7, 2004 news conference that Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama because of votes that Obama—then a member of the Illinois Senate Judiciary committee and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School—cast in 2001 against a package of three anti-abortion bills that Obama argued were too broad and unconstitutional. The legislation, which provided "that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person," passed the Republican-controlled Illinois Senate, but failed to pass out of the Democratic-controlled Illinois House Judiciary committee. After the election, Keyes declined to congratulate Obama, explaining that his refusal to congratulate Obama was "not anything personal", but was meant to make a statement against "extend[ing] false congratulations to the triumph of what we have declared to be across the line" of reasonable propriety. He said that Obama's position on moral issues regarding life and the family had crossed that line. "I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward the triumph of that which I believe ultimately stands for ... a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country? I cannot do this. And I will not make a false gesture," Keyes said.

Keyes was also criticized for his views on homosexuality. In an interview with Michelangelo Signorile, a gay radio host, Keyes defined homosexuality as centering in the pursuit of pleasure, literally "selfish hedonism". When Signorile asked if Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, fit the description and was therefore a "selfish hedonist", Keyes replied, "Of course she is. That goes by definition." Media sources picked up on the exchange, reporting that Keyes had "trashed", "attacked," and "lashed out at" Mary Cheney, and had called her a "sinner"—provoking condemnation of Keyes by LGBT Republicans and several GOP leaders. Keyes noted that it was an interviewer, not he, who brought up Mary Cheney's name in the above incident, and he told reporters, "You have tried to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize. The people asking me the question did so, and if that's inappropriate, blame the media. Do not blame me."

During the campaign, Keyes outlined an alternative to reparations for slavery. His specific suggestion was that, for a period of one or two generations, African-Americans who were descended from slaves would be exempt from the federal income tax (though not from the FICA tax that supports Social Security). Keyes said the experiment "would become a demonstration project for what I believe needs to be done for the whole country, which is to get rid of the income tax."[55] He also called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment in order to require that U.S. Senators be appointed by state legislatures, rather than being directly elected..."


"