Progressives spoiling for a fight

Remember all the pre-Thanksgiving talk about arguing with your relatives? Oregon Muse has some thoughts on that.

"Somebody go out there and find me one, just *one* quote from a conservative columnist, publication, or even a blog that says what we need to do is to use Thanksgiving dinner to argue with your relatives with whom you have political disagreements. I don't think you'll find any. The only sentiment you'll find from conservatives on Thanksgiving is to enjoy your family, your meal, and just leave politics aside, just for one day.
"But progressives thrive on division.

Here's another comparison: Remember the Kavanaugh hearings? Remember how many times they were interrupted by left-wing protesters who had to be forcibly ejected? Remember the silly, stupid Handmaid's Tale cosplay? Remember the video of the protestor losing her sh*t while Lindsey Graham 2.0 walked past her to his waiting car?

All told, there were over 200 interruptions in the Kavanaugh hearings due to the antics of left-wing protesters.

Now, fast forward to the shampeachment hearings of a couple of weeks ago.

"Was Washington DC suddenly inundated with hordes of conservative protesters screaming and yelling at Democratic congressmen in restaurants and in parking lots and disrupting the hearings? How many conservatives were arrested? How many were forcibly removed by security?

"The answers are, of course, no, zero, and zero.

"And this despite the fact that the hearings were the bastard child of a kangaroo court and a show trial. I think the reason for the most conservatives have jobs, and lives outside of politics, and also because there's no right-wing equivalent to the Soros-funded rent-a-mobs that the left can summon like swarms of flying monkeys at moment's notice.

"But progressives thrive on division. They're just spoiling for a fight. Look at that tweet. It's not an open call for violence, it just says 'conflict is required,' but what kind of conflict? Is there a difference between conflict that is required and conflict that is impermissible, and if so, where do they draw the line? How can they say 'OK, you should argue with a Trump supporter, but don't hit him, that's going too far.'? Progressives have painted their political opponents in such apocalyptically negative terms that there doesn't appear to be any boundaries on what they're allowed to do.

"And they call *us* 'divisive.'"