hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake hisssssss warren-snake-green warren-snake

  • NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    those are the hooks of liberalism reaching for you, they can describe the problems and then offer some technically-not-wrong solutions, then you vote for them and nothing changes obama-medal

    • LisaTrevor [she/her]
      ·
      2 months ago

      don't worry, I know, I was just expecting worse. to expand, I just mean what she says makes sense if you must strictly limit your scope of engagement to what might be possible within the Democratic party. Luckily, you don't gotta do that.

      • NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        stalin-approval I almost included that exact parenthetical (within the scope allowed by capitalist liberal democracy) but it made the line wrap and my brain made me remove it