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

  • LisaTrevor [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 hours 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]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours 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