You’re talking about La Folette and Wheeler? I don’t remember anything they advocated for being too bad, but I haven’t looked at their proposed policies in a long time. Wouldn’t that be natural of a truly progressive movement, though? What was “progressive” one hundred years ago should hopefully be status quo, and what’s progressive now could scantly be imagined back then.

Keith David

Current.

As the bartender, she had cut-off and 86 authority. Act sideways with a bartender, find another place to drink. But when the creeps are your “peers” I think it’s tougher to navigate.

The lack of votes for Harris did that.

That makes assumptions, like that they would have had all the ingredients available or that they would eat enough subs to make buying the ingredients more viable.

Jesus went to hell. That’s actual Christian doctrine. It’s called the Harrowing of Hell. 1Peter 4:6 and Ephesians 4:9 make direct reference to it.

If they’re losing so many electrons, they must be pretty positive by now.

Living up to the middle of your username, I see.

that’s a sticky question,

No, the banshee-wailing fuck it isn’t!

If someone truly believes they are in fucking danger, they need to remove themselves from the danger first and foremost, before any consideration of “but what about next election?”

O, to be so proverbially blissful.

Uh huh, there I go again? This suddenly shifted from a reasonable conversation to bad faith rhetoric. This is collectively the fault of everyone who made piss poor, ineffectual efforts to stop it as a unified bloc. That encompasses a lot of folks. But as long as you have the specter of “they did it, not me” then I guess it’s easier to avoid speculation as to why we all can’t win.

I’m as guilty of that by saying that aligning with the larger contingent was the best way through, I suppose. But failing to even make a reasonable effort was beyond the pale. I didn’t want the outcome we got, but far too many leftists and progressives seemed comfortable with flirting with disaster.

Did you envision a worse outcome than the one we got? Because, for me, it was the most unfavorable situation. Working backward from that, it seemed self-evident that the clear path to avoiding it was to throw in with the only other viable option.

Anything else, any more complex assessment of the choice that was given to us, invited in division. The fascist platform was “fuck you” and everyone to the left of that was more concerned with the etymology of the phrase or the moral implications of flipping someone off than firing back with “no, fuck YOU” and sorting out the details once we found out whether or not there were enough of us who didn’t want to be fucked.

The feeling is mutual.

Equally a shame that so many to the left of the Dems felt that their faces could use a little spiting and went straight to work on their noses.

Regardless of what wagon we arrived in, we’re all here now. And we’re quite short on options that will improve our circumstances.

You forgot the quotes. “Power.” She’ll be a progressive member of the minority party under a fascist regime who has already signaled a complete lack of care for its political adversaries.

I’d argue that the two women are not far removed from one enother in the amount of power they will wield.

I’ve heard that progressive policies are quite popular and get people to the polls.

Not a Democrat, just someone who understands that without unity during this election, we were always going to get this result.

There were two candidates who could win. I didn’t like either of them. That doesn’t mean one wasn’t closer to what I’d like to see for this country.

Now we have what we have.

Which is it? There are so, so many progressives who can effect change out there, or most everyone to the left of the Dems conformed but it wasn’t enough?

Road map for me how she will be of any positive effect once the new administration takes power.

It will stay with you forever, and you’re smart enough to know it.