Okay, it’s that serious. I agree. So considering those things are not happening…… Are we allowed to actually do something? or are we going to wait for the political process to…. revolution? elect a leftist? (or a moderate socialist who will *checks notes* hold rich people accountable….. Oooooookay….)
I’ve got a few ideas on ways we could deal with this. First step is stopping further damage…. right? I’ve got a few ideas.
Yeah, wow, he’s increased returns for the rich and created lots of new minimum-wage jobs that voters like so much that they tend to have 2 or 3 of them. (The U-5 unemployment rate, which is the only honest one because it counts people who were looking for work but have failed to find anything for a long time or who have given up, is actually still very slightly higher — 4.4 versus 4.3 — than it was before Covid, when Trump was in office.) Otherwise, he has continued Trump’s immigration policies but with more efficiency, licensed a record amount of fossil fuel extraction just as climate change becomes totally unignorable, increased federal funding for the cops who keep killing more and more people, increased military spending dramatically (even excluding aid to Ukraine), failed to push for a rise in the minimum wage, failed to do anything significant for the environment, refused to push for better Covid policies, let Medicaid expansions for Covid drop, but renewed the 9/11 state of emergency for no very good reason. He only still has a 40% approval rating because it’s clear the alternative is Trump, just as Hillary Clinton was only able to reach 48% of the popular vote (Trump got 46) because she was running against Trump. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig — Biden is a shitty candidate, and almost the only thing he has going for him is not being Trump. If you want actual enthusiasm, then get a candidate who isn’t a triangulating traitor who, when you look purely at policy instead of rhetoric, sells out to the right wing every time there’s any kind of confrontation.
Yeah no that’s pretty shitty honestly. First off, “and then they had sex bc they’re GAY” isn’t a punchline (and also what is that fourth panel doing for you Adam). Secondly, the fact that the author of a beloved children’s book was gay (there was a recent article about this for Frog and Toad) is not an invitation to sexualize it, what the fuck. Gay sex is all well and good, but being gay is not only about sex. Gay people have childhoods. Gay people have deep and loving relationships.
“Kid stuff but make it wildly inappropriate for children” is already a lazy joke, but specifically choosing this book for it is pretty ignorant.
Not that it makes a diff but I think he’s gay
IIRC, the artist is bi, and I am 99% sure the joke is intended to be “oh, this book is about a gay relationship, that explains why this was my favorite book before I had self-awareness”.
ALT
ALT
