CarnivorousCouch

It's been well over a decade since I've dabbled in this sort of scene, but it was stupid common for "ecstasy" to be adulterated with other substances (often miscellaneous amphetamines) in my region. Everything, mixed or not, would be sold as ecstasy if in tablet form. You'd generally have to look up the pressing on a third-party site to check for quality, if you didn't test yourself (my friends were young and broke). This was in a major coastal city in the United States, for reference.

Not trying to say you're wrong, but just relating why the previous commenter may have had their impression.

The toot heard around the world!

I loved this one, too. Super weird story, but I was hooked. I didn't even object to what I sort of remember as a deus ex machina kind of ending. Seemed fittingly weird for the vibe.

I really wish this had been one for me, but I've never been able to make it more than halfway through despite a few good faith attempts. I am really glad you had a great time with it, though!

Agreed. I thought it was a competently made game, even if not groundbreaking or best in class for shooting. I think people's expectations are often their biggest obstacle to enjoyment.

Golly, it's just so hard to understand why, when actually faced with the prospect, people are so reluctant to start killing their neighbors and relatives!

Forgive my terrible phone doodle, but I think this is what's being suggested. Basically, you're groin-to-ass below, but above your chest is not pressed directly against the front partner's back. Instead, you position the lower arm so your forearm runs across their back, and wrap the upper arm over them in a half embrace.

It's a reaction to a storytelling choice; you'll know when you get there.

Edit: Just saw your other comment in here, and seems you got to the switch already. I share your opinion!

I agree with you. I think 2 is better than 1, and it's not close in my eyes. Audacious storytelling, but (IMO) they pulled it off really well.

All we had to do was follow the damn train!

You're talking about national elections, and I'm talking about presence in state and local elections. Candidates with a sustainable/viable chance nationally must first have an established local presence. That base builds credibility and sustainability for a movement, as others in the movement can also point towards local or state wins to justify their own candidacies.

I also happen to be familiar with my state Democratic party chairs. The idea that they could be systemically suppressing progressives in state or local elections would require a level of competence and political acumen I've never seen them demonstrate. They barely have control over their party, as is. I'm connected to the political world in my state both personally and professionally, and the concept of Democrats being able to exert this kind of control is actually laughable.

The bottom line is that you're mad that Democrats don't support your candidates, and Democrats are mad you don't support theirs. Both attitudes are unproductive. In the end, if either progressives or Democrats wants to pick up votes, they're going to need to actually persuade voters to show up and vote consistently, and not just in federal elections. This will include voters you don't necessarily like or fully agree with. You know who ran candidates in and voted for every single school board race? The damn Tea Party.