Finally the Gaza voters. Its fine to play the game of chicken, keep screaming as loud as you can demanding change, but ultimately (secretly) get to the ballot and vote D.

This is how you destroy your credibility and ensure you won't be listened to on anything. The Democrats count on the two party system (which they are responsible for, in part) to make us fall in line. They're not going to shift on anything so long as they can write off our objections as empty rhetoric, so long as they can make calculations based on the assumption that we will ultimately fall in line.

Oh yeah, did you also know that the arms deals from the US to Israel are an ongoing thing, for a long, long time, passed by Congress? And that the president has limited ability to do anything about them? And that Biden wanted to pause at least one of those shipments? And that House Republicans didn’t let him? (I’ll find a source on this in a bit.)

Biden bypassed congress to send more weapons than what congress approved.

There are numerous laws already in place that make these arms shipments illegal, including the Leahy Law, the Arms Control Export Act, and the U.S. War Crimes Act. Biden has failed to enforce any of them, because he's a lifelong diehard Zionist who's fully supportive of what's happening there.

You are spreading misinformation, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm from the South and I always hated having to drive. I think it's also nicer/safer to drive in a place with public transit than without, because some bad drivers know they're bad drivers and will take another option if it's available, plus it just means fewer cars on the road. No public transit just sucks for everyone.

I live near Chicago, and the worst I've experienced is someone yelling or playing loud music. I'm not saying bad stuff never happens, but it's much safer than driving (admittedly a very low bar).

Fascists paint themselves as being a third position that supercedes the left-right dichotomy, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Everything about it is right-wing and it's not actually as incompatible with capitalism as fascists claim. Every fascist regime has partnered up with capitalists, who often support them into power in the first place.

Oops, you forgot to answer my question again.

Cut the crap. It's plain as day what's happening here - you want to discredit the people who are actually doing things in order to make yourself feel better about not doing anything. It's just a defense mechanism, and the person you're really trying to fool us yourself.

Oh, which candidate that supports those things you mentioned were you going to vote for but now aren't? Love to hear even a single name.

Of course, you can't answer that, because that's not a realistic path in the short term. Let's say you were going to run for office on that platform. First, the major corporations that have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are are going to dump money into the opposition. Second, people will oppose it because it would increase the price of meat - they'll say you're an elitist who wants to make it so that only the rich can have access to it, and emphasize the effect it'll have on grocery bills. They'll also talk about the environmental impact your regulations would cause, since it would take more land to treat animals humanely. And they will also call you a hypocrite for refusing to give up meat while calling the production process unethical, to the point of being deserving of jail time.

So explain to me how exactly you would've overcome those obstacles, if only us mean insidious vegans weren't so preoccupied with asking you to give up your treats.

Other countries' affairs should be a bigger deal in our elections. If the US is going to play world police, then it ought to represent the people it's policing. Since those people can't vote, US citizens have a responsibility to learn and understand things from a global perspective and to place their interests on equal level to that of our own. If the US wasn't so intimately involved in other countries' affairs, you might have a point, but as it stands, prioritizing one's own concerns over the people who are being killed and oppressed in our names is unethical and undemocratic.

Also, with just the money we've sent to Israel, we could end homelessness. Also, many of our police travel to Israel to be trained in their methods. The violence there also creates refugees which affects immigration. There are lots of domestic issues that are affected by foreign affairs.

That's your highest effort one yet.

The simple logic will tell you that it will increase the demand on plants ( going vegan, we cannot eat the feed of animals because thats very poor quality of plants, even harmful to people).

What if, hear me out, instead of eating the animal feed, we grew different plants that are edible for humans?

We can’t feed the current 8 billion population without using the industrial way of agriculture and farming.

Obviously. Do you actually want to get rid of industrialized agriculture altogether? The aim is to reduce harm, not to instantly solve every single problem in the world simultaneously.

I suppose the previous status quo that anti-natalists want to return to is before the evolution of intelligent life. Word is still out on whether it's immoral for single-celled organisms to reproduce.

Weird that I wouldn't make sense to you considering I just did the exact same thing you did.