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 like saying that you can't hold Hitler responsible for war crimes or you're just absolving Goebbels. Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of them are all war criminals who deserve the most severe legal punishment there is.

Nobody's said that.

That's your highest effort one yet.

Out of curiosity, how many people have you convinced to go vegan?

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'm familiar with psychology. Nothing about psychology suggests that it's possible to collectively reshape the physical world through thought if enough people believe hard enough. I'd love to see some academic work that supports that claim.

How long have they been saying a ceasefire is right around the corner, and how long will they keep saying it? Probably right on through November, at least. Are people really still buying it?

Liar.

What do ML's say about the Khmer Rouge? Haven't seen discussion of it myself, maybe you can provide me with a link?

In what way?