if their goal was to find an alternate to trump and biden, what do you think they'd be doing now? my guess is they'd be waiting to see if they can actually get behind whatever the dems do next.
Israel props them up
if i elect an average right wing conservative (which is redundant) and they go on to do bad things, which is practically guaranteed, I would not feel better.
but what happens if you vote for someone and they end up winning?
oh shit. super bad guy. glad i never installed a fucking client. fuck everything about this.
i don't trust it because it is very big on the design meaning to be "censorship resistant" and there are certain kinds of posts that people make that probably should be censored, and while i like that some tools exist to make pseudononymous, censorship-resistant communications possible (tor and i2p are good. freenet is fine imho), this one looks like a grift that has a neon sign saying "censorship resistant".... and i am sure that associating with those people will lead to encountering some of that material that probably should be censored.
that video illustrates the problem with strategic voting: it consolidates parties. the lesson you sohuld learn from it is that strategic voting is actually voting against your own interest.
i'm open to the possibility that you're right, but my experience is that criticism of the cia or zionism is tolerated to a much greater degree on .world than criticism of china or soviet russia is tolerated on .ml.
can you point to specific instance-wide bannings for talking shit on us foreign policy or zionism?
Can you explain to me how voting makes one complicit? And how not voting doesn’t make one complicit when the worse of two evils is elected?
if you vote to put someone in power, you are complicit in their actions in office. if you don't vote for that person, you can't be complicit.
that's true though. do you have any examples that are actually misinformation?
view more: next ›
no one is disenfranchising dem voters at all