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?
most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it's misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.
so why include the misleading one?
the oxford study doesn't account for people who don't pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn't account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.
a vote for cornel west is a vote against trump.