The fact that you get mad about someone talking about birth rates actually proves that you are a woman and a feminist, because they too get mad at that.
It explains how he held the position that there are too few babies while supporting abortion.
No inconsistency there, that is also my position, dummy. I want more babies to married couples (and not adopted), not to teenage mothers or drug addicts.
Because he doesn't have to be internally consistent
Wait, you're concerned with internal consistency, after calling Kathy Barnette a feminist while supporting a candidate who supports castration and BLM (both of which you claim are feminist)?
Very clearly. Unless there's worse that we don't know yet.
Not really. They get mad because they have their strange Handmaid Tale delusions, while I get mad because they could actually enslave us by pumping up benefits for married couples and those with kids because of this ridiculous "crisis".
No, that's inconsistent. If you believe birth rates are too low, you should want more births regardless of origin.
President Trump supported Oz as well and he doesn't support those things. He understood that both other candidates were awful.
Very clearly. Unless there's worse that we don't know yet.
Always wrong, but never in doubt.
They get mad because they have their strange Handmaid Tale delusions
So you admit that they are also mad at people talking about birth rates, same as you. And that you're a woman trying to make different arguments against talking about birth rates to push your feminist agenda - just arguments that non-feminists might buy.
No, that's inconsistent. If you believe birth rates are too low, you should want more births regardless of origin.
Nope, I don't want births that lead to social pathology, and neither does Musk. He's right, and you're wrong... yet again.
President Trump supported Oz as well and he doesn't support those things. He understood that both other candidates were awful.
lol @ you thinking that Trump cares about any issue. You're a cultist. On the issues, Barnette was best, followed by McCormick (who supported judicial activism for homosexual marriage, but at least not castration like your candiate).
No, it means you're, as usual, far too soft on women and not realizing that you're screwing yourself over.
You realize if birth rates ever get declared a "crisis" like he advocated for, the government will rip off every single man to provide for women to have kids.
That's why I'm against his shilling. It turns a losing position into a winning one for them. They don't deserve to be paid because their hostility was so obvious it managed to overrule biology.
No, it means you're, as usual, far too soft on women
At least I have the guts to admit that (some) women need to be slapped more often, while you have no solutions at all.
You realize if birth rates ever get declared a "crisis" like he advocated for, the government will rip off every single man to provide for women to have kids.
Like all of recorded history, before feminism? I thought you disliked feminism.
That's why I'm against his shilling. It turns a losing position into a winning one for them. They don't deserve to be paid because their hostility was so obvious it managed to overrule biology.
?? What are you even trying to say here?
Speaking of which, you're constantly panicking about how the womens are forcing men to pay for the kids that they created, while at the same time being against abortion - which if outlawed, would force many more men to pay for unwanted kids. Do tell me how that is consistent.
And just like that, Impy starts listening and believing to unsubstantiated MeToo allegations.
And you know what the 'shilling for women' is? Commenting on the low birth rate.
But of course, Women-man bad, after all. Aka: No bad tactics, only targets.
Subjecting him to the tactics of his own allies is fair game.
Whether it's real or not doesn't change that it was how they were controlling him.
It explains how he shilled birth rates at the same time as the climate cult said people should still have babies.
It explains how he held the position that there are too few babies while supporting abortion.
Because he doesn't have to be internally consistent, he has to do what they say.
It is?
The fact that you get mad about someone talking about birth rates actually proves that you are a woman and a feminist, because they too get mad at that.
No inconsistency there, that is also my position, dummy. I want more babies to married couples (and not adopted), not to teenage mothers or drug addicts.
Wait, you're concerned with internal consistency, after calling Kathy Barnette a feminist while supporting a candidate who supports castration and BLM (both of which you claim are feminist)?
Very clearly. Unless there's worse that we don't know yet.
Not really. They get mad because they have their strange Handmaid Tale delusions, while I get mad because they could actually enslave us by pumping up benefits for married couples and those with kids because of this ridiculous "crisis".
No, that's inconsistent. If you believe birth rates are too low, you should want more births regardless of origin.
President Trump supported Oz as well and he doesn't support those things. He understood that both other candidates were awful.
Always wrong, but never in doubt.
So you admit that they are also mad at people talking about birth rates, same as you. And that you're a woman trying to make different arguments against talking about birth rates to push your feminist agenda - just arguments that non-feminists might buy.
Nope, I don't want births that lead to social pathology, and neither does Musk. He's right, and you're wrong... yet again.
lol @ you thinking that Trump cares about any issue. You're a cultist. On the issues, Barnette was best, followed by McCormick (who supported judicial activism for homosexual marriage, but at least not castration like your candiate).
Speaking of which, I have the same positions as Musk. Does that mean that I am 'shilling for women'? And am I 'blackmailed' as well?
No, it means you're, as usual, far too soft on women and not realizing that you're screwing yourself over.
You realize if birth rates ever get declared a "crisis" like he advocated for, the government will rip off every single man to provide for women to have kids.
That's why I'm against his shilling. It turns a losing position into a winning one for them. They don't deserve to be paid because their hostility was so obvious it managed to overrule biology.
At least I have the guts to admit that (some) women need to be slapped more often, while you have no solutions at all.
Like all of recorded history, before feminism? I thought you disliked feminism.
?? What are you even trying to say here?
Speaking of which, you're constantly panicking about how the womens are forcing men to pay for the kids that they created, while at the same time being against abortion - which if outlawed, would force many more men to pay for unwanted kids. Do tell me how that is consistent.