I don’t think you know anything about her or her politics, but if you want to make a snap judgement based on one photo, who am I to try to stop you?

she was an invited guest who paid her own way to celebrate one of the new media outlets that would let her get her message out. she didn’t make the seating chart.

I meant the milk, but ok. farmers agree: calves are the farmers property as much as the cows are

babies don’t make milk. other animals don’t have property. You’re just anthropomorphizing.

just saying it doesn’t make it so. it’s perfectly natural to drink milk, and plenty of people aren’t lactose intolerant.

many naturally aren’t.

absurd ideological basis (anarchy supporters)

I am not a community but can you please add me to your list

you’re the one who can’t seem to count.

it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter’s preference.

no, it’s not.

where’s the money, Lebowski

so you know non votes don’t get counted for Trump

Removed by mod

id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so in one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.

trump only gets to count votes for him. any other vote is a vote against him, and a non vote is a non vote

whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That’s eugenics

your semantic understanding of eugenics doors not seem to understand why people opposed eugenics and eugenics policies.

if you didn’t vote you voted

the mental gymnastics inside one clause are incredible

Removed by mod

it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.

the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you’re free to do so.

Even if this were true

it is