If you think any or all of these is going to finally get a Trump supporter to lose faith, then you failed to learn the lesson that 2016 should’ve taught you, and yesterday should’ve reminded you of - they will never lose faith. He could tell them to literally kill their own kids and they’d just say “Oh, like what God told Abraham! I’ll get right on it, my Lord!”

While that’s true, it was mostly just because Mondale was from Minnesota, and even then he only won by 0.18%.

It’s got a bit of a rough start for the first half of the first season, but once it finds its stride it’s great.

Nobody was chained with 2 options. The options were chosen and rallied for by representatives picked by the people who actually thought about and participated in local government elections. (I’m dropping the metaphor, since it glosses over the process by which these 2 options came about in the first place)

Would you be arrested? Probably not, but you’re more likely to be than Trump. See, committing a crime isn’t the only factor that influences whether or not you get slapped with the punishment for that crime, even if it’s plainly obvious to everyone you committed it. Another major factor is whether or not someone is going to go through the effort of ensuring you get punished - if nobody does, or if they try, but can’t get to that finish line of getting a judge to declare you to be guilty in court, then you walk away scot-free.

So, the thing that’s keeping you from being arrested is your relative insignificance. You’re just some person, so it’s unlikely that anyone will go through the trouble of ensuring you receive the punishment for the crime you committed, even if it’s a relatively easy thing to do. Now, if you were to go on TV and say it, that would significantly increase your risk, since now more people are seeing you and someone who gives a shit might decide to go after you. That would be damning for you, since it would require very little effort to punish you - you clearly committed the crime, and you have no way to influence the court to make you harder to punish.

For Trump, his protection isn’t insignificance - there are plenty of people who would like to ensure he’s properly punished; instead, his protection comes from making it really difficult for someone who wants to punish him to be successful in that endeavor. He has a lot of money and influence, so he can hire good lawyers that can drag out the expensive legal process - something he can afford, but a lot of people who might try to go after him can’t. His lawyers are also good enough to find loopholes in the law to avoid punishment, so even if you can afford a cheap lawyer for a long time, he’ll likely still walk away unscathed. He’s also shown that he has the ability to influence what judge gets put on trials he’s a part of, which is another factor that influences whether or not he might get punished for the crime.

Ultimately, you’d have to have a rock-solid case presented by a team of very good lawyers working non-stop for months to years in order to bring Trump to justice, and the only people who reasonably have that power are almost exclusively on his side to begin with. Trump has knowingly committed multiple major crimes, and has shown that he has the ability to prevent them from hurting him, so he knows that he has virtually no chance to be punished for minor crimes, and commits them openly all the time.

I just want them to finish the beta 2D version of Rayman 2. I was so excited when I unlocked the demo for it at the end of Rayman 2, thinking it was a sneak preview for the next game, only be disappointed to learn it was the scrapped initial concept instead…

3D Rayman games are good, but they feel like a completely different series when compared to the bright, colorful world of Rayman 1. The newer 2D ones are closer, but still feel too different.

When you accidentally grab a blank slide and panic for a little bit.

That sucks, bud. I hope your future love makes their way to your living room eventually!

I dunno how you went about it, but I’ve given some pointers to friends who weren’t having any luck with online dating, and a lot of them were being too passive about it, basing their potential match choices mainly off of “vibes” and sending mostly generic opening messages - the quantity-over-quality approach.

While I was on the site, I spent hours a day going through every single person’s profile - looking it over to really get as best of an understanding of the person as I could - and if I took interest in a few points, I’d send a message personalized to them based on what I saw on their profile. I also made sure that my own profile was well fleshed out, filling every field with well thought out responses, and putting up pictures of me hanging out with friends and doing activities like cooking and going to an amusement park.

Some, though not all, of the people who followed my advice eventually found success through dating sites. If you haven’t tried all this, I’d suggest giving it a shot. If you have, sorry for being presumptuous, and I hope that you find who you’re looking for eventually.

A buddy of mine got his first girlfriend in college after a family friend noticed that his single niece also liked manga and anime and introduced the two. I was very jealous of his attractive, nerdy girlfriend-turned-wife for several years until I finally got on a dating site and found love for myself.

I sure hope so, but I don’t see much changing. I guess we’ll see by looking at where Reddit is at business-wise by next year. People were saying it was doomed last summer after the 3rd party app fiasco, and their daily traffic has only gone up since then. I’ve long since lost all faith in the masses making the best choices for themselves.

They’re better than the OLD alternative, which was total boycotting at best, and torches and pitchforks at worst. The NEW alternative is complaining about it for a week or two, then continuing on without making any changes at all. They don’t mind the new alternative.

Yeah, my mom used to be upset that I didn’t hold onto my old pokemon cards, but not only did I never have any rare ones that would be worth anything anyway, I used them how I wanted to when I wanted to, and when they stopped interesting me, I gave them to someone who was still interested. I don’t regret that.

My mom died of cancer a few months ago because she was convinced that a combination of sunlight’s natural vibrational frequency and some expensive “medical” herbal teas would cure her. Placebos affect people, but if you let them believe that they’re an alternative to actual science and medicine, then they’ll use them as such.

They hate what they’ve been told to hate, and love what they’ve been told to love. Any similarities or differences between the two are irrelevant to them - they don’t even think to look. These aren’t people exploring their options and picking what looks best to them, they’re just doing what they’re told, and thinking they’re smarter for it.

Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

GMO’s trace back further than that - even when we’re specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO’s are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it’s the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn’t mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone’s scared of.

Monsanto creates GMOs based on nothing but greed - they have complete disregard for the environmental impact of the wanton use of pesticides that their resistant strains encourage. But that’s just one GMO application - other crops use genetic modification to produce greater yields or better nutritional value.

Golden rice is a great GMO that can bring vitamin C and other essential nutrients to previously-deficient areas of the world, but it keeps getting delayed and disrupted by people who think that the reason Monsanto is terrible is because they make GMO’s, rather than their sketchy business and science practices they use. GMO’s as a whole are neutral, and there are amazing benefits we can get from them if we understand the difference between good and bad use of genetic modification.

OP’s post points out that beneficial old-fashioned GMO creation through use of selective breeding has immensely improved agricultural yield from the original source - the process of using our own observations to modify organisms on a genetic level is not new, and without it, we wouldn’t be where we are now as a species.

The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.

Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.

I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.