There was a political realignment after the civil war where the democrat and the republican parties switched roles as liberals and conservatives.

Now there’s a factual realignment, where reality and satire switch which one is absurd and which one is correct when taken at face value

As with most advice regarding early childhood development, your mileage may vary.

Most of the people who vote for him will never be informed about the most appalling and repulsive things he says, because all their news comes filtered through media streams that are designed to prop up the conservative candidate, no matter who, and to discredit the facts that makes that candidate look bad.

But even if everyone who voted for him knew he said these things, they would still be the minority of Americans, because he lost the popular vote in 2016.

They’re not wrong though

Balderdash, the specificity employed in this context was superfluous in comparison to the minimum required for conveying his emotional response to the situation.

Counterargument: everything is limited, and all joyful people are imbeciles to some extent

Or rather, they assassinate him themselves, since someone who has held clearance higher than any other member of the US government is a liability if he becomes disloyal to the US

I guess you could say they’re plugging up the discussion!

In all seriousness, it takes more humanity to make a relevant joke than to identify an object in an image, analyze the accompanying text, and form a response that answers the question without a trace of a smart-ass tone.

The old sci-fi books were right. You can’t teach a robot to laugh. Not in the same way people do, with the tech we currently have, at least.

I just wish more people would be helpful after making their joke, all within the same comment. Keep it engaging and relevant rather than picking just one lane.

Battletoads

Lower inflammation, except for people with pollen allergies for the species of trees around them

Impressive honestly

Which is sad because a lot of science is just ruling things out. We should still publish papers that say that if we do an experiment with too small of a sample, we get an inconclusive result, because that starts to put bounds on how strongly a thing gets affected, if an effect occurs at all.

It won’t even hurt the economy though, it will just hurt some specific industries that spend hundreds of billions of dollars to lobby against reforms, rather than simply changing their business strategy to one that doesn’t kill the planet

In actual reality there would be wind and water currents diverting any ship sailing that route from the depicted “line” anyway so the whole argument is pointless

The only straight line paths in the universe are followed by electrostatically uncharged non-accelerating objects in free fall in a vacuum. Or massless particles.

It’s a straight line through non-euclidean space

That’s why, with any potentially lucrative hobby where success is based mostly on luck, you should only do it for fun while you save enough money to try it out for a month or two to see how you like it as a job. But you shouldn’t quit your day job until you have some GOOD evidence that you’re not going to be dirt poor if you pivot to doing your hobby full-time. You need a good following and a GREAT safety net before you make the jump.

You’re missing a buzzword between Elon Musk and Social network addiction.

Which might be a comment on society at large and not just your madlib

Well that’s also true with 2 colors if the bros just make a checkerboard pattern.

What you mean is that an arbitrary number of bros could section the pool into any arbitrary collection of shapes and with only those 4 ball colors you could guarantee there’s a way to fill the sections where each bro-bordered segment has a different color on either side.

I don’t watch Pay-per-View fights but I would watch that

Total misplay