I would guess that whatever gene that predisposes some to pedophilia also governs the normal human reaction to neotenous features. Probably not something that can be simply eradicated without unintended consequences.

And probably not feasible

Has anyone here watched the movie "GATTACA?"

at the end is the same answer for both

yea i have

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/science/crispr-cancer-gene-editing.html

This is the entire point of the movie

but thats for cancer

o nvm

yea ive heard about this

thats why i said is limited

yeah, not helpful when the body treats fixed cells as cancer lmao

yeah

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/clinton-impeachment-is-no-precedent-for-trump

Someone want to read this and give me their impression of what the author is advocating?

Clinton was imeached for lying under oath. That was it. Nixoin was impeached for conspiracy and various crimes to stay in power. The DNC wants to impeach Trump for getting elected and following the unpopular programs that Obama did.

Basically what the article said,

Just cuz Trump paid off some flusies, shouldn't be grounds for impeachment like with Bill Clinton, because its not betrayal of the country,
Bills case didn't warrant impeachment too.

Nixon's case was worse and if Cohen speaks the truth and there was collusion there should be impeachment,
But not for paying off whores

also what Khan said, this isnt impeachment for wrongdoing, but impeachment just out of spite

Clinton could have had all the extra marital affairs he may or may not have had, but those wouldn't have been impeachable offenses. Lying under Oath is a felony charge that could warrant a gross and criminal abuse of power.

But the author says that if Clinton committed perjury or obstruction that the impeachment clause would not have applied.

"True, Clinton was alleged (among other things) to have perjured himself and to have obstructed justice in connection with the sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones. Those are serious allegations. But they are not the kind of wrongdoing that triggers the impeachment clause."

That is what the article said. I am going off what was the justification at the time. Had Slick Willy sat down in front of the committee and said, "Shit, I shoved my saxophone so far down Monica's throat I got stomach acid on it!" he would have been fine from an Impeachment standpoint, but because he lied under oath to the special investigator, that was what got him in trouble.

Based on the accusation against Trump, TX law would call that a minor Misdemeanor, Class B rather than Class A. As such it fails the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" specification.

My read of the article is that the author is advocating against attempting to catch Trump in perjury, as doing so would solidify the impeachment of Clinton as legitimate (which he disagrees with). He instead seems to be advocating the impeachment of Trump for campaign finance violations (which is silly, given that would also mean Obama was impeachable for the same). Just seems hopelessly partisan.

He seems to be trying to claim Clinton was falsely impeached but that Trump could be rightfully impeached.

I still maintain that the DNC wants to impeach Trump for winning.

Of course. Right now it seems they're getting serious about putting together an actual case. Incredibly risky and dangerous gambit if you ask me. The rage that elected Trump hasn't dissipated.

Why is this not an emoji?

i dunno

but i made it and i'm using it! 😛

just ping JDM

@Senny just tried wouldn't let me

i think you are trolling me but I'll bite

@JDM_WAAAT konichiwa arigato

what

we want emoji added please

it's few line up there from Wol

thank you

<:TimThink:482277772497125378>

...