No one complains about aspartame because they are worried about toxicity so I'm not sure who you are arguing with. The argument against aspartame has always been the studies showing it can be quite carcinogenic.
My guess is that this is overreach by the FDA though it would have been nice to see the actual amounts of said "chemicals". They mention formaldehyde but, is this formaldehyde at the levels you'd find in say a pear at the grocery store? Most likely this is state of California level of "harmful" and mostly nonsense.
Millennials in a few years will need to be content with their virtual worlds and rich online social circles. Think how nice it will be for them to each have their own special virtual private island and mansion.
I wouldn't be too sure of a Hillary presidency. We're a long way off but Rasmussen has Trump leading now (within margin for err). Combine that with the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary and some fired up conservatives... it may not even be particularly close. Remember all the experts opining before Brexit and the assumption that Remain would win. latest poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
This is a good point. I would find in favor of Facebook where I on a jury but the more Facebook filters content they don't agree with, the more they might open themselves up for things like this. I would think you'd have to show that they were aware of the communications taking place and chose not to interfere though... or that being aware of it would have been such a trivial thing as to show recklessness on their part.
Speaking as someone from Kentucky, if people need to attend an institution of higher education to be aware of basic concepts of jurisprudence then our primary education system is more messed up than I thought;) I would imagine he's actually got a pretty good chance given how strong an anti-establishment / anti-government streak there is in Kentucky.