It looks like it's already been attacked.

I remember when those things first came out and used a headphone jack so you could plug in your CD player. (those were the days...)

Militaries tend to think of their manpower as just a number, not as individuals. The basic training is supposed to make sure each will perform at a predictable level. Psychologically breaking one down is thought to be the quickest (albeit roughest) way to get people to that level. (i.e. being able to clear an area of hostiles with minimal to no friendly casualties, while on very little sleep or sustenance)

Some drill instructors (from what I'm told) can have their rank/title go to their heads that they will ignore the logic of danger of the orders they give just for the sole purpose of "teaching a lesson" to their recruit declining something.

I'm guessing their goal was to make sure anyone that goes through would be able to quickly rehydrate (or replenish themselves) while in the heat of a battle without "losing a step."

There is also an intimidation factor to opposing forces to give the appearance of an indifferent hivemind (sheep as you mentioned it) coming for them. (Think of how scary it would be to have cybermen or the borg after you)

Those will just make you depressed in other ways

Like a cockroach?

The drill sergeants almost became radio show hosts

I'm guessing just for transport of super-expensive/illegal fish during a deal. (like the cliché silver briefcase)

I don't disagree on the symantics of the term. I'm just alluding to the fact that selective breeding/hybridizing foodstuffs can be similar to genetic modification from an outside perspective.

There are a lot of people that will completely discredit anything that that says It has been genetically modified. What they don't necessarily realize is that GMOs and selective breeding/hybridizing can both carry similar, if not the same risks/benefits. You can make your "all-natural" seeds (for instance) sterile. They can both carry similar risks for allergies. They can also both have the same benefits of of disease/pest/drought tolerance. (see the Great French Wine Blight)

It's also not good, not being able to feed your people without imports.

There are also times when honesty can only get you so far. This is especially true when dealing people that don't believe in validated facts/science. (We still have flat-earthers, don't we?)

Yeah. Those were just two examples that came to mind. Tangelos or any "seedless" produce are some other ones.

I see GMOs as just another form of agricultural development to decrease issues/problems with production. (like splicing in a gene that makes them less appetizing to pests so you would use less pesticides or one that makes them more drought tolerant)

One of the largest drawbacks to GMOs though (aside from the capitalistic approach of introducing sterility) is due to allergies. This could however be easily mitigated by listing where each gene comes from so people who may be allergic to the gene of the donor would know if it should be avoided.

Less votes from his super-conservative followers maybe?

The ones not going for him already have a multitude of other things which make him a no-go.

Alkaline water = artificial spring water