A few observations:

• This won’t be the first time those media outlets have been sued for libel. It’s a common enough occurrence that they keep lawyers around ready to litigate. So this isn’t as chilling as Trump might hope.
• Litigation means discovery. If Trump wants to win, he’ll have to turn over his private records to NYT lawyers. If he refuses then his case will be thrown out.
• Once Trump takes office, it will be harder to pull this kind of crap. Only private individuals can sue for defamation, the government cannot.

And how did you determine what the purpose of fruit is? It certainly can’t communicate its preferences or desires.

All you can observe is that the species as a whole thrives when fruit is consumed. But the same is true of farm animals. You are simply projecting the motivations you want to see, like self-sacrifice, onto one but not the other. After all, many fruits are poisonous. That suggests that fruits don’t want to be eaten, but animals evolved mechanisms to safely eat some fruit.

Finally, factory farms certainly cause animals to suffer but from an evolutionary perspective thriving is not about avoiding suffering. It’s about producing offspring, and in that sense farm animals thrive. And given that the OP is about the potential suffering of plants, I don’t see why fruit farms are any less horrific than animal farms.

Yes, it’s possible but undesirable for both pigs and fruits to survive without assistance from humans. In both cases, that assistance is offered because humans eat the creatures they assist.

You still haven’t explained why this relationship is good for fruits but bad for pigs.

Simmons argued that this move would keep Harris from having to oversee “her own defeat” when the presidential election is certified in the Senate

If Gore can do it, so can Harris

By that reasoning, fruit is not in a biologically obligatory symbiosis with the animals that eat it. There are many cases of fruit falling to the ground uneaten and forming a new plant near its parent. Those plants eke out an existence just as feral pigs do.

Why does the length of time matter? Domesticated varieties of cows and pigs would go extinct if humans stopped raising them for meat. The only niche where they can survive is a farm. They are in symbiosis now even if they weren’t 10,000 years ago.

So cows and pigs - like many fruiting plants - co-evolved with the creatures that fed on them. In both cases, those creatures became necessary for their long-term survival.

If you want to make a teleological argument, then you could equally ask why agricultural animals, compared to wild animals, have much higher fat content and other characteristics that humans find delicious.

All evidence suggests those features are favored by humans, who are the animals currently responsible for ensuring their continued reproduction.

You just asserted that the fruit is freely given, but you haven’t supported that.

I mean, one could also say that cows and pigs willingly sacrifice themselves so humans will continue to feed their descendants, but there isn’t any evidence of that either.

It’s freely given by a plant just as human sacrifices are freely given by a cult.

The stinky place isn’t soil. It’s a sewer or a landfill, because that’s where human waste ends up. Neither can support plant life because they are devoid of light, just like the realm of Cthulhu.

And the deal with Cthulhu is that he gets to devour whoever you’ve sacrificed, and in return he provides a benefit to the survivors: allowing them to live long enough to provide more sacrifices. It’s basically the same deal.

Also, if anyone reading this happens to be a seed on a fruit meant to be devoured by humans then I have bad news about your final destination: it’s rather a stinky place that is not in any way conducive to your growth. The cake is a lie.

In the same way that cultists give human sacrifices to Cthulhu specifically to eat.

I’m pretty sure the fruits are screaming too.

Bush was popular among Latinos, and got 40% of their vote in 2004. But that’s not true of all Republicans since then. McCain got 31% in 2008, and Romney got 27% in 2012.

Trump himself only got 29% in 2016 (much less than this year).

I don’t think it’s that difficult. Trump had a rather focused message: anti-immigration and pro-tariffs. He hammered just two issues and it brought out his biggest demographics, uneducated whites and business owners. The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.

Democrats need to be similarly focused on their biggest demographics, with two or three major initiatives to differentiate them from the GOP.

Codifying Roe worked to bring out college educated voters. They should probably keep that.

Now add a major new program aimed at blue collar voters (Harris lacked this) and a major new program aimed at Latino and/or Black voters (Harris lacked this too).

They accepted him only because Republican voters vastly preferred him over the establishment candidate, Jeb!

The same is not true of Bernie. He has a loyal base, but it’s not the majority of Democratic voters.

Same thing that happened every time Bernie tried to run nationwide. Did he take his own advice?

If Kamala were only running in Vermont, she would have won too.

There were more Harris voters in Vermont than Sanders voters. So maybe Bernie should be listening to Kamala.

Don’t flatter yourself. If everyone who voted for a third party had voted for Harris instead, she still would have lost.

Leftists are too small a constituency to put Democrats over the top.