He was a sore loser even in 2016 when he did win because he was upset he didn’t win the popular vote, only the electoral college. He had fake electoral maps he showed off that painted pretty much the whole country voting for him and he repeatedly claimed that he won the popular vote, but democrats cheated and that is why it looked like Clinton won the popular vote. No matter how this vote goes, Trump will act outraged that cheating happened and made his numbers underperform, even if he wins in a landslide.

They couldn’t advertise and their reach was limited but they could still post. Now they are outright banned around the world on Meta platforms.

The patient has insurance but once you have insurance you have to find healthcare professionals who accept your insurance, doctors don’t have to accept any insurance plan. The insurance company here has a list of health providers that accept their coverage (we call this in network) and you can go to them for care. The insurance company’s list is poorly maintained so many of the listed providers went out of business, stopped accepting the insurance plan, or stopped accepting new patients.

If you go to a doctor that is out of network, the insurance company charges you much much more for the visit if they cover it at all, or you may have to pay completely out of pocket.

They also have an article with the highlights for those of us who don’t want to sit through 14 hours of videos.

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-project-2025-secret-training-videos-trump-election

What kind of deranged people are buying bats as ornaments? How disturbing.

This was pretty much exactly how it sounds. People in financial trouble sell their house to the lender with an agreement to rent it from the lender and keep living there, then the lender jacks up the rent and they get evicted and the house is sold. After fees and everything else they may not get to keep much of the equity from the house sale and potentially could lose all equity and end up owing the lender. As tenants they don’t have all the legal protections a homeowner in foreclosure would have. The lender claims all its customers know what they are getting into.

People outside of the US probably don’t know about the train wreck in Ohio. It never hurts to add a little clarification.

Well this is a whole community that messed up. His church knew his past and decided to still put him in positions of trust and authority. They could’ve had him do work as a church landscaper or some other non-leadership role if they wanted to still keep him gainfully employed while going through treatment for his issues. Nobody forced the rest of the church leadership to keep him as a minister and pastor when they knew he was capable of abusing a young child for years on end. It is also the responsibility of pedophiles to not put themselves in positions where they have access to children. They might not be able to help their urges, but they can choose not to work around children or share a home with children. There are lots of jobs where children aren’t involved.

Some people have an early growth spurt and people get held back a year sometimes to repeat a grade. The size of the child isn’t relevant here, it is still wrong to choke anybody.

I spent my high school years as a newly born again Christian in the Bible Belt, so I would’ve been the weirdo who loved something like this. This was definitely not a thing where I grew up. It is so weird to think of LA being a religious indoctrination hotbed, that is not something I expected.

Some of the Russians who fall out of windows are shot, poisoned, murdered in prison, or have their planes blown up too? Did they get pushed out of a first floor window and then Russia had to initiate the backup plan when they survived?

This Supreme Court might decide to play favorites, maybe the next precedent is “only religions existing during the founding of the US can display texts in schools.” Just because previous courts protected the separation of church and state doesn’t mean this court has to abide by that precedent.

I am from Texas and have lived in several states in the eastern half of the US. “Entree” on a menu has always been the main dish in my experience. You also frequently see it used that way on recipe websites. This is the first I’ve heard that entree has a different meaning elsewhere. Merriam Webster has a bit of background info on how that came to be.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrée

Without the divorce, a pregnant woman may not have access to enough assets to move out and get into a safe and stable living situation. Women are most likely to be murdered while they are pregnant, forcing them to stay married to an abuser can be a life or death matter for them. Paying child support to provide for a child born to your spouse from an affair is a hardship, but it isn’t trapping someone with the person most likely to murder them during the most vulnerable time in their life. You also assumed based on nothing that men are forced to pay for their wife’s affair children for the duration of their childhoods, but a quick search shows that Missouri allows husbands to deny paternity and even provides free paternity testing through the Family Support Division.

You really do come across as a cruel and heartless person when you claim a true article about women’s physical safety during a vulnerable time in their lives is a lower priority than a completely fictional scenario revolving around non-existent laws and their fictional financial exploitation of men. There is a time and place to talk about grievances men have with our paternity laws, but choosing this story when your assumption was dead wrong is in exceptionally poor taste.

This law came around before DNA sequencing was common, they probably had some kind of archaic law making it hard to pin paternity on an unmarried father since you couldn’t just order a DNA test to show who created the baby.

A family of four doesn’t need four kitchens and four bedrooms, so not every cost scales linearly as a household increases in size. Some things are also cheaper in bulk than if you are just buying enough for one person. I do think a family of four probably needs more than twice what a single person needs, however, but I am no expert on this. In any case, housing costs have drastically outpaced wages and safety nets, which is massively evident by all the homeless camps everywhere.

Probably so it is harder to hide anything under it.

Corporate greed of the insurance companies plays a part, but it is complicated. There is also the skyrocketing size and price of cars driven by auto manufacturer greed (big luxury SUVs and trucks are way more profitable so they’ve mostly quit making small cars) paired with decades of transportation network design that is hostile toward facilitating any mode of transportation outside of autos and also drives preference for larger vehicles.

Our car-first transportation system encourages a snowball effect where having huge cars all around you incentivizes you to upgrade to a larger car because you have no visibility in a small car once half the other drivers have big ones. Additionally, walking and biking become less safe because the cars’ blind spots get huge and you can’t make eye contact to tell if half the drivers see you when you walk/bike through your neighborhood. You also can’t see around large vehicles at intersections to tell if a crossing has anyone else approaching, so you might as well hop in a car instead of trying to get around via cheaper transportation modes. Tearing a hole in your pants by tripping over a dog while walking is cheaper to patch or replace than damage to a car from swerving your vehicle into a pole while attempting not to run over the dog in your path. People are more likely to end up in the latter circumstance when there are no safe foot or bike paths to get around their neighborhood, so that factors into the cost of insurance.

You shouldn’t need a two (or more) ton personal vehicle to safely take care of small local errands, but our cities are designed where that is the safest option. The more weight something has, the more momentum it has at a given speed, requiring a longer stopping distance, reducing your ability to react to hazards in time, and increasing the amount of energy transferred (and the resultant damage) during a collision.

Incentivizing smaller, lighter transportation options would help from both a public safety and insurance cost standpoint because all the safety features in the world can’t negate the basic laws of physics regarding things like momentum and visibility. The hazard large modern vehicles pose to others within their vicinity also suppresses cheaper modes of transit which increases the frequency that expensive vehicles are on the road, leading to even more vehicle collisions and insurer costs. Cars don’t need to be abolished, but they shouldn’t be the only tool we have left in the toolbox, transportation-wise.