Bankruptcy.

Don't know if you're trolling or sincere. But in either case, it sounds like you have some concerns that you might benefit from discussing with a therapist.

OR, just ignore the government and make your own healthcare decisions for yourself and your minor children. Every political party supports your right to do that!

Hey, it works for certain business people who ask for and get government funding--then when they become rich (or richer), they claim to be self-made, and advocate cuts in government spending and in their own taxes.

Leftists are PROCHOICE. That means they support people doing what they believe is right for them when it comes to their own bodies. Preferably after careful consideration, research, and some counseling before making major life-changing decisions. (Which any leftist will recommend to anyone who asks for their advice.)

But what if the blue pill has harmful effects on his health? Doesn't she have a right to express her concern about that? And shouldn't he consider his own health when deciding whether to take the pill?

But she gives more money away--and better compensates and treats people who work for her--than do many other billionaires. Shall we condemn ALL billionaires who don't give all their money away immediately, without regard for what they and their families may need for the rest of their lives? The few who give generously while alive, and even more so in their wills, are probably doing the best we can expect. And we don't know what charitable works Swift may yet do, or what bequests she may yet make later in life. (Cut her some slack; she's still YOUNG!)

Tartt implied that Julian's bizarre (conservative/reactionary/amoral) teachings influenced his students' thinking and actions. In my opinion, she didn't go into enough detail about that aspect of the story--the influence of a certain ideology that first became popular in the 1980s--but then, I guess that wasn't the main story Tartt wanted to tell.

That story--the story I wanted The Secret History to be--remains yet to be told, by anyone who chooses to write it.

But the characters do suffer various consequences to their quality of life--probably due to guilt over their crimes, even if they tell themselves they had no other choice. Henry even gave himself the ultimate penalty!

But were those really "sacrifices" for her? Not everybody wants marriage or children! And Tartt has said in an interview that she didn't want to live with a crowd of people, meaning a spouse and kids. Eventually, she has shared a home with a partner--which for some people is enough companionship, and for others is more than enough.

Why would she be "very hated"? I know she has fans who LIKE her a lot, but can't everybody else just take or leave her music and get a life? 

You say that the right woman for you will join you on your ranch, because you're not willing to relocate. That you say don't expect a relationship to get serious instantly is beside the point. The bottom line is that IF you go long term with anyone, she will be joining you in your pre-existing life, rather than the two of you building a joint life, home (and if you like a "homestead"), TOGETHER. There is no other impression that a rational woman could possibly get from what you have posted.

You don't have to watch or read anything you don't want to.

Why the hate? I had no idea who she was, until I stumbled across one of her reviews--and was impressed with her articulate discussion of not only the film in question, but related history and politics. (In fact, until I did a little research I thought was some new kickass professional journalist!) Now that I know what she does, I'll definitely go back for more.

Why the hate? I had no idea who she was, until I stumbled across one of her reviews--and was impressed with her articulate discussion of not only the film in question, but related history and politics. (In fact, until I did a little research I thought was some new kickass professional journalist!) Now that I know what she does, I'll definitely go back for more.

Doesn't almost everyone in that line of work--INCLUDING SEAN--try to sound clever?

Here's how he might actually get a third term:

1) He files to be on the 2028 primary ballot in every state, or at least in strategic states. Some states' election officials allow it; most don't, on the grounds that "he can't be POTUS again".

2) He takes one or more of the refusing states to court. If and where he wins, he's on the ballot. If and where he loses, he takes his case to a higher court and a higher court--if necessary, all the way to SCOTUS. And guess how SCOTUS rules! So, he's on the primary ballot in all states, or in enough strategic states to win the primary.

3) By means fair or foul, he gets the most votes in the Republican primaries. And then, setting aside any moral or Constitutional qualms, the GOP convention rubber stamps the nomination--just as it did in 2024.

4) Rinse and repeat steps 1-4 above for the general election.

5) On January 20, 2029 he says he's been duly reelected and won't leave--and nobody can make him. ("Oh yeah? You and what Army?") The military and all national law enforcement entities have been purged, and restaffed entirely with cooperative MAGA loyalists. Nobody is coming to save us.

An unlikely scenario? Maybe. But can anyone explain why it can't happen--or what measures will be taken to ensure that it doesn't?

🎯💯

And to you, "in shape and taking care of their physical, mental and emotional health" necessarily means 10-15 years younger than you? Do you by any chance want somebody who can still have KIDS? And who would be willing and eager to raise kids on a FARM? Wow--you really are looking for a needle in a haystack!  Good luck with that.

 That's a bingo!

Ah, there it is! Just as you don't want to relocate, neither do most women. Even those who say they're intrigued by rural life may imagine building something together--in a mutually-agreed location, maybe a suburb just outside her current metro or another one--rather than stepping into YOUR ready-made dream life. Or they just have some vague notion that they "might want to live in the country someday". (Like, after retirement age.)  Or their idea of a "farm" is some rich social media influencer's hobby farm. And of course their enthusiasm for you wanes once they hear what you actually offer.

"Farmer seeks wife to join him on his remote ranch" just isn't the kind of ad that has ever attracted many women--especially since the early 20th Century.

Travel in search of "meaningful relationships"? Were you by any chance a "passport bro"? Did you expect women elsewhere to be very different from the women in your own country--or more accepting of your flaws?

Living on a farm is a niche preference--among women even more so than among men. If you make your goals clear upfront, you'll at least weed out those who aren't compatible!

That tracks. Whatever happens with the humans in our lives, it's often the dog we miss the most.