There are several companies that provide access to bank payments, but they all tend to have substantial limits, especially for US banking.

The sex crimes stuff is so they can detain LGBTQ youth and issue them whatever the yellow badge equivalent will be.

Well, but they did it the right way.

Sorry… their plan is to have specifically police do this? And then that police officer will, without normal protections and secured only by an app, arrive to a known location, likely at night?

That’s… a choice.

This isn’t a client list, it’s his address book.

None. All 4 Democrats on the committee voted in favor. It wasn’t a floor vote, it was an amendment to a crypto bill in committee.

Meanwhile, health officials said seven children were killed after an Israeli air strike targeted a water distribution site in central Gaza. The Israeli military has claimed that the strike was a result of a “technical malfunction” that had caused the missile to fall “dozens of metres from the target”.

So in other words, they weren’t trying to hit children with the missile, they were instead trying to hit the water source, which would’ve killed those children as well as many more people. That’s much better.

His main priority is establishing that the US elections are a sham being manipulated by the Left, so that his administration can step in and take appropriate measures to ensure the security of future elections as things go forward towards the midterms.

It’s not obvious to me that even if the two countries would be willing to do so that there would be enough strength to have any relevance related to China, so I’m not sure how viable it would be

As with most things, not categorically, but commonly. I had some cosmetic (technically reconstructive might be more accurate, but it was “elective”) surgery a couple of years ago, and I believe I paid like 85% of the bill up front. My recollection is that the remainder was due to some variables in the final cost.

However, that’s not to say it can’t be financed even if due up front. One could certainly use any number of debt-based funding methods to acquire the money, and the surgery provider would have no means of knowing.

It’s entirely reasonable to both support EMTs or 911 dispatchers or firefighters, and to not support ICE. These aren’t conflicting ideas, they just happen to be multiple separate things all lumped together in order to make you think they all go together.

Similarly, you can believe that some police actions are acceptable, and others (arguably most, or at least far too many in our current system) are not. If a guy is stabbing his ex to death across the street, then there needs to be some intervention from some form of law enforcement. That’s not really in question. Standing on a man’s neck for 9 minutes is obviously an entirely different thing. That’s also not in question by anyone reasonable.

IANAL.

The judge is, mostly, correct from what I can tell. The FCRA explicitly allows the use of this information, as amended from a prior prohibition. He is correct in concluding that a blanket probition isn’t well supported within the statute’s boundaries. He is wrong in suggesting that the CFPB has no regulatory authority over the sharing medical details. The statute obviously semi-implicitly authorizes the CFPB to place some restrictions on how this information is shared, but the judge too-readily rejects these arguments. Not that the defendants made them particularly well, granted.

But… even setting aside the partially erroneous legal finding, it’s moot. Trump’s CFPB joined the plaintiffs in this case, agreeing to roll back the provisions. That the CFPB has the right to do so isn’t in question. Or well, the defendants argued it, but it’s not a good argument. They basically said that because they don’t agree with the change, the Court shouldn’t be allowed to permit it.

Congress needs to fix this, but obviously won’t.

Those you want to convince with this would view it as a political stunt fabricated by the left or the Biden Crime Family or whatever, and all it would do is reinforce the idea that any evidence brought forward is irrelevant.

If they had enough evidence to prosecute, that’s fine. Sending rapists to prison is obviously worthwhile. But making a political point of it wouldn’t actually gain anything for anyone.

How great of them to have sent racist, piece of shit assholes straight to the homepages of organizations trying to, y’know, spend their time helping people.

Well… as the article pretty explicitly mentions, they would normally have staged resources at a nearer location so that their response could be more rapid, but Noem’s new rules hampered them by being overly burdensome. And Texan crews were already operating.

Tiny little bits of plastic that get put into some products (creams, pastes, I think I’ve even heard toothpaste) as an abrasive element

Not the OP, but I think your comments are being interpreted as allegations of OP’s positions on things that are based on assumptions you’ve made based on the original comment, but aren’t necessarily based on the contents itself.

Calling someone a spiteful, spineless, pathetic racist isn’t exactly a fabulous way to begin a meaningful engagement. Instead, you’re both talking past one another because you’re not operating from any sort of common basis.

This is one of those things where context being broken down affects a lot. If you ask only GenZ, they respond more like 15% bi, and millennials is somewhere in the ballpark of 5%. I’d be willing to bet the responses used to make the OP are similarly skewed by demographic for the obvious reasons.

Depends on what I’m putting in. There are some plates of leftovers that I’ve made often enough to just know how long it’ll take, so the time is exactly what it needs to be and I can wander away for a second to check the mail or whatever. Popcorn obviously comes out when it’s done. If I’m warming a drink in a mug, I’ll stop it early if the handle is at a more convenient angle, since otherwise I’m liable to burn myself.

Credit card companies (Visa, Discover, MasterCard, AMEX) make their money through transaction fees. They make their money when you spend money using the card, regardless of any debts involved.

The banks that issue cards are a different matter. They also make some money when you use the card (some of which goes towards those credit card rewards you get, which is how they can do stuff like offer % back) but mostly they make money by letting you spend just enough money so as to be perpetually in debt. Your bank wants you to carry a balance. They want you to be paying them tens of percentage points of interest each year. The credit limit they give you isn’t the amount they want you to spend in one purchase, it’s calculated to be the maximum amount you can afford the running payments on, which will do nothing to touch the principal.

Sure, you can discharge the debt if you go bankrupt, but consider as well that your bank has a couple of other advantages. First, they get to see all your spending. They know how you’re spending your money, where, when. They also usually get to see your other information. They know how much money comes into your balance accounts each month, they know how much your rent/mortgage costs, they know how much money is coming in from Venmo when you borrow from family to cover debts you can’t pay, how much money you spend on food delivery apps, how much of an emergency fund you keep. They know how much money you’re spending on things that you don’t have to be, which is money you could be giving them instead, if it becomes a running balance. And at 25% interest, they only need this scheme to work for 4 years before they make as much money as they’d lose if you default on your entire balance. Plus, when you do have money in the bank, they get to use that money for other things while it’s with them. If you have a $100,000 credit limit, odds are pretty good you have an account with them holding a few tens of thousands of dollars. They get to use most of that until you ask for it back.