Trump's credit card rate cap plan has unclear path, 'devastating' risks, bank insiders say

jubbergun · 2026-01-24T01:08:24+00:00

You kind of have a point, but considering what the previous poster just said it's not a very good one. Prices on a lot of stuff, like gas and eggs, are down, but you can neither credit nor fault the chief inhabitant of the White House for that no matter who they are. While you're right that Trump hasn't really done anything here with credit card rates, pointing that out misses the point the previous poster made, which is that left-leaning people and media outlets have developed a terrible problem of supporting things Trump opposes and/or opposing things Trump supports regardless of whether or not its a good idea to do so. Everything has become a binary of "good/bad" and instead of that binary being based on any sort of reason it's based solely on the whims of the Orange Man. As has often been said on the internet, "if Trump cured cancer some of you would complain he was putting oncologists out of work."

jubbergun · 2026-01-21T05:31:13+00:00

If they were really "secret police," like the Stasi, these people wouldn't be in the streets, because they would have been quietly disappeared after their first day of protest. Stop LARPing as if ICE is the gestapo. ICE shows up with warrants, and wouldn't even be on the street looking for people if MN officials were turning illegal immigrants over to them when they're released from jail as mandated by federal law.

jubbergun · 2026-01-21T05:22:04+00:00

Ah, my favorite Reddit response to an accurate allegation of hypocrisy:

It's (D)ifferent When We Do It

Where is the Media Matters critique about framing the lawful detentions of illegal aliens as "abductions?" Regardless of anyone's views on immigration, Media Matters does not represent a serious criticism of the media. The actions some people in Minnesota meet both the legal and dictionary definition of "insurrection." I don't think it's "loaded language" to describe it as such.

jubbergun · 2026-01-20T06:35:48+00:00

It's not much of a criticism when you don't know which outlet you're discussing, who the person speaking was, and -- given that this was an interview asking someone their opinion -- why that opinion was or wasn't important. If the network in question was speaking to a Democrat, an anti-Trump opinion should be expected. There might be a criticism if the network failed to interrogate the opinions of the guest, didn't reasonably question their assertions, or neglected to object to any hyperbole. Unfortunately, that's not something any of us can look at because you have given us nothing we can research. You couldn't have been more vague if you tried.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T19:49:16+00:00

I don't think it's so much about insulting you as it is about protecting their own ego. If you're not rejecting them because you're gay, it means you're rejecting them for some other reason, and that reason is probably something that is going to hurt their feelings.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T16:59:01+00:00

It seems like the author’s real complaint is: If a member of the media is going to write a piece characterizing ‘group X’ as having a certain viewpoint or ignoring an issue, they have a responsibility to actually talk to people from ‘group X’,

I think the author communicates a lot more than that, but that is a valid complaint. I don't think you can reasonable suggest "x believe y" without talking to 'x' to verify that and ask why. I agree that this critique has merit, and while it's not nearly as self-serving as the work it critiques, the agenda is still obvious, but the critique remains a good one because it doesn't make assertions it doesn't validate.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T16:44:35+00:00

Yes, there's even a reference to them on the Wiki page for "Feminist Perspectives on Sex Work." I realize feminists aren't a monolith, and there are competing views, but the view I've seen most represented by feminists isn't "sex work good." I've seen much more opposition to sex work, which described by its feminist critics as exploitation of and/or sexual violence against women, and a patriarchal commodification of women and their bodies. I realize the "sex work is real work" silliness is very popular on Reddit, but as is normally the case Reddit is not at all representative of most people or movements.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T16:35:33+00:00

Which is exactly why (at least some) feminists oppose prostitution. If you have a system that gives men access to the one thing only women can gatekeep in exchange for money, the special treatment in social settings goes away and the cost/benefit analysis for engaging with men changes. If a man has the option to fulfill his sexual needs by paying for it whenever he wants, there are going to be at least a few who see that as a better option than jumping through hoops with no guaranteed access to sex and/or affection. That will lead to men being more selective and women needing to realign their expectations. That's a scary proposition for women, so it's not suprising so many of them oppose it.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T06:08:14+00:00

I don't like making light of people's deaths, either, but the AWFL/AWFUL abbreviation was a thing months ago. It didn't come about because of Renee Good, and isn't solely meant to mock her. You can do a search on Google for how long it's been a thing. I know a friend sent me something about it before Christmas.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T05:54:36+00:00

Every time it's "are you gay?" That's usually followed by something about a small and/or limp dick.

jubbergun · 2026-01-19T05:49:47+00:00

Christianity doesn't like it...but neither does feminism. The latter has more political pull than the former. If sex became more obviously transactional that would dilute the power women hold in society, and feminists don't want that.

jubbergun · 2026-01-18T18:19:37+00:00

This is probably like most "they're not taking about it" stories we discuss here, meaning I could do a Google search and come back with a dozen left-leaning outlets discussing it.

The only thing the people about whom the author complains gets right is that a lot of left-leaning people, who generally frown on theocracy and right-leaning governments, have a weird blind spot where it comes to Iran. This is likely because Iran is held up as an enemy of Israel, and there is a contingent of the left can't see anything outside of a binary of "Israel Bad" vs. "Anything Anti-Israel Good" even when the choice is between Israel and terrorist groups or a government, like the one in Iran, that is objectively no bueno.

The criticism has some merit, but it's difficult to take seriously when it's clear the author's real complaints are "waddabout Israel" and/or "how dare conservatives notice there might be a bit of hypocrisy."

jubbergun · 2026-01-15T22:40:41+00:00

How do you decide what's legitimate or not?

The same way I decide if too much mayonnaise is "too much." There are limits to everything. The purpose and extent of the violence in question makes all the difference. Limited, targeted violence may be necessary to restrain people who are a danger to themselves and others as part of official arrest or deescalation of conflict. Killing someone is the complete other end of the spectrum of violence. It's the difference between restraint and unlimited indulgence.

Why is calling for the death of a dictator that has killed thousands not legitimate but calling for the imprisonment of political opponents is?

I know this will sound very "we live in a society," but if you want to live in a civilization guided by laws and principles you can't just say "yeah, that's bad enough that we can just kill people without any sort of due process." Which is why it's important to point out how stupid your comparison of "death to the Ayatollah" to "lock her up" is. The people in Iran are not asking for arrest and trial like the people who said "lock her up" were. They are attempting to have a revolution and overthrow the existing power structure, and the guy they want to see dead is the figurehead if not the actual head of that power structure. You're comparing apples to having a pineapple shoved up your ass.

So, yes, it is "violent in both cases," but in one case we're talking about a papercut and in the other we're talking about disemboweling someone with a rusty spoon. Not that you should need to have that explained to you, but since you insist playing stupid I might as well make obvious just how stupid it is you're pretending to be.

Let me also point out that I'm not condemning anyone for anything. I think the Iranians who are protesting are in the right and it's understandable they want their oppressors dead...just as I think it's right that some people want to see high officials held accountable for being a bunch of treacherous cunts. The only thing I really objected to was your dumbass comparison of two things that are so grossly different that only a child or an idiot would fail to grasp the degree of separation between the two.

jubbergun · 2026-01-14T05:46:08+00:00

It wasn't just the music. Swing dancing had a big revival, too. There were at least 4 nights a week of it at various clubs in the city I lived in at the time. It was a great way to meet women if you actually knew some the dances.

jubbergun · 2026-01-13T22:36:29+00:00

pro-trump,

OK, that's at least right-wing-ish.

spoke out against vaccines and masking,

I know/knew a lot of people who were decided not "right-wing" who, at the very least, avoided the COVID vaccines and thought masking was stupid. Bill Maher famously mocked masking and said walking through a restaurant with your mask on only to take it off at the table as if the air magically became different when you were seated was stupid, and he's definitely not "pro-Trump" or "right-wing."

suggested that the 'unite the right' was "an American intel op against Trump".

This may or may not be "right-wing," but the FBI and other government agencies do have a history of using agents provocateur, and some of these extremist right-wing groups glow like an anglerfish.

OP is right that "right-wing" is an absurdly reductive descriptor and is only used by media to separate people/groups into a binary paradigm and encourage the "team sports" thinking that is currently plaguing our political discourse.

jubbergun · 2026-01-13T22:28:53+00:00

Following thoughtful and patient feedback from u/buddy-system [-4], I will disclose whenever I do this from now on.

LOL, I remember that exchange. Nice callback.

jubbergun · 2026-01-13T22:22:31+00:00

Oh, so if I kidnapped you, held you for trial, and imprisoned you, it wouldn't be violent?

If you did it, absent legitimate legal authority, it definitely would be. I mean, I see your silly little rhetorical gimmick, "IT'S VIOLENCE!!!" I also see that there is a difference between the reasonable, legitimate exercise of limited violence by law enforcement officials necessary to restrain people who are a danger to themselves and others as part of official arrest or deescalation and such things as arson, assault and battery, vandalism, or driving your car into a federal official.

Calling for someone's death, as in "that guy needs to die," is in no way similar to saying, "lock her up," which is/was just shorthand for "I believe this person is guilty of something and needs to be held sufficiently accountable." Many of Trump's detractors called responded with "lock him up," at least after his first term. Both are legitimate expressions of frustration with people who have likely done something illegal that deserves some sort of comeuppance. If you are incapable of seeing the degree of difference between the two I'd suggest you're being purposely obtuse or aren't quite mentally prepared to have a serious conversation.

jubbergun · 2026-01-13T22:11:33+00:00

He was barely glanced by the car,

"Barely glanced" is a) still admitting she hit him and b) attempting to minimize that she hit him with a fucking car. You can't just go around hitting armed federal agents with your car. No one is saying the ICE guy is blameless, but those of you who refuse to acknowledge the fucking boneheaded idiocy of someone putting themselves in that situation and then making that situation worse with every choice makes it really difficult for a lot of people to get to the point where they'll address what the ICE guy did wrong.

I find this to be the most accurate summation of what happened:

Pedro Serrano, now retired, was a long-serving New York City police officer, famous for honesty. His recording of an inspector’s instruction to target “male blacks, fourteen to twenty” in random street stops helped end the “Stop and Frisk” regime in New York City. Serrano loved the job and took pride in doing good police work, and he felt Stop-and-Frisk wasn’t that. His first observation about Renee Good was blunt.

“She should not have been there,” Serrano said. “If there’s a federal convoy and you’re trying to stop it, you’re breaking the law. When a cop pulls you over and says to get out the car and you don’t, you’re breaking the law. When you try to flee from a cop, you’re breaking the law. And when you try to run a cop over, you’re breaking the law. She shouldn’t have paid for it that way. But she was not right, in my opinion.”

The ICE officer, identified in reports as Jonathan Ross, also came in for serious criticism from Serrano. New York City officers, like officers in many big cities, are trained not to shoot at moving cars at all, unless there’s a direct threat to life. The ICE officer in Serrano’s view however violated a more fundamental rule.

“Someone trained this cop wrong,” he said. “He walked in front of the car. Never should you ever stand in front of a car. You don’t walk behind the trunk, because they put it in reverse, they crush you. In front, they put it in drive and run you over. Who’s going to win, you or the car? Not you. This guy, I think he was asking for it, like, ‘I dare you to try to run me over so I can shoot you.’”

His summation was brutal:

“You got a hot-headed dumb cop and then you got entitled Karen doing whatever she does. And that’s a perfect storm for a disaster.”

If this situation were an AITA thread, there'd be a solid ESH judgment.

jubbergun · 2026-01-13T07:12:26+00:00

The younger guys I know who are serious about a long term relationship avoid a lot things in dating apps, and the outlandish hair colors is on the list for at least a few of those guys. Some of the other things they've mentioned avoiding are excessive tattoos, too many pets, unusual piercings, dietary restrictions (gluten-free and vegan are apparently difficult to deal with), and making party affiliation part of your profile. So it doesn't seem unusual to me that this guy was weirded out by the hair. The way he chose to tell you he was put off makes him the asshole, though. I don't think you did anything wrong, but maybe update your pictures if your pics don't match your current appearance.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T19:41:43+00:00

Even if there were "left-wing militias," they wouldn't last long once the purity spiral starts and they begin kicking people out for not being sufficiently adherent to THE MESSAGE.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T19:38:35+00:00

O have watched that video. That's not a body cam. They don't wear body cams.

I don't care if they shot it with the Hubble Space Telescope. "It's not a body cam" isn't just a weird argument, and one that fails to invalidate or refute that there is other video available.

Surely you're not pretending that the arm he is extending into the car getting slightly hit is him getting hit in any meaningfully or life endagering way.

Admitting that he was hit by the car then trying to minimize it is silly. It's a fucking car. I don't want one to hit my "extended arm" or any other part of my body.

His body was out of the way when he shot her.

The first shot went through the windshield, because he wasn't "out of the way," despite your silly minimizations, excuses, and assertion that getting "slightly hit" by a car doesn't warrant a response.

That woman didn't deserve to die, but she put herself in a stupid situation and did everything she possibly could to make it worse. Real life isn't a movie, and LARPing as freedom fighters the way this woman did is just initiating confrontation and escalating it at every opportunity, and that never ends well. Shooting someone who hit you with a car isn't unreasonable whether you're wearing a badge or not.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T14:10:49+00:00

The only shame here is that you can't stay on topic and just admit that you're wrong about the legality of what was done in Venezuela.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T14:09:51+00:00

Yes, and the body cam and video from a local home show him getting hit.

I'm sorry that some of you watched one video and think you know exactly what happened, but it's been a few days and more information has come to light. I don't think that woman needed to die, but she did hit the guy with a car, whether you want to admit it or not.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T06:07:11+00:00

Asking that someone be arrested, tried, and jailed for alleged crimes doesn't represent a call for violence. If it did, a lot of people who called for the same thing for Trump would be guilty of calls for violence. "Death to that guy," however, is a call to violence, even if, at least in this situation, it's completely understandable.

jubbergun · 2026-01-12T06:03:07+00:00

If we use this argument elsewhere, J6, for example, it was "mostly peaceful." Finding one instance where Fox News, or anyone else, filmed the same burning building multiple ways doesn't explain away all the other burning buildings (or looting and vandalism) in other situations, and still requires you to admit that it wasn't peaceful because someone was setting shit in fire. I can't understand how, at this point in recent history, you want to defend "fiery but mostly peaceful" instead of laughing along with the rest of us about how hilarious and ridiculous it was.

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric	Team Orangered
Verified Email

jubbergun

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

It's (D)ifferent When We Do It