Posts by bluecyclist64

James Rogers53 As I was saying:
To me, it feels like a classic case of that immigrant mindset—the one where people insist everything is perfect abroad, only to start complaining the second they run into a single real problem. It’s always "everything is better over there," until reality hits, and then suddenly the narrative shifts.
Everything I’ve laid out is exactly how it stands. I’ll be the first to admit that I am a demanding client—I have high standards and I expect them to be met—but honestly, I can't find much to complain about. Their service package actually ends up saving me money in the long run. It’s a fair trade, really; they seem perfectly happy to have me because I always settle my debts on schedule. In fact, I don't view my relationship with the bank as some sort of burden or adversary; I see them as a genuinely useful tool in my financial life. 😲

What most people fail to grasp is that banks are fundamentally private corporations. At the end of the day, their primary objective isn't some noble civic duty or public service; they exist to generate profit for their shareholders, much like your local corner grocery store or a neighborhood bodega. It’s a business, plain and simple.
People will only realize one thing eventually: they’re going to end up working much harder for much less money, just like bluecyclist64 here. It’s a predictable cycle. You have these types who act incredibly aggressive over a few extra bucks or start making a massive fuss about whether or not they qualify as a US tax resident. Yet, come payday, they practically roll up their sleeves and hand over half their paycheck to the government, followed by another 25% throughout the month, all with a polite smile on their faces. Then, they’ll sit there with this air of quiet martyrdom, waiting six months just to get an appointment at a local clinic, while simultaneously acting proud of sending their kids to schools that lack basic computer labs or decent facilities. But don't let that patience fool you—the moment they step up to a teller at a Chase branch, they’ll snap and start berating the clerk, simply because they feel they can get away with it since she's "just" a service worker. 😁

What you’re failing to grasp here is that the bank acted with total disregard for the client. Just because you haven't run into any issues up to this point doesn't mean you're somehow immune to it happening to you. In my experience, complacency is exactly how people get blindsided by these institutions.
By all means, go ahead and play the saint. Be kind, be accommodating, and act like the bigger person. If that’s your strategy, you'll probably find your problems solved in due course—though we both know how much that usually costs in terms of self-respect.

rowdypilot19 said:Honestly, your package actually looks like a really great deal to me. I’ve never even been offered anything like it before, so I guess that’s why I said that UK offer caught me totally off guard.

But, you know, a business account isn't exactly the same thing as a personal one.

And look, I’m definitely nothing like what bluecyclist64 is thinking—actually, I think I'm probably the exact opposite.

At the end of the day, banks provide a service that I need, and they probably need me as a client too, so it's just... that's just how it works. As long as they stay affordable and helpful, I don't see any reason to go hunting for another bank, or maybe even a third one, because these guys are different. 😁

Why bother obsessing over my trivialities?

If there is anything regarding my background or my perspective that seems unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. I am more than willing to provide clarification.

Look, gentlegull93, if you actually had some backbone, you wouldn't be claiming that Bruna Esih makes you hate Mexicans; instead, you'd be saying she makes you adore Jerry Mark and want to buy The Instructor some chocolates... 🕺

Focus on more love, kid, and less hatred... :lennon: 😎 🙂

wiredlynx28 said:@ bluecyclist64

I don't work at Chase, but a colleague of mine transferred there, and since I know the branch manager, I have firsthand insight.👍
You claim I'm lying? Fine. Go ahead—state exactly what you think I'm lying about and back it up with actual facts instead of just your own opinion.

And no, I wasn't looking for a better offer from the Federal Reserve, which is gradually pulling out of the American market due to poor performance. I was looking for something else entirely: a one-time deal without any strings attached.👍
If you're happy with your current bank, more power to you.

One more thing: any inappropriate behavior within the bank premises will be reported to the authorities. Just like any apartment building, a bank has its own set of house rules.😒

Oh, you definitely work for Chase. It’s incredibly obvious if you bother to read through your own posts.

Now, go jump in a lake. I've already earned my PhD in dealing with paid trolls.

Laura Chavez93 said:In that case, you just close the accounts, take your money, and move to a different bank where they don't harass clients with such nonsense

It might be beneficial if the management and legal teams actually read Section 16 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act which they seem to be citing ☕

Exactly—it isn't the banks harassing clients with trivialities, but rather certain primitives who lack basic social graces🤦

We aren't talking about disagreements, but rather the bank issuing an ultimatum to obtain data that has absolutely nothing to do with what they claim to be citing... essentially forcing the client to sign away rights so the bank can do whatever they please.
A branch manager is just going to recite the same tired nonsense you’re already hearing—there’s zero interest in actually understanding the situation or finding a solution when they have no intention of helping in the first place.

You're mistaken, Charlemagne. Highly educated people are notorious for letting any petty clerk, waiter, or little banker fleece them like naive children...🤣

James Rogers53 said:At the end of the day, any business—banks included—has the right to set its own internal policies regarding who they’ll work with and under what specific terms.
Whether that works for you or not is up to you. If it doesn't, maybe just look elsewhere.

Banks can also choose whether or not to play ball with specific regulatory demands. If they don't like the rules, they can just walk away. From what I can see, everyone else is staying in line—they’re following the playbook and pestering clients for data, then closing accounts if people refuse to hand it over. It looks like JP Morgan Chase is being used by regulators as the new benchmark, so I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the industry starts following suit pretty soon.

Personally, I suspect this is more a case of a particularly incompetent bureaucrat making a poor judgment call. Unfortunately, the person asking the questions didn't know how to handle the situation, so they just told them where to go and demanded someone actually competent.

wiredlynx28 As stated by:
Beyond the standard FATCA requirements, banks maintain their own internal protocols regarding client data. These mandates aren't necessarily tied to federal reporting, yet they remain strictly mandatory if a client intends to establish or maintain a professional relationship with the institution. This includes specific inquiries into a client's operational patterns and how they intend to conduct their business affairs with the bank.
I had a remarkably similar experience at one of my local branches recently. When I went in to set up an additional business account, they didn't just stop at asking for my basic FATCA documentation. They started digging into much more personal territory—asking about my educational background, my family situation, even questions regarding children. It felt unnecessarily intrusive, to say the least. When I pushed back, they were quite blunt about it: they informed me that without providing all those specific details, they simply wouldn't be able to establish a formal business relationship with me. It’s a frustrating level of scrutiny these days.
Perhaps the folks over at JPMorgan Chase weren't entirely clear in their communication, but I find it hard to believe they would go through the trouble of actively soliciting clients by citing specific regulations unless they were actually compelled to do so. At the end of the day, they have their own board of directors and a massive legal department to handle those kinds of nuances. They aren't exactly in the business of making life difficult for themselves without a very good reason.
The people who orchestrate these kinds of scenes—they aren't exactly high achievers. In my experience, it’s usually individuals with limited education who have spent their lives feeling sidelined by circumstances beyond their control. It’s a pattern you see quite often, and frankly, psychology backs it up. When someone feels they have no agency in the world, they turn to these performative outbursts to feel some semblance of relevance.
If you find yourself facing an issue, I suggest tracking down a moderator or the appropriate supervisor to address it. If you genuinely believe there is a grievance to be aired, try to resolve the disagreement civilly and professionally. 👍
I know a client who absolutely lost his cool with his bank—full-blown scenes, making a spectacle of himself—all because he thought he could play games with his accounts. He started closing everything down under the impression that other institutions wouldn't care about his history, thinking it was a seamless transition. When he realized that wasn't how the real world works and tried to crawl back, they flat-out refused to reopen his business accounts. It’s a cautionary tale: once you burn those bridges, they don't just rebuild them for you. Keep that in mind before you decide to go scorched earth on your financial partners.
Regarding Wells Fargo, a close acquaintance of mine recently closed an account there because he was fed up with their service. He actually asked me how they managed to bypass certain data verification steps entirely without ever reaching out to him. I asked him to pull up his contract just to see what we were dealing with, and sure enough, the bank had filled in the details themselves without asking for a single thing. From a regulatory standpoint, that is completely wrong and frankly unacceptable. Under standard banking protocols, the client is the one responsible for the accuracy of that information, not the institution. However, looking at how things operate behind the scenes at a place like Wells Fargo, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised. Given their ownership structure and the way things are run, I have my doubts about whether anyone actually gets hired there without a personal recommendation from someone on the inside. 🤣 That’s simply not the case when it comes to Chase.

Come on, quit lying to these hardworking people, you corporate mercenary.

I actually moved my money out of that Italian-owned JPMorgan Chase over fifteen years ago and transitioned everything to the Federal Reserve system. To be blunt, that bank’s treatment of its clients is nothing short of revolting. My wife has been banking with the Fed for more than a decade now. Throughout all those years—whether we were taking out loans, setting up CDs, or playing around with stocks—not once did anyone ever bother us with unnecessary nonsense. It’s just been a much smoother experience.

wiredlynx28 As stated by:
Steve, in my experience, once I cleared things with the higher-ups at JPMorgan Chase, questions regarding things like professional credentials and residential status became mandatory. If I weren't already working within this industry, I probably would have thought they were overstepping, too. 👍
Just because those requirements were mandatory over there doesn't mean they apply everywhere else. It's a common misconception, but you can't take one region's regulatory landscape and assume it's the universal standard.
They laid everything out for me quite clearly in the system—exactly what needs to be filled out and what is strictly mandatory. Given how transparently they presented those requirements, I highly doubt that at JPMorgan Chase, these aren't compulsory questions. It isn't just a matter of some internal bank policy being "voluntary" or optional; much of this is actually required by regulation. 👍
If these requirements weren't absolutely mandatory, there's no way they’d be hitting clients with these notifications or freezing accounts. It simply doesn't serve anyone's interests—not the banks, and certainly not the customers. It’s just unnecessary friction that creates chaos for no reason.

And I appreciate you using this post to prove exactly what kind of lying troll you are.

Tell me, what exactly were you doing—as an employee of Chase—working at a different bank? Were you just hoping for a better offer than what your actual employer provides? 😒

There’s already a term floating around: "proofreaders." It refers to those semi-literate students who somehow get paid to edit texts, even though the English language is practically foreign to them and they haven't finished a hundred books in their entire lives.
I honestly think it’s time we coined a new term: "banksters." 🥱

Steven Gomez37 said:Who can I turn to for some help here? JPMorgan Chase has blocked all my withdrawals because I refused to play along with this whole FATCA nonsense and their "deep dive" client profiling. Naturally, I dug my heels in, and now I’m definitely not budging. I decided to just close the account, BUT JPMorgan Chase won't let me close it or release MY money until I cave and answer their questions. I am absolutely not giving them anything; I've decided to fight this to the bitter end. I also wonder if they're going to try and skim more money from me for monthly maintenance fees and annual card fees on an account I can't even use right now. Btw, the questions are just impossible—before I cut the interrogation short when the teller caught me off guard at the branch, she managed to ask if I was politically active, if I was married, and then she started digging into details about my kids... I just lost it and ended the conversation. Anyway, I'm looking for addresses or any advice on how to push back and put an end to this farce. Thanks.

The problem is you're being too soft. If you were a hothead like me, you would have screamed: "Where the hell were you all back in '91?" and then kicked the damn desk.
And they would have settled it with you instantly.
Sad—but true.

wiredlynx28 said:Making a scene won't help. Only the most unrefined customers resort to theatrics, and half of them can't even speak English properly to begin with.👍
The issue isn't that the staff or the manager are being difficult—that doesn't make any sense. It's simply that the system won't allow it if the data required by the Freedom of Information Act hasn't been entered.
If she thinks she's right, her best bet is to find a solid lawyer and file a private lawsuit. But realistically, they'll close those accounts regardless once the data is updated. Besides, she'll need that exact same information just to open a checking account at any other bank down the road.👍

Oh look, the little bankers are zealously monitoring our forum...

wiredlynx28 said:Political exposure, place of birth, US citizenship, and whether one is a tax resident in the US or some other foreign country.

What kind of nonsense is "political exposure"? As a writer, translator, and editor, I have never once heard that cluster of words used in a professional capacity.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:bluecyclist64

Those are the moderator's words; you might want to take a moment to reflect on them.
While the moderator certainly had good intentions, I simply took advantage of your sheer malice to highlight it. He was trying to be conciliatory, which is actually a constructive approach, but your behavior doesn't belong on this sub-forum.

Listen, you petty little liar—just because you can't grasp what's been written doesn't give you the right to slander me.

I have never, and I mean absolutely NEVER, written that too few people were killed at Waterloo.

I happen to have a slightly better memory than wiredangler5, so I am well aware that while I have noted multiple times that the Nazi Germany collaborators fared remarkably well considering the atrocities they committed, I have never once said what you are accusing me of.

Fortunately, the moderation here focuses primarily on maintaining "civilized" debate—essentially making sure we don't call each other monkeys or resort to profanity—which means they are perfectly fine with a mountain of trolling, nonsense, and blatant lies that lack any verifiable evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, let History be reserved for you, Detective, Instructor, and the rest of those ignorant fools or sympathizers of Pavelić, Hitler, concentration camps, and racial laws.

Personally, I have no desire to frequent the History section if the moderators are going to allow historical propaganda to supersede facts while simultaneously ignoring obvious trolling.

I suspect the following will be a perfect illustration of my point: watch how I get banned for calling you a lying troll, while you—who are accusing me of claiming the death toll at Waterloo was too low—get off completely scot-free.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:A lot of this has been covered, but what you're saying regarding bluecyclist64 is actually quite interesting.
If someone were to post on the History subforum claiming there weren't enough victims at Auschwitz, I imagine they’d be slapped with a lifetime ban immediately. Meanwhile, anyone suggesting the death toll at Waterloo was too low is essentially dancing on the edge of a knife.

A crime is a crime, regardless of the context.

I've reported your post, and I’d suggest you try to be a little less dishonest moving forward.
I have never once stated that the number of deaths at Waterloo was too low.

It really ought to be mentioned that certain users here openly push Nazi ideologies—take detector, for example—yet the moderators hardly ever show up in the subforums. Even when they do decide to grace us with their presence, they seem strangely lenient. If this kind of filth were allowed on a serious Politics board, it would have been hasta la vista, baby.

When someone shamelessly, among other things, cites Hitler's second book—which is a complete fabrication—and goes on about how Jews are monsters responsible for every evil in the world, I believe they should simply be directed to take their "career" over to Stormfront.

History has become an absolute disgrace lately; people constantly cite fabrications from obscure neo-fascist websites, while actual, credible sources have become a rare find.

velvetmoose9 said:After an extensive period of deliberation—which involved consulting with various esteemed representatives from our diaspora, minority groups, Spock, and Gellert—we have reached a consensus, which is as follows:

-Any constructive and well-intentioned posts of yours will be warmly welcomed here on the Gastón PDF subforum.

-As you quite correctly noted in your opening post, you will no longer receive a "standard" warning on the Gastón PDF; any even slightly inappropriate remark will result in an immediate partial ban.

-If you find these terms acceptable, then welcome back 🙂

Well, thanks. Given that more aggressive political rhetoric seems to be the trend lately, I’ll accept those terms. 🙂

Now, get moving on that diet cooking! 🙂

🙂

There’s really no need to rush on my account; I’m still breathing, and everything is perfectly fine.

I’ve been contemplating opening this thread for quite some time, but I figured there was no immediate rush.

That said, I had my annual physical at the hospital yesterday, and the results were... less than ideal. Apparently, my health markers have taken a bit of a hit, so I’m going to have to commit to a strict diet.

I don't really have the energy for much reading or any online trolling today; I just want to go through the PDF, keep an eye on things, and perhaps pose a few questions regarding dietary restrictions.

If you run into any issues with my posts, feel free to flag them for review. Though, I doubt there will be any reason to.

vita jela zelen bor itd. 🙂

H. The guy currently under the spotlight just doesn't sit right with me...

Kyle Jackson16 said:We can ask the moderator Nick to send you the message originally posted in the thread regarding "Communism," which is being removed along with that entire topic.

I empathize with the moderators here; you need a certain level of stomach to handle this kind of moderation. It honestly gives me the chills.

What you’ve described isn't a death threat, but rather incitement to suicide.

Under Section 114, Subsection 1 of the Penal Code (as published in The New York Times), anyone who induces another to commit suicide or assists them out of low motives, leading to an actual or attempted suicide, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.

As an exception to the aforementioned Subsection 1, anyone who commits an act from that subsection against a child over fourteen years old, or a person whose ability to perceive their own actions is significantly impaired, shall be punished by imprisonment for one to eight years, pursuant to Subsection 2 of the same article.

http://law.gov/penal-code/incitement-to-suicide

How do you know that the person you are directing such messages toward—if indeed you are doing so—is not under the age of 14 or in a depressive, suicidal state?

In my view, even your signature falls under the category of "inducing another to suicide":
"When he had finally had quite enough of everything,
the woodburner jumped from Hendrix's Bridge..."

Let the moderators deliberate.

Man, I had no idea things had gotten this serious! 😲

Well, what are you waiting for? Go ahead, run straight to the wall and report me for my signature.

Every minute you spend hesitating could cost the life of some brainless right-winger who reads my signature and decides to jump into the Mississippi and stop breathing.

Come on, don't waste any more time; lives are at stake... 🤣

Kyle Jackson16 said:Death threats on Reddit get scrubbed once reported—we all know how that works. But I’m also aware that deleting a comment doesn't actually fix the underlying issue.

I’m just a face in the crowd here, but if you look at the discourse on major US message boards, it’s really just a microcosm of how people treat one another in real life.

Do we agree on that?

No, I don't "know that well." Honestly, it feels like you're exaggerating just to make your point sound more heavy-handed.

Or maybe you consider it a death threat when someone tells you to "go jump in a lake"?

And who exactly was threatening you in the office? Why didn't you report it to the authorities? Can you actually provide proof of this threat?
Look, we’re talking about serious matters here; this isn't something to be trifled with. Both you and Mamić are prominent public figures.

I’m standing right there with my colleague on this one; it’s an incredibly difficult situation to navigate.

I find myself in agreement with my colleague here. On a related note, I’d like to point out that the PDF section for unmoderated social science remains quite a mess; if you truly can't find anyone to step up and moderate, consider my application. However, I’ll only volunteer on one condition: that you lift the partial restrictions on the Food & Dining subforum, seeing as you aren't even paying your moderators.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Look, I’m not the one making assertions here—you are. I am simply laughing at this "front page" argument that supposedly covers every single page of a newspaper.

I have no way of knowing whether that specific article actually exists in those papers or not. Since I lack any concrete evidence to support either possibility, I refuse to make an explicit claim about something I cannot verify.

However, you are the one resolutely insisting that the article isn't in those papers, using the front page as your primary defense. I assume your logic is that if it isn't on the cover, it can't possibly be anywhere else in the entire publication.

Let me repeat myself: I have no issue accepting the fact that the article might not be in those papers, but I cannot accept the notion that a "front page" argument serves as ultimate proof for the contents of every other page in the volume.

If you intend to penalize everyone who claims the article is in there, then at least provide a valid argument instead of relying on the front page. In any American courtroom, such a line of reasoning would be laughed out of the room immediately.

The premise that "if it isn't on the front page, it doesn't exist in the paper" is frankly absurd. Surely you realize that newspapers consist of more than just a single cover.

So, I have one question for you: Did you actually hold those newspapers in your hands and flip through them from the cover to the very last page? Only then could explicitly claim that the article is missing from those publications.

Because if you haven't leafed through them, you can't make an explicit claim. You are merely speculating. And we all know what Americans say about speculation...

Is it really too much to ask for someone in this crowd of conservatives to take a photo or scan this "famous" article so the rest of us can actually see it? The burden of proof lies with you—and right now, there is NO proof.

Some people claim they've seen visions of the Virgin Mary or angels, but it's funny how those people always seem to be incredibly shy, much like this controversial article itself, since no one has managed to snap a photo of it yet.

No—that article DOES NOT EXIST.

I appreciate you opening this thread; it feels as though you were asking me personally! 👍 😘 🙂