MarJhi

Who said anything about transgender? Identity doesn't necessarily mean sexual orientation. When the shooter is of a certain "identity" the media loves to show you the shooter, and let you know that it is his race and his built in racism that caused him to kill. When the person is not of that particular "identity", they will show you the guns instead.

They will focus on the guns, not the shooter.

There are some selfies from the shooters social media accounts (which have been scrubbed) that the media will NEVER discuss. They love identity politics until it goes against their narrative.

I think if you are worried about false accusations you would definitely want to meet in a public space where there would be plenty of people around. It would be difficult to say someone did something in a space full of people and nobody witnessed it. If it was just the man and woman alone, that's where she could make an accusation, bruise herself up or whatever she wanted to do, especially after he already admitted to hitting her previously. She isn't going to get a crowd of people she doesn't know in a public space to be false witnesses against her husband.

I am in 100% agreement with that last sentence.

Yup, like I said, whether it goes one way or both ways.

Maybe talking to her in a public setting would be better. If there is a domestic violence issue, whether it goes one way or both ways, I don't think she should go back into that house. I have no problem with phone calls, but I agree texting is an extremely bad idea. It's hard to gauge tone/attitude in written form, which we see here on VJ all of the time.

You are also basing it on one side of the story. He has admitted hitting her, you are assuming the part about what she did is true. Who said he needs to bring it to her? Can't that exchange be made through a third party? That would make more than "zero sense" right?

How about he limit the contact after he gives her the basic necessities like ID? Seems like a reasonable thing to do. He already admitted to hitting her, maybe she is afraid to go back there to get her stuff.

Fair enough.... I didn't know that was a thing...except on the show "Cops", nobody ever has ID on there.😁

.....and lurking somewhere in the background with a monkey wrench is monkeypox

Don't you think it's odd that an adult human being in the United States of America doesn't carry any identification on their person? She should probably have her own set of keys with her as well (assuming she is allowed to have keys).

Nah, was just curious. Would love to hear the other side of this story though. I am more of a sloth than a sleuth on the internet.

So essentially you are blocking the card from being used by a thief, but an account holder can still drain the account in person if they have valid identification, like her passport.

So the card is blocked for both parties, but either party can still access the account in person?

"She abandoned her own children for nearly 24 hours." "I only blocked the card because she took off and we had no idea where she was for over 36 hours." If this thing becomes a legal issue, you might want to get your timeline worked out.

I am not gonna lie, there seems to be nothing good in this story. To ME, and I could be wrong saying this, but it sounds like you wanted her isolated and 100% dependent on you for everything. She has no money because you don't let her have access to it. She wants to drive but you don't want her to. She is a new resident of a new country and all she is allowed to experience of it is what you allow her to. You refer to her as "my Filipina" like she is a possession or a pet and not a wife. You cannot expect someone in this situation not to feel more like an inmate than a spouse. When you were texting her and you admitted to hitting her, did she also in text admit that she pushed/covered your face pushed your face? I am no expert, but as soon as one person admits to the police they got physical, the handcuffs go on. The situation she is in, I don't blame her for using whatever means necessary to get out of the relationship, just as you are willing to ship her back to the Philippines to never be seen again. You are using the purse strings to control the situation, she is going to use your domestic violence transgression to get things to go her way. Here is my opinion. I don't think this is salvageable. If she wants to stay here, all of the dominoes are in her favor and she will stay and you will pay, that is not in doubt. The only way I see this working out for you in any way is if she wants to return to the Philippines and give up on life in the US. If she goes back home and her situation is good there then maybe she wont go after you financially. You have brought up finances quite a bit, so if that is your concern, the life she will have in the Philippines will be a lot cheaper for you to handle than the life she is going to have in the US.

She has a passport, so if it is a joint account with her name on it then a passport will be identification enough to access the bank account.

Had this conversation with my fiancé before she was my fiancé. I wanted to make sure she knew what living expenses were like in the US compared to the Philippines. I gave her a rundown of my budget and just because I make 10-12 times what she makes I also have living expenses that are 10-12 times higher than hers as well.

Not me, I know everything.

I would try not to think of it as "getting revenge" or "getting back at her". Tell her you withdrew the application, tell her why and let that be the end of it. She has already stolen time from you, so why would you volunteer to give her more? I don't know how old you are, but I am 56, I have wasted enough time in my life on unnecessary drama and I am going to protect the time I have left from those who wish to steal it from me.

The cupboard was bare. His daddy didn't have a particularly outstanding presidency and was a one termer, so hard to imagine he benefitted too much from that. Where he benefitted was that Al Gore would start talking.

I voted for Bush because I have certain core values that prevent me from voting for a Democrat, not because of who his father is (or was). I think most Americans are single issue voters, they have a line that cannot be crossed and will not vote for anyone who differs from them on that one issue. For some it's the 2nd Amendment, others it may be the abortion issue or maybe a combination of different things. The Bush family would hardly be considered American royalty because they don't have the adoring media to prop them up to be in that position, if anything they were demonized. The Clinton's and the Obama's are the one's who get the "royal treatment" from the American media and celebrity endorsements.

I personally don't recognize royalty as having any meaning to me, so on that front I am gonna have to recuse myself. I don't get it and I don't understand why it means anything to anyone.

Again, wasn't being snarky, not my intention. Basically I was getting to the idea that just we don't call it apartheid doesn't mean anything is different. Mandela is a perfect example of the have not to have transition. But outside of the technical definition of the word "apartheid" nothing is really different for those on the lower end.