- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Eastman Speaks Out After Bank Of America, USAA Shut Down His Accounts
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:07 am to Bwmdx
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:07 am to Bwmdx
Right. digital money, electric vehicles, smart guns, and voting machines all connected to silicon valley. massive power in the hands of the most unscrupulous and hateful people imaginable. what could possibly go wrong?
0
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:08 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:You should have kept reading. The next sentence was:quote:Stopped reading right there.
Seriously, douchey move by the banks, but
quote:which seems to directly address your "bake my cake" argument.
It seems to me that small government advocates would want to see us ROLLING BACK those sorts of mandates
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:10 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
So banks should be forced to do business with him, by the government?
No. They should be forced to do business with him by their conservative customers who should de-customer BOA, as I did to Chase for doing similar stuff.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:13 am to OzonaOkapi
Equating protecting political freedom to "small government", while you bitch endlessly about preserving democracy, is weak even for you Hank.
Since we are into "small government", lets remove every protected class from statutory law. You only want to make these absolutist arguments when it suits your politics, which is the problem with the modern left.
Since we are into "small government", lets remove every protected class from statutory law. You only want to make these absolutist arguments when it suits your politics, which is the problem with the modern left.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:16 am to Auburn1968
Government bailouts are like signing your soul away to the devil
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:17 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:I agree.
Since we are into "small government", lets remove every protected class from statutory law.
I abhor federal public accommodation laws and their associated protected classes. A complete misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 11:19 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:19 am to Auburn1968
This should be a very simple fix for Congress or any of the bank regulatory agencies, cfpb, occ, etc.
Simple bank rule to implement: no customer can be discriminated against for any legal business transaction. It is the responsibility of the banking institution to ensure their actions cannot be perceived as act based on any personal ideology of the consumer or protected class of the consumer of bank product and services.
Simple bank rule to implement: no customer can be discriminated against for any legal business transaction. It is the responsibility of the banking institution to ensure their actions cannot be perceived as act based on any personal ideology of the consumer or protected class of the consumer of bank product and services.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:20 am to BayouBlitz
Should a person who has established accounts with banks be rejected because of political affiliations? How about for religious affiliation or bday because of race? Maybe next person that has a disability or dresses differently? Is that okay too?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:29 am to Nosevens
quote:Depends upon whether you support a textualist interpretation of the Constitution or not.
Should a person who has established accounts with banks be rejected because of political affiliations? How about for religious affiliation or bday because of race? Maybe next person that has a disability or dresses differently?
All of those forms of discrimination should be considered "unacceptable" by a reasonable person, but nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to prohibit a private person or business from engaging in them. There is just no Constitutional authority there, unless you agree with the ridiculous, non-textual expansions of the Commerce Clause by the judiciary.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:32 am to FredBear
quote:
So if a bank refuses to do business with someone because they're black you will support them.
That is always my go to argument for retard liberals. They can never answer that question.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:38 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
So banks should be forced to do business with him, by the government?
Look at this fig.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:40 am to FredBear
quote:I would find the behavior repellant, but simultaneously acknowledge that nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to punish or prohibit such refusal by private persons or businesses, assuming that one applies the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
So if a bank refuses to do business with someone because they're black you will support them.
One need not approve of a behavior to understand that it is just not something the federal government is Constitutionally-authorized to address.
Thinking that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to "right every wrong" just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of federalism.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 11:49 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:45 am to tjv305
quote:
usinesses should have to treat people equally.
You are replying to someone that openly admits they want separate laws for Progressive voters and everyone else.
That poster would jail you tomorrow if they could. You can't reason with people like that. Impossible.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:50 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
So banks should be forced to do business with him, by the government?
Are you referring to a bank that only operates because of its special access granted by my govt?
Then yes, yes I do
Otherwise, lets see how they can make money without my govts protections
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:52 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
So banks should be forced to do business with him, by the government?
Small government conservatives, folks.
But bake that cake......right?
I bet you're giddy over the inevitable CBDC too, yes, let's allow a corrupt and soulless government to control every aspect of commerce.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 11:55 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:58 am to OzonaOkapi
I do not understand how the bank customer agreements is deemed iron clad that cancelled customers so not have legal recourse to at least be able to demand the bank provide a specific reason for being cancelled.
The fact that the banks hide behind a wall of their customer agreement and generic "bank perogative" is extremely odd in a litigious environment.
The fact that the banks hide behind a wall of their customer agreement and generic "bank perogative" is extremely odd in a litigious environment.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 12:03 pm to OzonaOkapi
USAA is a little different than any other free market bank due to their special privileges and granted access that make it better for veterans like myself and our families to keep accounts there. Normally I’d advocate for total freedom of association but for that principle to be valid we would have to live in a truly free market so social pressure and market incentives could truly deliver the best to consumers, we do not live in a free market. At best we live in a mixed market where governments heavily control and regulate the most key areas of it. Regardless I’ll be starting the process of moving everything I have with USAA to SouthState.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 12:03 pm to fwtex
Depending on the reasoning why, the banks are legally enjoined from saying why.
Normal reasons why this would be done is if you are suspected of certain activities like money laundering.
But this has been abused like hell by the Obama and Biden administrations to hamstring gun stores, weed dispensaries where it is a legal activity, anyone diverting money to cryptocurrency, etc., because those are activities the government wants to punish.
Normal reasons why this would be done is if you are suspected of certain activities like money laundering.
But this has been abused like hell by the Obama and Biden administrations to hamstring gun stores, weed dispensaries where it is a legal activity, anyone diverting money to cryptocurrency, etc., because those are activities the government wants to punish.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 12:57 pm to teke184
quote:
Normal reasons why this would be done is if you are suspected of certain activities like money laundering.
Then let the government go through the process of proving illegal activity in a court of law, and seize the assets post conviction.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:02 pm to OzonaOkapi
Making that argument that a business can do basically anything that is not outright illegal because it’s a private business is astonishingly an embarrassment to the constitution and the reason it was fought for. It was private business that government backed in patriots fighting against to create this country
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News