It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Kill Amendment Protecting Americans from Credit Discrimination Based on Politics

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolby_X
a reply to: mobiusmale

Man he's trolling you big time even me a french Canadian got it right on the first read


"Jokes on them, I was only pretending to be retarded!"




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tekner
The amendment is to prevent the bureau from using political opinion/religious expression as a condition to determine credit scoring. The amendment doesn't say anything about forcing them to use those criteria. It prevents them from using that criteria.


The article says 'forcing the CFPB', yes or no?


No, there's a lot more words in there.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Without seeing the whole thing it is hard to say if that is the actual reason Democrat's voted against the amendment. Both sides love to play that game where you are voting against X in a bill, but they say you are really voting against Y which also happens to be in the bill.

To be clear, the CFPB is an out of control unaccountable bureaucratic organization. I've had to deal with them working in banking and I'd love for it to be gutted.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted2
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.


-Admitted2

HAHAHAHAHAHA Wow welcome back, took 1 day



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Admitted2
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.


-Admitted2

HAHAHAHAHAHA Wow welcome back, took 1 day


It won't last long.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Admitted2
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.


-Admitted2

HAHAHAHAHAHA Wow welcome back, took 1 day


I felt myself a decent, contributing, member to ATS.

Now I'm gone. And there are many before me.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
I think its just as likely that the next section deals with something largely unrelated.


Maybe? I don't know.


Scanning the final bill for keywords, I find no references to religion, and only two instances of the word 'political' in an unrelated context.


I tried that also.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
The Democrats have proposed a bill, related to the standards set by the CFRB for uniform credit reporting practices. The Republicans offered an amendment to this bill that specifies that the CFRB may not use a person's politcal, religious or social media history to form part of that person's credit score. The Democrats voted against this amendment.

Does that help at all?


Not really, we don't have the full amendment that was proposed. See my statements above about this.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner
No, there's a lot more words in there.


Including 'forcing the CFPB'. Fact. What is the article claiming the CFPB is forcing credit companies to do in the part of the article I quoted?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Without seeing the whole thing it is hard to say if that is the actual reason Democrat's voted against the amendment. Both sides love to play that game where you are voting against X in a bill, but they say you are really voting against Y which also happens to be in the bill.


This is what I said earlier. Then everyone can combine that with an article that was at best poorly written and at worst purposefully misleading.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tekner
No, there's a lot more words in there.


Including 'forcing the CFPB'. Fact. What is the article claiming the CFPB is forcing credit companies to do in the part of the article I quoted?



prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing credit reporting agencies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs.

Nothing says anything about "forcing the CFPB"



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner


...forcing credit reporting agencies...


Who would be forcing credit reporting agencies? The EPA?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner


...forcing credit reporting agencies...


Who would be forcing credit reporting agencies? The EPA?


Ok, now you're trolling. It says the CFPB right there in the excerpt, it's an amendment to prevent them from forcing credit agencies from using those metrics. Either you have a reading disability or you just want to see how many times you can make me type that sentence for you.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

Do you understand that the article is using a double negative? Do you also understand that a double negative actually makes a postive affirmation? Do you also understand that I am not the only one who has pointed this out?

ETA: Do you also understand we don't have the full amendment to see what else was in there?




edit on 31-1-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner

Do you understand that the article is using a double negative? Do you also understand that a double negative actually makes a postive affirmation? Do you also understand that I am not the only one who has pointed this out?

ETA: Do you also understand we don't have the full amendment to see what else was in there?





I've not made any claims about the full amendment or the veracity of the article. Only that


prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing credit reporting agencies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs.


makes sense. You've consistently left out "prevent" and swapped forcing behind CFPB instead of quoting it verbatim.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

Double negatives don't make sense.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner

Double negatives don't make sense.


You can't not understand that excerpt


Quote the double negative part for me, directly from the article, just copy paste.
edit on 31-1-2020 by Tekner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

I have multiple times and I am not the only one who has commented on this.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner

I have multiple times and I am not the only one who has commented on this.


If it's the same excerpt I posted just a bit ago, how would you word it then? The amendment to the bill explicitly states its to Limit(prevent) the CFPB from forcing credit agencies to use politices/religion metric. The CFPB can make regulations for reporting agencies. So the bill is limiting(preventing) some of its power. And you either vote for or against something. How can you reword that excerpt without changing the meaning of the amendment or the for/against vote.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join