Uncle Joe

[twocoach]

legals good.

illegals bad.

Nothing in that statement from the DoJ/CFPB says anything about "legal vs. illegal immigrants".

This is what you claimed: "So the biden administration threatened banks not to deny illegal immigrants loans based on their illegal status."

This is reality: "However, creditors should be aware that unnecessary or overbroad reliance on immigration status in the credit decisioning process, including when that reliance is based on bias, may run afoul of ECOA’s antidiscrimination provisions and could also violate other laws."

Banks should make their decision to deny a loan primarily due to their immigration status, whether they entered the country legally or illegally. It doesn't tell them not to deny them. It doesn't tell them they can't deny them. It says that a bank is risking being found guilty of civil rights violations if it is found to be basing their decision off of their immigration status. A legal/illegal immigrant can still have their loan application declined if they have the same financial risk of inability to repay the loan as an American citizen with an identical financial profile and the bank is at no risk of legal/civil punishment.

You are 100% WRONG on what was said and who it targeted. It was not specific to illegal immigrants. It was specific to ANY and ALL immigrants. It's no different than reminding banks that they cannot decline loans primarily because of race/sex/gender. A person's immigration status has nothing to do with their ability to repay a loan.

This reminder from the Fed was no doubt generated in response to reports and lawsuits that the behavior they were warning against was happening.

A case from 2017: https://www.venable.com/insights/public ... r-on-basis

Discussion over such discrimination in 2018: https://www.outtengolden.com/insights/m ... on-status/

Another lawsuit filed in 2020: https://immigrationvisaattorney.com/law ... mmigrants/

Another lawsuit: https://immigrationvisaattorney.com/law ... mmigrants/

But yeah, Trump Humpers read one headline and determined this happened out of the blue as an attempt to buy votes. Fucking morons.

[randylahey]

Unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of Americans, biden signs into law

[jhawks99]

Wait, Uncle Joe signed the patriot act?

[Shirley]

Wait, Uncle Joe signed the patriot act?

99 ftw

[jfish26]

Dammit, Joe.

https://x.com/anders_aslund/status/1738 ... PzNG4aOfKQ

Financially, the US has never been as dominant as now: Of the global total of $109 tn, the US stock markets capitalization is:
U.S.$46.2tn; 42.5%
EU$12.1T; 11.1%
China$11.5T: 10.6%
Japan$5.8: T5.4%
Hong Kong$4.3: T4.0%
UK$3.2T: 2.9%

[Sparko]

Best economy of our life. Now go screw it up and vote fascist

[randylahey]

Most of which is tied up in 3 companies (black rock, state street, and vanguard) and has no bearing on the state of the economy.

One of those companies bought up about half of all single family homes last year, and is the reason a lot of American families are struggling to buy/find homes

This statistic was a fail

[Sparko]

Actually no. Try to hold true complex thoughts in your head when they are at odds with your fantasy misinformation.

[Overlander]

Try to hold true complex thoughts in your head

HAHAHAHA!!!

[twocoach]

Unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of Americans, biden signs into law

Is this what you're referencing?

"Section 702 permits only targeting of: (1) non-United States persons, (2) who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and (3) who are assessed by the Intelligence Community (IC) to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Each and every time Section 702 collection is initiated on a new target, the IC must make—and document—an individualized determination that the target satisfies all three of these requirements."

[Shirley]

Unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of Americans, biden signs into law

Is this what you're referencing?

"Section 702 permits only targeting of: (1) non-United States persons, (2) who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and (3) who are assessed by the Intelligence Community (IC) to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Each and every time Section 702 collection is initiated on a new target, the IC must make—and document—an individualized determination that the target satisfies all three of these requirements."

When you think about the republican party these days, if it's not nice to Putin, what should we expect?

[Sparko]

That law makes it pretty hard for the GOP to collect from its base in Russia.

[twocoach]

Unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of Americans, biden signs into law

Is this what you're referencing?

"Section 702 permits only targeting of: (1) non-United States persons, (2) who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and (3) who are assessed by the Intelligence Community (IC) to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Each and every time Section 702 collection is initiated on a new target, the IC must make—and document—an individualized determination that the target satisfies all three of these requirements."

When you think about the republican party these days, if it's not nice to Putin, what should we expect?

Hey, don't get me wrong, I DO NOT TRUST the government or any law enforcement to not overstep the bounds of what they are and are not allowed to do when it comes to surveillance. And honestly, I feel like the major federal government law enforcement agencies HAVE to overstep those bounds some if they are going to successfully find out about dangerous attacks on US citizens before they happen instead of just being stuck answering "why didn't you prevent this" after the fact.

The tools and techniques available to criminals is far more advanced than what can just be stumbled upon. No I do not want our rights to just be brazenly steam rolled but to me, there is some wiggle room when it comes to the investigation of people they truly believe have criminal intent.

[jfish26]

Is this what you're referencing?

"Section 702 permits only targeting of: (1) non-United States persons, (2) who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and (3) who are assessed by the Intelligence Community (IC) to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Each and every time Section 702 collection is initiated on a new target, the IC must make—and document—an individualized determination that the target satisfies all three of these requirements."

When you think about the republican party these days, if it's not nice to Putin, what should we expect?

Hey, don't get me wrong, I DO NOT TRUST the government or any law enforcement to not overstep the bounds of what they are and are not allowed to do when it comes to surveillance. And honestly, I feel like the major federal government law enforcement agencies HAVE to overstep those bounds some if they are going to successfully find out about dangerous attacks on US citizens before they happen instead of just being stuck answering "why didn't you prevent this" after the fact.

The tools and techniques available to criminals is far more advanced than what can just be stumbled upon. No I do not want our rights to just be brazenly steam rolled but to me, there is some wiggle room when it comes to the investigation of people they truly believe have criminal intent.

Which of course gets to the rotten heart of the matter - maybe I will put it this way: what would Milei’s Argentina use these tools for? What would/will the MAGA Cabinet use these tools for?

[Shirley]

Thanks President Biden, the price of oil decreased by 11.4%/barrel this year!

Weekly Price History of NYMEX (WTI) Crude Oil

December 30, 2022 $80.51

December 29, 2023: $71.33

$71.33/$80.51 = 11.40%

So...much...winning!

[jfish26]

Election interference.

[Shirley]

Election interference.

lol

[jfish26]

Election interference.

lol

https://x.com/simonwdc/status/174086762 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

This is a fun video but it speaks to something deeply significant - Republicans lied to their voters about the cause of high gas prices, blaming Biden rather than Russia and OPEC, and this prevented a huge groundswell of US support for Ukraine in its war with Putin.

[Overlander]

Election interference.

lol

https://x.com/simonwdc/status/174086762 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

This is a fun video but it speaks to something deeply significant - Republicans lied to their voters about the cause of high gas prices, blaming Biden rather than Russia and OPEC, and this prevented a huge groundswell of US support for Ukraine in its war with Putin.

Mexicans!

[jfish26]

Will the interference never end.

https://x.com/victorshi2020/status/1741 ... PzNG4aOfKQ