Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Chase Bank Closing "Alt-Right" Accounts


Dark_Grey

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Setton said:

So free market but only when it suits? 

Same question as for aztek - why should you not be able to discriminate over a conscious choice but you can over something the customer is born with?

Do you honestly not see how backwards that is? 

So are your views turned around?

You were against the bakery so you are also against the banks on this, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Ah, I honestly wasn't aware of that ruling. 

I actually agree with people saying you should not be allowed to not serve someone just because of their sexuality. 

I also think the bank is in the wrong.

Do you agree?

I do. Just highlighting the hypocrisy of many posters on this thread. 

40 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There is strong evidence that our political leanings are hardwired physiologically.

Not as strong as for sexuality. 

At any rate, you're saying, at most, that they are equivalent. 

So you should either be against the bank and the bakery or for both. Which is it? 

21 minutes ago, Myles said:

So are your views turned around?

You were against the bakery so you are also against the banks on this, right?

Absolutely. You'll notice that nowhere did I say the bank should be allowed to do this. I just drew the equivalency. 

You're either for both, against both or a massive hypocrite. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Not for a while yet.  Everybody has a right to speak, but those with money can speak louder.

In the Citizens United ruling, the SC  said that money is speech, financial support is the same as free speech and businesses have a right to do that.  .  At the time, a lot of liberals opposed that ruling and said it could lead to worse consequences down the road.  Well, here we are. consider this an exercise in protected corporate free speech.   Remember the support that conservatives gave to this ruling because it was the conservative view that had the immediate benefit?.   Unintended consequences friends.  Eventually, the future becomes the present.

It is a distraction  to blame this on liberals or the government, when in fact it is a multinational global corporation  that made this choice supported by a supreme court decision backed by conservatives.

The purpose of a corporation is to return maximum profit to its investors, not protect free speech or truth.

Did Chase decide that it would lose more money if people found out Proud Boys had an account than they get by servicing the account?  Beats me, but that could have been their decision.  

You gonna take your money out of Chase?  Fine.  I am sure their analysts already took you into account in the risk / benefit calculation.

I don't think it is right but it is the system we have built, both conservatives and liberals have a hand in where we are today.

That ruling was mostly about political donations, contributions, and funding mostly right?

I don't see how that is relevant with dropping customers based on politics 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, do we find ourselves agreeing on something, Setton…?   

I don't believe in slavery. Neither the banker nor the baker should be FORCED to do work where they don't want to, with the proviso that the banker can get around that FDIC encumberance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Setton said:

Not as strong as for sexuality. 

At any rate, you're saying, at most, that they are equivalent. 

So you should either be against the bank and the bakery or for both. Which is it? 

Can you prove that?  Leftists make my physically ill.  And I never said I was for or against either, I simply answered your question.  Now someone else ran with my answer a bit after a made the most reasonable argument and that was that FDIC insurance is tax payer funded so short of criminal activity banks should not be able to discriminate against anyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something tickling the tip of my brain... Might be a red herring, but..

Though FDIC may not play so much into this as they are insurance for active losses more than anything else... Chase does carry FDIC. And also, SIPC is in with JP Morgan Securities. This combo with federal rules is kind of making me wonder what the potential interplay behind the scenes with paperwork might be going on with all of this. SIPC is another heavy hitter for the banking insurance action.

This may or may not have any play as this case progresses. I just wanted to toss it out here for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Can you prove that? 

That sexuality is something you're born with? 

I don't need to prove it, you have eyes and access to Google scholar. Plenty of other people have already done the work. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Setton said:

That sexuality is something you're born with? 

I don't need to prove it, you have eyes and access to Google scholar. Plenty of other people have already done the work. 

No, that the biological imperative is stronger.  You can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

No, that the biological imperative is stronger.  You can't.

Imperative for what? Stronger than what? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Setton said:

Imperative for what? Stronger than what? 

Quote

There is strong evidence that our political leanings are hardwired physiologically.

Quote

Not as strong as for sexuality. 

The imperative to lean one way or another politically.  You can't prove that my political values are less hardwired into me than my Heterosexuality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The imperative to lean one way or another politically.  You can't prove that my political values are less hardwired into me than my Heterosexuality.

It's your claim, your burden to prove. 

Also, I'm not trying to. Equal is good enough for my point to stand. 

Edited by Setton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Setton said:

It's your claim, your burden to prove. 

Also, I'm not trying to. Equal is good enough for my point to stand. 

Which is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not surprised.  I mean if you are a hard core right wing guy you really shouldn't make your entire business dependent on a company with a democrat CEO.  Why can't this guy take his business elsewhere, btw? 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I'm not surprised.  I mean if you are a hard core right wing guy you really shouldn't make your entire business dependent on a company with a democrat CEO.  Why can't this guy take his business elsewhere, btw? 

That's what the baker said to the SC.     Oopsie!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That's what the baker said to the SC.     Oopsie!

Yeah and the Supreme Court just agreed with them......  So why not this guy?

Edit to add:  If the Supreme Court ruled on this issue, it's the law of the land.  With that in mind, what did this guy expect? 

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

That ruling was mostly about political donations, contributions, and funding mostly right?

Yes it was free speech translates into donating to whomever you choose.  This is a reach.  Will it be tested?  Will a corporation be able to defend itself by saying this customer would cause them to lose much business if we allow him to maintain an account?   I think they may test it.  Is it free speech to refuse service to a party you disagree with?  In a sense this is even cleaner than race. religion. and sexual orientation because it is all about political free speech.  The bank might argue that their service contributes business and funds to a cause they do not believe in.  I am not a lawyer, but I bet a lot of legal disagreement could result.

For an average citizen, it could be bad if political belief can result in denial of service.  It doesn't matter if it is a conservative organization this time, it could be a liberal one next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Now someone else ran with my answer a bit after a made the most reasonable argument and that was that FDIC insurance is tax payer funded

The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations - it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. The FDIC insures trillions of dollars of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts - deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country.

https://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

There is strong evidence that our political leanings are hardwired physiologically.

Yes there is.  There are at least a couple of studies that can be googled. 

 In a report published last Thursday, neuroscience researchers from the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London announced that they had found evidence that liberals and conservatives actually have different brain structures.

Cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Ryota Kanai and colleagues conducted MRI scans of 118 college students whose self-reported political views ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative."   Many areas of the subjects' brains showed no difference based on political orientation. But the subjects classifying themselves as "liberal" had a higher volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex of their brains than study participants who classified themselves as "conservative." The anterior cingulate cortex is believed to play a role in helping people cope with and sort through uncertainty and conflicting information, as well as affecting their levels of emotional awareness and empathy. The "conservative" participants, on the other hand, had a higher volume of gray matter in the right amygdala region -- which is thought to play a big role in identifying and responding to threats. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and-conservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

Seems like it would be better and safer  for all if we learned to work together.  Not likely though is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes there is.  There are at least a couple of studies that can be googled. 

 In a report published last Thursday, neuroscience researchers from the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London announced that they had found evidence that liberals and conservatives actually have different brain structures.

Cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Ryota Kanai and colleagues conducted MRI scans of 118 college students whose self-reported political views ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative."   Many areas of the subjects' brains showed no difference based on political orientation. But the subjects classifying themselves as "liberal" had a higher volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex of their brains than study participants who classified themselves as "conservative." The anterior cingulate cortex is believed to play a role in helping people cope with and sort through uncertainty and conflicting information, as well as affecting their levels of emotional awareness and empathy. The "conservative" participants, on the other hand, had a higher volume of gray matter in the right amygdala region -- which is thought to play a big role in identifying and responding to threats. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and-conservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

Seems like it would be better and safer  for all if we learned to work together.  Not likely though is it.

I've always thought that free will is an illusion.  If you are religious then you were created by an omnipotent being that knew your every choice when he made you and made you that way.

If you are non-religious then you are a product of your upbringing, environment, and biology. A biological machine. 

When I see stuff like this it just reinforces that belief.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OverSword said:

Can you prove that?  Leftists make my physically ill. 

They used to make me physically ill as well. I was somewhere to the far right of Ravenhawk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I was somewhere to the far right of Ravenhawk.

That's a disgusting thought

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2019 at 7:49 PM, Gromdor said:

Yeah and the Supreme Court just agreed with them......  So why not this guy?

Edit to add:  If the Supreme Court ruled on this issue, it's the law of the land.  With that in mind, what did this guy expect? 

I don't know what he expected Grom, but since this Alt-right guy is not PC, I think we all know what to expect,, as America has two standards for judgement,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't know what he expected Grom, but since this Alt-right guy is not PC, I think we all know what to expect,, as America has two standards for judgement,

I think so too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.