Support NeoGAF

[Dishwalla]

aww he's not a junior member yet.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

Yes

 

[excelsiorlef]

You're damage controlling a bit too hard. Why would republicans fuck over women, minorities and LBGT? Sounds crazy.

Is this serious? That's literally what the GOP exists to do.

 

[diaspora]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

Sweet Christmas

 

[Kemal86]

\

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

are you for real with this. like. think about this. for 1 more minute.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

You know, there's more to civil rights than marriage equality and the right to pee in the gendered bathroom you identify with. Like solving systemic racism, ending police violence and mass incarceration of dark skinned citizens, ending the legal discrimination against LGBT, ending conversion torture for LGBT youth, and so much more. Marriage Equality is just a small step to gain those rights.

So yeah, about that last quote, "Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened" is completely overlooking the fact are lives are already threatened because we don't have those rights.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

You mean that thing that a good portion of elected Republicans insist is just a conspiracy theory?

And yes? Plus the anti-LGBT+ faction of the GOP want to do more than just that, all you need to do is look at Pence's relationship with it (i.e. support of conversion therapy) to know that.

 

[Apathy]

Picking this guy is just going to make this trainwreck of an election even worse.

 

[Tarydax]

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

Obviously.

You're damage controlling a bit too hard. Why would republicans fuck over women, minorities and LBGT? Sounds crazy.

That's what the party exists to do. Their platform is proof of that.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Sweet Christmas

AnAhole

Picking this guy is just going to make this trainwreck of an election even worse.

Wut

 

[JP_]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

Well luckily for us, the party that's pro-civil rights is also the party that believes climate change is real and views wealth inequality as a bad thing.

 

[Risette]

Rights are important, but sometimes I feel like they're a distraction from far bigger issues such as global warming and consolidation of wealth.

Does it matter who you can marry or which bathroom you can enter when your existence is threatened?

I'm glad you see the LGBTQ community as disposable and unimportant. Appreciate it.

 

[Volimar]

This isn't even that big of a deal. Why are people freaking out? Is it just that they don't understand what it means and they're being completely reactionary to deregulation when in this instance it mostly a streamlining measure? I mean, I'm against deregulation in general but this seems like a pretty nothing measure. Horrible optics though.


It does seem strange to me that of all the high stakes of this election, this is the one issue that turns people away from voting democrat. It's almost like some of you don't care about women's rights, LGBT rights, the lives and livelihoods of Mexicans living in the US, etc, etc, fucking etc. Seriously, get a grip.

 

[Y2Kev]

aww he's not a junior member yet.

Don't worry

 

[Rebel Leader]

Don't worry

I worry

 

[Team Alucard]

HRC once again shows her true colors!

 

[davepoobond]

HRC once again shows her true colors!

red, white, and blue?

 

[Dishwalla]

Don't worry

lol

 

[hawk2025]

HRC once again shows her true colors!

Jesus, you actually bumped this right after the VP announcement, to --

"Junior Member"


Oh.

 

[Vice]

HRC once again shows her true colors!

As a centrist democrat?

 

[Team Alucard]

red, white, and blue?

Red, Green, and Black.

Green for that sweet lobbyist cash, red for the blood of the victims of Benghazi, and black for the dark abyss that 30,000 e-mails vanished into.

 

[Armaros]

Red, Green, and Black.

Green for that sweet lobbyist cash, red for the blood of the victims of Benghazi, and black for the dark abyss that 30,000 e-mails vanished into.

Could you actually pretend you aren't trolling / astroturfing for Trump now?

 

[Dishwalla]

Man you are completely full of it.

 

[Y2Kev]

fixed

 

[demon]

Kaine, along with Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.), argues that bigger banks don’t necessarily carry bigger risks, and thus shouldn’t face more aggressive oversight.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Big banks don't carry a bigger risk to whom?

 

[Armaros]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Big banks don't carry a bigger risk to whom?

More banking issues come from smaller banks running risky deals to make a quick buck over big banks doing normal business.

 

[diaspora]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think his argument is that size of assets isn't indicative of riskiness but in the actual activities the institution pursues and financial products it sells?

 

[IrishNinja]

fixed

well, shit

 

[Aaronology]

So, Does Tim Kaine Oppose Bank Regulation or Did HuffPost Fail to Get The Whole Story?
http://bluevirginia.us/2016/07/tim-kaine-oppose-bank-regulation-huffpost-fail-get-whole-story

Zach Carter, the Huffington Post’s senior Political Economy reporter penned a piece about Tim Kaine supporting bank deregulation. He cited two letters, one that Kaine failed to sign and one that he did sign. They were on two different banking issues and it was disingenuous to conflate them to make Kaine look like he is for bank deregulation. Let’s start with the first letter.

This was a letter to Richard Cordray, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The signers specifically expressed concern with small dollar loans, popularly known as payday lending. These loans often carry 300 percent interest, and 80 percent of borrowers roll them over into still more onerous payday loans when they fail to pay the original one back. One in five borrowers default on those loans. Yes, they are a bane on the banking industry and cause harm to poor people.

So those who signed the letter to Cordray asked that a proposed CFPB rule implement stronger regulations for these lending institutions, such as requiring them to consider the borrower’s ability to pay and their loan history before making the loans. They also asked the CFPB to reconsider an exemption to the six-loan per year policy, further limiting the amount of loans borrowers can make in one year to less than the current six.

After reading the letter, I think it’s a good idea and agree with those who signed on. Unfortunately, Tim Kaine was not one of them. I think he should have been. I would be curious about why he didn’t. I will get back to that point in a minute.

But the other example of being anti-regulation was an entirely different issue. That involved a request to the CFPB to tailor its rules to community banks and credit unions and not to hold them to the same standards as large multinational investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs. This issue very specifically involves the so-called stress tests to make sure that large investment banks have enough liquidity to survive a banking crisis like the one that caused the economic meltdown in 2008. The letter writers pointed out that community banks and credit unions had nothing to do with that economic crisis or the practices that caused it. In fact, most of these banks play a unique role in their communities, serving the needs of small businesses and individual borrowers. They are neither national nor global in scope. They are regional and usually involved in their communities.

All the letter asks is that Cordray and others involved in the rulemaking process consider the differences between community banks and credit unions versus the large national banks, including the levels of risk involved. Before a rule is applied across the board, an analysis of how burdensome that regulation is and how much risk is involved in not regulating should be made. All this letter asks is that those factors be taken into consideration. On that one, I think Tim Kaine and other signers, including Mark Warner, may be right.

Personally, I am all for regulating businesses and institutions to ensure safety, fairness, and a level playing field. I am far from an anti-regulatory, anti-government ideologue. But I am also not a knee jerk anti-business zealot either. If one particular rule is misplaced, burdensome, and doesn’t solve a real need or mitigate an actual risk, it probably should not be implemented.

...

Right now, this is not a piece of solid reporting. It is an opinion piece or an editorial and not a particularly fair one either.

Full article @source.

 

[hawk2025]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Big banks don't carry a bigger risk to whom?

As an extreme example, a bank may be huge, but not very leveraged at all and very liquid.

This means that, in the case of a downturn, this bank does not pose a threat to the system -- in fact, it may even help it by being a strong shore.

The (perhaps oversimplified) point is that using "size" as a sufficient statistic for regulation is not enough: The actual portfolio and profile of a bank is more important in deciding how regulation should apply to it.

 

[Ahasverus]

Red, Green, and Black.

Green for that sweet lobbyist cash, red for the blood of the victims of Benghazi, and black for the dark abyss that 30,000 e-mails vanished into.

This would sound impressive if it wasn't ridiculous. Ugh.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

looks like I was wrong

 

[DietRob]

So nice to see how many NeoGAF posters are like, "well, I guess racism and fascism is bad, but ultimately I care just as much about an esoteric banking regulation I don't understand."

As a person of color and second generation immigrant I really appreciate your support. Glad to see you guys are real progressives.

Also nice to see that people are still taking Team Alucard seriously even though he's a white nationalist who has been concern trolling the liberals all year.

I feel like this whole thing of "Fuck it I'm out" or "Well I guess I'll go 3rd party" or "Trump Time" is the OT equivalent of the sarcastic "Pre-Order Cancelled" thing on gaming side.

God I hope so. I hope adults in the OT aren't this ignorant of the bigger picture.

 

[davepoobond]

Red, Green, and Black.

Green for that sweet lobbyist cash, red for the blood of the victims of Benghazi, and black for the dark abyss that 30,000 e-mails vanished into.

only thing that would make that flag better is if the stars were $ signs.

 

[Velcro Fly]

lol of course it is the guy from the RNC thread last night who said he switched from Bernie to Trump and had basically zero answer to the questions of why.