Elizabeth Warren bullied to take DNA test to prove Indian heritage

[HowardBThiname]

Please, Howard. The EXAMPLE SENTENCE in the dictionary entry does not refer to you. Are you pulling our leg or what?

But you were referring to me -- Post #132. You forgot what you wrote, didn't you?

She doesn't have to be. The principle is universal.

Okay, so you don't understand what a constitutional right is either? Why am I not surprised?

If you can't make the connection, forget it. It isn't allowed to talk about certain things in certain places, which is stunning hypocrisy in and of itself.




Your emoticon convinced me.

Good gawd. That's one convoluted mess there.

 

[ecofarm]

Of course she did. And, btw, it appears that the tests are pretty darned accurate.
https://www.today.com/health/are-home-dna-kits-accurate-identical-triplets-try-3-them-t119472

So, why is she refusing to put the story to the test?

I think we both know why.

And, that makes her a fraud.

You don't understand the accuracy question. Earlier in the thread someone explained it. The test, if negative, would not be definitive.

Is she claiming NA perspective? No. Is she claiming to represent NAs? No. Has she gained from the claim? No. Her university application did not claim minority? Case closed.

So you're demanding a test that cannot prove a negative because someone's grandma had NA blood and it caused family problems. How does that make sense?

 

[Chomsky]

Warren is not running for Pres in 2020. She will be up for her Senate seat in Nov. Why not let the Mass voters decide, such as myself. Are you a Mass voter ?

Of course.

I'm speaking in terms of a national 2020 run.

But I still very much believe in vetting the candidate I vote for. Others may feel differently.

 

[Middleground]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-went-wrong-with-the-cfpb-1511072512
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/12/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-tragic-failures/'


The first is a paywall, the second is a good read from the inside. The biggest issue was it was unconstitutional and really bad law to boot.

Can't read the WSJ article. The other article is quite long. Since you seem to know all that is wrong with the bureau, give me a synopsis. I'm returning the favour:

From its creation until 2017, the CFPB "has curtailed abusive debt collection practices, reformed mortgage lending, publicized and investigated hundreds of thousands of complaints from aggrieved customers of financial institutions, and extracted nearly $12 billion for 29 million consumers in refunds and canceled debts."

They are also responsible for uncovering the Well Fargo scandal that defrauded many unsuspecting Americans. Not bad, eh?

 

[yankintx]

Of course.

I'm speaking in terms of a national 2020 run.

But I still very much believe in vetting the candidate I vote for. Others may feel differently.

As I said post election. I had two turds two choose from in Nov 2016. I like my turd with out nuts so chose Clinton. I was correct, he is nuts.

 

[Renae]

Can't read the WSJ article. The other article is quite long. Since you seem to know all that is wrong with the bureau, give me a synopsis. I'm returning the favour:



They are also responsible for uncovering the Well Fargo scandal that defrauded many unsuspecting Americans. Not bad, eh?

Well the fact it was not under congressional oversight, they were funded outside the constitution and until a Judge bitch slapped the Frank Dodd bill the director had immunity from the President, oh and the biggest scandal of all they missed entirely (that would be the Wells Fargo crap).

 

[tres borrachos]

What did the CFPB do to make you call it a disaster?

As someone whose livelihood is tied to the CFPB (among other entities in the financial services industry), I have mixed opinions on it.

There were some very positive changes that came from the establishment of the CFPB. The risk assessments and UDAAP assessments are a very good thing for everyone in the country. Even some of their little known requirements like vendor management are really strong and valuable. Then some other things they put forth, like their massive new Regulation C (HMDA) reporting requirements are counterproductive and also constrain the smaller community banks and credit unions. The CFPB is a mixed bag, but then again so is everything in government. It needs some reforming, and it will get it. But generally speaking, from a standpoint of consumer protection and risk mitigation, its establishment was a good thing.

 

[Chomsky]

As I said post election. I had two turds two choose from in Nov 2016. I like my turd with out nuts so chose Clinton. I was correct, he is nuts.

Well said! :thumbs:

 

[tres borrachos]

Can't read the WSJ article. The other article is quite long. Since you seem to know all that is wrong with the bureau, give me a synopsis. I'm returning the favour:



They are also responsible for uncovering the Well Fargo scandal that defrauded many unsuspecting Americans. Not bad, eh?

The Wells Fargo situation was a coup for the CFPB. It was the CFPB's oversight of UDAAP (Unfair Deceptive and Abusive Acts or Practices) that enabled them to uncover what Wells did. Cordray should have fined Wells a lot more - and by the way, what Wells did banks were doing for decades before the CFPB was formed (and they added the second "A" - abusive - in UDAAP). Banks aren't doing it anymore because of what happened to Wells. It was a good thing for consumers, no question.

That was one of the very positive things I mentioned that came out of the establishment of the CFPB.

 

[tres borrachos]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-went-wrong-with-the-cfpb-1511072512
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/12/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-tragic-failures/'


The first is a paywall, the second is a good read from the inside. The biggest issue was it was unconstitutional and really bad law to boot.

The CFPB isn't a law, and it was never deemed unconstitutional. A 3-panel appeals court ruled in 2016 that its structure was unconstitutional because the director couldn't be removed by the President at will.

 

[Renae]

The CFPB isn't a law, and it was never deemed unconstitutional. A 3-panel appeals court ruled in 2016 that its structure was unconstitutional because the director couldn't be removed by the President at will.

That's what I was referring to.

 

[tres borrachos]

That's what I was referring to.

Then you must have been confused when you posted this:

The biggest issue was it was unconstitutional and really bad law to boot.

It isn't a law, and the CFPB itself isn't unconstitutional. It's a government bureau.

 

[Renae]

Then you must have been confused when you posted this:

The biggest issue was it was unconstitutional and really bad law to boot.

It isn't a law, and the CFPB itself isn't unconstitutional. It's a government bureau.

October 11, 2016, in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the CFPB’s structure unconstitutional and “fixed” it by empowering the president to remove the agency’s director at will. Sounds dull, but this is a tragic story.

Sigh.

The CFPB's creation was authorized by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, whose passage in 2010 was a legislative response to the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great Recession.[2] The CFPB was established as an independent agency, but this status is being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

https://cei.org/content/case-against-cfpb

Who could be against consumer protection? The 2007-2008 financial crisis saw record numbers of mortgage foreclosures, left large numbers of Americans “underwater”—owing more in mortgage principal payments than their homes were worth—and many more carrying more credit card debt than it seemed they could afford. Consumer financial protection was the motivation behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a new agency designed to protect American consumers from bad actors in the financial services industry.

The CFPB was meant to protect American pocketbooks and property. However, its founders—the drafters of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010—felt that in order to do so, it had to be protected from political interference. That resulted in the agency being insulated from accountability to the president, Congress, and the courts. Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB three mechanisms for avoiding accountability:

Its funding comes not from congressional appropriations but from the Federal Reserve, which is to supply whatever the director requests up to a certain amount;
It is headed by a single director appointed for a fixed term of five years who may not be fired by the president except for “cause,” such as dereliction of duty or malfeasance; and
The courts are required to give extra deference to the CFPB’s decisions in some cases.

 

[tres borrachos]

Sigh.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

https://cei.org/content/case-against-cfpb

The CFPB is a bureau. It isn't a law. If you are arguing about the Dodd-Frank law, then you aren't having the same conversation with Middleground. She was talking about the CFPB, which was Warren's brainchild. It still isn't a law. And its still not unconstitutional. The only issue was about the director, and I already posted that.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

One thing is clear. That is how prejudice this country still is that race and gender has become such an issue. The first black president. The first woman president. The need to claim that you are native American. The hype by the media and the interest of the people. If you want to know who is prejudice just look in the mirror.

 

[Middleground]

Well the fact it was not under congressional oversight, they were funded outside the constitution and until a Judge bitch slapped the Frank Dodd bill the director had immunity from the President, oh and the biggest scandal of all they missed entirely (that would be the Wells Fargo crap).

It was because of the CFPB that the Wells Fargo fiasco was uncovered.

 

[Middleground]

As someone whose livelihood is tied to the CFPB (among other entities in the financial services industry), I have mixed opinions on it.

There were some very positive changes that came from the establishment of the CFPB. The risk assessments and UDAAP assessments are a very good thing for everyone in the country. Even some of their little known requirements like vendor management are really strong and valuable. Then some other things they put forth, like their massive new Regulation C (HMDA) reporting requirements are counterproductive and also constrain the smaller community banks and credit unions. The CFPB is a mixed bag, but then again so is everything in government. It needs some reforming, and it will get it. But generally speaking, from a standpoint of consumer protection and risk mitigation, its establishment was a good thing.

Agreed. Hopefully with good leadership they will continue to grow and iron out what needs to be fixed.

I wish we had something like it in Canada.

 

[tres borrachos]

It was because of the CFPB that the Wells Fargo fiasco was uncovered.

Absolutely right. Prior to the establishment of the CFPB most consumers had no place to go to report suspicious activity. The regulator of Wells (the OCC) wouldn't have investigated it. They would have had to hope that the state banking commission would review it and respond to it, but before Dodd-Frank was in place, most state banking commissions had no provisions in place to look into these things. It would usually take years, you'd have to get a lawyer, and you'd usually not win.

The CFPB led the investigation with the assistance of the OCC, and uncovered about 5 years worth of terrible actions on the part of Wells.

 

[Middleground]

Absolutely right. Prior to the establishment of the CFPB most consumers had no place to go to report suspicious activity. The regulator of Wells (the OCC) wouldn't have investigated it. They would have had to hope that the state banking commission would review it and respond to it, but before Dodd-Frank was in place, most state banking commissions had no provisions in place to look into these things. It would usually take years, you'd have to get a lawyer, and you'd usually not win.

The CFPB led the investigation with the assistance of the OCC, and uncovered about 5 years worth of terrible actions on the part of Wells.

This is one of the things I love about you, Tres. I know you are not a fan of Warren yet you can still recognize some of the good she has done. You're unwilling to bend the truth or seek propaganda to push your personal views. Very commendable.

 

[tres borrachos]

This is one of the things I love about you, Tres. I know you are not a fan of Warren yet you can still recognize some of the good she has done. You're unwilling to bend the truth or seek propaganda to push your personal views. Very commendable.

Yup, I'm honest when I say I don't care for Warren, but I'm not partisanly ignorant enough to lie about some good things she did. I don't approve of the CFPB's actions top to bottom, but I do support its overall purpose. Like anything else, it has problems, and they will address them. The new bill she's complaining about tries to correct some of the things, but I agree with her that they are giving too much latitude to some banks. Somewhere along the "community banks are hurting because of this" some genius (not) decided that a bank or lender with under $250 billion in assets shouldn't be scrutinized as it has been. I guess these people don't remember Countrywide, which had assets of $210 billion.

Warren is right to be concerned about that.

But they do have to give banks under $10 billion in assets some relief. Many of the new mortgage regulations have crippled them.

That's why I said I have mixed opinions on the CFPB. But I support its existence overall.

 

[Middleground]

Yup, I'm honest when I say I don't care for Warren, but I'm not partisanly ignorant enough to lie about some good things she did. I don't approve of the CFPB's actions top to bottom, but I do support its overall purpose. Like anything else, it has problems, and they will address them. The new bill she's complaining about tries to correct some of the things, but I agree with her that they are giving too much latitude to some banks. Somewhere along the "community banks are hurting because of this" some genius (not) decided that a bank or lender with under $250 billion in assets shouldn't be scrutinized as it has been. I guess these people don't remember Countrywide, which had assets of $210 billion.

Warren is right to be concerned about that.

But they do have to give banks under $10 billion in assets some relief. Many of the new mortgage regulations have crippled them.

That's why I said I have mixed opinions on the CFPB. But I support its existence overall.

On another but similar note, have you seen the Frontline doc, "Abacus -- small enough to jail?" If you have 1.5 hours to kill, I highly recommend it. You may know of their story since you work in the banking industry. Anyway, I found it engrossing and maddening.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/abacus/

 

[tres borrachos]

On another but similar note, have you seen the Frontline doc, "Abacus -- small enough to jail?" If you have 1.5 hours to kill, I highly recommend it. You may know of their story since you work in the banking industry. Anyway, I found it engrossing and maddening.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/abacus/

I do know about that story. That was the bank that focused on Chinese Americans in the NY City area, right? I remembered they were making a documentary but never saw it. Thanks for the reminder. I will check it out!

 

[Lovebug]

Elizabeth Warren needs to back up her claim. Tests are easy these days.

 

[Middleground]

I do know about that story. That was the bank that focused on Chinese Americans in the NY City area, right? I remembered they were making a documentary but never saw it. Thanks for the reminder. I will check it out!

That's the one! Let me know what you think.

 

[Middleground]

Elizabeth Warren needs to back up her claim. Tests are easy these days.

What is she claiming?