(11-26-2017 06:43 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

Considering the attempted circumvention of the rules that are laid out, I fail to see where "[Trump] is making up the rules as he goes along."

And, it shows that he isn't "mak[ing] it up as he goes along" when he actually engages the DOJ a priori. Sounds like common sense. Especially considering the language at issue.

At the *very* worst the statutes are in conflict and should be interpreted. Seems kind of judicious to get the ducks in a row prior to sparking something off.

At the *very* best, the CFPB statute actually means what it says and requires a real live director around to be 'absent'. Huge difference between being 'absent' and not even holding the office in question, imo.

To be honest, kind of glad PDT got the DOJ involved *before* acting. But I guess going off half-cocked by not getting the DOJ involved would somehow be better in your book?

Ben Shapiro covered this today. Long story short, President Trump is right (an unelected bureaucrat can’t appoint another unelected bureaucrat), and FBO and his brother are whining about nothing. Imagine my shock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is my hope that Trump wins this battle and then disbands this organization since it has clearly gone beyond its original scope and intent. Pretty much like EVERY damn government agency does. For once Id like to see one ended.

(11-26-2017 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 06:43 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

Considering the attempted circumvention of the rules that are laid out, I fail to see where "[Trump] is making up the rules as he goes along."

And, it shows that he isn't "mak[ing] it up as he goes along" when he actually engages the DOJ a priori. Sounds like common sense. Especially considering the language at issue.

At the *very* worst the statutes are in conflict and should be interpreted. Seems kind of judicious to get the ducks in a row prior to sparking something off.

At the *very* best, the CFPB statute actually means what it says and requires a real live director around to be 'absent'. Huge difference between being 'absent' and not even holding the office in question, imo.

To be honest, kind of glad PDT got the DOJ involved *before* acting. But I guess going off half-cocked by not getting the DOJ involved would somehow be better in your book?

they simply refuse to look past the lenses.....

I simply hope they continue to do such going into the midterms.....

the stupid from the left is off the chain at this point....

that's what happens when you opine for all to have filet mignon with an empty wallet....

btw.....how's that hill-lair-liar foundation far(t)ing these days for wtfe it was designed to accomplish???

(11-27-2017 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is my hope that Trump wins this battle and then disbands this organization since it has clearly gone beyond its original scope and intent. Pretty much like EVERY damn government agency does. For once Id like to see one ended.

^^^^

(11-27-2017 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is my hope that Trump wins this battle and then disbands this organization since it has clearly gone beyond its original scope and intent. Pretty much like EVERY damn government agency does. For once Id like to see one ended.

Its original intent was to go beyond its original scope and intent. Just like the IPAB. We'd be better off rid of both of them.

(11-26-2017 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that the Obama and Trump presidencies are pretty much polar opposites. And I pretty much don't agree with wither one on anything.

IMO the CFPB is a bad idea that needs to go away, at least in its present form. I suppose that if I were a consumer lawyer I might agree with your brother, because it certainly opens up a lot of playing field for ambulance chasers. But otherwise I think it is mostly counterproductive overkill. Just like most of the rest of Dodd-Frank. Then again, when you take two unsavory characters who should probably be in prison for their roles in bringing about the home mortgage crisis, and put them in charge of the bill to "solve" the problem, what can you expect?

It was meant to go after banks like Wells Fargo. They created fake accounts of their patrons that bank there, and funnel money around. We do need the CFPB.

Just shut it down.

Move on to the next alphabet Org. Then shut that down too.

Then moveon.again.

We all have been paying for this mindless schit, has anyone benefited?

Who and how?

Time to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-26-2017 06:43 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

Agreed.


When it comes to useless crap like this, forget the “brief” and just line this out.

Someone make the effort to defend this garbage NGO or whatever it is, if you can’t do that, shall we move on to the next useless one?!?

If not, why not?

Just shut it down. We have enough consumer protection orgs

(11-28-2017 08:49 AM)dfarr Wrote:  Just shut it down. We have enough consumer protection orgs

Other than the Fed, we should make sure all government organizations are under tight control of the executive branch. We have Congress and the Supreme Court to provide checks and balances.

Of course, it would help if we had an honest press to expose real abuses, as went on constantly in the Obama administration.

We really should prosecute as many of these abuses as possible or people will feel free to do it again next time a progressive becomes president.

Jesus Christ, an unaccountable federal agency deliberate set up to be staffed SOLELY BY DEMOCRATS.

This.

Actually.

Happened.

I didn't know it was THIS bad.

"Republicans Need Not Apply"

This is what's going to come out, drip by drip, until the elections of 2018.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So Trump's response?

The Trump-appointed judge rules for Trump-appointed CFPB (part-time) acting head Mulvaney after DOJ memo written by former lawyer for payday lender being sued by CFPB finds for Mulvaney who received $1.2 mill in financial sector contributions.

More draining the swamp? Hardly.

But congrats on King Trump's latest maneuver. Again as I've said over and over, Trump is bizarro Obama. He is identical to Obama in every way (starting with their egos and dictator ways) but with a completely different political agenda. If Obama was such a poor president, why is Trump borrowing his playbook every step along the way?

The very structure of the CFPB is (and has been ruled) unconstitutional. It's designed to specifically avoid oversight from the rest of the government, and its books are completely secret. It's entirely possible that Ms. English and her suit is being used as a vehicle to get this in front of the SCOTUS and have them shut it down as unconstitutional before Trump/Mulvaney can find the real dirt.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-28-2017 06:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So Trump's response?

The Trump-appointed judge rules for Trump-appointed CFPB (part-time) acting head Mulvaney after DOJ memo written by former lawyer for payday lender being sued by CFPB finds for Mulvaney who received $1.2 mill in financial sector contributions.

More draining the swamp? Hardly.

But congrats on King Trump's latest maneuver. Again as I've said over and over, Trump is bizarro Obama. He is identical to Obama in every way (starting with their egos and dictator ways) but with a completely different political agenda. If Obama was such a poor president, why is Trump borrowing his playbook every step along the way?

I don't see how following CFPB legal counsel makes Trump a "King"

(11-28-2017 06:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 06:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So Trump's response?

The Trump-appointed judge rules for Trump-appointed CFPB (part-time) acting head Mulvaney after DOJ memo written by former lawyer for payday lender being sued by CFPB finds for Mulvaney who received $1.2 mill in financial sector contributions.

More draining the swamp? Hardly.

But congrats on King Trump's latest maneuver. Again as I've said over and over, Trump is bizarro Obama. He is identical to Obama in every way (starting with their egos and dictator ways) but with a completely different political agenda. If Obama was such a poor president, why is Trump borrowing his playbook every step along the way?

I don't see how following CFPB legal counsel makes Trump a "King"

And the courts ruled in his favor. Sounds like it was the Democrats and unelected bureaucrats who were the fascists totalitarians.

DENIED!

(11-28-2017 06:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 06:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So Trump's response?

The Trump-appointed judge rules for Trump-appointed CFPB (part-time) acting head Mulvaney after DOJ memo written by former lawyer for payday lender being sued by CFPB finds for Mulvaney who received $1.2 mill in financial sector contributions.

More draining the swamp? Hardly.

But congrats on King Trump's latest maneuver. Again as I've said over and over, Trump is bizarro Obama. He is identical to Obama in every way (starting with their egos and dictator ways) but with a completely different political agenda. If Obama was such a poor president, why is Trump borrowing his playbook every step along the way?

I don't see how following CFPB legal counsel makes Trump a "King"

When you have TDS and you throw out accusations you don't have to follow logic.

(11-28-2017 07:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 06:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 06:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So Trump's response?

The Trump-appointed judge rules for Trump-appointed CFPB (part-time) acting head Mulvaney after DOJ memo written by former lawyer for payday lender being sued by CFPB finds for Mulvaney who received $1.2 mill in financial sector contributions.

More draining the swamp? Hardly.

But congrats on King Trump's latest maneuver. Again as I've said over and over, Trump is bizarro Obama. He is identical to Obama in every way (starting with their egos and dictator ways) but with a completely different political agenda. If Obama was such a poor president, why is Trump borrowing his playbook every step along the way?

I don't see how following CFPB legal counsel makes Trump a "King"

When you have TDS and you throw out accusations you don't have to follow logic.

dippo logic confirmed in action....