- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tom Cotton: Fire anyone in CFPB who disobeys Mulvaney
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:59 am to zunic
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:59 am to zunic
quote:
The law clearly states what happens if the director steps down and it ain't what's happening.
and what if that law is unconstitutional?
This post was edited on 11/29/17 at 9:00 am
0
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:02 am to zunic
quote:
The law clearly states what happens if the director steps down and it ain't what's happening.
Where is the law that says a government agency can be created that doesn't have to answer to the government? CIA is the only one I know that falls into that category. Is that what you want, more CIA type agencies overseeing the country?
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:04 am to Scruffy
quote:
What?
it actually isn't clear what happens when the director steps down, which is the funny part of his comment
the law says “in the absence or unavailability of the director.” the deputy serves
it does not say that the director can resign and appoint the deputy as director, nor that resignation falls into "absence or unavailability". it's just a clever ruse by DEMs to keep control of their baby with DEM sycophants, and likely, totally illegal
also, even if this interpretation is correct, it doesn't mandate the deputy becomes the permanent director
the President has the power, both statutorily and constitutionally, to appoint the director (with Senate approval). he's done that
Posted on 11/29/17 at 4:10 pm to UFMatt
quote:
I actually voted for Tom Cotton and have followed his actions since taking the position in the Senate and you are completely incorrect in your description of him, as quoted.
He is physically and socially conservative, pro military, anti big government and pro states rights.
He once remarked that, "We have an under-incarceration problem in America".
He once stated that the cartels and ISIS are joining forces.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 4:21 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:
He once stated that the cartels and ISIS are joining forces.
And how would that be out of the realm of possibility considering
quote:
A US congress report from the House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Management ties Middle East terror organizations with the Mexican drug cartels.[6] The report reads that;- The presence of Hezbollah in Latin America is partially explained by the large Lebanese diaspora in South America. In general, Hezbollah enjoys support by many in the Lebanese world community in part because of the numerous social programs it provides in Lebanon that include schools, hospitals, utilities and welfare.
LINK
Posted on 11/29/17 at 4:44 pm to idlewatcher
Hezbollah
/=/
ISIS
/=/
ISIS
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:49 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:Yeah. And anyone who says we have an “under-incarceration” problem and is the lone holdout regarding juvenile criminal justice policy, shows a troubling disregard for the underlying principles of the Constitution he so adamantly purports to support.
Cotton may be right on this one (pretty simple/ black & white issue), but this man is a neo con and loves big govt.
And frankly I think this is potentially more dangerous than many of the instances where officials have showed obvious disregard for the Constitution:
1. Antithetical to the Constitution but with less legal recourse to stop it.
2. Criminal laws and specifically the penalties—especially incarceration and execution—is arguably the greatest necessary evil of government and where liberty is often at odds with liberty (liberty to commit violent crimes is depriving victims of liberty). Unfortunately government overreach often has too often made if just a deprivation of liberty.
3. Unfortunately because of the above, unlike say the first amendment, the Constitution couldn’t so explicitly protect people from this overreach so it thankfully procedural safeguards (e.g., Due Process) was put in place. Again too often this is treated as an inconvenient formality, which should be no surprise since those who make it a necessity in the first place aren’t going to value it and apply it to the extent it deserves.
4. Crime is an inherently emotional subject, and often understandably so since they are often despicable acts that needed to be criminalized. Unfortunately this emotion is easily exploited and this allows circular logic to be too easily accepted. Once something is criminalized—even if it is ridiculous—then it’s easy to justify it as a crime because those who committed it are criminals and we need protected from crime and criminals.
4. By conveniently and selectively arguing that one values the Constitution then it gives one an unwarranted benefit of the doubt, again often because of the circular logic as it can’t be counter to Constitutional principles because he values the Constitution and because that’s not counter to it, then he’s against showing he values the Consitution.
It was Social conservatism and neo-conservatism that made me realize that conservatism could be used to fit big government agendas, but I still believed it was not inherent to conservatism as much as corrupt misuse and they were using conservatism as cover.
However it’s the Cottons, Sessions, etc. conservatives and their support for things like incarceration, the War on Drugs, and Civil Asset Forfeiture that made me realize I was incorrect to believed that Conservatism was inherently small government. Not only does another example of big government conservatives, it was the most salient example of these big government views actually aligning with conservative ideology and I couldn’t explain it away as using conservatism as a cover. And the fact that it’s arguably just as morally corrupt as neoconservatism, more liberty depriving than social conservatism and in many ways neoconservatism (at least for an average citizen), yet unlike post-Iraq neoconservatism if still widely and publically supported by conservatives has made it too clear that small government is not inherently conservative and for many that was just a dishonest cover to garner support and/or to argue a principled oppostion to the big government policies that aren’t the big government policies they support.
Tom Cotton Lone Holdout on Juvenile Justice Reform Bill
quote:
In a speech last year, Cotton claimed the United States, home to more than 20 percent of the world’s prison population, has “an under-incarceration problem.” But such views may be out of touch even with his own constituents in Arkansas.
quote:
One key provision ensured states stopped detaining youth offenders who committed so-called "status offenses" – crimes that only apply to children, such as truancy or underage alcohol consumption.
quote:
However, the JJDPA expired in 2007, and recent bipartisan efforts to pass a reauthorization bill have failed because of the opposition of one senator—Tom Cotton.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:15 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
He once stated that the cartels and ISIS are joining forces.
quote:
And how would that be out of the realm of possibility considering
quote:So to justify ISIS working the the cartels, you cite a reply linking them to Hezbollah, and as terrible as they can be, I’m not sure how you overlooked this since it’s in your post:
The presence of Hezbollah in Latin America is partially explained by the large Lebanese diaspora in South America.
quote:Hezbollah may do despicable things, but their basis is more to conquer and gain power like we’ve seen throughout history and continue to do around the world—it’s much more of an inherent flaw of the human condition taken to extreme levels than anything like ISIS. Unless I missed it, instead of building anything of a functional society, even for only to benefit their people, they’ve done the complete opposite and tried to bring it down without regard for even the vulnerable people in the group one would think ISIS would support.
Hezbollah enjoys support by many in the Lebanese world community in part because of the numerous social programs it provides in Lebanon that include schools, hospitals, utilities and welfare.
So it makes sense that Hezbollah would have connections with the cartels since like the cartels, the acts of terror at least have a purpose to fill a more universal human desire.
This post was edited on 11/29/17 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:40 pm to idlewatcher
Regardless of all that I posted above, how can you do the research to find that report on Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America, then apparently use that as enough to justify concern of ISIS’s presence as well?
Yet, I would think anyone willing to jump to have this concern would know that Hezbollah is a Shia group—which anyone with basic basic knowledge of Middle East issues should probably know anyways—would at least have taken a few minutes to research the group that his/her own research led to in the first place.
And I would also think that person would know or discover that ISIS wants to purge the world of Shia Muslims, which again should be obvious for anyone who has an understandings of the ideological issues between Sunni and Shia.
But nope. Clearly you aren’t truly concerned enough about the issue to have even a basic understanding to justify your concern and just concerned enough to fit some preconceived worldview, you want it be a concern for whatever perverse reason, or you’re incapable of researching and/or understanding it. Well you don’t seem to have a perverse basis, nor lack the capability, so it seems you aren’t really that concerned about it.
Yet, I would think anyone willing to jump to have this concern would know that Hezbollah is a Shia group—which anyone with basic basic knowledge of Middle East issues should probably know anyways—would at least have taken a few minutes to research the group that his/her own research led to in the first place.
And I would also think that person would know or discover that ISIS wants to purge the world of Shia Muslims, which again should be obvious for anyone who has an understandings of the ideological issues between Sunni and Shia.
But nope. Clearly you aren’t truly concerned enough about the issue to have even a basic understanding to justify your concern and just concerned enough to fit some preconceived worldview, you want it be a concern for whatever perverse reason, or you’re incapable of researching and/or understanding it. Well you don’t seem to have a perverse basis, nor lack the capability, so it seems you aren’t really that concerned about it.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News