Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.
One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.
That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.
If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
No. Chemical Weapons must not be allowed to be used and normalised in warfare.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
It is my understanding that it is the policy of the US, and many of it's allies, to discourage the use of chemical weapons by anyone, in order to prevent their use from becoming normalized. I'm not sure why that's so important. I assume the idea is that if you let other countries you don't care about use chemical weapons and don't do anything, then they will eventually be used on our troops. If we keep them somewhat taboo and require them to be developed in secret, then they are less likely to be used against us, and if they are everyone will consider it unacceptable and justify severe retaliation. So, that's the policy. It's not so much that we want Assad to lose.
Sadly, the civil war there probably actually benefits a lot of other countries. So I'm not sure Russia or the US really want it to end all that badly.
Kilkrazy wrote: What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.
One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.
That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.
If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else. The only way we would "lose" is if Putin decides that keeping Assad in power is worth escalating to a nuclear exchange in which case everybody loses. However, the US isn't got to invade Syria because there is no faction for us to ally with and put into power that would create an acceptable outcome to our involvement. Toppling Assad creates a power vacuum and none of the factions that could fill that vacuum would create a secular govt that protects individual/human rights without intense and longstanding support from the US and/or EU and neither wants another long term occupation of a ME nation. Escalating the Syrian civil war into a global nuclear war requires that both the US/EU and Russia care enough about Syria to go nuclear over it. I can't speak for Russia but there's nothing in Syria that is important enough to the US/EU to push politicians to authorize a nuclear strike on anyone over it. We'd have to put forces on the ground in Syria and proceed to beat up Russian forces so severely that it drives Putin to want to strike first with a nuclear exchange. I don't think there's enough pressure on the US/EU to invade and start a conventional war in the first place.
A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
A Town Called Malus wrote: No. Chemical Weapons must not be allowed to be used and normalised in warfare.
...
-"Risking nuclear war would be dumb."
-"No."
Prestor Jon wrote: The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else.
Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces. Going from a proxy war to a direct war with a global nuclear power is not going to be a controllable situation.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
The unique circumstances of rival powers brewing up a clash but being able to keep the lid on for multiple incidents until, suddenly, one of them was the one that brought it all to a boil.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/12 21:25:59
Howard A Treesong wrote: A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
As good a reason as I've heard for why they want a friend running Syria. Still, I wonder if Russia wants the conflict to continue there. If they really wanted it to be over surely they could do more. But fighting terrorist groups in Syria is surely better than fighting those same terrorists at home, so keeping Syria a battlefield where their enemies can fight each other seems like it would be a benefit.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
It is my understanding that it is the policy of the US, and many of it's allies, to discourage the use of chemical weapons by anyone, in order to prevent their use from becoming normalized. I'm not sure why that's so important. I assume the idea is that if you let other countries you don't care about use chemical weapons and don't do anything, then they will eventually be used on our troops. If we keep them somewhat taboo and require them to be developed in secret, then they are less likely to be used against us, and if they are everyone will consider it unacceptable and justify severe retaliation. So, that's the policy. It's not so much that we want Assad to lose.
ultimately, chemical weapons are banned because they increase the cost of war without any real benefits.
Theyre not really super effective weapons once people expect them, they rely almost entirely on surprise in practical terms. Once thay surprise is gone, their value is basically in just forcing the enemy to slow down and zip up. Theyre awkward to deploy and dangerous to handle and transport with a not insignificant risk of hurting your own side. They tend to make people uncomfortable and terrified, people can deal with someone being perforated a dozen times by bullets and bleeding to death in agony for hours with shattered bones and ruptured organs, but react very strongly to what otherwise appears to be an environmental factor (like breathing) suddenly turning deadly.
Basically in the end they just make everything worse without actually providing a meaningful advantage on the battlefield and have a very high cost to use and deploy, so its pretty easy to get people to agree not to use them.
If they were a decisive battlefield weapon, their use would be commonplace and unquestioned. Ultimately what most found after WW1 was that gas was more trouble than it was really worth once an opponent adapted, which they were all able to do in short order.
Now, that's not an unworthy goal, reducing unnecessary suffering is applaudable, but I personally dont see it as being worth going to war over if barrel bombs, bulldozing people alive, mass executions, etc was not.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Rosebuddy wrote: Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
The only sane thing? No, there are many sane options to take. What isn't sane is the expectation that Russia would actually go to war with the US over Assad.
Also there are more rebel groups left than just those two radical groups. Not to mention it isn't about going to bat for them, but for the thousands of innocent civilians being slaughtered by Assad.
Prestor Jon wrote: The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else.
Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces. Going from a proxy war to a direct war with a global nuclear power is not going to be a controllable situation.
Howard A Treesong wrote: A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
As good a reason as I've heard for why they want a friend running Syria. Still, I wonder if Russia wants the conflict to continue there. If they really wanted it to be over surely they could do more. But fighting terrorist groups in Syria is surely better than fighting those same terrorists at home, so keeping Syria a battlefield where their enemies can fight each other seems like it would be a benefit.
In a nutshell, its much cheaper to just let Syria do the heavy lifting. Even the limited Russian assistance is already pretty costly, about 1 billion dollars a year. While that doesn't sound like much, Putin is also heavily tied up in Crimea and economic problems at home. Not to mention quite a few Russian lives have been lost, around an estimated 300 for their small commitment. Its hard to see what Russia has to gain from committing more to a war of which the outcome is already known.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 22:13:38
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/12 22:20:16
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
That's not what this is...
This is a rhetorical hoisting of Congress by its own petard to drive home a point.
When Mulvaney served in the House...he tried to warn everyone that the CFPB (Warren's pride & joy) was too independent of Congress. Now that he’s running the show... he's demonstrating just how poorly designed this department is.... he specifically told this congressional panel that he can just sit in front of them all day and ignore their questions, and there’s nothing they can do about it, because the CFPB for all practical purpose is damn near unaccountable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: What you point out, the "Bernie bros v. HRC crowd" is basically a single big fracture. . . More voters are on the side of the bernie bros insofar as they want to move away from neoliberal, corporate aiding policy and more to policy that works for the people. I think even some established, mainline Dems are starting to see the writing on the wall there, and changing their tune in public appearances. Ultimately we'll see if the change is genuine or if they'll go back to their old ways when the $$ is waved in front of them.
I'm guessing you haven't noticed what Sander's Our Revolution has achieved. To be fair its easy to miss, because it has achieved a damn thing. It was started to get more left leaning candidates elected, and outside of a handful of council city members here and there, the candidates supported by Our Revolution have gone down in flames. It's reached the point where just to claim some runs on the board Our Revolution is reduced to backing the Obama/Clinton candidate and claiming victory when they win.
Part of the reason is Democrats shifting left on some key issues after 2016, particularly healthcare, and it's also apparent the Sanders demographic was never as large as some people in 2016 assumed it to - a protest vote in a two horse primary is not the same thing as a political base. But there's one much bigger reason Our Revolution performed like a slowly deflating balloon - with Trump in the Whitehouse most voters just don't care about factional nonsense, they just want Democrats to have enough power to contain Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.
You have a terrible habit of glamourising the past. Those 'great statesmen' started constant wars because they were trapped in endless empire building games.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
Unlike those stupid empire building games of the past, post WW2 we've moved to a framework built around sovereign borders, self-determination and human rights protection. This isn't an easy blend, because these three elements often contradict one another. But it is in the interest of any nation that wants stability and order to maintain these three elements as best they can.
Protecting those key issues are questions that always need to be asked.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/13 01:51:29
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
"What if a turd in human shape is appointed director and decides to completely reject the basic concept of protecting consumers against predatory financial practices, and disguises this approach by taking an inane, literalist approach to the basic process of elected representatives asking a director if he is serving the electorate?"
"That will never work, voters would see it as a transparent ruse."
"What if a large portion of voters were so caught in stupid partisan games they were actually induced to cheer for the human shaped turd while he did this, just because they thought it scored points against the other side?"
Yeah, its Warren who is to blame for not seeing this coming.
We've been over this before. Your position is silly. Having the bomb doesn't mean you never dare risk any confrontation on any kid of level.
"Me President, Russia is occupying Alaska, should we scramble a response?"
"No, they have the bomb, we must never confront them in any way, about anything, ever."
"But conventional forces can still be used, escalation to nuclear weapons would be as lethal for Russia as it would for us, so neither side would want to escalate."
"No! Rosebuddy said we can't do it!"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/13 02:30:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Uh... the writers of CFPB law were told on day oneof this problem.
Yes, I believe Warren and those who drafted the CFPB department are the blame, as this department is also probably unconstitutional.
Remember the next time you're in power, that you have an opportunity to pass new laws/regulation/create new departments... to think if you'd be okay with the opposition party in control of such laws/regulation/new departments. If your answer is no, then maybe pump the brakes a bit....eh?
That would be a more compelling warning if we weren't talking about a case of one party acting in bad faith with the deliberate intent of destroying an organization they don't like. Of course flaws are going to appear when you appoint someone with a goal of shutting down the organization they are running.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
Yes, exactly this. People like to say "this is why you got Trump", but I think stuff like this is pretty much it: a ton of people out there who will cut off their nose to spite their face if it means stigginit.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
whembly wrote: Remember the next time you're in power, that you have an opportunity to pass new laws/regulation/create new departments... to think if you'd be okay with the opposition party in control of such laws/regulation/new departments. If your answer is no, then maybe pump the brakes a bit....eh?
No, there's no possible way to write a law that would compel some future party to act in good faith if they don't want to.
Mulvaney's idiotic nonsense is like appointing Joint Chiefs who are opposed to the idea of a military, who then turn around and say 'Well no-one wrote down that we couldn't just smash all the tank and planes in to each other until there was no more army. So it isn't our fault there's no more army left.'
And the thing about this stupid stunt is that its so transparent. Mulvaney, like far too many of his team red friends, is opposed to the idea of regulating the banking sector, for reasons both ideological and dollar based. But saying 'I'm okay with banks screwing over consumers' doesn't fly too well. So Mulvaney is placed as director and then sets about using absolutely none of the CFPB's powers to actually protect consumers. And you just trot along behind, like kids following the Pied Piper out of town.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/13 03:34:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/13 03:39:07
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
Russia, whle being a much smaller economy than the united states imports three times the goods from they export to us. I'd say that's more of an issue with them. Also they won't risk annihilation because of Assad. Putin is far too smart for that. At most we'd get another proxy war.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/13 09:12:55
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I'm skeptical about a more forceful intervention in Syria as well. People are talking about how trivial it would be to give Assad a spanking with military force and I'm just sitting here looking back at the last 17 years and wondering what's in everyones' water. Nukes aren't even what I'm worried about. ~500 people were effected by the gas attack; is the US prepared to avenge them with a conventional assault that will leave a dozen times that many dead as collateral damage? Are people ready for America to get stuck in with yet another """""nation building"""""" conflict for another decade due to the power vacuum created by ousting Assad? Does anyone think that less innocent people will die horribly in a proxy war with Russia?
Dunno. Libya was an utter disaster and we have an even dumber President at the helm now. There sure is alot of confidence in here about America's foreign policy abilities all the sudden.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/13 08:59:56
BlaxicanX wrote: Dunno. Libya was an utter disaster and we have an even dumber President at the helm now. There sure is alot of confidence in here about America's foreign policy abilities all the sudden.
I read this argument all the time and it just blows my mind. The idea that Libya is bad and oh my god what if the US creates another one like that in Syria. It seems a lot of people have absolutely no idea of the scale of the two wars. Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.
If someone did something to turn Syria in to 'another Libya' they'd win the fething Nobel.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.
Yeah, that's probably right. That, and getting ahead of what has now become the routine Friday night news dump.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
His stand-point on issues seems to heavily depend on whatever's been said recently on Fox...
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
