Larry Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Well, that, or he refused to agree to be interviewed (if he was selected), unless they first guaranteed him that he was selected. And when they didn't guarantee him in advance, he hung up on them, and then grabbed his cell phone so that he could loudly and publicly announce that he was turning down an honor that had not been offered to him. (And which, he will loudly claim, he doesn't care about, and nobody else does, either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 "I know more about Time and their process than anyone at Time." - a future early morning tweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 So many words to avoid saying "he lied again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Dude thinks he should be "Person of the Year" all years. He's got to lie to save face when he's not it this year. A truly small man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Again, Trump gets people spending their time chasing down his lies. Seems that the Evangelicals don’t so much mind the perpetual lying, the militantism, the racism, the sexual misogyny, the Russian influence, the serial adultery, the total lack of Conservative instincts, the near total neglect of the Federal government, the corporate favoritism at the expense of the marketplace and the consumer, the squandering of US global influence, or the sheer and utter self-centered arrogance just so long as they don’t have to help poor people pay for health care, and sluts can’t get abortions, and adoptive families no longer get tax breaks for the babies they forced to be born, and as long as the brown people are sent back to their impoverished, crime saturated countries even that means separating them from their US citizen children, or sending kids to countries they’ve never known. But hey, he says Christmas. Here’s the thing, those Evangelicals simply don’t believe those things are true, no one person could be that bad especially the guy they voted for, it’s all just the liberal media. Seriously, if you still believe that after everything you’ve seen then you are in no uncertain terms a moron. You should not be allowed to vote, because it’s clear that you aren’t capable of making intelligent decisions. You are quite literally damaging our nation with your influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 kinda hoping they give to Kaepernick or Mueller just to see 45 flip his **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 ......... You could make the case for Lamar Ball if you really wanted too ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Llevron said: ......... You could make the case for Lamar Ball if you really wanted too ......... i think lavar and don are one of the cosmically perfect matches i could see so many projects...commercials for appropriately selected products with racially offensive themes that wind up both sides...a sitcom...dual-hosted talk show covering sports, society, media, and politics.......a living in each other's hood/world reality show ..or the two families having some members swap lifestyle/residence......and a variety of other reality shows plots....it's beautiful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 8 hours ago, Jumbo said: i think lavar and don are one of the cosmically perfect matches i could see so many projects...commercials for appropriately selected products with racially offensive themes that wind up both sides...a sitcom...dual-hosted talk show covering sports, society, media, and politics.......a living in each other's hood/world reality show ..or the two families having some members swap lifestyle/residence......and a variety of other reality shows plots....it's beautiful... How about a redo of The Newlyweds? (Then again, Melania probably wants to forget every "liddle" thing...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 13 hours ago, visionary said: This is a hugely underrated story. Trump appointed Mulvaney to take over, but the CFPB appointed its OWN person. In a nutshell, a federal agency is directly defying the POTUS. Here is the alert my firm put out (My headline was rejected. It was “We Have Two Popes!”). Both sides have good legal arguments. Quote Today, CFPB Director Richard Cordray named the agency’s chief of staff, Leandra English, as the bureau’s deputy director, and submitted his resignation to President Trump. The moves follow media reports that President Trump planned to appoint OMB Director Mick Mulvaney as the acting director of the CFPB under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and may signal a confrontation between current bureau leadership and the White House over succession at the agency. Section 1101(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. § 5491(b)) provides that the CFPB’s director may appoint the deputy director who “shall ... serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.” In his statement to CFPB staff, Director Cordray specifically stated that English would become the acting director under this provision. He did not, however, reference the provision in his resignation letter to the president. Last week, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last week provided a statement that Senate Democrats believe the Dodd-Frank Act controls over the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which allows the president to fill a vacancy temporarily by appointing an official from another agency who has been confirmed by the Senate until a permanent replacement is confirmed. Thus, Cordray’s appointment of English may be intended to block the president’s appointment of Mulvaney as acting director and instead force the White House to go through the Senate confirmation process to appoint a director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said: This is a hugely underrated story. Trump appointed Mulvaney to take over, but the CFPB appointed its OWN person. In a nutshell, a federal agency is directly defying the POTUS. Here is the alert my firm put out (My headline was rejected. It was “We Have Two Popes!”). Both sides have good legal arguments. Interesting but first look to me that portion of the Dodd Frank act seems to be unconstitutional. Additionally, what is to prevent Trump from firing the acting director from that position (Those are appointed positions and thus not protected from Presidential authority). (BTW liked the "Two Pope" headline proposal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 22 minutes ago, nonniey said: Interesting but first look to me that portion of the Dodd Frank act seems to be unconstitutional. Additionally, what is to prevent Trump from firing the acting director from that position (Those are appointed positions and thus not protected from Presidential authority). (BTW liked the "Two Pope" headline proposal). Currently, the Bureau’s director can only be fired “for cause.” This provision was included in Dodd Frank for this exact reason. It’s also why Trump didnt fire Cordray in January. Whether or not this structure is constitutional is currently in front of the Court of Appeals of the DC circuit (case is PHH v. CFPB). Smart money is the court will decide the structure is unconstitutional and strip our the for cause mandate. But they might just decide the underlying issue and punt on the structure. But a law passed by Congress is presumed to be constitutional until a court says otherswise, so until the DC circuit rules, Trump probably cannot fire the lady the Bureau tabbed. But nobody really knows, which is what will make for an interesting fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Once again, this punk proves he's every strongman's b****. Good job, Trumpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 First HW Bush screws the Kurds now Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 6 hours ago, visionary said: Y'know, it's hard to describe the anger I feel, when I read that this notion of "I have the authority to enforce my laws in this place, but my laws don't apply to the people who claim to be enforcing them" line of BS hasn't died, and is still being used. I'm thinking that what's needed is for every person involved in this argument, up to and including the President, needs a criminal conviction for conspiracy to (pick one of several felonies). Maybe I can buy the notion that it's possible for a person who isn't in the US, to violate US law. I'm thinking of a Colombian drug lord who orders his subordinates to kill someone who's in the US, for example. But I'm absolutely certain that anybody who's wearing a uniform with a US flag on it, is subject to US law, wherever he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Won't anyone think of the Financial Institutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 The issues at the cfpb are entirely related to Republicans refusing to fund the agency from day one. I've gotten to the point where I can't even entertain a Republican idea anymore. And I can't think of their supporters as anything other than stupid anymore. It has nothing to do with their actual stances on things, it's entirely about how malicious their practices are, and how easily their supporters are fooled and lied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 33 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Won't anyone think of the Financial Institutions? The financial institutions the Bureau supervises mainly want stability. The last thing most of them want is to lurch back and forth between compliance with Dodd Frank and some other set of rules whenever the White House changes hands. Chaos is expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.