United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[SilverBeach]

On 5/31/2017 at 5:18 PM, sawasdee said:

I seriously cannot comprehend how they can sleep at night.

Those in Congress and in States' governments who vote to take from the poorest and most vulnerable, including children and the elderly, in order to give more to the already obscenely rich.

How can they justify gratuitous cruelty? How can they lie to themselves that what they are doing has any moral grounding?

And as for those who do this and call themself christian  - they make me vomit. Their actions contravene everything Jesus said.

History will not be kind to these political zealots  - but today's needy will have to suffer because of their amorality, greed, venality and subservience to their financial donors.

That some church groups continue to support this, in the hope of getting their desired anti abortion, anti LGBT agenda, is for me, one of the great crises that christianity in the US must face. To betray the living , and do so in the name of an unborn they will then also betray, is hypocrisy writ large. And I think it will drive some away from their judgmental, bigoted and intolerant churches, but also damage the way people see christianity itself.

ETA Yes, I'm angry. The more I read about proposed cuts the angrier I get.

 

Well said.

The so-called Christian label applied to these greedy reprehensible folks is totally fucked up. Apparently, none of them have read a word that Jesus actually said.

Beyond weddings and babies, the Duggars, Bates, and their ilk elect folks like the Congress we have now. Drumpf too. They are heartless and dangerous, pretending to have compassion with their fake mission work. Thinking they are the bestest Christians because they follow that GotHard nonsense. Excuse me while I go vomit.

I understand the semi-leghumperish discussions that focus on hair, babies, clothing, weddings, courtin', and all of that. But I think it is imperative that FJ keep a laser pointed at the real damage these folks do. Each new baby is perpetuation of their political nastiness, especially since the Duggars and Bates have no track record of anyone repudiating the hate.

As a Black woman in America, this is very serious business to me. Sorry if I come across as a killjoy. Just to show that I am not, I do not like Joy's dark blue bridesmaids dresses. I think they were too dark for a spring wedding, plus I think of dark blue as a uniform color (airline reservations agent or bank teller anyone?). Unless it's denim, I don't wear blue.

So there.

[AnywhereButHere]

Beto O'Rourke is an interesting candidate, and I'd love it if he could take Ted Cruz down. He's won his district handily both times he's been up for election, but it is a strongly democrat district. Taking on all of Texas will be a bit more difficult for him. He supports legalization of marijuana, and he's pro immigration, both topics I'm sure republicans will exaggerate and exploit. Personally, he also has two arrests (not convictions) for burglary and a dui in his 20's which I'm sure they'll highlight as well. I'll bet they're salivating over how they can turn those into the crimes of the century.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AnywhereButHere said:

I'll bet they're salivating over how they can turn those into the crimes of the century.

Yeah, whilst the real crimes of the century are being perpetrated by the repubs right now.

[Cleopatra7]

@SilverBeach you summed up my thoughts exactly. Although I've never been the kind of person who's into weddings and baby names, fundie or not, I think it's a distraction from what these people really stand for. No matter how cute or well-scrubbed these families appear, their end game involves taking rights away from us (the "us" being PoC, women, non-Christians, non-conservative Christians, LGBT people, gender non-conformists, etc). The various Duggar grandkids, cute as they may be, are all cogs in a machine to "Take Back America." Whether they all stick with conservative Christianity remains to be seen, but even those J'kidults who seem to have abandoned several aspects of Gothardism are still spouting the same anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-feminist line that is common to white fundegelicalism (here I'm thinking specifically of Jessa and Jinger). The beliefs and activism of White fundegelicalism and their white conservative Catholic fellow travelers are the real issue, not whether Jinger or any other Duggar wears pants or not or has a semi -fashionable wedding dress. It must be remembered that the vast majority of people who vote for Trump me his ilk believe in women wearing pants and lead generally mainstream lives that are far removed from Gothard-style fundamentalism.

[sawasdee]

YES! @SilverBeach and @Cleopatra7! I am sometimes saddened that the Duggar and Bates threads not only get more views than the more serious ones, but they very often come close to leghumping. Who cares if the wedding dress is mermaid or princess? What does that mean in the longterm?

But both these families, thanks to television, are pimping their version of christianity to the world. And that is dangerous, because both are clever enough to conceal the really damaging aspects of their belief. How many of their viewers are actually against the education of women? How many believe in the subjugation of women to a 'headship'? How many actually understand what the Duggars and Bates are propagating?

Even here on FJ, I think there are many who do not truly understand quite how dangerous they are. And that depresses me.

[onekidanddone]

8 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Even here on FJ, I think there are many who do not truly understand quite how dangerous they are. And that depresses me.

I get the Bates and Duggars are dangerous hate filled fear mongers. Sometimes I read more in the Duggar thread than here because I become so panicked and over whelmed I just can't take it.

[fraurosena]

@onekidanddone, I feel for you. It must be horrible living in the current political climate in America right now. But do take heart. There are so many great initiatives happening by so many people. It may take some time, but you will get through this. Will damage be done in the meantime? Yes. But you will be able to repair it. You will be able to look at what's happened, evaluate how it could happen, and change things for the better. You will be able to make something new, and bright, and shining. 

I really believe that. I hope you do to!

[sawasdee]

@onekidanddone Yeah - I completely get that. I do the same - I go there for light relief.

But what I am trying to say, is that is shouldn't be light relief. We should be just as angry at them as we are at the tRump administration. Some are, but a lot are just interested in the dress.....

[GreyhoundFan]

Hmmm: "Nunes-led House Intelligence Committee asked for ‘unmaskings’ of Americans"

Spoiler

The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee asked U.S. spy agencies late last year to reveal the names of U.S. individuals or organizations contained in classified intelligence on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, engaging in the same practice that President Trump has accused the Obama administration of abusing, current and former officials said.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), has since cast the practice of “unmasking” of U.S. individuals and organizations mentioned in classified reports as an abuse of surveillance powers by the outgoing Obama administration.

Trump has argued that investigators should focus their attention on former officials leaking names from intelligence reports, rather than whether the Kremlin coordinated its activities with the Trump campaign, an allegation he has denied. “The big story is the ‘unmasking and surveillance’ of people that took place during the Obama administration,” Trump tweeted Thursday.

According to a tally by U.S. spy agencies, the House Intelligence Committee requested five to six unmaskings of U.S. organizations or individuals related to Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton between June 2016 and January 2017. Officials familiar with the matter said that the committee’s requests focused on the identities of U.S. organizations that had been hacked by the Russians in 2016. Officials declined to say how many of the requests came from Democrats vs. Republicans.

The chairman of the committee wields enormous control over the actions of its members and requests for more information from intelligence agencies. Officials said that committee rules require the chairman to sign off on the requests, even ones that are not his own.

A spokesman for Republicans on Nunes’s committee declined to comment on whether the panel made any requests for unmasking.

He added, “It is standard operating procedure for the House Intelligence Committee to forward all committee members’ questions from both parties to the appropriate agencies, whether or not they are answered. I refer you to committee Democrats for further questions on this subject.”

Every day, U.S. intelligence agencies sweep up vast quantities of foreign communications. Sometimes, they pick up communications involving U.S. individuals or organizations. In reports based on those communications, intelligence agencies “mask” the identities of the Americans, part of an effort to protect their privacy.

Senior government officials, however, can ask spy agencies to reveal the names of Americans or U.S. organizations in the reports if they believe that doing so will help them better understand the underlying intelligence. They must have a legitimate need to know, and National Security Agency unmaskings are reviewed by the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, known as the ODNI.

Some officials said that House Intelligence Committee members may not have realized spy agencies would count their requests as unmaskings. These officials said lawmakers submitted questions that intelligence officers could answer only by revealing the identities of U.S. individuals.

Nunes served subpoenas this week to the CIA, the NSA and the FBI asking for information about unmaskings requested by three former officials: national security adviser Susan E. Rice, CIA director John Brennan and U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

On Thursday, Nunes tweeted, “Seeing a lot of fake news from media elites and others who have no interest in violations of Americans’ civil liberties via unmaskings.”

Democrats on the panel say they believe the latest direction of Nunes’s investigation is designed to deflect attention from the Russia probe. In April, Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the committee’s probe of Russia because of allegations he may have inappropriately disclosed classified information. Nunes has denied any wrongdoing.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say requests for unmaskings are a routine and necessary part of their national security work. After requests are made, spy agencies decide whether to provide the names. Officials say few requests are rejected because most are legitimate.

Still, senior officials know that unmaskings can be controversial and are often reluctant to submit large numbers of requests. To protect themselves from any allegations of abuse, spy agencies track unmasking requests closely.

Rice and Brennan declined to comment. During an appearance on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” in April, Rice denied that she sought to improperly unveil the names of Trump campaign or transition officials for political purposes. In recent congressional testimony, Brennan also has denied that he made any improper unmaskings.

Power did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Nunes first called for his committee to investigate alleged Obama administration-era surveillance of Trump and his associates after the president, in a March 4 tweet, accused Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. Officials said at the time that Trump’s wiretap allegations were false.

On March 15, Nunes and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, sent a joint letter to the CIA, the NSA and the FBI asking them to provide the names of any intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as well as senior executive branch officials, who requested or authorized the unmasking of any U.S. persons or organizations between June 2016 and January 2017 related to “presidential candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates in 2016.”

While the House Intelligence Committee asked only for the names of administration officials who requested unmaskings related to Trump and Clinton, intelligence agencies responded to the request by providing a tally that included requests by lawmakers.

The tally showed several requests from the House Intelligence Committee — requests that one official said were no different than those made by Obama administration officials. “This notion that there are these politically motivated unmaskings is just nonsense,” said the official.

In contrast to the committee’s handful of unmasking requests, officials said the tally showed that Rice requested a single unmasking related to Trump’s activities between June and January.

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee made no requests for unmaskings related to either Trump or Clinton during that time frame, according to the tally.

At a House Intelligence Committee briefing in May, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed Brennan on whether he had ever requested the unmasking of a U.S. person’s identity. Brennan responded that he had.

Gowdy then pressed Brennan on whether he was aware of any requests made by any “U.S. ambassadors,” a possible reference to Power.

Brennan said he was not aware of any unmasking requests by ambassadors.

According to the ODNI, last year the NSA unmasked at least 1,934 identities of U.S. persons at the request of government officials. That figure relates to a certain court-authorized program of foreign intelligence gathering inside the United States.

Sigh, just sigh.

[fraurosena]

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Hmmm: "Nunes-led House Intelligence Committee asked for ‘unmaskings’ of Americans"

  Hide contents

The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee asked U.S. spy agencies late last year to reveal the names of U.S. individuals or organizations contained in classified intelligence on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, engaging in the same practice that President Trump has accused the Obama administration of abusing, current and former officials said.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), has since cast the practice of “unmasking” of U.S. individuals and organizations mentioned in classified reports as an abuse of surveillance powers by the outgoing Obama administration.

Trump has argued that investigators should focus their attention on former officials leaking names from intelligence reports, rather than whether the Kremlin coordinated its activities with the Trump campaign, an allegation he has denied. “The big story is the ‘unmasking and surveillance’ of people that took place during the Obama administration,” Trump tweeted Thursday.

According to a tally by U.S. spy agencies, the House Intelligence Committee requested five to six unmaskings of U.S. organizations or individuals related to Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton between June 2016 and January 2017. Officials familiar with the matter said that the committee’s requests focused on the identities of U.S. organizations that had been hacked by the Russians in 2016. Officials declined to say how many of the requests came from Democrats vs. Republicans.

The chairman of the committee wields enormous control over the actions of its members and requests for more information from intelligence agencies. Officials said that committee rules require the chairman to sign off on the requests, even ones that are not his own.

A spokesman for Republicans on Nunes’s committee declined to comment on whether the panel made any requests for unmasking.

He added, “It is standard operating procedure for the House Intelligence Committee to forward all committee members’ questions from both parties to the appropriate agencies, whether or not they are answered. I refer you to committee Democrats for further questions on this subject.”

Every day, U.S. intelligence agencies sweep up vast quantities of foreign communications. Sometimes, they pick up communications involving U.S. individuals or organizations. In reports based on those communications, intelligence agencies “mask” the identities of the Americans, part of an effort to protect their privacy.

Senior government officials, however, can ask spy agencies to reveal the names of Americans or U.S. organizations in the reports if they believe that doing so will help them better understand the underlying intelligence. They must have a legitimate need to know, and National Security Agency unmaskings are reviewed by the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, known as the ODNI.

Some officials said that House Intelligence Committee members may not have realized spy agencies would count their requests as unmaskings. These officials said lawmakers submitted questions that intelligence officers could answer only by revealing the identities of U.S. individuals.

Nunes served subpoenas this week to the CIA, the NSA and the FBI asking for information about unmaskings requested by three former officials: national security adviser Susan E. Rice, CIA director John Brennan and U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

On Thursday, Nunes tweeted, “Seeing a lot of fake news from media elites and others who have no interest in violations of Americans’ civil liberties via unmaskings.”

Democrats on the panel say they believe the latest direction of Nunes’s investigation is designed to deflect attention from the Russia probe. In April, Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the committee’s probe of Russia because of allegations he may have inappropriately disclosed classified information. Nunes has denied any wrongdoing.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say requests for unmaskings are a routine and necessary part of their national security work. After requests are made, spy agencies decide whether to provide the names. Officials say few requests are rejected because most are legitimate.

Still, senior officials know that unmaskings can be controversial and are often reluctant to submit large numbers of requests. To protect themselves from any allegations of abuse, spy agencies track unmasking requests closely.

Rice and Brennan declined to comment. During an appearance on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” in April, Rice denied that she sought to improperly unveil the names of Trump campaign or transition officials for political purposes. In recent congressional testimony, Brennan also has denied that he made any improper unmaskings.

Power did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Nunes first called for his committee to investigate alleged Obama administration-era surveillance of Trump and his associates after the president, in a March 4 tweet, accused Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. Officials said at the time that Trump’s wiretap allegations were false.

On March 15, Nunes and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, sent a joint letter to the CIA, the NSA and the FBI asking them to provide the names of any intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as well as senior executive branch officials, who requested or authorized the unmasking of any U.S. persons or organizations between June 2016 and January 2017 related to “presidential candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates in 2016.”

While the House Intelligence Committee asked only for the names of administration officials who requested unmaskings related to Trump and Clinton, intelligence agencies responded to the request by providing a tally that included requests by lawmakers.

The tally showed several requests from the House Intelligence Committee — requests that one official said were no different than those made by Obama administration officials. “This notion that there are these politically motivated unmaskings is just nonsense,” said the official.

In contrast to the committee’s handful of unmasking requests, officials said the tally showed that Rice requested a single unmasking related to Trump’s activities between June and January.

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee made no requests for unmaskings related to either Trump or Clinton during that time frame, according to the tally.

At a House Intelligence Committee briefing in May, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed Brennan on whether he had ever requested the unmasking of a U.S. person’s identity. Brennan responded that he had.

Gowdy then pressed Brennan on whether he was aware of any requests made by any “U.S. ambassadors,” a possible reference to Power.

Brennan said he was not aware of any unmasking requests by ambassadors.

According to the ODNI, last year the NSA unmasked at least 1,934 identities of U.S. persons at the request of government officials. That figure relates to a certain court-authorized program of foreign intelligence gathering inside the United States.

Sigh, just sigh.

Today I either read or heard somewhere on one of the newsites I follow- and darn it, I don't remember which so I can't look it up - that there is a very good possiblity (bordering on high probability) that the names that were 'unmasked' in this case were done so because the intelligence that named these Americans, was NOT gathered by American intelligence agencies, but instead by foreign ones. This would mean that it was entirely legal for these names to be made available. The laws surrounding unmasking only pertain to intelligence gathered by American intelligence agencies, not foreign ones, so there is no question of unmasking as such. 

[onekidanddone]

13 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

@onekidanddone Yeah - I completely get that. I do the same - I go there for light relief.

But what I am trying to say, is that is shouldn't be light relief. We should be just as angry at them as we are at the tRump administration. Some are, but a lot are just intersted in the dress.....

Yes, they are the epitome of who got TT elected. With there 'clean' TV faces, nobody wants to see beyond the BS. hey Vile  and malignant 

[onekidanddone]

@fraurosena Thank you. I know we are not alone. I just keep wanting to say to the rest of the planet.  I'm sorry.. this is not who we are.

[fraurosena]

16 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

@fraurosena Thank you. I know we are not alone. I just keep wanting to say to the rest of the planet.  I'm sorry.. this is not who we are.

I think it is pretty clear to all and sundry that this is not who the majority of the American people are. Rest assured, people here in Europe would sooner take pity on you with TT as presidunce, rather than blame you for him. Anyone I talk to about it, has one of two opinions 1) you were duped into thinking he was honest and had good intentions or 2) the electoral system you have fucked you over big time (seeing as the majority of votes went to Hillary and the electoral college was won by TT). 

So, no apologies needed. At all. 

[sawasdee]

@onekidanddoneThe Electoral College was designed by the Founding Fathers to AVOID exactly the situation you are now in. It was supposed to prevent a patently unqualified person becoming president.

Your college failed you. it has become a slave to the states, with an obligation to vote in toto as the state voted by majority. Which was exactly what it was designed NOT to do.

I would love to see your 'strict constitutionalist' Supreme Court judges ( which are most of the Republicans) explain that one away.

[apple1]

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 7:45 AM, formergothardite said:

It would just bless my heart if Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan lost to a democrat. Hell if they lost to a republican I would be happy. Just them losing would make my day. 

I agree with you, but --

Just a bit of context. I said similar words about John Boehner. I live in his district.

Now I feel like I need to apologize to Boehner for my thoughts. Boehner was downright centrist, comparatively. As Speaker, we now have Ryan (nuff sed). As Representative from my very red district, we have Warren Davidson (and that is REALLY BAD).

I just want whoever replaces those jokers to be better -- not worse.

[JMarie]

Even the GOP is getting tired of Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-gop-senator-trump-created-problems-with-‘twitter-habit’/ar-BBBYwdh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Quote

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in a Sunday interview said President Trump has "created problems for himself" with his "Twitter habit."

"Unfortunately the president has, I think, created problems for himself by his Twitter habit," Cornyn said in an interview with WFAA-TV.

The senator also said the president's agenda has suffered "because he hasn't been able to assemble a team around him at the departments like the State Department, the Defense Department, because of slow heel-dragging by the Democrats."

Trump regularly uses his personal Twitter to discuss official business, with his tweets functioning as statement from the president.

Following reports of the attacks in London Saturday night, for example, Trump on Twitter emphasized the need for his "Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"

Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, gave Trump a B+ in the interview for his handling of foreign policy issues since taking office.

"He enforced the red line on Syrian chemical weapons. He enlisted China to help with North Korea - I think the pre-eminent threat to us right now. I think he has shown some mettle in dealing with Russia and Putin particularly in dealing with Syria and around the world," Cornyn said.

 

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, JMarie said:

Even the GOP is getting tired of Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-gop-senator-trump-created-problems-with-‘twitter-habit’/ar-BBBYwdh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

I wouldn't go so far as saying their getting tired of him, just because he made 1 critical remark about TT's twitter habits. The rest of Cornyn's statements in the quoted article  are way to positive or apologetic for my liking:

• The senator also said the president's agenda has suffered "because he hasn't been able to assemble a team around him at the departments like the State Department, the Defense Department, because of slow heel-dragging by the Democrats."
• Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, gave Trump a B+ in the interview for his handling of foreign policy issues since taking office
• "He enforced the red line on Syrian chemical weapons. He enlisted China to help with North Korea - I think the pre-eminent threat to us right now. I think he has shown some mettle in dealing with Russia and Putin particularly in dealing with Syria and around the world," Cornyn said.

 

[Howl]

Hubs watches Morning Joe with headphones, and I noticed an American Action Network ad  with subtitles prompting Americans to "thank House Republicans!" for the American Health Care Act. The ad promised the ACHA would , basically, Make Health Care Great Again: wonderful and cheap and accessible.   Watch this delightful piece of agit-prop: 

 

and this is the reality! 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I wouldn't go so far as saying their getting tired of him, just because he made 1 critical remark about TT's twitter habits. The rest of Cornyn's statements in the quoted article  are way to positive or apologetic for my liking:

• The senator also said the president's agenda has suffered "because he hasn't been able to assemble a team around him at the departments like the State Department, the Defense Department, because of slow heel-dragging by the Democrats."
• Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, gave Trump a B+ in the interview for his handling of foreign policy issues since taking office
• "He enforced the red line on Syrian chemical weapons. He enlisted China to help with North Korea - I think the pre-eminent threat to us right now. I think he has shown some mettle in dealing with Russia and Putin particularly in dealing with Syria and around the world," Cornyn said.

 

I agree that Cornyn is not saying he's tired of the TT, but even saying one critical remark is a step forward for someone whose face should be brown from the butt-kissing he's been doing.

 

As for the ads @Howl posted -- I just can't...

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Hubs watches Morning Joe with headphones, and I noticed an American Action Network ad  with subtitles prompting Americans to "thank House Republicans!" for the American Health Care Act. The ad promised the ACHA would , basically, Make Health Care Great Again: wonderful and cheap and accessible.   Watch this delightful piece of agit-prop: 

 

and this is the reality! 

 

Ugh, this makes me 

And I hate that 

[GreyhoundFan]

4 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Ugh, this makes me 

I hate Ryan's smug face. He makes me want to throw things.

[candygirl200413]

That second video made me laugh which I thank you @Howl cause I watched Trump's announcement earlier today and got extremely sad again about our current state. So sad when many republicans just are so excited for a republican president who doesn't know shit that they bypass it because they only care about the R next to the name.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The problem with the Republican platform? There is no Republican platform."

Spoiler

What’s holding back the Republican agenda?

It’s not the toothless Democrats, despite what you may have heard from President Trump. Five months ago, when Trump moved into the White House, they lost their grip on their last lever of significant Washington power.

Likewise, it’s not Trump’s infernal nocturnal tweets, unhelpful though they may be.

Neither is it the distraction of nonstop news about Trump’s aides’ ties to Russia or the president’s own possible attempts to obstruct justice.

Nor is it leaky White House staffers, nor the operatives of the “deep state.”

So what’s actually obstructing the Republican agenda? It’s the fact that there is no Republican agenda.

For years Republicans, including and especially the party’s current standard-bearer, have promised magic bullets for nearly every social, economic and global ill, no matter how complex. But this was not a policy platform; this was a series of bluffs disguised as a policy platform.

The latest bluff arrives this week, as the White House promotes its grand plan to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. This promotional effort comes despite an acknowledgment from National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn that no such grand plan exists. (A month earlier, Trump claimed his administration’s infrastructure proposal was already “largely completed.”)

On other domestic issues, Republicans have been touting the superiority of their woolly policy agenda for ages. Trump merely added a little color to the con.

Republican members of Congress voted dozens of times to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well that their ill-conceived bills would never become law. Eventually the pledge to “repeal” the law morphed into a vague promise to “repeal and replace” it.

With Trump helming the party, the fantastical achievements of this TBD replacement plan grew greater by the day. It would offer, Trump promised, more widespread insurance coverage, cheaper premiums, lower deductibles, superior care and no cuts to Medicaid.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump told The Post in January. Americans would be “beautifully covered.”

The plan that passed the House last month achieves none of this. And the proposal’s status in the Senate remains in limbo, given that Republican senators cannot agree on what a Republican health-care plan should actually do.

Tax reform, arguably the GOP’s top priority, is on hold as well. And again, not because Democrats are undermining it — but because Republicans can’t figure out what their priorities are, or how to achieve them.

They have promised to cut rates for everyone and somehow not cost the government a dime. Predictably, Republicans cannot agree how this magical revenue-neutral tax reform proposal would work. Proposed revenue sources, such as a “ border adjustment ” tax or the elimination of the state and local tax deduction, remain contentious, and even those would not fully cover the cost of steep rate cuts.

Sometimes the White House claims these tax cuts will pay for themselves through additional economic growth, and sometimes it says they won’t. The administration is so ambivalent about its own fiscal policies that last week Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, disavowed the tax portion of his own budget.

“I wouldn’t take what’s in the budget as indicative of what our proposals are,” he told the Washington Examiner.

This confusion about what the party — and the presidency — stands for extends to foreign matters as well.

Trump has declared that NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris climate accord and even the NATO alliance are all “bad deals” for the United States and that he would negotiate better ones. He has yet to produce even a coherent explanation of what a “better deal” would look like.

Trump’s most brazen bluff, of course, dates back two years, when he bragged about his “secret” plan to defeat the Islamic State, a plan so potent and powerful that it would reveal he knew more than the generals.

“All I can tell you is that it is a foolproof way of winning, and I’m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS,” he promised, declaring that his plan would achieve “total victory.” Secrecy was paramount, he insisted, not only because he didn’t want the Islamic State to find out but also because he didn’t want his political rivals to steal his brilliant scheme and claim credit. (America First, indeed.)

Two years later, there’s still no “foolproof” new plan, no “total victory” — on the Islamic State, health care, taxes, trade, infrastructure or any other major issue. Yet we keep being told a game-changing policy package is but a few weeks away.

This bluffing has gone on long enough. Maybe it’s time for Republicans to show us their cards.

So very true, they have no actual plans, other than to screw over people who are not white, evangelical Christian, males who are wealthy.

[fraurosena]

In case you didn't know yet, Chapass is an idiot. 

Chaffetz: Judicial branch is keeping the Trump administration from protecting the US 

(This is a Washington Examiner article, don't use link if you don't want to give them extra clicks)

Quote

The judicial branch is keeping the administration from protecting the country against terrorists, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said Monday.

"The major problem right now is in the judicial branch because Congress has clearly given the president, he not only has constitutional authority, but the president has statutory authority in order to make sure that the people that come to this country are properly vetted," Chaffetz said in an interview on Fox News.

"It's very frustrating to look over at the judicial branch, a handful of people, who are holding them back," he continued.

Chaffetz was asked what Congress is doing to combat the Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for Saturday's terror attack in London that left seven dead and 48 injured.

The Utah Republican praised lawmakers for beefing up the Department of Homeland Security's budget, but said the courts are preventing Trump from moving forward with his travel ban.

The president called on the courts to uphold his travel ban after Saturday's attack in London, and said the U.S. is conducting "extreme vetting" of people coming into the country to "help keep our country safe."

Let me rephrase my statement: Chapass is a dangerous, ignorant idiot, who doesn't care much for the checks and balances in the trias politica system.

[GreyhoundFan]

@fraurosena -- I so agree with your assessment. He's supposed to be leaving this month. I wish he was leaving today.