Wikipedia-

Bongino received bipartisan criticism for using his Secret Service background as part of his run for political office and for his claim of having secret information based on conversations he overheard in the Obama White House.[5][6][1]

An anonymous former colleague criticized him for trying to use his proximity to President Obama in his political career: "He's trying to draw attention to himself and he's hijacking the Secret Service brand. That's all he's got going for him."

Bongino claimed to have had access to "high-level discussions" in the White House. Anonymous former colleagues said he "tends to exaggerate his importance on the presidential detail and exaggerate his proximity" and that "We don't sit in on meetings at the White House. We don't sit in on high-level meetings."[5]

In response to the criticism from an anonymous former colleague, Bongino stated "There's nothing confidential in the book" and "It's not a tell-all. It's my tale of the Secret Service."

Oh, you have a good point, I mean let's look back at how low and devisively hyper liberal the last nomination was.....oh yeah, Merrick Garland, not a bit.
Sorry, you reflexively spouted more divisive partisan bullshit, again. Your team is the ridiculous adolescently vindictive team wholly uninterested in bipartisan governing.

Your video, Finally There Is Bipartisan Agreement: Trump Blew It, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The corrupting power of money in politics seems to be a bipartisan issue. Why do you think there's a lack of unity and action from people of both left and right wing persuasions to push politicians to act?

You don't think that has anything to do with the biased garbage you watch? I've seen every Democrat (politician) ever asked about the tax bill admit it benefits them, including Obama and Clinton.

Remember the last 6 months of "I pay more under this plan, it doesn't benefit me at all." ? You enjoy being completely lied to about a $1.5 Trillion a year handout to billionaires? So, Obama's problem was he wasn't rich or dishonest enough for you?

Democrats say it's financial Armageddon because handing over $1.5TRILLION per year to a hand full of hyper rich people when we already had a huge deficit is exactly that.
It's odd, (not really, it's typical Bob) I recall you and the right screaming Armageddon every time Obama passed a bill, and claiming he doubled the debt/deficit in his first term....clearly that was a racist ruse and financial responsibility is not an issue for you, because this single law costs far more than even you claimed Obama spent, a number that had you frothing at the mouth with rage, and is designed to benefit a single family...Trump's.

Bob...you admitted he's an unqualified liar who cannot get anything done, then you counter yourself with " Trump is kicking ass, making America greater this year even being dogged every day" Stop being idiotic and pretending you actually have a real opinion, you're obviously just trolling when you spout this nonsense, and it makes you look moronic.

I have no kids, and don't itemize, my tax rate goes UP under this law, so I probably pay more. This isn't the "pay your taxes on a postcard" promise kept, this adds serious complexity to the tax code, it doesn't simplify it. They admitted that, can't you?

Jesus fucking Christ, this single bill adds $15 Trillion to the debt over 10 years, so yes, let's be fair. For 2016, the deficit is expected to be approximately $590 billion, in 2020 that's now $2.09 Trillion...assuming Trump doesn't steal more for himself. Had Obama not increased the military budget by over $100 Billion (contrary to all right wing liars who falsely claim he shrunk it) in an effort to gain bipartisan support for his plans (a fool's errand) he would have actually SHRUNK the deficit. Clinton actually lowered the debt, erasing the deficit until your guy, Bush, turned us around bigly.

Only Americans who make over $150k a year will benefit financially...in the short term. When they have to pay for massive amounts of private security, private roads, water treatment, etc, and the country becomes Chinese (purchased and by force, with no allies left to help us, and China aligned with Russia, we're toast).
The "vase majority" of America might benefit, but the vast majority of Americans will pay dearly, as will the nation as a whole.

Sore looser? Compared to your (and the right's) treatment of Obama, I'm a trump supporter.
Stop trolling, you sound like a 4 year old ...lies, excuses, reversals, nonsense, misdirection, and high praise for a moron....not a good look, buddy. If Trump is kicking ass, it's for Russia and China, not us. Made us greater, by raising the debt and deficit by up to 400% with a single move and losing our international standing and allies. Dogged every day?....Not compared to Obama. Recall, instead of legislating, Republican leadership said 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.', acted upon by being the most obstructionist and disrespectful congress in modern history.... during wartime, and not ending at the borders either. Better to hate Democrats than love America....morons and traitors, the lot of you.

You mean Americans like the one you pretend to be?
Those in power who stop (partial) solutions from becoming law are mostly (not exclusively, but nearly) Republicans.
Those who propose those solutions are exclusively non-Republicans, current bipartisan bump stock legislation being the single exception to that rule.

Banning 3rd party mods that increase rate of fire actually seems to be getting bipartisan support in congress, with their NRA overlords publicly giving the green light.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting/nra-backs-bump-stocks-regulations-after-las-vegas-massacre-idUSKBN1CA0X6

I'm guessing since gun manufacturers, represented by the NRA, aren't in the bump stock business, they don't really want to suffer from the bad press caused by a related but separate industry.

I just hope congress has the balls to also ban the resale of existing rapid fire mods, not just the sale of new ones.

I'm reading the Bernie Sanders book which provides a good roadmap for building a progressive movement similar to his own. I don't think I could handle reading an entire book on trump.
To clarify one of your other points are you saying you think that trump is putins puppet regardless if there is evidence (ie he admires putin to the point of chumming up with him and ignoring our NATO allies)? It has to be impeachment if the bipartisan investigation finds direct links, I would think and that means pence becomes president right? Also, what do you think about Obama having the opportunity to appoint a special investigator, but passing on it?

I'm as surprised as most everyone at how the election turned out. In the week or so leading up to election night, I considered the possibility that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, but not the other way around.

Still, as someone who thinks the electoral college is bullshit, consider this thing from all angles:

Hypothetical Possibility 1: At first, when I thought that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I thought that would be a good thing going forward. Both sides would have been screwed out of a victory by the idiotic system in recent memory, which might push for bipartisan support to scrap it.

But thinking further ... I don't think that would have actually panned out. The GOP establishment wouldn't have seen that as "their" candidate getting screwed, they would have been happy. They might have had to pay lip service to the idea of reconsidering the electoral college to pander to angry Republican voters who felt cheated out of a Trump presidency, but they could easily have just left it at that and sat on the issue until apathy took over again.


Possibility 2: The likely reality. Trump will win by electoral votes but lose the popular vote, and that will stand. The Senate and House are both Republican controlled, and the Supreme Court will very likely swing further in that direction. Possibly a LOT.

That sounds terrible. And it definitely means that in the short term, there will be absolutely zero traction for anyone wanting to push the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. BUT -- it also sets up a gold-plated opportunity to see real, actual movement on that front in 2 years. Think Trump is going to be horrendous? Think GOP-controlled Legislature will be abysmal? Look on the bright side -- if those expectations are correct, the blowback in midterm elections won't be a "wave". It'll be a fuckin' tsunami. And that's what we need to have a shot at killing the electoral college.


Possibility 3: Faithless Elector rampage. You can argue, with some merit, that the electoral college was intended to prevent or safeguard against exactly the kind of situation that we are in now. And I'd love to see President Bernie myself. But what would actually result if enough electors swapped to make that happen?

First, NYTimes projects Trump getting 306 electoral votes. That would mean that 37 faithless electors would have to happen to flip the election. You have to go back more than 100 years to find an election where there has been more than 1 faithless elector. There has only been 1 election with more than 37 faithless electors, and that was in 1872 because the candidate died. So realistically, it would be close to impossible to pull this off. (all info from wikipedia)

But forget the odds and just assume that it did happen. I think that would be a strategically terrible idea for Democrats, liberals, etc. Trump won because enough people didn't like the prospect of President Hillary and/or actually wanted to see what Trump himself could do. In either case, his voters generally aren't going to give him a whole lot of leash to screw things up or fail to deliver on their expectations. It will be next to impossible for him to keep those swing people happy. If Trump is 1/10th as terrible as the average Democrat expects him to be, he will alienate all of those people in very short order.

But if faithless electors "stole" the presidency from him (and you know that's how it would be perceived)? Oh, man ... he'd effectively be a political martyr. The anger and backlash would likely be apocalyptic and/or lead to revolt. Worse than almost any realistic way that Trump himself might fuck things up as the President. Even if that was somehow avoided, which I tend to think would be impossible, whoever got installed as President would have the shortest leash of all time, and a massively hostile and motivated Legislature that they would be forced to attempt to work with. Better have some sacrificial lamb to put in there that has zero political future, and even then they would probably cause massive damage to their party by association when they inevitably fall.

No, I think the clear best option is to let Trump (and the GOP) dig his own grave over the next year or two, and then graciously ride the wave of comeuppance.

That if is a mighty big if.

And the lessons you think they "need to learn" from this election are probably different from the lessons that the professional class (credit to Thomas Frank) thinks the Democrats need to learn. To them, it's not about getting a candidate that has a higher favorability rating than a meteor strike, but to find a candidate that maintains their status in society. They are the winners of "free trade" (see Rigged by Dean Baker) and globalisation, while a vast number of people have been thrown into debt peonage, wage slavery or worse.

Unless the Democratic Party emancipates itself from the donors and the professional class, I don't see them becoming a home to champions of the people. Look at how the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to crush the Sanders candidacy -- lots of juicy bits about that in the Podesta emails. Look at Corbyn, who is basically caught up in a civil war within Labour, despite overwhelming support by the party base.

The Third Way (Social-)Democrats have bought into neoliberalism at such a fundamental level that I just cannot see anyone turning them into a vessel for social equality without getting utterly corrupted or even crushed along the way.

The lesson they learn might be to not nominate a member of a dynasty with so much baggage attached to them. Yet even that depends on them actually recognising the baggage in the first place, which they seemed unwilling to during this election cycle. Everything was brushed off.

And then you're still stuck with a representative of a system that doesn't work for a lot of people. The situation of the rust belt is not a result of anything particular to the current or previous candidates, but of the Washington Consensus and the widespread acceptance of neoliberalism as gospel.

Without major outside pressure, I don't see the party changing its ways sufficiently enough to become a representative of the people again. Maybe a Trump presidency is enough to create such movements, maybe not. Occupy was promising, yet crushed by the establishment in bipartisan consensus.

@Babymech
alright!
/claps hands..
now we are getting somewhere!
is it time to make out yet?

on a good note.
we agree more than disagree.
so it appears anyways.we may vary on the particulars but i think it safe to assume we can agree on the bulk i.e:human rights,fairness and justice.

(or it may be because you are just as disgusted by those overly privileged whiners as i am,snapping their fingers and shouting about "safe places")

solidarity!!

anyways...
i used sommers as a reference because she identifies as a feminists.you may dispute if she is in fact a feminist but thats how she identifies.i thought i was being deliciously ironical,but i digress.

here is a far better,and bipartisan source for your consideration from 2011:https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2011/Gender-Wage-Gap-May-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Most-Think

notice everything is sourced and noted.

the key in our discussion is how we comprehend data,and data in raw form can be just as confusing and misleading if the right questions are not asked,which makes it easy for us all to be manipulated (which i think you mentioned as well).

so just for the record:
i am not anti-feminist,but i am anti-bullshit,against weak and facile arguments to create an emotional response in order to promote a political agenda.

because we all lose in the end,and it detracts from the real issues and real grievances.

why certain rabid feminists thought it perfectly ok to threaten this woman with death and violence,and yet,with zero sense of self-aware irony will use the threat of violence to THEM to promote their politics.

all because she disagreed with them.

anyways..thanks for hanging in there mate.
ill be right over for our lil make out session.

I keep coming across report after report (from respected financial and economic institutions all over the world) that discredit trickle-down economics. For example http://warincontext.org/2014/12/09/oecd-reports-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics/

But i simply can't find the one i was looking for. However if you google "report failure of trickle down" you get report after report from myriad different experts - including one report by the Congressional Research Service, a bipartisan think tank established a century ago to give information to Congress without spin or political bias, which was covered up by the Republicans.

It is widely accepted that trickle down economics doesn't work amongst those who are in a position to judge.

Other interesting anti-science partisan issues are GMO/biotech, nuclear power, evolution, big bang, vaccines, AIDS, fracking, organic foods, vitamin supplements, and a host of others. Note that many of those are pegged in liberal circles as well, anti-science is a bipartisan issue, just depends on the issue.

If only the US was like this . . . *sigh* I would pay to have seats to a show like this. Between the Canadians (eh) and the Brits (oi) they have the best public officials with senses of humor.

The best part, IT WAS BIPARTISAN! He was "dead' serious about it too . . .