Thursday, April 30, 2015

Bernie Sanders To Challenge Hillary Clinton...

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the AP. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

This site does not advocate for a socialist agenda or a socialist candidate. However we do believe it is healthy that Bernie Sanders is stepping up to challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton for the democratic nomination to be their standard bearer in 2016. Aside from the likelihood if Clinton's baggage were air balloons they could carry a airship around the globe Bernie Sanders is at least honest about who and what he is and that is at the very least, refreshing. Hopefully his entry into the field will encourage other qualified democratic pols to toss their hat in the ring and make a run for it.

Sanders has already shown he’s not afraid to throw elbows, saying in an appearance on MSNBC earlier this month that the public is largely unaware of where Clinton stands on myriad policy issues.

“Why don’t you tell me what Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, do you know?” he asked.

“You don’t know and I don’t know and the American people don’t know,” he continued.

“I would hope very much that serious debate on serious issues is what we do in any campaign.”

Bernie Sanders has it quite right, we do need serious debate on serious issues and a great deal of it at that. For far too long we've been subjected to non serious debate over superfluous issues and the nation has suffered for it. So bring it on Bernie and hopefully several more democrats will follow your lead in challenging the "supposed coronation" of a very questionable candidate.

That and somebody other than H.R. Clinton needs to hold the feet of the republican field of clowns and jesters to the proverbial fire.

Now, if only someone would mount a strong candidacy from a third party. Then we might start making some headway to the future. Our democratic republic's survival may vary well hang in the balance.

Read the full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. RN himself pointed out that "Many democratic socialist countries have done and are doing just fine". Why not jump on the Bernie Sanders happiness train and see where it take you, RN? Don't you like happiness?

  2. I'm just fine and happy with my station in life.

    I recognize the statement I made is valid and accurate. I happen not to believe the best road to get there is the one you would take.

    It is what it is Dervish, GET OVER IT. There is nothing to discuss.

  3. There's a line that divides real candidacy from the clowns who run vanity campaigns for an ego trip or cash (Sharpton, Keyes, etc).

    Bernie Sanders is on the right side of that line, I believe. It's a real candidacy, and like Les here, I believe it is good for the election overall.

  4. I think the world of Sanders. Good for him for getting the message out. We've been doing the conservative thing for 2 generations now and it's gotten us nowhere. We could use a good dose of socialism.


    1. We've been doing the liberal thing for half that time, Jersey, including the last 6 years....

      But anyway, let Sanders get his message out. The result of his candidacy will be a yay or nay vote on democratic socialism.

    2. You are absolutely correct dmarks, Kennedy administration, Johnson administration, Carter administration, Clinton administration (he was more a centrist as was Kennedy), and before that the FDR administration, Truman administration etc.

      Yes, let him get the message out, let the party decide, and if he like McGovern secures the nomination let all the people decide.

      Democratic republic at work!

      Now, if only we could deep six Citizens United and get the damned money out of politics.

  5. Students of history have a deep appreciation for swings of a pendulum. Extreme shifts in either direction bring forth counter-reactions. The swings of a pendulum are reflected in the language of politics; you can turn any innocuous word into a pejorative if you are clever at framing. Hell, even “green grass” can be framed as an evil plot by any spokesperson for the cement industry.

    Right now, I don’t consider the word “socialism” to be a bad thing. In America, the word is synonymous with “populism;” and the word has different meanings depending upon which side the pendulum you happen to swing with. Right now, economic inequality -- the fact that all growth of the past 30+ years has gone to the top one percent – is a key issue in 2016.

    In exchange for money, the GOP will protect their oligarchs and keep in place those policies that have resulted in unconscionable concentrations of wealth. It is time for the pendulum to swing in another direction.


    1. Interesting statement, Oct. Looking at this trend, and comparinng to your last paragraph, everywhere I look shows that this trend has been happening whether or not the Republicans are protecting the oligarchs or the Democrats are protecting them.

      We might disagree on socialism, and strongly, but there is probably some room for agreement. Such as that I want to see all the corporate welfare zeroed out, immediately.

  6. As an amateur student of history (actual my major before changing) I view the swinging pendulum as a self correcting phenomenon when politics or society has swung too far one way or the other. Therefore it is viewed by this conservative/libertarian as a good thing.

    In fact as society evolves (a subject for another day perhaps) societal "norms" evolve with it. The constant shift back and forth between left and right has, in genera, pushed society to the left if viewed as a trend line over time.

    It is time the pendulum start the swing back. Maybe it will stop in the middle this time? Not betting on it.

    1. The rise of the NRA, the decline of unions (and wages), restrictive voting rights, the deregulation of big banking, business oriented SCOTUS findings and invasions in the Mideast hardly seem to arise from "that liberal thing".

    2. A lot of that is also a "liberal thing" the handout to the big banks, opposed by most Republicans, and the invasions/invasions in the Mideast supported and expanded by the liberals as well. The "business oriented" corporate welfare to the auto industry and greenscam companies... more of a liberal thing for sure. The decline of unions isn't a liberal thing nor is the rise of the NRA. But you can't cherry pick there, BB. The marriage equality matter is of liberals not conservatives for sure. And the "liberal thing' is definitely going on there..

    3. I concede to you the handout of privileges to big banksters – gladly! And I will admit that misadventures in the Mid East had a bipartisan flavor that cost two Democrats their presidential ambitions (although the initiative and the sales job came from the neo-con side of the aisle). ‘Green scam’ is a bit pejorative to the extent that Solyndra was a holdover inherited from the previous administration -- it was an incubator startup in the Bush portfolio (2006) before Obama took office.

      Nevertheless, I see an acknowledgement -- even a convergence of opinion on many issues -- that I have not seen previously. Even more gratifying, differences of opinion are expressed here through facts brought to the discussion table, instead of ad hominem attacks upon the person as we see elsewhere. It makes a huge difference.

    4. I don't see such a pejorative about the notorious Solyndra, etc applying any less because Bush was involved at any time :)

  7. In the 1950s and 60s, I don’t recall hearing the kinds of rhetorical pushback that we hear today:

    “Income leveling …”
    “Class warfare …”
    And that dreaded “S” word -- socialism.

    These are rhetorical constructs that turn neutral words into pejoratives, and they have no more meaning than an epithet hurled for political purposes. Let’s dig below the surface in search of more meaningful stuff … starting with gross economic inequality and a shrinking middle class, the causes of which are many:

    Stagnant wages that have not kept pace with the cost of living;

    Increased productivity that has not been shared by a labor force that made these productivity gains possible;

    Globalization and the loss of manufacturing jobs to lower cost labor markets;

    The rise of mega-conglomerate cartels that have put small family-owned businesses out of business;

    A weakened labor movement and the loss of collective bargaining rights that have tilted the balance in favor of industry;

    And “trickle down” – a urinary disorder among oligarchs that accounts for its treatment of the middle class.

    Say anything you want about the checkerboard pattern of Democratic and Republican administrations since the postwar period. Conditions that are currently in place have been in a place for a long time – essentially immune to the pendulum swings of politics.

    What we need right now is a big change in public attitude – and the will to address these inequities.

  8. Re: doing the "Liberal thing"... The presidency of Barack Obama, a Blue Dog Democrat, was more Conservative than Liberal. Bill Clinton too was far more Conservative than Liberal. He made a point of identifying as such, declaring himself a "third way" Democrat. Not that I wish to get into an extended back-and-forth in regards to this, but I thought I'd make one attempt (at least) to set the record straight in regards to Conserva-Dems like Clinton and Obama.

    Re: Zeroing out "corporate welfare"... I think the "room for agreement" would be less than some think, given the Right's desire to label government investments in new technologies as "welfare". Support for green technology isn't a "scam" at all, but a good and appropriate role for the government. I'm absolutely for doing away with the corporate welfare, but think we need to do much more investing.

    Bernie Sanders supports investing in green energy.

    Re: Was TARP opposed by most Republicans?... 123 out of 247 Republicans voted "NO" which is 49.8 percent. Is under half "most"? According to the dictionary, "most" is "in the majority of instances". (Votes in Senate and House).

    Re: The bank bailouts were a "Liberal thing"... TARP was proposed by the bush administration and signed into law by the former Republican president. John Boehner, the current Senate Majority Leader, voted "YES". A majority of Congressional Republicans (50.2 percent) voted "YES". Barack Obama, a self described Blue Dog, supported it.

    Too many Democrats supported it, but I'd call it more of a "bi-partisan thing" rather than a "Liberal thing", given the fact that a majority of Congressional Republicans voted in favor of TARP.

    Bernie Sanders voted "NO" on TARP. In a press statement, Bernie said, The Bush administration and Wall Street bankers got what they wanted - a $700 billion bailout with all the risk put on middle-income taxpayers. The Burlington Free Press is wrong in suggesting that passing this deeply-flawed bill is "doing what's needed, not what's popular". This legislation is very popular with Wall Street and all of the big money special interests who have been lobbying frantically for its passage.

    Re: The "notorious Solyndra"... The government loan program that funded Solyndra is expected to make taxpayers a $5 to $6 billion profit according to Bloomberg Business.

  9. "government investments in new technologies"

    Taxpayer funded gifts to wealthy investors and corporations are easier to sell if they are deceptively labelled in such ways as this. Honestly that quote sounds like it is lifted from the ad copy of a huge defense industry conglomerate promoting itself for a couple of minutes after underwriting a PBS program.

    Good point, though, MR. Sanders on TARP being
    "bi-partisan". It also made strange bedfollows: REP. Sanders and the Tea Party guys.

  10. I think the term "taxpayer gift" is deceptive. Is the bank giving you a "gift" when it decides to loan you money... and charge interest? But we were discussing the Solyndra LOAN. Then you switched to talking about "a huge defense industry conglomerate". I am opposed to giving gifts to the MIC. Purchasing expensive military hardware we don't need is a "gift", IMO. Sounds like dmarks and I can agree on that. Bernie Sanders also is opposed to these gifts.

    But a loan and an unneeded purchase are two different things.

  11. But a loan and an unneeded purchase are two different things

    Unless the loan was specifically to make an unneeded purchase. Then there certainly would be a strong linkage and correlation.

  12. Unnecessarily risking taxpayer money on private corporate business ventures is way too close to bring a gift. I simply oppose the government cutting corporations checks... even if the corporations maybe are supposed to pay some of it back. I see that I am more anti-aircraft than some on the Left, for sure.
    Anyway, I found something else I generally agree with Rep. Sanders on:

  13. Is dmarks saying he agrees with Sanders when "he faulted Israeli overreaction in Gaza... criticizes Israeli conduct over the years and... bucks the Israel lobby over its opposition to Palestinian statehood initiatives at the U.N"?

    If so, then I say, yeah, me too.

    In any case, I take exception to the title of the article, as well as the author's claim that "Sanders own leftwing base... [sees] the country as a marauding human rights abuser". That's so over the top it's ridiculous.

    Unless the loan was specifically to make an unneeded purchase.

    Loans are paid back. The solyndra loan wasn't, of course, but the point is that the loan program (in it's totality) made a profit. And in my opinion investments in green energy are very much needed. I guess you disagree... But that does not mean there is any "scam" occurring.

  14. MR. Sanders: When I said I agreed with REP. Sanders, I said it was "generally". I agreed with so much of what he said on this issue that I wasn't going to nitpick on everything or go out of my way to find fault. As for the two issues you named. of course there were ways Israel could have used more restraint in retaliating against Hamas attacks. As for statehood, I have supported it, but not if it means as new nation that is a terror base for Hamas to continue its genocide mission. It's clear that REP. Sanders has no illusions about Hamas at all. On this issue, anyway, I support that REP. Sanders is in Congress and voting as he does.

    I take exception to the article too, It was anti-Sanders, actually. But reading through it I found what Sanders had been saying, and found I supported what he was being condemned for. I didn't read much into the "marauding" statement myself, as I was not looking for information about some nebulously defined "base", but about REP. Sanders himself.


    "but the point is that the loan program (in it's totality) made a profit"

    We already have something in place for government to make a "profit" from businesses: business and corporate taxation. I find that getting into the risky loan business is a form of corporate welfare, which I oppose on principle, and otherwise unnecessary. Such programs are part of the special advantages to the wealthy and connected that we need to get rid of, along with special tax breaks and outright cash grants,


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.