Feel the Bern!

Not at all. That wasn't the question: the question was which was worse.

It depends on the context, but I think the morality of "wrong, but trying to be right" is a lot better than "wrong, and doesn't care if they're wrong so long as it benefits them." In both cases you're advocating something bad, but with the latter you add a second moral offense.

The person you disagree with who thinks they're right is at least operating from the shared premise that being right matters. Theoretically, that means you can argue and reason with each other. The person who cares only for themselves is outside of rational debate entirely. Being wrong is bad, but being beyond the reach of reason is worse.

I like Clinton, but strongly feel Sanders is more qualified. Another factor is the Clintons have been seen as the face of the Democratic party for near 20 years. If we are to bridge the gap between the 2 parties, it would be impossible with Hillary as President. The GOP controlled media will stay on her from day one, worse than Obama as they backed off his first year (wisely).

Hillary doesnt have Bernies charisma, shes not as bad as Gore, but not far off. That seems unimportant, but sadly it is in todays world.

Judging a candidate by their supporters? That seems odd.

Anyway, the TV will determine who is President.

Okay, but I'd argue of course that one does not automatically prevail over the other, and each case has to be decided upon individually. I'd argue that I'm not arguing in favour of "wrong, and doesn't care if they're wrong so long as it benefits them." but "...not what the actually believe", thinking about it I think it's definitely close as to who I'd like more as a person, maybe the wording would be that I would actually respect Cruz more, even if I dislike his views less, or despise his beliefs more.

I find myself disagreeing with this, even though I acknowledge "qualified" is a pretty slippery term.

I do agree that she's definitely old guard. And I also agree that Clinton isn't going to usher in a bipartisan age; but I think she gets closer than Sanders. Especially when it comes to policy, if not personality.

I thought Barack would, but I'm still surprised at the vitriol the GOP has had for him (maybe it's a normal amount, and I'm just young?).

But if you think that the GOP would get along with Bernie, it's only because they've merely dismissed him as a serious candidate. If he's the nominee I think there's a ton of liability with the "socialist" label and calling his policies unrealistic. Which I know, is partially unfair and untrue.

Man, I liked Al Gore. I still do, I suppose.

I suppose you don't care about Hillary's donors then?

The distinction between respecting him and liking him is an interesting one, and yeah, it does clarify things a bit. Thanks.

I suppose it matters whether or not we're talking about who we dislike from a political or interpersonal perspective, too. I don't like Cruz personally, but I think it's important that we nominate people from both parties that generally argue in good faith. Substance does not always (usually?) win the day, but the consensus that it should is, itself, important. I think there's something genuinely dangerous about overtly embracing the superficial in our candidates, as opposed to just sometimes rationalizing it.

I dont know how these "conservative values" are exclusive to Ted Cruz or his supporters. Theres no such thing as family values outside of conservatism? Puh-leeze! Theres good and bad in all beliefs, policies, parties, churches, etc... Cruz and Clinton are politicians weve seen all our lives, backed by big business. Trump supposedly isnt but hes an idiot so its moot.

Sanders is regarded as an outsider, too liberal for many democrats. He's exactly what the USA needs in a leader because hes respected by the politicians he'd have to work with. There would not be a deeply rooted prejudice like Hillary carries. There wouldnt be Obama drama. Sanders has fought for human rights and made many unpopular calls being branded a liberal. Its been a long long time since weve had a President that would willfully make an unpopular decision.

Sanders is more like Harry Truman than any of the other candidates. Truman is the type of president people have said this country has needed. Now, are you ready?

If people vote for Cruz then fair enough, he's got policies and principles that are clear, and if people support them, then regardless of whether I like them or not, they're entitled to do so, it's a democracy. I don't think it's right that we shut down discussion or immediately dismiss people because of views (with exceptions, of course) but I don't think we shouldn't be allowed to form personal opinions over people based on these beliefs and in other ways they appear.

I think as a friend, Trump would be a person I would get on with more than Cruz, at least I would have. When you see him in a lot of things, especially pre-election run, despite still being quite non-PC, he comes across as being an interesting and generous guy at times. I have less respect for him because of his switching of views, lack of coherent policies/strategy, resorting to personal insults, but I think you have to consider his circumstances, I don't think he's has harmful as some people are pointing out (Hitler?), I think that he does genuinely care about his country and people who live there, so he too has good intentions, but can't see, or doesn't care because he's set on getting to power first and sees this as the best route. If he was to get in power and move closer to the centre when he actually reveals his plans, would I respect him less or more? Probably a bit of both.

If you think that you haven't been paying attention to the primaries this year.

__________________
Letterboxd

Why do Americans find socialism and its variants, such dirty words? I think this communist paranoia still exists in some parts, and it's a little odd. From what I've seen, people seem to admit your mad if you admit you're a socialist, but I think it's nothing to be ashamed of, the values and principles are generally made with good-intention (not seeing other beliefs aren't, but people seem to think Socialism=Communism or =Evil) and at least in this country, socialism forms a lot of important parts of the country and everyday life.

Sanders would be considered somewhat of an outsider to the democrats even, but both parties know him, they know the man, and he is a respected politician. There is just too much blind hate towards anything Clinton. Sure the republicans will howl to the media outlets about his policies, but it wont be the disgusting display we saw in Clinton or Obamas terms.

Yeah so do I. He got screwed.

Agree 100% I am so over all the labels these parties have trained us to think with. There are strong policies in all parties, not just the big 2.

If you mean that it's paranoid to think socialism will lead to communism, that's often true. Though it's certainly a lot more like communism than capitalism is, and we've yet to construct a government that didn't want more power.

If you mean that it's paranoid to worry about communism, I'd say that it's very difficult to be paranoid about a philosophy that has led to economic ruin and a trampling of human rights every time it's been attempted.

America was founded with an emphasis on individual freedom and attracted people who gravitated towards that idea. And obviously, there's a lot of tension between individual freedom and various forms of collectivism.

In France, they say "feel ze Bern."

Canada is socialist and not deteriorating into a Communist society. Trampling of human rights by countless communist governments was not due to communism, but due to the people in charge. Communism is an extremely flawed system of government, but it doesnt spell out how to oppress its citizens either. Thats on the people that decided.

Sanders wanting certain things which socialist countries have is smart, why limit our growth due to hysteria of beliefs? He is in no way a communist.

...and its no mystery how you know of this sir! jk

I agree very much with the spirit of what your saying. I don't think socialism is evil. In fact I think aspects of it our necessary to have a productive government that works for the vast majority of its citizens. The thing is, we have a lot of those things in place here. My problem with the rhetoric from the left on this subject is very similar to your problem with the rhetoric from the right. They push the socialism agenda as if it is a cure all for the country. Free healthcare, you will be living the same lifestyle as your rich counterparts. It's put forth as the magic button that will put the wealthy and poor in the same field of play. It's a reality that I don't think exists. Do you think this level playing field exists? I don't know what your taxes look like over there but I know Canada is taxed to the max and our folks already feel overtaxed. This idea that the rich will pay for everything, guess what they already do. My wish for both parties, is that politicians would be honest about what the programs will cost and how we will pay for it. I could easily be talked into universal healthcare if someone would tell me what that means to the public as far as cost. One of my biggest problems with the democrats is the way they want to disguise taxes so it doesn't look like taxes. All their talk feels like pipe dreams to me. I will have to be shown where I am wrong. I would be happy for you the be the one to do it since you have first hand knowledge of the system that the democrats seem to be working towards.

People fear what they don't understand.

I just had this conversation elsewhere, but I'll repeat...

No country has ever experienced capitalism or communism.. We (US) has a public sector, and a private sector. Every country would have to be "Communistic" for there to be communism; we've never had it, but I don't think it would work, as people aren't very cooperative to change. USSR were state capitalists, but in any system, there always seems to be a pyramid.

Taxes. My friends in Europe pay a little bit more, but they don't have to pay $100,000 for an operation, don't have $100,000 in student debt, etc etc.. When so many countries have free college, it makes it tough for Americans to compete. I've never even had an American doctor!

Preventive health care will save us more in the long run anyway. More educated people is good for 99% of the country/world. Taxes should cover those basic necessities.