Cruz Versus Sanders

[Yttrium]

With most US presidential race matchups, I can figure out pretty easily who I'd vote for. However, Cruz and Sanders are two people I'd normally never vote for, so pitting them against each other would be a very tough pick for me. In fact, I might not even vote if that becomes my choice. Sanders, the socialist, is too liberal for me. Cruz, the obstructionist, is too conservative and unwilling to negotiate.



Could I be swayed to pick one over the other? Can anyone give me some compelling arguments? Or should I consider a particular third party candidate in this situation?

[Cerebrum123]

Long time no see!

[Yttrium]

Long time no see!

Oh, I've been lurking. I'm just not normally very talkative.

[robrecht]

Sanders. He's very liberal, but he will never succeed in implementing what he wants, but in his desire and ability to compromise he may succeed in moving some things in a positive direction. We must save the middle class from its current process of extinction or we are doomed.

[Littlejoe]

Sanders. He's very liberal, but he will never succeed in implementing what he wants, but in his desire and ability to compromise he may succeed in moving some things in a positive direction. We must save the middle class from its current process of extinction or we are doomed.

I agree we need to save the middle class from extinction. To do that, we have to elect people to Congress that aren't on the take....

[jordanriver]

With most US presidential race matchups, I can figure out pretty easily who I'd vote for. However, Cruz and Sanders are two people I'd normally never vote for, so pitting them against each other would be a very tough pick for me. In fact, I might not even vote if that becomes my choice. Sanders, the socialist, is too liberal for me. Cruz, the obstructionist, is too conservative and unwilling to negotiate.



Could I be swayed to pick one over the other? Can anyone give me some compelling arguments? Or should I consider a particular third party candidate in this situation?

where are you / what are you / what do you want.

Let me use my flawed monopoly game analogy

(flawed, because in the game monopoly, when the game is over (there is a winner and everybody else is bankrupt) the winner has to put all the little play money back in the box, return the deeds, the railroads, and hotels and properties and get out of jail cards,

...and so the next day start equal with the other players,

which is unlike real life.

In real life the winner gets to keep all the deeds and money he won.

so which real life player are you.

A. (average) I think most players win some of the time, and lose some of the time.

L. (loser) some players, no matter how hard they try, just seem to lose every time. They just can't get it.

W. (Winner) and there are a few players who just win all the time, every darn time.

SO..............


If you are W, a winner, and you don't want to put the little play money back in the box every day, and you don't want to return the deeds and the railroads and the hotels etc,
the Vote for Cruz.

If you are A or L, you better vote against Cruz, because if you are L, you'll starve right away, and if you are A, and you think you have a shot at the American Dream, you;re just chasing a fake carrot , and you;ll just starve later (or skip prescriptions or skip doctor visits or skip medical procedures because of the impossible to meet deductible)

[Yttrium]

Sanders. He's very liberal, but he will never succeed in implementing what he wants, but in his desire and ability to compromise he may succeed in moving some things in a positive direction. We must save the middle class from its current process of extinction or we are doomed.

The ability to compromise is a good selling point, and he certainly beats Cruz in that regard. However, how will he deal with all those Tea Party types in congress, who aren't interested in compromise? He's farther to the left than Obama, and you've seen how well Obama has been able to work with congress. I don't see how he could do a better job of getting congress to work with him than Obama did.

[robrecht]

The ability to compromise is a good selling point, and he certainly beats Cruz in that regard. However, how will he deal with all those Tea Party types in congress, who aren't interested in compromise? He's farther to the left than Obama, and you've seen how well Obama has been able to work with congress. I don't see how he could do a better job of getting congress to work with him than Obama did.

Couldn't do any worse. But the choice was between Bernie and Cruz.

[Yttrium]

Couldn't do any worse. But the choice was between Bernie and Cruz.

Cruz would probably compromise fairly well with the current congress, although he would be plagued by Senate filibusters. Of course, I would expect at least one house of congress to go Democratic halfway through a Cruz presidency, resulting in a no-compromise lockdown.

[JimL]

With most US presidential race matchups, I can figure out pretty easily who I'd vote for. However, Cruz and Sanders are two people I'd normally never vote for, so pitting them against each other would be a very tough pick for me. In fact, I might not even vote if that becomes my choice. Sanders, the socialist, is too liberal for me. Cruz, the obstructionist, is too conservative and unwilling to negotiate.



Could I be swayed to pick one over the other? Can anyone give me some compelling arguments? Or should I consider a particular third party candidate in this situation?

Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing, he's a corporate backed right winger masquerading as a man of the people. Sanders is the only canidate that is sticking it to wall street and the plutocrats that have Congress firmly tucked into their back pockets. If you think that the system is corrupt, and I'm assuming that by now everyone can see that to be the case, and want to change it so that it works for everyone, and not just for the priveledged fat cat corruptors of it, then Sanders is the only one on either side of the isle to vote for.
Btw, what is it about social democracy that you don't like? Is it social security, unemployment insurance, minimum/living wage policy, the idea that health care is a human right, public education, college aid etc etc etc. Or is it just the word itself that freaks you out?

[Yttrium]

Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing, he's a corporate backed right winger masquerading as a man of the people. Sanders is the only canidate that is sticking it to wall street and the plutocrats that have Congress firmly tucked into their back pockets. If you think that the system is corrupt, and I'm assuming that by now everyone can see that to be the case, and want to change it so that it works for everyone, and not just for the priveledged fat cat corruptors of it, then Sanders is the only one on either side of the isle to vote for.

This idealism is tempered by his ability to get anything done. However, I could be motivated to vote for him simply to block Republicans from adding more of that fat cat corruption.

Btw, what is it about social democracy that you don't like? Is it social security, unemployment insurance, minimum/living wage policy, the idea that health care is a human right, public education, college aid etc etc etc. Or is it just the word itself that freaks you out?

Some degree of socialist policies are needed to keep capitalism in check. I like public education. However, capitalism spurs progress, and socialism stifles it. In my view, too much socialism is bad, because it promotes mediocrity and stifles progress. Unbridled capitalism is also bad, because it breeds corruption and widens the gap between the rich and poor too much. Someone who calls himself a socialist is going too far to the left, as far as I'm concerned. But Cruz balances that by going too far to the right.

[JimL]

This idealism is tempered by his ability to get anything done. However, I could be motivated to vote for him simply to block Republicans from adding more of that fat cat corruption.

Like President Obama said, and this goes for Sanders as well, he can't get it done all by himself. Ultimately it is up to the people to wake up and smell the coffee. Sanders is calling for a political revolution, he is trying to wake people up to the facts of the corruption that has taken over politics. If we continue to put the bums, the crooks, the frauds into office due to apathy or ignorance then we will continue to get screwed by them.

Some degree of socialist policies are needed to keep capitalism in check.

Then you should have no problem with Sanders. Its not as though he is anti capitalist.

I like public education. However, capitalism spurs progress, and socialism stifles it.

Sanders has no problem with Capitalism per se, what he and other progressives have a problem with is unregulated or corrupt Capitalism.

In my view, too much socialism is bad, because it promotes mediocrity and stifles progress.

You need to specify what you mean specifically by too much socialism. What is it about what Sanders is proposing that you don't like.

Unbridled capitalism is also bad, because it breeds corruption and widens the gap between the rich and poor too much.

That is basically the point.

Someone who calls himself a socialist is going too far to the left, as far as I'm concerned. But Cruz balances that by going too far to the right.

Well, Sanders actually calls himself a democratic socialist which is what the great majority of americans would call themselves if they weren't affraid of the word itself. Cruz is a pandering fraud.

[Yttrium]

Like President Obama said, and this goes for Sanders as well, he can't get it done all by himself. Ultimately it is up to the people to wake up and smell the coffee. Sanders is calling for a political revolution, he is trying to wake people up to the facts of the corruption that has taken over politics. If we continue to put the bums, the crooks, the frauds into office due to apathy or ignorance then we will continue to get screwed by them.

Well, they certainly didn't wake up in the last election, where Republicans were elected into congress in even greater numbers. It's easy to demonize the other side, but the Republicans have their good points, and the Democrats have their bad (as well as good) points. Politics have always contained a lot of corruption on both sides, and we're always trying to throw the bums out, and we never do; because we never seem to realize that the guys we vote for are the bums.

Keep in mind that the Tea Party was an attempt at waking people up and starting a political revolution. Different people have different ideas of what people need to wake up to.

Still, a campaign to block corruption might sway me to vote for him.

You need to specify what you mean specifically by too much socialism. What is it about what Sanders is proposing that you don't like.

He promises too much, without the means to pay for it. Entitlements are already dragging us down and eating up the budget. Mind you, I like the entitlements, but they need to be properly paid for. Sanders would add more burden rather than relieving it. Assuming he intends to crank up taxes, that isn't going to go over very well in our current society. See Tea Party above.

Realistically speaking, he isn't going to get those taxes, and so he isn't going to get his programs.

Universal health care would be great, if it didn't cost so much. For once I'd like to see a candidate coming up with ways to drive down the costs of health care FIRST. Otherwise nobody will be able to afford it, including the government.

Well, Sanders actually calls himself a democratic socialist which is what the great majority of americans would call themselves if they weren't affraid of the word itself. Cruz is a pandering fraud.

From what I recall, Sanders has outright called himself a socialist from time to time.

[Jaecp]

Still, a campaign to block corruption might sway me to vote for him.

That's largely what he's running on.

Universal health care would be great, if it didn't cost so much. For once I'd like to see a candidate coming up with ways to drive down the costs of health care FIRST.

"Medicaid for all" systems are cheaper than what we have now. Government options don't pay exorbitant CEO salaries, nor do they need to spend much of anything on advertising, which is a big part of those costs at, as the article says, over a billion dollars that year. Those costs are passed on to us. A "medicaid for all" system would be, at the very least, that much cheaper let alone the increase in negotiating power and ability to buy in bulk.

From what I recall, Sanders has outright called himself a socialist from time to time.

Of course I haven't seen every single public statement he's made, but even if he was only talking about his socialist beliefs he was still referring to the Democratic Socialism that has been a hallmark on his time in office. It's not as though he wants the government to own the means of production, but to incorporate aspects of socialism that American's overwhelmingly are in support of, but to those age 40+ the name is anathema

[jordanriver]

He promises too much, without the means to pay for it. Entitlements are already dragging us down and eating up the budget. Mind you, I like the entitlements, but they need to be properly paid for. Sanders would add more burden rather than relieving it. Assuming he intends to crank up taxes, that isn't going to go over very well in our current society. See Tea Party above.
.

soak the plutocrats.

Not just to pay for entitlement, but most important of all, to disarm them.

Money is used by the plutocrats as a weapon against the rest of us.

Big Insurance and Big Pharm instructs their property (politicians) to pretend they are enemies , but secretly make sure everybody is forced to buy insurance that they cannot afford to actually use because of the big deductibles, and make sure there was no public option to compete with.