Comparing our Democratic presidential candidates

[MineralMan]

to religious or historical figures of special note is hyperbole, plain and simple.

It does nothing to help a candidate to make a comparison of that candidate to a deity worshiped by some people. Religious people who worship such a deity will reject the comparison out of hand, since there is no way to make the comparison successfully.

Similarly, making a comparison between a candidate and a religious or historical figure who is infamous and vile for some reason is equally invalid. Again, it's hyperbolic and simply incorrect on its face.

People have now done both things with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It's not useful and possibly has the opposite effect from what was intended.

Both candidates are very competent human beings living in the present time. Comparisons like those are simply specious and exaggerated.

We can do better. I'm sure we can.

[think]

1. There are plenty enough facts to be discussed to make one's case. /nt

[HumanityExperiment]

2. Compare themselves within historical context...

[MineralMan]

3. Please try to stick with the topic.

Thanks.

[HumanityExperiment]

4. Why?...

You stated "Both candidates are very competent human beings living in the present time. Comparisons like those are simply specious and exaggerated."

I'm pointing out that HRC isn't competent, not when it comes to primary process at hand and to DEM ideals

I'm avoiding the "simply specious and exaggerated" point and getting to the core of the issue, and that's the real point is it not?

[MineralMan]

5. There are similarities between Jesus and Sanders, of course.

Both are or were Jewish.
Both lived in what is now Israel for part of their lives.
Both did some carpentry work.
Both were male as humans.

Beyond those, I can't find any point of comparison, really.

One lived in the iron age, while the other lives in the computer age.
Only one is reputed to have died and been resurrected.
Only one is also regarded by some as a deity.
One was an itinerant preacher, while the other is a career politician.

[Kip Humphrey]

6. She is no liberal. She has never been liberal. She is conservative.

This, in contrast to Bernie Sanders, is a comparison we can make without hyperbole.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, I disagree with your statement, but

your conclusion is correct. The only valid comparisons are between the two candidates themselves.

[Kip Humphrey]

9. Then perhaps you should study: The 3rd-Way, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, globalism.

[MineralMan]

11. Or perhaps you could stop assuming what I have studied

or know. That'd be great.

[Hortensis]

7. IMO, this is an attempt to draw Far Right voters to Bernie

by associating him with Jesus. He's been trying to woo them all along, and now this stuff is all over the web.

The Far Right, first cousins to the Far Left, do not like Trump at all. Cruz seems to be their best conservative-religious choice, but political poaching of the Far-This's from the Far-That's is very common. Bernie will draw some, and Cruz will fight to get them back.

We may feel it is very unprincipled, but politics is politics, and the 2016 stakes of course are huge. I'd expect to see even more "tea party" and other Far Right folk here on DU as this religious-association schtick develops.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. My complaint is about one of the candidates making ignorant and insulting claims about historical

figures. Hillary's insisting that the Reagans were great heroes of the AIDS crisis was more than exaggeration it was fully false, entirely fake, a giant lie she told on TV to polish the reputation of villains while denying the courageous history of LGBT Americans.

The fact that her supporters don't care about that makes me seriously distrust them and thus a large portion of this Party who are in fact much like Republicans. Anyone who praises Reagan on AIDS while claiming the LGBT community took no action against AIDS is a Republican. Or symptomatic. Neither is acceptable to me in a candidate.