I would like to hear from from of our lefty friends here.... I maintain there is no difference. Both vilify the capitalists, and deplore the rich. They both will do anything to slow or defeat any economic progress, and they both openly want higher taxes for "redistribution"
But I will turn the floor over to the "progressives"... please give a concise answer to what is the fundamental difference? Deflection and personal attacks will not win this debate. Please answer the questions directly
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I would like to hear from from of our lefty friends here.... I maintain there is no difference. Both vilify the capitalists, and deplore the rich. They both will do anything to slow or defeat any economic progress, and they both openly want higher taxes for "redistribution"
But I will turn the floor over to the "progressives"... please give a concise answer to what is the fundamental difference? Deflection and personal attacks will not win this debate. Please answer the questions directly
^look at the justice system, affluenza kid gets bailed outbecause rich mommy and daddy. ten years probation for drunk driving. imagine if a middle class or poor class kid killed 4 people.
when u can afford a lawyer. it always helps.
similar to lobbyist.
^look at the justice system, affluenza kid gets bailed outbecause rich mommy and daddy. ten years probation for drunk driving. imagine if a middle class or poor class kid killed 4 people.
Well it's been a day. I'm sure the leftists on Covers have seen this by now. Mainman11111 has posted his thoughts (welcome to Covers by the way. I'm sure the weeks you are here will be fun filled).
No one can answer the question because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
You gotta hand it to Chris Mathews. He may have a tingle up his leg but he's the one asking the question.
Whoever the Republican candidate is needs to run with this.
Well it's been a day. I'm sure the leftists on Covers have seen this by now. Mainman11111 has posted his thoughts (welcome to Covers by the way. I'm sure the weeks you are here will be fun filled).
No one can answer the question because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
You gotta hand it to Chris Mathews. He may have a tingle up his leg but he's the one asking the question.
Whoever the Republican candidate is needs to run with this.
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
That is all nonsense... if there is any truth to it, we have not seen it
Obama and Hillary are all about redistribution of wealth - it is in every policy that is pushed. From Obamacare to to the rich "paying their fair share"
Technology? lmao... the only example I can remember is when BO tried to launch a website by farming it out to a 3rd party with absolutely no oversight... at a cost of 100's of millions which proved to complete failure.
A failed website launch ??? lol
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
That is all nonsense... if there is any truth to it, we have not seen it
Obama and Hillary are all about redistribution of wealth - it is in every policy that is pushed. From Obamacare to to the rich "paying their fair share"
Technology? lmao... the only example I can remember is when BO tried to launch a website by farming it out to a 3rd party with absolutely no oversight... at a cost of 100's of millions which proved to complete failure.
That is all nonsense... if there is any truth to it, we have not seen it
Obama and Hillary are all about redistribution of wealth - it is in every policy that is pushed. From Obamacare to to the rich "paying their fair share"
Technology? lmao... the only example I can remember is when BO tried to launch a website by farming it out to a 3rd party with absolutely no oversight... at a cost of 100's of millions which proved to complete failure.
A failed website launch ??? lol
Haha. Ok. That is all you can come up with for technology. Give it a rest man.
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
That is all nonsense... if there is any truth to it, we have not seen it
Obama and Hillary are all about redistribution of wealth - it is in every policy that is pushed. From Obamacare to to the rich "paying their fair share"
Technology? lmao... the only example I can remember is when BO tried to launch a website by farming it out to a 3rd party with absolutely no oversight... at a cost of 100's of millions which proved to complete failure.
A failed website launch ??? lol
Haha. Ok. That is all you can come up with for technology. Give it a rest man.
As this thread grows I am sure that there will be a few laughable attempts to make a clear distinction between the two terms....
Here is my take:
There is no discernable difference between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism. They are one in the same. The only reason that the DNC would like you to think there is a clear distinction (for which no argument has been made), is that they know that the term Socialist is a very undesirable term to the vast majority of Americans. No difference than when the Democrats worked endlessly over the last 20 years to shake the "Liberal" tag that they know does not play well... they prefer the term "progressive" - this was a purge that was helped along by NBC/CBS/ABC over the last few decades.
Low information facebook news feed voters will continue to eat it up.
As this thread grows I am sure that there will be a few laughable attempts to make a clear distinction between the two terms....
Here is my take:
There is no discernable difference between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism. They are one in the same. The only reason that the DNC would like you to think there is a clear distinction (for which no argument has been made), is that they know that the term Socialist is a very undesirable term to the vast majority of Americans. No difference than when the Democrats worked endlessly over the last 20 years to shake the "Liberal" tag that they know does not play well... they prefer the term "progressive" - this was a purge that was helped along by NBC/CBS/ABC over the last few decades.
Low information facebook news feed voters will continue to eat it up.
It did just occur to me that the last poster was meaning something different with he brought up technology as a difference....
Yes BO and Hillary's campaign for election is very good at using social media to get people motivated to the voting booth. That is something the conservatives need to catch up quickly!!
Using social media as a tool to the the vote out has nothing to do with governing principles. It is a bit funny but that answer tells so much... that staying in power is the whole goal - the beginning and the end.
Nobody has made even a reasonable attempt to draw a clear distinction between a Socialist and a Democrat as of yet.
It did just occur to me that the last poster was meaning something different with he brought up technology as a difference....
Yes BO and Hillary's campaign for election is very good at using social media to get people motivated to the voting booth. That is something the conservatives need to catch up quickly!!
Using social media as a tool to the the vote out has nothing to do with governing principles. It is a bit funny but that answer tells so much... that staying in power is the whole goal - the beginning and the end.
Nobody has made even a reasonable attempt to draw a clear distinction between a Socialist and a Democrat as of yet.
Hillary and Obama are not progressives, Elizabeth Warren is its like stating mcconnell or cantor were tea party activist. according to established republicans anyone who describes social security other than an entitlement is a socialist, however they have toned it down because McCarthy described it as communism in the fifties.
morgan described it as unconstionional in the thirties.
Hillary and Obama are not progressives, Elizabeth Warren is its like stating mcconnell or cantor were tea party activist. according to established republicans anyone who describes social security other than an entitlement is a socialist, however they have toned it down because McCarthy described it as communism in the fifties.
morgan described it as unconstionional in the thirties.
A Socialist believes the community should own the means of production. No Democrat has ever said anything remotely like that.
Republicans and Democrats are far more similar to each other than Democrats and Socialists.
Saying a Democrat is a Socialist is like saying a Republican is a Fascist.
And when I said Progressives believe in technology I was not talking about a website. To give an example, it used to be very expensive to build houses. Now, it is much less expensive. A progressive believes it is better now to build houses for homeless people to get them off the street. A conservative says we didn't build houses before for the homeless, so we shouldn't do so now.
At some point it costs the community less money to give homeless people houses than to have them on the street. Right now, every homeless person costs the community something like 40,000 a year...
A Socialist believes the community should own the means of production. No Democrat has ever said anything remotely like that.
Republicans and Democrats are far more similar to each other than Democrats and Socialists.
Saying a Democrat is a Socialist is like saying a Republican is a Fascist.
And when I said Progressives believe in technology I was not talking about a website. To give an example, it used to be very expensive to build houses. Now, it is much less expensive. A progressive believes it is better now to build houses for homeless people to get them off the street. A conservative says we didn't build houses before for the homeless, so we shouldn't do so now.
At some point it costs the community less money to give homeless people houses than to have them on the street. Right now, every homeless person costs the community something like 40,000 a year...
funny how a republican freed the slaves... he mustve been a democrat... funny how obama bailed out the bankers, mustve of been a republican... obama, once hailed... is a man with republican ties... he is smart man... dont doubt him... for one second... republicans hate him, but the bankers they love him...
ohhh the ironnnny... irony i tell u... irony... irony... irony...
the "FORCE AWAKENS" my friend...
history.... always and repeat.... always.......... till next time...
funny how a republican freed the slaves... he mustve been a democrat... funny how obama bailed out the bankers, mustve of been a republican... obama, once hailed... is a man with republican ties... he is smart man... dont doubt him... for one second... republicans hate him, but the bankers they love him...
ohhh the ironnnny... irony i tell u... irony... irony... irony...
the "FORCE AWAKENS" my friend...
history.... always and repeat.... always.......... till next time...
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
here's another example of what it means to be progressive. tesla sells electronic cars and wants to be able to sell its product directly to the public. that sounds progressive and more efficient to me.
some states (you can guess which ones these mostly are) have laws that prevents tesla from doing that and force them to go through third parties, i.e. car dealerships, which happen to have big lobbies that contribute a lot fo politicians in these states. i'd say that's not progressive and more the result of traditional corrupt politics.
this is a definition of socialism: an economictheory or system in whichthemeans of production,distribution,andexchangeareowned by thecommunitycollectively,usuallythroughthestate. It is characterized by productionforuseratherthanprofit, by equality of individualwealth, by theabsence of competitiveeconomicactivity,and,usually, by governmentdetermination of investment,prices,andproductionlevels.
i'm not sure where that fits into any of this other than to say the mostly republican states that prevent tesla from selling directly stifles free competition, as socialism wants to do.
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
here's another example of what it means to be progressive. tesla sells electronic cars and wants to be able to sell its product directly to the public. that sounds progressive and more efficient to me.
some states (you can guess which ones these mostly are) have laws that prevents tesla from doing that and force them to go through third parties, i.e. car dealerships, which happen to have big lobbies that contribute a lot fo politicians in these states. i'd say that's not progressive and more the result of traditional corrupt politics.
this is a definition of socialism: an economictheory or system in whichthemeans of production,distribution,andexchangeareowned by thecommunitycollectively,usuallythroughthestate. It is characterized by productionforuseratherthanprofit, by equality of individualwealth, by theabsence of competitiveeconomicactivity,and,usually, by governmentdetermination of investment,prices,andproductionlevels.
i'm not sure where that fits into any of this other than to say the mostly republican states that prevent tesla from selling directly stifles free competition, as socialism wants to do.
trump is the only republican in this field that determined social security is an investment program for retirement. he is only one who has worked directly with unions afl cio carpenters because he is the only one who has ever directed a building project to completion, he understands banks labor and social justice he designed funded and built the Vietnam veteran memorial in nyc. he designed constructed and over sees trump towers world wide. and he doesn't need anyone billionairs money to campaign no wonder everyone is against him.
they are scared to face a man without strings in the most powerful position on the planet. the media, the establishment, the democrats realize he isn't playing lip service He stating what he intends to do and they realize he will do this. He wants to build a 100 story it gets built. He wants America great again .
trump is the only republican in this field that determined social security is an investment program for retirement. he is only one who has worked directly with unions afl cio carpenters because he is the only one who has ever directed a building project to completion, he understands banks labor and social justice he designed funded and built the Vietnam veteran memorial in nyc. he designed constructed and over sees trump towers world wide. and he doesn't need anyone billionairs money to campaign no wonder everyone is against him.
they are scared to face a man without strings in the most powerful position on the planet. the media, the establishment, the democrats realize he isn't playing lip service He stating what he intends to do and they realize he will do this. He wants to build a 100 story it gets built. He wants America great again .
if he wasn't a republican they definitely describe him as proggerssive because the man has made progress in constructucting beautiful facilities over the dumps he bought.
if he wasn't a republican they definitely describe him as proggerssive because the man has made progress in constructucting beautiful facilities over the dumps he bought.
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
here's another example. solar companies sell solar panels and systems that let you derive your power from the sun. sorry if i lost any republicans with that introduction. anyway, you'd think that florida would be a perfect state for this kind of business to flourish. people can buy solar systems from private companies, get their power from the sun and not have to deal with utility companies. that sounds progressive to me and good for competition.
of course, in florida, there are very old laws in place that prevent this from happening and virtually give the utility companies a monopoly over regional power**.
** Related: the utility companies have given more than $10 million to florida's republican governor and republican run state legislature.
again, the only relationship i see with socialism is these are anti-competition policies whoich are not progressive but are consistent with the aspect of socialism that seeks to stifle competition.
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
Progressivism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other.
Progressive means you want to apply technology and science to improve the human condition.
Socialism means you want society as a whole to own everything.
You can be a Progressive Capitalist or a Progressive Socialist.
If you are rich already and you don't want other people to better their condition then you aren't Progressive.
here's another example. solar companies sell solar panels and systems that let you derive your power from the sun. sorry if i lost any republicans with that introduction. anyway, you'd think that florida would be a perfect state for this kind of business to flourish. people can buy solar systems from private companies, get their power from the sun and not have to deal with utility companies. that sounds progressive to me and good for competition.
of course, in florida, there are very old laws in place that prevent this from happening and virtually give the utility companies a monopoly over regional power**.
** Related: the utility companies have given more than $10 million to florida's republican governor and republican run state legislature.
again, the only relationship i see with socialism is these are anti-competition policies whoich are not progressive but are consistent with the aspect of socialism that seeks to stifle competition.
Plenty of senseless debate about "what is socialism" or what defines "progressive"
You guys are way off topic.... the question remains - What is the difference between a progressive Democrat and a Socialist.
This an entirely different question. I asked what is the difference between the philosophy and policy of these two PEOPLE that define themselves as progressives, and/or socialists.
Regurgitating definitions does not answer the question. Think people.... think!!! For instance, please elaborate how the POLICY of Obama or Hillary differs from that of Bernie? There is no difference.
Plenty of senseless debate about "what is socialism" or what defines "progressive"
You guys are way off topic.... the question remains - What is the difference between a progressive Democrat and a Socialist.
This an entirely different question. I asked what is the difference between the philosophy and policy of these two PEOPLE that define themselves as progressives, and/or socialists.
Regurgitating definitions does not answer the question. Think people.... think!!! For instance, please elaborate how the POLICY of Obama or Hillary differs from that of Bernie? There is no difference.
here's another example. solar companies sell solar panels and systems that let you derive your power from the sun. sorry if i lost any republicans with that introduction. anyway, you'd think that florida would be a perfect state for this kind of business to flourish. people can buy solar systems from private companies, get their power from the sun and not have to deal with utility companies. that sounds progressive to me and good for competition.
of course, in florida, there are very old laws in place that prevent this from happening and virtually give the utility companies a monopoly over regional power**.
** Related: the utility companies have given more than $10 million to florida's republican governor and republican run state legislature.
again, the only relationship i see with socialism is these are anti-competition policies whoich are not progressive but are consistent with the aspect of socialism that seeks to stifle competition.
Same as down here in AZ.
About 3 yrs ago the corporate commission changed from a clean energy pro-solar to pro-business/anti solar and since then the large energy providers have pretty much destroyed the residential solar incentives and even added a layer of additional new costs if you want to install grid-tie solar, yet kept things going for business customers.
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
here's another example. solar companies sell solar panels and systems that let you derive your power from the sun. sorry if i lost any republicans with that introduction. anyway, you'd think that florida would be a perfect state for this kind of business to flourish. people can buy solar systems from private companies, get their power from the sun and not have to deal with utility companies. that sounds progressive to me and good for competition.
of course, in florida, there are very old laws in place that prevent this from happening and virtually give the utility companies a monopoly over regional power**.
** Related: the utility companies have given more than $10 million to florida's republican governor and republican run state legislature.
again, the only relationship i see with socialism is these are anti-competition policies whoich are not progressive but are consistent with the aspect of socialism that seeks to stifle competition.
Same as down here in AZ.
About 3 yrs ago the corporate commission changed from a clean energy pro-solar to pro-business/anti solar and since then the large energy providers have pretty much destroyed the residential solar incentives and even added a layer of additional new costs if you want to install grid-tie solar, yet kept things going for business customers.
About 3 yrs ago the officials that listen to their constiuents rather than special interests changed from a tax subsidized pro-solar to far more practical and affordable policy and since then the large energy providers have pretty much competed very favorably in a competitive environment vs solar incentives and even replaced the public cost of layer of install grid-tie solar, all the while providing uninterrupted service to both business and residential customers.
I fixed it - you are welcome
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Same as down here in AZ.
About 3 yrs ago the officials that listen to their constiuents rather than special interests changed from a tax subsidized pro-solar to far more practical and affordable policy and since then the large energy providers have pretty much competed very favorably in a competitive environment vs solar incentives and even replaced the public cost of layer of install grid-tie solar, all the while providing uninterrupted service to both business and residential customers.
So only on the DEM side are there special interests.
You are misinformed of course. In Arizona, solar customers are not soaking anyone, but you knew that already right?
Unlike in most other states, the crooks already had several layers of thievery in place prior to the change in the corporate commission..such as-
-Year end settlement of accrual at the end of April, which eliminates any real benefit to the residential solar customer, rates for summer usage change starting May 1. So if someone has an outsized system and wanted to carry over a balance into the higher cost summer months, this cheap trick eliminates that possibility.
-Year end settlement is based on WHOLESALE rates only, that means SRP and APS pays any residual balance to the sum of .04 per Kwh, and if you look at the rate schedule for both providers, the LOWEST rate category is .07, so at the very very minimal least, these utilities make a double off solar consumers, and if the energy is created during higher cost time periods, the profit could be in the 8-10X range.
Spare me the grid nonsense, the grid is not owned by anyone, the grid is a media based excuse by utilities to try and turn the public against those nasty mean residential solar customers.
The "cost" of the grid is more than made up by the profit utilities make off selling the margin between wholesale and retail.
Better make sure you are prepared before you engage with me, I know you love being mad at the injustices put on you from me.
LOL
So only on the DEM side are there special interests.
You are misinformed of course. In Arizona, solar customers are not soaking anyone, but you knew that already right?
Unlike in most other states, the crooks already had several layers of thievery in place prior to the change in the corporate commission..such as-
-Year end settlement of accrual at the end of April, which eliminates any real benefit to the residential solar customer, rates for summer usage change starting May 1. So if someone has an outsized system and wanted to carry over a balance into the higher cost summer months, this cheap trick eliminates that possibility.
-Year end settlement is based on WHOLESALE rates only, that means SRP and APS pays any residual balance to the sum of .04 per Kwh, and if you look at the rate schedule for both providers, the LOWEST rate category is .07, so at the very very minimal least, these utilities make a double off solar consumers, and if the energy is created during higher cost time periods, the profit could be in the 8-10X range.
Spare me the grid nonsense, the grid is not owned by anyone, the grid is a media based excuse by utilities to try and turn the public against those nasty mean residential solar customers.
The "cost" of the grid is more than made up by the profit utilities make off selling the margin between wholesale and retail.
Better make sure you are prepared before you engage with me, I know you love being mad at the injustices put on you from me.
Plenty of senseless debate about "what is socialism" or what defines "progressive"
You guys are way off topic.... the question remains - What is the difference between a progressive Democrat and a Socialist.
This an entirely different question. I asked what is the difference between the philosophy and policy of these two PEOPLE that define themselves as progressives, and/or socialists.
Regurgitating definitions does not answer the question. Think people.... think!!! For instance, please elaborate how the POLICY of Obama or Hillary differs from that of Bernie? There is no difference.
How are you supposed to distinguish the difference between two things if you can't accurately define what those two things are?
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
Plenty of senseless debate about "what is socialism" or what defines "progressive"
You guys are way off topic.... the question remains - What is the difference between a progressive Democrat and a Socialist.
This an entirely different question. I asked what is the difference between the philosophy and policy of these two PEOPLE that define themselves as progressives, and/or socialists.
Regurgitating definitions does not answer the question. Think people.... think!!! For instance, please elaborate how the POLICY of Obama or Hillary differs from that of Bernie? There is no difference.
How are you supposed to distinguish the difference between two things if you can't accurately define what those two things are?
I'm on your side SportsFan. These people chiming in need to run for President because the person they are going to support sure as hell can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.
I'm on your side SportsFan. These people chiming in need to run for President because the person they are going to support sure as hell can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.
Hot Forum Topics
