You can find my elaboration in my post. I thought long and hard before writing it and I went into a good amount of detail regarding my rationale.
Why don’t you elaborate? I have yet to see you make a cogent point related to my post. I’m interested in what you have to say and would appreciate some back and forth exchange instead of a Freudian approach to conversation.
BTW, I will elaborate on my previous post as to why on what I think a little a later, when I arrive at the office in a few hours.
LOL- DARPA started the internet, not John Kerry.
Or you mean Al Gore! 
Progressives, like socialists see freedom as subservient to policy, and prosperity subservient to power. Conservatives see power as subservient to freedom, and policy subservient to prosperity.
Under Socialism Terror (Communism) you own nothing, you have no protection of your safety, you agree with the government you despise out of a rational fear.
Under Socialism Smiley Face (what Dems imagine Scandinavia to be) you have free, reasonably good medical care, free limited college education (if your scores allow) and confiscatory taxation.
Under Democratic Socialism (Bernzone) you have tax rates that climb into confiscatory within two to three years as it is clear the ‘free’ stuff requires a magnitude higher revenues. You have, as an individual, fewer rights, your free speech is constrained ever more by new ‘speech codes’ or ‘hate speech laws’. Healthcare is sort of free, and mediocre at best; the top level operators (specialists, surgeons) leave due to financial pressure, and the lack of innovation going forward. Education becomes all about egalitarianism, and utterly without challenge (teachers protection from firing will be even stronger).
I think socially progressivism is superior and fiscally conservatism is. The problem however is that we have plenty of social progressivism, but we have NO fiscal conservatism…shrug.
Im thinking you haven’t read his platform.
I am thinking you are overly presumptuous to make such claims!
In my humble opinion, this entire thread should be moved to the Political Science category.
It has nothing to do with US News and very little to do with the daily antics of our government (all three branches). It concerns what we think of Progressivism and Conservatism…two isms that should be compared to other isms such as:
Both Progressivism and Conservatism share a few tenets of the other isms, with exception maybe of Anarchism.
While Progressivism is not listed, it is simply a euphemism for Liberalism conjured up by the liberals when the very word liberal came to be semi-derogatory moniker.
Being “progressive” sounds so much more innocent and indeed admirable. Progress toward what? Social and Communism?
With today’s young newly elected Squad and Independent Bernie Sanders (honeymooned in the Soviet Union), the liberals are drifting more to the left than ever.
Free EVERYTHING for everybody; redistribution of wealth via insane tax rates and insane welfare giveaways; single payer (government control of) health care; wealth tax and inheritance tax (both of which they will finagle a way to be immune from); abolishment of the Electoral College; confiscation of firearms; and eventual total government control of everything with only the political elite being allowed to be rich.
In other words, a communist dictatorship.
Progressivism is exactly what we do NOT need.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals are sick people and they are not in the least bit aware that their policies will ruin the nation.
Done! I think when this was created the category was not available at the time, however I could be mistaken about that!
I think you are correct. (except only one “at the time” was necessary…) 
Its morning here, and I have not had my first cup of coffee yet!
Try to stay on topic please. 