Retro or any other history major can correct me on this, but one of the main difference between Hilary (reform or progressive liberal), and Bernie Sanders (social democrat), is that:

Reform/Progressive Liberalism: Revolves around the idea of "equality of opportunities", where instead of the top 1% controlling the 99% of the opportunities, per se, everyone in one country will have access to these opportunities, such as health care, education and such. The problem with this saying of "equal opportunities" is that even though everyone has access to these opportunities, only the rich and wealthy can enjoy these opportunities because they have better means of obtaining them, such as a reduced cost in medicine which may cost only $50 to them, but to the lower income people who have no stable source of income, will think $50 is still very expensive. So even though both economic division will have the same access to the same thing, one with the better leverage will often and most likely enjoy and benefit from these opportunities better than the ones that don't have these means.

Social Democracy: revolves around the idea of "equality of conditions", where it takes the same principle of reform liberalism, but instead of giving equal access to these people, they're given equal conditions instead. So for example, the government takes have $100 from the 1%, and 10 people to give it to, "equality of conditions" will mean that 10 people will get equal $10 each, as oppose to what a reform liberalism, or even classical liberalism and capitalism in general. The problem with this is that even though everyone has been granted equal conditions to all the people, it's necessarily not a good thing if we look at it on a bigger picture. Some reasons are practicalilty and ethics. For example, a druggie, and a lazy bum who does nothing but complain all day in his mother's basement, will have the same amount, or shall I say same worth of conditions and access to health care, education, and other grants as someone who's working 60-80 hours a week, living paycheck to paycheck and working so hard just to get by.

Plus, social democracy could be devastating to the economy, seeing as USA is the most powerful country, and social democracy believes in the ultimate collapse of capitalism which leads to a classless, governless society where inequality doesn't exist.

Capitalism is bad during the Industrial Revolution, when Classic Liberalism arose in protest to the ever growing monarchy rule and the growing division between the rich and the poor, because of the reason that back then, capitalism is unregulated - which means all the capitalists, business owners, and the wealthy can STILL have unregulated operations with their businesses, which made them even richer, so this created a loophole that the rich can exploit and become richer from it.

But during the reform liberalism revolution, capitalism has been started to be regulated, which means capitalists can still carry on with business, but under certain regulations.

Bernie Sanders, however, much like Karl Max and other socialists out there believes that capitalism shall be demolished, because they have this preconceived notion that capitalism is evil, and destroys the equality of people.

But, if capitalism is abolished, this will lead to a classless society, meaning communism.

However, communism isn't necessarily a bad thing as China has done very well with a communist government.

I think that's pretty much a nutshell version, though I think there's more specifics when you get down to it. I'm also not sure if Sanders is that radical; I believe there is something of a balance between Pure Socialism + Capitalism where there's still private ownership but the government controls things like heatlhcare and education (which is where Sanders falls, though close to pure socialism no doubt)

I absolutely fall on "equality of opportunity" end

Yeah, that's just the difference in the equality department, as there are many others as well.

Bernie like any other socialists believe in the "self-sufficiency" mentality where society is valued as an organic whole, where everyone must contribute something to the rest of the community, for example "growing food for everyone to share"...

I mean I like Bernie's "family oriented" ideology, but bitch, I have my own life to take care of, and I only care about myself and the family. I'll contribute something, but I am NOT obliged and shouldn't be to do so.

QUEEN HILLARY AND HER PROGRESSIVE IDEAS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I believe in balance and one person depending on everyone else to make the world go round. Basically one has talent in being a doctor, but at the same time a doctor would have a hard time or have no patience to a do a low end customer service job. Not to mention one should appreciate the fact that a job you wouldn't want to nor can do is being done by someone else. With that in mind, balance means everyone should have the opportunity to have the same thing and same lifestyle. I believe in a more socialist lifestyle. If only humans were not self centered to where they feel like they need to be incentivesed by more money then someone else to do a specific thing.
At this point because of this idea and attitude, we need a mix of socialism and capitalism. That would be the best approach for the most fair but not fully fair life

"Equality of opportunities" is basically saying people have an equal chance to get certain opportunities, NOT every opportunity. Depending on your choices, experiences, natural talents, etc., you obviously won't have an equal opportunity as everyone else. It doesn't mean they should be left out in the lurch to suffer (there are ways to help them and I'm all for more), but society doesn't need to be reformed to ensure the druggie has equality at every single opportunity despite the choices made.

Pure socialism/communism/equality of condition is also proven not to work effectively, ditto for pure capitalism. You need a balance of the two

I agree.

I agree that everyone, needs to have the same rights to have equal access to their opportunities, but it's ultimately up to these people to decide and create their own conditions that determines how well they can attain these.

You've been given the opportunity to go to school, you can either choose to graduate or fail. That's basically it.

I'm completely against socialism because it goes against the fundamentals and principles America was built upon. You wanna live in land of the free, you need to work and work hard. Uncle Sam taught us that. You can't just be a lazy jobless scum who pops out kids like they're tic tacs and expect the same benefits as a doctor or even a Macy's clerk. There are too many people abusing America's welfare system already and this country will COLLAPSE under socialist rule. Half the country would flee

To be fair, with college debt and costs, it is very difficult for some people. I don't mind reforming the system, I think some reforms are needed, but I don't think Bernie's plans are practical for the United States based on where the country is at this moment

Of course, I think Hillary will mainly just line her pockets too. And Republican candidates scare me.

Oh yeah, no. She's not. Hillary is all but proven corrupt at this point (and apparently at a very high risk of being indicted). Her policies will basically align with what her rich friends want. That said, I think Sanders is running WAY past the balance/middle ground/moderate area and going straight to almost pure socialism, which I don't want to see either. There would definitely be more change, but I don't think all of it would be good. I also repeatedly worry about him trying to work with congress; didn't Hillary even ask him about that and Sanders responded with "We need more change!" (IE: vote in my progressive congress next)?

There are limitations, zero doubt, but they're far from being completely denied now. We still have a lot left to improve, but when you look at where we came from, we've improved massively. Change is gradual. It cannot happen overnight, and when you make it happen overnight, you end up like Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones. If you're moving in the right direction, consider it a victory, even if it's a small one

And yeah, the discussion in this thread is actually very mature and insightful so far! I'm impressed

Well enlighten me on what you think America's original principles are?? I agree that not everyone is born into equal opportunity but someone like Bernie legit scares me because I think he's way too extreme on the liberal side. I think that the money we pay our taxes with needs to go to more important things like the public education system to say the least, but I don't agree with how far left socialists are, I think the country would enter civil war if that happened. I agree with everyone saying that a mix of socialism and capitalism is the closest we'd get to "fairness" but finding the balance is gonna be the problem

Also a 90% tax on those who make 250,000 is ridiculous. Absolutely insane.

America's original principles were based in a completely different time period, nearly 250 years ago. Basic things like education and healthcare should be available to everyone, regardless of how hard they work.

The 90% tax figure is incorrect by the way.

Sanders is promising basic healthcare, public college tuition, and a $15 minimum wage. when did he promise to quote increase food stamps and let lazy people live off the government? please find me a quote.
some of these claims that he's anything like Karl Marx are completely unfounded. He has never stated that he wants the government to take ownership of the means of production. he wants to give all people (esp. the middle class) a fair playing field to start from so they have equal opportunities to improve themselves. He has said that there is an inherent problem in capitalism today but he has never been against capitalism. A social democrat supports capitalism.

Still waiting to hear how he'll do this. Public college tuition alone isn't feasible, even with a huge tax raise

Well my post was directed at the people saying that he'd just be giving handouts to the lazy.
He's said that he'd be taxing financial transactions on Wall Street. Not completely sure about the logistics. He really does need to address these legitimate concerns more openly.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were a Bernie Stan or anything. I just take every opportunity to point that out. "Tax Wall Street" is about as viable a plan as "Sell the moon to Pluto"