It would lead to that especially if funding became a serious problem and people refused to pay higher taxes or to give up properties. It likely wouldn't happen though. It depend how many things he could made into law.

You're not discussing in good faith when you're drawing extreme conclusions either because you actually think that way or you're playing games. The reason why I mentioned taxation is because that would be main way a newly socialist government would seize wealth, goods, property and businesses from a country that was capitalist originally. All you had do was ask but no, you acted like I meant taxation is socialism. 

I don't know when exactly but it's fairly easy to find. Just look for when their economies weren't doing that good... They were over regulating and taxing too much to point that it was hurting their economy. They changed their mind quickly. Like I said, they were playing with it some. I can look this up more later on, if it seems worth the trouble. An actual socialist country would try to control their market completely and tax whatever they could heavily like foreign goods.

Bernie's comments in general. He mentioned before that he would be happy if everyone had to wait in line for food everyday with tickets....

Does everyone in Europe do that? 

I did not act like that, I even specified that I don't think you mean that all taxation is socialist. I was merely trying to get you to specify, because it's hard to say anything about a concept if it's fuzzy and not specific.

I know that my own country, Norway, has a rather high degree of government regulation, and the state is a large shareholder in a lot of the biggest companies, and some services are provided by the government, like healthcare. I know that the single best thing that ever happened for the Norwegian economy was that the government decided that the oil resources in the country should belong to the entire Norwegian people, so any companies that wish to extract oil from Norway pay a 78% (!) tax on income (not revenue) from oil-extracting revenues in Norway. Of course, when these companies spend billions of  dollars searching for new wells, they don't always find suitable ones, and in those cases, that cost can also be written off and they get a tax-credit. That's an example of how Norway has applied socialistic principles to its economy with great success. Universal free healthcare and universal free education are other examples. Those still remain in place.

(Note: I do not think placing a 78% tax on oil income in the US is feasable nor would it be beneficial, but it has worked extraordinarily well in Norway.)

And I don't claim Norway is a socialist country. I just claim that Bernie Sanders isn't any more socialist than Norway is.

I checked out what Bernie Sanders said, it's some quote from the 1980s:

"You know, it's funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. In other countries, people don't line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death"

From what I could find, he said it's a good thing poor people are waiting in line to get food opposed to staying at home starving. He never said he wanted everyone to wait in line for food handouts. Just that it's better that they get food at all. And guess what? Poor people in the US already wait in line to get food. Over 40 million people in the US are part of the food stamp system. The US spends 75 billion each year to provide meals to people that are unable to provide for themselves...

To quote yourself: "You're not discussing in good faith when you're drawing extreme conclusions either because you actually think that way or you're playing games."

Clearly I'm not the only one that needs to hear that, given the way you choose to interpret Bernie's words...

Canada and the United Kingdom are considered by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) to have more economic freedom (score better on property rights, open markets, UK on business freedom) than the United States, despite both countries having the government invested in social services like healthcare and education. Why would the US turn out any differently if such policies are implemented successfully?

No, the biggest problem with a President Sanders is he would inherent a country with poor labour relations and hostile legislation that any system he would attempt to implement would likely turn out half-assed and dysfunctional.

The Democrats aren't a synonym for leftism.

Were the American Patriots fascists because they threw the tea into the harbor to protest the British?

KKK is very much right wing today.

I disagree. Trump being the prime example as he tends to be a neo-fascist sympathizer.
I am not as well versed on the American political landscape as I could be, but allot of the extreme stuff that happens over there does flow down here.

Australia has neo-nazi/fascist/white supremacist groups that have a massively huge following, thanks to their use of fear to propagate an anti-islam mentality, which simply was not a thing 10 years ago... And Trump got elected partly because of a similar platform.

Completely agree. Both should be completely shut down in the public and political sphere.
Extremists on either side are still extremists.

I mean, antifa are clearly morons, but I'd claim that they're close to being as irrelevant as the KKK, really... A couple very isolated riots, none with remotely significant losses, in the greater picture...

Actually, you can all calm down a bit. It's highly likely that no one on here is either a fascist or participated in any riots, it's unfair to judge each other based on the irrational actions of fringe offenders that somehow share some ideological ground.

This is a calm and civil discussion. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that another forum member is a fascist, participated in riots or are judging each other.

Then why are you mentioning them?