I presented my definition in another recent post. I thought that you would get what I meant but oh well. Yeah, I think he's socialist. He wants to redistribute the wealth from the rich and middle class to give to the poor via greatly increased social programs. He said he's okay with forcing people to do it.

If that's your definition of socialist, then basically everyone except for completely laissez faire liberalists are socialists lol. Nearly all tax is used to distribute some wealth from those that have to those that don't have. And tax isn't voluntary. So any politician that doesn't oppose nearly all taxes would be socialist by your definition.

At that point, I don't see why you even bother to call it "socialism" except for being able to compare it to Venezuela. Also, you didn't answer about what you thought of the Nordic countries. I'd like to hear what you have to say about them. Because judging by what your definition here they're socialistic as fuck haha. But that's just my interpretation of your opinion, so I'd like to hear how you see it yourself.

Because you know I'm right how many independent candidates have won the presidency that number is zero.  Most politicians especially on the federal level are corporate whores that do the bidding of their donors and lobbies that pay them.  

I have gave examples of his proposals in a few other posts. Ya might want to take a quick look. By redistributing the wealth from the rich (any business) and the middle class thru excessive taxation/fees/fines while increasing regulations, it would likely destroy the economy in short order. His idea of fair taxes is very different than democrats. It would likely turn out worse than Venezuela because we have a lot of guns and plenty of people who don't think of themselves as one people or as americans. 😫

Bernie wants free schooling across the board, universal heathcare, universal pay (I think that is what it's called) and other things that I can't remember. Basically, anything that makes a person dependent on government is something he wants. Just with the free school for all idea alone, even if we took all of rich people's money, it would only fund that for a few years.

Fml. Ugh. Please stop assuming the extreme or something absurd. Of course, I don't mean taxing is socialist. Taxes are normal and vital to any kind of government. Excessive taxing or seizing accounts is more what I mean.

I forgot about the Nordic question. Sorry about that. A lot of replies to make that aren't simple. I think that some of them are flirting with it or dabbling in it but they aren't socialist. It affected their economies negatively when they applied it to their markets so they don't mess with it in relation to their markets but they do plenty of socialist like social programs which is fine as long as they overburden them or cause dependecy.

People fighting over the mental stability, fitness, and overall health of another person - relatable.

I see, I disagree on those proposals being socialist since I follow the definition that socialism is the abolition of private property and worker control of the means of production. Therefore even if Sanders implements the most draconian policies imaginable, it can only be considered socialist till those two conditions are met. Which obviously is more than just redistribution of wealth and liberal social policies and programs. Naturally I don't consider social democracy like Sanders to be socialist but I don't really care to argue about semantics since I don't particularly care to challenge your definition of socialism in this case.

Again I don't think the Venezuela, Sanders comparison holds much water other than fear mongering.

Please. Republicans did nothing but whinge when Obama was in power.
Both sides are hilariously as bad as each other in that regard.

Citation needed.

ANTIFA means Anti-Fascist. And by extension wouldn't exist if Nazi-styled fascists didn't start to gain prominence.

The far right and far left are equally as bat shit crazy as each other, but also are not representative of the entire side of their political alignment.

The best place to be is right in the center where you weigh the Pro's and Con's of each sides argument and opt for the best argument for the betterment of all... Because neither the right nor the left get it right 100% of the time.

Such as Australia.
Universal Healthcare is such an amazing thing to have.
Not having to give tips is also great thanks to a high minimum wage.

Does the US of A do any of this? It happens for the low income earners/un employed here in Australia and with great success.

Very stable genius.

I never assumed you meant that taxing was socialist, I just made you aware of the huge flaw in your definition of socialism, as your definition would imply that. When your own definition leads to contradictions and absurd claims, there's something wrong with it. Since we both agree that taxing is normal and not inherently socialist, that means it's your definition of socialism (which for that matter has little to do with socialism) that isn't good enough.

But okay, you've changed your mind to "excessive taxing". How to you define "excessive" taxing? It's rather arbitrary. Some people think a 10% flat income tax is still "excessive", while some think a progressive income tax up to 45% for the highest tax bracket isn't high enough. So again, your definition isn't concise enough, because different people will have wildly different views of what your definition implies.

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic (by the real definition) concepts to their economy? Can you back up that claim? And for that matter, what makes you think Sander's wants to go further than the nordic countries, since you consider him socialist, but not nordic countries?