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.

You should definitely always give tips anyway, if you're feeling you had a good service.

On the mentally stable thing...I guess most of us agree that Bernie would have been the most mentally stable option.

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.

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?

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.

I tried to give a summarized explanation of it for the sake of expediency but you're either not getting what I wrote so far or you're not being reasonable in what you think I mean with something. 

I go by the normal definition of socialism but I also account for how it might translate into policy. Like how you would change the us into a socialist country over time. I didn't go into the whole thing or touch the surface but what I did mention a bit on, you're jumping to the extreme conclusion on or assuming the worse. To be honest, that's getting on my nerves because it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone when they're doing that shit and I don't think you're gonna stop.

I know what they say they are but that doesn't mean that's what they are or they fighting against actual fascism. There was no fascists in the us for them to bash except for the imaginary kind. 

I was talking about the actual redistribution of wealth and not minor taxation/social safety nets.

Fascists have always existed in the USA in some capacity.

Ku Klux Klan has existed since the 1860's
American Nazi Party has existed since the 50's.
Aryan Nations has existed since the 70's.
National Alliance has existed since the 70's.
National Socialist Movement has been around since the 70's.
American Front has existed since the 80's.
Stormfront has existed since the 90's.

There has been a massive political shift to the right during the last 10 or so years the world over, which has allowed for fascists/neo-nazi's groups to gain prominence in the political landscape, they are still a minority of course, but they are growing.

The United Patriots Front being a prime example in Australia, who was backed by fascists like Pauline Hanson, Reclaim Australia and so on. - They disguise themselves as "Patriots". - Despite the fact they wish to alter the Constitution that this country was founded on, propagate racism, sexism and homophobia... Conversely, it wasn't until those groups started to gain prominence in the political sphere did their opponents also start to rise up.

Don't get me wrong, I despise both sides equally as much. ANTIFA resorting to violence is immature and stupid and ultimately solves nothing.
The Neo Nazi's they fight back against are fucking idiots.