The only problem with this statement is you've only picked the worst examples of socialist countries.

And the best examples are...........

Do you really not know of other countries that are already somewhat socialist?
Isn't Social Security somewhat socialist?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Are you in favor of investments?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The only problem with this statement is you've only picked the worst examples of socialist countries.

And the best examples are...........

Sweden and Canada

The only problem with this statement is you've only picked the worst examples of socialist countries.

And the best examples are...........

Sweden and Canada

Australia and New Zealand

so•cial•ism (sōˈshə-lĭzˌəm)►

n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
n.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So you are stating that the businesses and factories and income derived from occupations in Sweden and Canada are the property of their government to distribute as those respective governments see fit rather than belonging to each of those persons, individually, whose efforts actually produced the product or generated the wealth?

Just asking for clarification.

Australia and New Zealand

Ditto

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

There are varying degrees of socialism. Canada has socialized medicine and per capita gets better results than this country. The bottom 90% much so, the top 10% not so much.

---

...worst examples...

And The 'Only' 'Problem' wif Da GOoD ole U S o A, is Dat, We Da People make Ourselves Da Worst Example of Any System.

What Ever We The People Turn To, 'We' Will Be, The WORST EXAMPLE.

I'd Have As Prez, A 'Person' who During The 'Process' 'is' Attacked MOST Viciously, MOST Often. 'Is'. Humiliated MOST Visciously, MOST Often. 'Is' Hated MOST, Talked about MOST Negatively, Ganged-Up On MOST Often, By EVERYBODY, and recieves, during this 'Process', Da MOST Votes, MOST Delegates, Going Through Da MOST Hell.

Dat Would Be: Your New Prez, DonDaManFrankenstein wif Da Shiny RED BUTTONS.

Yap.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

so•cial•ism (sōˈshə-lĭzˌəm)►

n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
n.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So you are stating that the businesses and factories and income derived from occupations in Sweden and Canada are the property of their government to distribute as those respective governments see fit rather than belonging to each of those persons, individually, whose efforts actually produced the product or generated the wealth?

Just asking for clarification.

Australia and New Zealand

Ditto

They all have socialized health care. If you are using "socialism" and "socialist" in the restrictive manner suggested by the definition you posted, then I wonder which mainstream US party or politician do you believe supports it? Who are the "left" that support this form of socialism?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Who are the "left" that support this form of socialism?

Bolshevik Bernie comes most immediately to mind. And that is not a restrictive definition. And I will not argue degrees or semantics. The countries I listed adhere to the Socialist definition I put forth and are almost destitute(the people not the leaders who live very well). And while Bernie is allowed to spout his drivel without interruption under the 1st Amendment, the same right is not accorded to Trump.

I'm not a Trump acolyte and disagree with his tactics (but do agree with his ideas in general), but I don't trust Kasich or Cruz to create enough reform where it's needed. I will support however any conservative against the encroachment of liberal usurpation of my Constitutional Rights as written.

Crony Liberalism or Crony Socialism are as bad as Crony Capitalism because of the Cronies. China and Russia tried living up to the 'restrictive definition' and had to re-think their policies when they couldn't squeeze any more blood from the stone to pay for their programs. The laughable spectacles they call 'free elections' only demonstrate the control still held by the 'dear leaders' like Putin and China's central committee.

Socialism stifles creativity. It's that simple.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Who are the "left" that support this form of socialism?

Bolshevik Bernie comes most immediately to mind. And that is not a restrictive definition. And I will not argue degrees or semantics. The countries I listed adhere to the Socialist definition I put forth and are almost destitute(the people not the leaders who live very well). And while Bernie is allowed to spout his drivel without interruption under the 1st Amendment, the same right is not accorded to Trump.

I'm not a Trump acolyte and disagree with his tactics (but do agree with his ideas in general), but I don't trust Kasich or Cruz to create enough reform where it's needed. I will support however any conservative against the encroachment of liberal usurpation of my Constitutional Rights as written.

Crony Liberalism or Crony Socialism are as bad as Crony Capitalism because of the Cronies. China and Russia tried living up to the 'restrictive definition' and had to re-think their policies when they couldn't squeeze any more blood from the stone to pay for their programs. The laughable spectacles they call 'free elections' only demonstrate the control still held by the 'dear leaders' like Putin and China's central committee.

Socialism stifles creativity. It's that simple.

Bernie isn't a Socialist, he is a social democrat. There is a big difference.

Which you should go and study, rather than posting your beliefs.

At the moment you fall into one of two categories either uninformed or misinformed.

Which you should go and study, rather than posting your beliefs.

And there we are with the usual leftist BS tactic of stifling free speech when they disagree.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Which you should go and study, rather than posting your beliefs.

And there we are with the usual leftist BS tactic of stifling free speech when they disagree.

I disagree because you are wrong.
Bernie is not proposing socialism as per the definition you posted.

He wants some more like the Canadian system. Which I think you will agree is not a socialist state, or you would be calling for a wall along the 49th parallel to keep the commies out.

<ring announcer voice>
It is time for tonight's main event ...

In the red corner hailing from Queens and wearing the bad comb over trimmed with birther we have Donald "RECTAL CRANIAL INVERSION" Trrrrrump!

In the blue corner hailing from Chicago wearing the whitewater trimmed with Benghazi we have Hillary "THE SHRILL BITCH" Cliiiinton!

Referee for tonight's match is Megyn "bloodbath" Kelly. Judging the match are the Electoral College.

He wants some more like the Canadian system. Which I think you will agree is not a socialist state

Comrade Sanders proposes 'Free' college education for all, the 'Free' meaning paid for by the Government, meaning paid for by the people through taxation (at an already un-sustainable level).

Does the Bernie 'Socialist/Democrat' model from Canada contain 'Free College'?
From CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/university-tuition-rising-to-record-levels-in-canada-1.1699103

"The cost of a university degree in Canada is getting steeper, with tuition and other compulsory fees expected to have about tripled from 1990 to 2017, and students in Ontario are paying most, according to research by a policy think-tank.

Average fees, in current dollars, have increased from $1,464 in 1990-91 to $6,348 in 2012-13, and they are expected to climb to $7,437 in 2016-17. This fall, they are predicted to be $6,610, according to a report released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Adjusted for inflation, fees across the country were $2,243 in 1990-91, and are predicted to rise to $6,842 in 2016-17, according to the centre."

So when the Government is footing the bill the cost of a degree will soar even more as Universities increase tuition. Why, because they can. And then every grubby politician's hand will also be in the till along with tenured scholars continuing to non-educate the precious minds in their care in the basic skills required to exist in today's Society. Preferring instead to instill the false belief that 'Uncle Sugar' will provide.........until he runs out of other peoples money.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

He wants some more like the Canadian system. Which I think you will agree is not a socialist state

Comrade Sanders proposes 'Free' college education for all, the 'Free' meaning paid for by the Government, meaning paid for by the people through taxation (at an already nu-sustainable level).

Sounds very much like Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California, it wasn't quite free, but $5.00 a semester. California was great then. That was before Howard Jarvis and his mess.

---

California was great then.

And touch and go with Bankruptcy now.......I rest my case.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

He wants some more like the Canadian system. Which I think you will agree is not a socialist state

Comrade Sanders proposes 'Free' college education for all, the 'Free' meaning paid for by the Government, meaning paid for by the people through taxation (at an already nu-sustainable level).

Does the Bernie 'Socialist/Democrat' model from Canada contain 'Free College'?
From CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/university-tuition-rising-to-record-levels-in-canada-1.1699103

"The cost of a university degree in Canada is getting steeper, with tuition and other compulsory fees expected to have about tripled from 1990 to 2017, and students in Ontario are paying most, according to research by a policy think-tank.

Average fees, in current dollars, have increased from $1,464 in 1990-91 to $6,348 in 2012-13, and they are expected to climb to $7,437 in 2016-17. This fall, they are predicted to be $6,610, according to a report released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Adjusted for inflation, fees across the country were $2,243 in 1990-91, and are predicted to rise to $6,842 in 2016-17, according to the centre."

So when the Government is footing the bill the cost of a degree will soar even more as Universities increase tuition. Why, because they can. And then every grubby politician's hand will also be in the till along with tenured scholars continuing to non-educate the precious minds in their care in the basic skills required to exist in today's Society. Preferring instead to instill the false belief that 'Uncle Sugar' will provide.........until he runs out of other peoples money.

Why are countries like Japan and Taiwan rich?

They have no, or at least very few, natural resources to cover their costs. The answer is education, the more you educate the people the less reliant they and those close to them on state benefits.

Therefore it is in a countries interest to educate the people as much as it is required to understand and use the present day technology. And with science and technology advancing so fast, these days, there is even a requirement to supplement throughout a persons working lifespan.

One of the reasons Donald's core of supporters is unhappy is because they have lost their blue collar jobs and either do not have the education, or have not been given further education and training, so that they can enter the present day employment market.

Why are countries like Japan and Taiwan rich?

They have no, or at least very few, natural resources to cover their costs. The answer is education, the more you educate the people the less reliant they and those close to them on state benefits.

Therefore it is in a countries interest to educate the people as much as it is required to understand and use the present day technology. And with science and technology advancing so fast, these days, there is even a requirement to supplement throughout a persons working lifespan.

One of the reasons Donald's core of supporters is unhappy is because they have lost their blue collar jobs and either do not have the education, or have not been given further education and training, so that they can enter the present day employment market.

I could not agree more! But those countries do not pay for useless degrees in "Internecine Studies"(imaginary example, I hope} or other non-productive wastes of intelligence. If those are the desires of the student, the student should pick up the bill. Scholarships should be established for QUALIFIED fields of study(STEM), possibly paid by the Corporations who will employ these graduates, not by taxing them to death as Commissar Sanders would do.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

If those are the desires of the student, the student should pick up the bill. Scholarships should be established for QUALIFIED fields of study(STEM),

Isn't this a dangerous statement to make? Who decides what is qualified? And what makes a field of study more qualified than others given that most scientific discoveries are from accidental experiments?

possibly paid by the Corporations who will employ these graduates, not by taxing them to death as Commissar Sanders would do.

Wouldn't this A) give a huge advantage to large mega-corporations to consistently attract (or buy, depending on your view) more educated talent than startups, thus continuing a cycle of the rich getting richer because they own all the talent? And B) create a capitalist form of indentured servitude or paving the way to a form of legal slavery?