Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist

I don't think Bernie is very social... He seems to be relatively introverted if you ask me.

I think Bernie is probably a democratic socialist, because he says that tax breaks give us money, that and he is a communist sympathizer.

The American spectrum is different than much of the world because Americans have rights as a people that the government is subordinate too. Liberty is held as paramount, and then we talk. That's also why socialism is considered taboo, as a mode of thinking that undermines the fundamental principle of the nation. If someone believes that so and so should be a right, instead of so and so being a right, than that would imply that they don't understand the nations values, and they might be labeled a socialist or a leftist rather than a social democrat, this being the people who think the government needs to intervene with social programs and make life more fair or what have you.

Keep the debate out of the comment sections... LoL

Anyways Bernie Sanders is a social democrat. His only chance of surviving is running Democrat.

Simple and effective, put a smirk on my face too.

LOL! Love the round 1 response. Type 1 is famous for his off-topic rants.

The return of Type1!!!

"Well I'll start out by saying that America's very political system is right wing" Compared to China, yes. Compared to Africa, no.

"in America most people don't even know what socialism is and are only told that it is bad." Then explain why Bernie Sanders almost won against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If Hillary was a male, then Bernie would have won since many people voted for Hillary solely because she was a woman. Also, rational wiki is not a reliable source. They are biased.

"Canada may have a lower GDP, but it also has a higher standard of living" I measure Standard of living by GDP per person on average. It's numerical, which I think is easy to understand.

"California is the US state with the highest GDP and it is considered one of the most left leaning." This is because urban areas tend to have a higher GDP per capita then rural areas and California is pretty urban compared to a state like Mississippi.

"Also America regularly and continually engages in economic imperialism" Can you cite this?

"many more left leaning countries are smaller and were less developed to begin with" What caused them to be poor while America became rich? If you blame colonialism, America does not engage in colonialism much without turning the areas it conquerors into states, thereby giving them representation in the US gov. The US used to be a colony it's self. If Colonialism helped the US but somehow hurt other nations, then why would colonialism sometimes be beneficial and sometimes be hurtful?

"Many countries which right wingers point at and say "see, socialism is crap" were poor to begin with and actually improved under socialism." Venezuela did not improve under socialism. They had to go into inflation and right wing Columbia had to accept around 1 million immigrants from Venezuela that fled due to better opportunities that right wing policies generated.

Well I'll start out by saying that America's very political system is right wing and socialism is largely taboo in mainstream American politics. In many other countries socialism is actually seen as an option whereas in America most people don't even know what socialism is and are only told that it is bad.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Democratic_Party
Canada may have a lower GDP, but it also has a higher standard of living. California is the US state with the highest GDP and it is considered one of the most left leaning. Also America regularly and continually engages in economic imperialism which is where much of it's resources come from, not only that but many more left leaning countries are smaller and were less developed to begin with so comparing them with America is not a good way to determine if socialistic systems can work in general. Many countries which right wingers point at and say "see, socialism is crap" were poor to begin with and actually improved under socialism.
Technocracy is the idea that politics in general is inadequate in addressing the socio-economic needs of mankind and that all things, including society are based in technical/materialistic realities. Society is governed by methodology in technocracy and decisions are "arrived at" or extrapolated rather than "made" by individuals.

"Our "left" is actually closer to centrists by universal standards." Can you cite this from someplace reliable?

"That being said, you've never experienced real left wing government and are gravely mistaken about it's true nature." Other people have. Canada is a left wing country and their GDP per capita is about 80% that of the US. Quebec is much more left then the rest of Canada and their GDP per capita is about 60% of relatively Capitalist USA.

"technocracy" What is technocracy?

No, a dem-soc is a Socialist, a soc-dem wants a mixed economy. In America things don't mean the same thing as they do elsewhere. Our "left" is actually closer to centrists by universal standards. That being said, you've never experienced real left wing government and are gravely mistaken about it's true nature. Obama was the closest thing you've had and he is center-left.
Socialism is a blanket term for anything that is on the far left, social democracy is in between capitalism and socialism. Communism was always a form of socialism, but all socialists are not communists. Democratic socialism is seen by marxists as a step towards communism while some see that as the goal in itself. I am something which is not well known but technically socialistic so I just call myself a socialist. It is basically a mixture between communism and technocracy, it's called a Resource Based Economy.

"A dem-soc on the other hand is a full on socialist who is totally against capitalism." Didn't a Dem-Soc use to be the definition that you described for a social democrat? But then they changed it because people realized that it failed?

Why does the economic left constantly change names when their policies fail? First, they pick communism as their title. Next, Socialism. Next, Democratic Socialism. Now, Social Democracy. What's next?

A social democrat generally wants a controlled market with strong regulations on large corporations, more social programs and more democracy. They are like democrats except they take a top-down reformist approach to bringing things farther left. A dem-soc on the other hand is a full on socialist who is totally against capitalism. They want to straight up collectivize the means of production and many of them are Marxists.

What is the difference?

Yeah, you're not wrong, they would. A president can't do that, he was a pointless filler candidate that people had flase hope in. I support Hillary all along but I genuinely wouldn't have likes a Bernie win less than this Gold haired maniac.

Maybe you're right about that but he is a reformist in terms of his platform. A dem-soc would want to bring America down and change the whole system from the ground up.

At heart or on his 2016 platform? I agree that he is borderline both and more so soc-dem in his manifesto but at heart, he's hardcore dem-soc.