A socialist would have nationalized successful industries, not bailed out failing ones. A socialist would have mandated government provided health care, not forced people to buy insurance from private corporations.
A socialist does both of those but for different reasons. Mandating and forcing are synonymous with initiating aggression, so neither option is nice.
Oh, okay, I get it now. Any vaguely liberal policy is an example of socialism. By this logic, Reagan granting amnesty to three million illegal immigrants in the '80s must make him a super duper Marxist-Leninist.
Glad to see you're catching on. However, Reagan granting amnesty to immigrants is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, so while it may not be socialist per se, it was a violation of his oath of office. He lives in the Executive branch of government not the Legislative (read Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3). My personal opinion is that nobody should grant access to other people's property if it isn't theirs. Tragedy of the commons issue again.
Take this theory to literally any political science or history professor in the world and see what he says. But I guess they're part of the ivory tower socialist conspiracy as well. Personally, I only trust former morning zoo DJs on matters of this importance.
Why should anybody trust a political science professor? Most of them are supported by the state. That would be called legal plunder. Nothing conspiratorial really, just your regular vanilla theft disguised as legal "higher education". None of them are going to risk their jobs, pensions, or tenure to tell the truth. No need to consult a DJ, just follow the proverbial bread crumbs. It's a who dunnit mystery a 13 yr old could follow.
Even if you're dumb enough to believe all of that, the fact that real socialists hate Obama even more then you do should probably tell you something. Unfortunately it does not.
Perhaps there is no honor among thieves?