This is an appeal to emotions and feelings.
You posted not a single cited fact in your entire post.
The 2024 Democratic presidential candidate literally campaigned on taking over big businesses and running them as part of the government.
No she did not. That is why you did not post a link.
Why let businesses "rape and pillage America" when the government can do a much better job of it, right?
An emotional response to the fact that the only version of capitalism that works is a highly regulated system to keep it competitve and to protect workers and consumers. In no version of successful capitalism does a total free market, one allowed to do bad things, is a good outcome.
Democrats recently flaunted the law by opening our borders to millions (10's of millions) of people from other countries. Slave labor at best, drug traffickers and terrorists at worst. [just a small example, one of many]
There are and never were OPEN BORDERS dipshit. We are in a political debate as to whether to honor immigration law and process asylum requests, or to ignore immigration law and refuse to honor immigration law. The GOP can end asylum by passing a law. Instead they are ignoring the law. Obama deported more immigrants that Trump ever did AND Trump's deportations are way behing Bidens:
- Biden (FY2024): about 271,000 ICE removals in his last full fiscal year, or roughly 742 per day.
- Trump (early 2025): TRAC found Trump’s early second-term pace was about 661 removals per day, which was ~11% lower than Biden’s FY2024 daily average.
A communist regime typically exhibits these characteristics:
1. State run media
[Biden created a "ministry of truth" to regulate media, and it has been well documented they used the FBI and other federal agencies to limit free speech on several social media platforms]
Ridiculous. There is no evidence that Biden's regime squashed free speech. Meanwhile Trump has put in an FCC chairman who has threatened to shut down businesses that own news organizations that show Trump in real light.
A few (6) of the clearest examples are cases where the FCC (under Brendan Carr) used its regulatory leverage over broadcast licenses, mergers, or funding to pressure companies that own news outlets critical of Trump.
1. Threatening ABC/Disney’s broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel criticized Trump
This is the clearest and most obvious example.
After Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump and Melania on ABC, Trump publicly demanded ABC fire him. Within days, the FCC accelerated review of Disney’s ABC station licenses years ahead of schedule — a move critics called “nearly unprecedented.”
Why it matters:
- Broadcast licenses are one of the FCC’s biggest pressure points.
- The licenses were not up for review until 2028–2031.
- Moving them up immediately after White House outrage created an obvious threat signal to Disney/ABC: criticism of Trump could trigger regulatory pain.
Even FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called it a First Amendment violation and politically motivated retaliation.
2. Using the FCC’s Paramount–Skydance merger approval to pressure CBS / 60 Minutes
This is the most consequential example.
The FCC had to approve the Paramount–Skydance merger, which gave the government major leverage over CBS’s parent company. At the same time:
- Trump sued CBS / 60 Minutes over its Kamala Harris interview.
- FCC Chair Carr revived and amplified “news distortion” complaints against CBS.
- Carr explicitly said the complaint could factor into the merger review.
That created a clear pressure structure:
- punish CBS editorially,
- hold up the merger,
- force concessions.
The fallout was hard to miss:
- 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned, saying he had lost editorial independence.
- CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also resigned.
- Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit for $16 million while admitting no wrongdoing.
This is one of the starkest examples because the FCC didn’t need to win a censorship case — it only needed to make corporate ownership fear regulatory delay.
3. Reviving investigations into ABC, NBC, and CBS — but not Fox
Shortly after taking office, Carr reopened or revived complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS over alleged bias, while notably not targeting Fox.
That asymmetry is the point.
The issue was not neutral content regulation; it was selective scrutiny aimed at outlets critical of Trump, while exempting the network most favorable to him.
That kind of selective enforcement is exactly what raises First Amendment concerns:
- not banning criticism outright,
- but making criticism expensive and legally risky for disfavored outlets.
4. Investigating Comcast (NBC parent) after criticism of Trump
Carr also opened investigations into Comcast, parent of NBC News, officially framed around DEI and public-interest obligations.
Formally, these were not “content” cases.
Practically, critics argue they functioned the same way:
- target the corporate parent,
- create regulatory exposure,
- pressure the newsroom downstream.
That is the pattern: don’t censor the anchor directly — threaten the company that owns the microphone.
5. Threatening NPR and PBS through funding and FCC scrutiny
Carr also targeted NPR and PBS by:
- opening FCC inquiries into underwriting practices,
- urging Congress to cut funding,
- and helping build the case for later federal defunding.
Again, the mechanism matters:
- not “you can’t say this,”
- but “we can investigate you, strip support, and make your model harder to survive.”
That is still speech pressure... just through financial coercion instead of direct censorship.
6. Public threats to revoke licenses for unfavorable coverage
Carr publicly floated using the FCC to discipline broadcasters for failing to operate in the “public interest,” including suggesting CBS’s license could be at risk.
That matters because “public interest” is broad and subjective enough to become a political weapon if used selectively.
The chilling effect is obvious:
- you do not need to actually revoke the license,
- you only need every media executive to believe you might try.
That alone can change editorial behavior.
2. State run elections
[universal mailed ballots handled by a federal agency with a political agenda (USPS), NGO/federally controlled voter rolls, NGO/fedrally controlled tabulators...]
Entire nonsense.That is why you didnt cite anything.
3. State owned businesses
["Affordable Health Care" basically put the whole industry under the control of the federal government; Harris campaigned on the idea of taking control of big business; Agriculture is dominated by State and Federal control and policy; All technology is regulated; ...what industry isn't under control of State or Federal government?]
The state doesnt own businesses. You are conflating regulations to protect competition and consumers with ownership. That is an intellectually lazy argument because there are not examples of communism pushed by democrats or implemented by US government. Face it all you have is an emotional temper tantrum.
4. Implementation of a social class structure
[The encouragement of illegal immigration creates a 2nd class citezenry without full rights; Democratic party has adopted and implemented "Equity" based ideology which is fundamentally the same ideology that enabled slavery and abandonment of Equal treatment under the law]
Again the enitre debate on immigration is whether to honor immigration law to process asylum claims or not. That's it. Democrats support secure borders. The only point of contention is asylum cliams. That's it.
I know, I know. The trajectory is well established in history: First, tax the rich men and redistribute wealth. Then, hang the rich men and intellectuals that dare point out the flaws with the plan.
Dude. I am very well off. I am a corporate C-suite executive. My compensation is generally 7 figures including bonus. I pay $200-350k in taxes to just the federal government every year. Look below. People like me have all the money. There is no money to tax in the bottom. People like you.. likely making under $100k per year are scared shitless to tax people like me because you think that somehow you will make it big like me... you wont.. .and you''l have to pay more taxes.. News flash.. when you make my money you dont give a shit if the tax rate is 24% or 27% or 35%... you have a ton of money either way.
www.kxly.com
leavingmaga.org
