Well, Now It’s Out In The Open….

[The Duke]

This is classic deflection + bait. The goal is to shift attention away from my criticism of your methods and pivot to my political identity, so you can either discredit my position based on who I voted for, or didn't vote for, and dodge having to defend the actual content of your post.

No defense of your actual claim.
No rebuttal of the pattern I exposed.
Just an immediate pivot to "who did you vote for?"

This is a propaganda technique. Shift from the claim to the person. It's not an answer; it's a distraction. You’re not here to discuss in good faith. You’re here to disqualify voices so you don’t have to address the argument.

So let’s bring it back...

Which part of your original claim are you willing to stand by under scrutiny, without asking who I voted for?

Who's the president of The United States?

 

[Anomalism]

Liar.

Get lost.

More gaslighting? Anybody that reads the thread can see the truth.

But okay. I will once again copy and paste my response that you never actually responded to. You will once again demonstrate to the forum that you have nothing beneath the rhetoric. You will name call, deflect, bring up the Cold War, but never actually respond to my post. Ready?

-----

You’re not presenting facts. You’re presenting ideology masquerading as fact, and the more important question is why do you need the enemy to be that evil to justify your position?

1. “Most of us remember when Democrats denied being socialist/communist.”

Mainstream Democrats support mixed-market capitalism, not state ownership of all production. Words like “communist” are used here not as accurate descriptions, but as weapons, a way to paint your opponents as inherently un-American. That’s Cold War cosplay, not policy analysis.

2. “Progressives share sympathies with communists.”

Sharing some values, like wanting a safety net or worker protections, doesn’t make someone a communist. By that logic, Dwight Eisenhower, who expanded Social Security and built the interstate highway system, was a Marxist. This “guilt by adjacency” tactic is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. Kengor’s quote is propaganda, not scholarship. Saying “dupes” doesn’t prove people are dupes. It just assumes your worldview is the only valid one.

3. “Communist Bernie got more votes than Hillary in 2020 and had it stolen.”

She wasn’t even running in 2020, and in 2016, she won both the popular vote and the delegate count. If your narrative needs fiction to work, that should tell you something. Also, Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a communist. There’s a massive difference, and you know it. You just don’t care, because precision gets in the way of fear.

4. “Only one Democrat voter said they’d reconsider depending on the agenda.”

That’s not data, it’s anecdote, and if you think your thread proves all Democrats are communists because one anonymous person didn’t express doubt, you’re not arguing; you’re proselytizing.

5. “Openly Marxist candidates are running and winning under the Democrat banner.”

Yes, a handful of DSA-backed candidates have won local or state elections. That doesn’t mean the party as a whole is Marxist. A few libertarian anarchists also run under the GOP. Should I say that proves Republicans are an anti-government insurgency, or do I owe them more intellectual honesty than that?

Your closer “The Democrat Party is not American.”

Here’s where the mask slips. This isn’t about policy. This is about identity, purity, and exclusion. You’re saying half the country isn’t really American if they disagree with you. That’s not patriotism. That’s factionalism taken to a dangerous place. Historically, every authoritarian movement starts by deciding who really belongs. Calling fellow Americans “comrades” as a slur tells me more about your insecurity than your argument.

If your ideology depends on demonizing tens of millions of citizens as enemies of the nation, maybe it’s not actually about loving America. Maybe it’s about fearing change, and maybe what you’re calling “truth” is just an excuse to stop listening.

 

[The Duke]

If you hate America so much and love Communism, why don’t you move to China?

What makes you think he's not already there?

 

[Lisa558]

What makes you think he's not already there?

Wow. Good point!

This forum has become the stomping ground for anti-American foreigners.

 

[Donald H]

If your ideology depends on demonizing tens of millions of citizens as enemies of the nation, maybe it’s not actually about loving America. Maybe it’s about fearing change, and maybe what you’re calling “truth” is just an excuse to stop listening.

Congrats! You've hooked in to her need for attention.
You should have first learned how to play them the way I play the Dook.

 

[The Duke]

Congrats! You've hooked in to her need for attention.
You should have first learned how to play them the way I play the Dook.

Bih...you play Deez, that's about it.

 

[postman]

…..so you no longer have to deny it.



1.Most of us are old enough to recall that claims that the Democrat Party is socialist/communist were greeted with vehement denials.

The country was founded on socialism, just read the Constitution.

socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Article I on the constitution gives our elected representatives (community as a whole) the power to regulate interstate commerce and set up post roads

So they regulate businesses (means of production) as well as roads (distribution) as inherent powers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The country was founded on socialism, just read the Constitution.

socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Article I on the constitution gives our elected representatives (community as a whole) the power to regulate interstate commerce and set up post roads

So they regulate businesses (means of production) as well as roads (distribution) as inherent powers.

socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[postman]

socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Shouldn't that be owned or regulated

As in the community as a whole, elects their representatives, who have article 1 power to regulate interstate commerce, and build post roads.
.

 

[postman]

In the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the primary power to regulate. This is primarily through the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shouldn't that be owned or regulated

As in the community as a whole, elects their representatives, who have article 1 power to regulate interstate commerce, and build post roads.
.

No, it's all about the ownership.

 

[postman]

No, it's all about the ownership.

Yet the definition says owned or REGULATED.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The country was founded on socialism, just read the Constitution.

socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Article I on the constitution gives our elected representatives (community as a whole) the power to regulate interstate commerce and set up post roads

So they regulate businesses (means of production) as well as roads (distribution) as inherent powers.

You are an imbecile.


The Constitution puts limits on government, and rights for individuals.

Socialism, communism, Nazism, the Democrats aim to empower government and control the populace.


So you're a government school grad?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shouldn't that be owned or regulated

As in the community as a whole, elects their representatives, who have article 1 power to regulate interstate commerce, and build post roads.
.

This, you imbecile, is what they didn't tell you about "regulation."


"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis …The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the primary power to regulate. This is primarily through the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Democrat bastardize "regulation" to gain control.

That's what you vote for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet the definition says owned or REGULATED.

The Founders had no problem with the idea of limited regulation.

Socialists want public ownership or, at least, massive regulation.

Trying to claim that the founders favored socialism, in any way, is stupid.

Which is why I'm not surprised you're trying it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Founders had no problem with the idea of limited regulation.

Socialists want public ownership or, at least, massive regulation.

Trying to claim that the founders favored socialism, in any way, is stupid.

Which is why I'm not surprised you're trying it.

This: in his first term.............



This is the target, Trump’s removing of regulatory ‘red tape.’ "Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal

Most regulations are, in terms of what they are alleged to do, are actually there to be bribed away by the industries that they inhibit.
The pols write them, the corporations pay lobbyists to bribe the pols to insert loopholes....
....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.
Trump is a threat to the sort of bribery that make Biden rich.



It is the major reason Trump’s economy was so successful but restricted the opportunity for politicians to demand bribes for writing ‘helpful’ regulations. So Biden, the textbook example for bribery, must eliminate the Trump policy.

 

[postman]

You are an imbecile.


The Constitution puts limits on government, and rights for individuals.

Socialism, communism, Nazism, the Democrats aim to empower government and control the populace.


So you're a government school grad?

The constitution gives government great powers, such as regulating interstate commerce and building post roads.

That effectively means they can regulate business (means of production) in the united states. (see Wickard V Filburn)

The constitution only limits government to those things it didn't clearly enumerate such as regulation of interstate commerce.

 

[postman]

This, you imbecile, is what they didn't tell you about "regulation."


"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis …The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Apparently what they didn't tell YOU about regulation, is that socialism is regulation through the peoples representatives.

 

[postman]

The Founders had no problem with the idea of limited regulation.

Then the founding fathers should have put limits on the commerce clause. Yet the clear text grants them that power without restraints or exception.