How to handle the Democrat equals Communist Bull Shit:

[Chasstev365]

Be it a reporter or a Republican opponent, here is what I would say;

"I'm a New Deal Democrat. I believe that capitalism is the best system, but there need to be rules in place to protect the people and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes "

"Now let me ask you: Tell me exactly what is so radical about that?"

[rampartd]

1. the proud boys will not be at our doors to discuss graduate school philosophy

but in the unlikely event that this gets past the night riders to a jury or an inquisitor.....

[TBF]

23. lol - grad school philosophy?

That is a sixth-grade description at best, and that was at my small rural school in the Midwest.

[Roy Rolling]

94. The response was about likelihood of an academic discussion with Proud Boys and MAGAts

Here is the sentence analysis for measurements of grade level.

Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 4.88
Gunning Fog Score: 8.31
Coleman-Liau Index: 7.25
SMOG Index of Text: 7.17
Automated Readability Index: 6.02
Linsear Write Formula: 20
FORCAST Readability Formula: 7.5
Average Grade Level Score: 8.73

Violent groups don’t exist for diplomacy. They talk with their fists.

[TBF]

95. The point was the content, not the reading level. nt

[enigmania]

103. But only in groups!

[liberal N proud]

104. When talking to the immature, one must speak at their level.

[Srkdqltr]

2. I thought dems were socialist? Now we are communists? Do they know ,?

[AllaN01Bear]

40. i got called a communist pinko pig in high school by my rop instructor. i wear thatt badge proudly!!!!!!

[Karasu]

96. There isn't a Republican alive who knows the damn difference anymore, if they ever did. They've been pushing this shit

since the fucking '40s.

[Srkdqltr]

99. Yes i know.

[liberal N proud]

105. I have heard MAGAts use them together describing Democrats

They like to use commie liberal socialist all in one phrase.

[LakeVermilion]

3. Exactly!

Capitalism, by itself, will eat everything in its path. Capitalism needs to have limits.

Consider this: Corporations won big after the "Big, Beautiful Bill." Did the corporations say thank you and fire their lobbyists? No, they are preparing to return to Washington and request more tax cuts. Capitalism's job is to generate a profit. So, they will act again to get more profit.

We are the only conscience that capitalism has.

On edit: Investors pay a lower tax rate than laborers. I'm becoming a believer in a flat income tax rate for everyone with no deductions.

[MichMan]

12. "I'm becoming a believer in a flat income tax rate for everyone with no deductions."

I doubt you will find much support for that here.

[TBF]

24. You'd be surprised what the "investor class" -

ie retirees who don't give a shit anymore, will actually go for. And they are not nearly as rich as they think they are.

[Joinfortmill]

34. I'm in.

[harumph]

15. The rich typically have little "income" as it is defined in the tax code.

They make sure of that. What they do have is capital gains and loans against their wealth. That's why talk about increasing taxes on income will not impact them. Corporations should pay more and there should be some tax on electronic trades at the very least. These solutions are out there - but discussions about them are suppressed by the media because the media owners don't want you to know the difference between income and capital gains for example. A hike in income taxes is just going to gore the lower and middle classes.

[Moostache]

35. This is exactly why we need and must implement a wealth tax in place of the income tax...

The federal government has run up a debt so large and so unthinkable that the only ways to retire it are - 1) runaway inflation, 2) systemic collapse and 3) jubilee and wiping out the banking sector and starting over fresh.

In general, the powers that be see these in about that same order - the LAST thing they will EVER do is allow themselves to be impoverished for the behavior and unconscionable theft of wealth that has gone on since Reaganomics first rolled out in '81. The top 0.01% of the wealthiest should be liquidated of all but a subsistence level (to them) $100M holding. If they cannot figure out how to survive on that much, well, then I guess they perish.

There is nothing underpinning the current stock market that is not part and parcel of this time - it is all BS, propped up by lies and misdirection while a select few try to abscond with the goods to presumably go to their private islands and live out their days in semi-hiding but with palatial estates and comforts while the rest of us burn and die. FUCK THEM! Eat the rich sounds better by the minute...

[harumph]

41. I could not have elaborated on this better.

"There is nothing underpinning the current stock market that is not part and parcel of this time - it is all BS, propped up by lies and misdirection while a select few try to abscond with the goods to presumably go to their private islands and live out their days in semi-hiding but with palatial estates and comforts while the rest of us burn and die."

Our modest 401ks are all caught up in the bullshit too. It has the perverse effect of making liars out of all of us - even though we know better. We are afraid to shout about the emperor's new clothes for fear of ruining it for all of us. Bigger fool theory and all of that. JFC! We're in a pickle. Sometimes I get a hankering to simply liquidate - take the tax hit - and purchase a remote property and raise goats and chickens. I'm not joking.

Spot fucking on.

[MichMan]

65. How would total wealth be calculated?

Total accumulated wealth consists of real estate, investments, businesses, art, jewelry, cars, aircraft, boats, collectibles, furniture and anything else that is property.

Just how do we determine the values of all those things, without a team of assessors physically looking at all of them and calculating current values? Honor system?

First off, they have to determine the values to know who is even eligible for the tax and after that, determine how much people would owe. It seems like they would have to assess everyone.

[TBF]

75. First off you'd need to define "wealth" -

and a good way would be to re-read Marx on private vs. personal property.

[MichMan]

76. So, we don't want people to associate Democrat with Communist, but reference the writings of Karl Marx ?

[TBF]

77. Lol - I have never disparaged Marx - that's all you

and the rest of the team that started in yesterday on this.

I am simply pointing out that the way you are defining "wealth" is your opinion, ideally it wouldn't look anything like that.

[harumph]

80. Marx correctly diagnosed a problem - even though the proposed cure was no good.

Even some middle of the road economists will concede that he correctly identified many of the vexing conditions associated with inequality. They do this while still being capitalist. Hence, it is widely understood in academia that Marx still has things to say.

Wikipedia on "Marxian" economics:

"Considered a heterodox school, the Marxian school has been criticized by claims relating to inconsistency, failed predictions, and scrutiny of nominally communist countries' economic planning in the 20th century. According to economists such as George Stigler and Robert Solow, Marxist economics are not relevant to modern economics, having "virtually no impact"[5] and only "represent[ing] a small minority of modern economists".[6] However, some ideas of the Marxian school have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy. Certain concepts developed in Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems; one such example is Joseph Schumpeter's notion of creative destruction." (emphasis mine)

Now of course, you're right inasmuch as even the mere mention of Marx will get you tarred and feathered by the right wing.

That doesn't mean intelligent people should restrict their reading and information gathering to only resources deemed "acceptable" by the pearl clutching right.

[KPN]

97. I'd be happy with simply going after financial assets.

Those are reported to the holder every year at a minimum. The vast majority of wealth exists in the form of financial investments that provide an annual return or loss. Unliquidated gains could also be taxed on a progressive rate schedule. And as many have suggested, tax every financial transaction at a minimum. Those actions alone would capture a significant portion of “wealth” — not a majority by far but nonetheless substantive. Decrease the amount exempted from inheritance. There are many ways to collect a fairer share if not outright fair.

[TBF]

73. Excellent summary of where we're at. nt

[Skittles]

86. hence "the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes"

I would presume that to mean addressing ALL their wealth

[Bettie]

56. A flat tax harms the poorest of us the most

and the wealthy find ways to classify their money as "not wages" to avoid taxes entirely.

[TBF]

85. 100%. nt

[Kaleva]

4. I don't think it's anything to get worked up about

It’s an archaic term. I don’t think there’s that many young people or even middle aged folks who really know what a communist is.

[MichMan]

53. Even fewer know what an oligarch is.

Yet that word is used quite regularly

[Kaleva]

71. With probably little effect

[gab13by13]

5. If you are explaining why you aren't a communist, you are losing.

If someone asks you, have you stopped beating your wife yet, do you go into a lengthy explanation about how and why you don't beat your wife, or do you do what I do, call them an idiot?

[Chasstev365]

9. So let Fox the GOP give you a label and do nothing so it sticks with idiot voters

This is why we lose.

Card Carrying Liberal 1988
Slick Willy 1992-1996
Lock Box, He says he invented the internet 2000
Swiftboated 2004
Pal's Around With Terrorists 2008
Her Emails 2016
Sleepy Joe 2024

Not all of these worked, but most did. Democrats should NOT be afraid to say, YES; I'M A NEW DEAL DEMOCRAT!

[gab13by13]

79. I'm a Democrat, I support Democrats

I responded what I did when the editor of my newspaper publicly called me his pinko commie buddy. I went to his office, told him not to renew my subscription and told him I thought he was an educated person and not an idiot.

If you are debating with a Magat about whether or not you are a communist you are losing, he/she is winning.

It's like if I asked you if you have stopped beating your wife yet. Do you think that stupid question deserves an answer?

[meadowlander]

93. Calling them idiots and ignoring them hasn't exactly been working for the past 30 years either.

[lastlib]

6. Personally, I would just LMAO.....

because clearly the accuser doesn't know shit about what communism is.

[Ocelot II]

7. Simple explanation: There are some things we can agree to share the cost of -

things like schools, roads, law enforcement, national defense, etc. Since no individual can afford to buy those things on their own, we pool our resources so we can all have them. If you call it pooled resources or something like that, you never have to breathe the scary word "socialism" or argue about what it means.

[MichMan]

52. We currently have all of that under the current status quo

[Ocelot II]

91. Yes, but the whole point is to avoid calling any of it socialism,

because it isn't socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and we don't have that. What we have is a capitalist system in which some functions are managed by the government using money paid into it by taxpayers. Even so, the government does not own or control many of those functions; it pays private businesses to build roads, for example, because it is less efficient and cost effective for a government to own and assume the costs of all the aspects of road construction than it is to hire private contractors to do it. Health care, even that which is currently subsidized by the government (e.g., Medicare), is not a system in which the government owns hospitals or clinics or employs doctors; it just pays some of the costs of treatment by private providers. In a truly socialist system the government would own and manage the medical providers. Universal health care, as we understand it, is Medicare for everybody, but not supplied by government-owned clinics.

The word "socialism" gets some people's panties in a bunch because it carries the implication that the government would own and control everything. We don't have or want that. What we do want is a stronger social safety net.

[cbabe]

8. I'm not a pedophile! (Logic and discussion are

meaningless. Interrupting the game works.)

Classic. Massie asks fox reporter if he watches gay porn:

Thomas Massie Humiliates Fox Reporter Over Gay Porn!

https://m.

&ra=m

[niyad]

10. Easier: "Define communist/communism". No? Bye."

[QueerDuck]

67. Exactly. He who's explaining and defining... is losing.

In the far corners of the internet, and elsewhere online and youtube, I've seen many things that sound and read like:

"Well, I’m a socialist, but not a socialist socialist. I believe in socialism, but also a heavily regulated, Nordic-style capitalism, which is actually more socialist than capitalist, except for the parts that aren't. So I call myself a Democratic Socialist. Now, technically, 'Democratic' is modifying 'Socialist' here, which makes me a type of socialist, not a type of Democrat, so my branding is already working against my electoral viability in a swing district. I realize using 'Democratic' as an adjective makes it sound like I'm prioritizing the socialism part (which I am, theoretically) but pragmatically, I’m a Democrat who just wants the government to own the means of data production. Not all production, obviously. Just the servers. But don't worry, I’m absolutely not a communist... unless we are talking about municipal broadband, health insurance, and AI data centers, which we should definitely nationalize tomorrow. But like, in a totally market-friendly, decentralized way that requires a 45-minute PowerPoint presentation to explain to a moderate voter at a supermarket."

...followed by...

"I don't want to overthrow the system; I just want to nationalize the tech sector, decommodify housing, and restructure the global economy. But in a gentle, non-threatening, suburb-approved way. See? It makes total sense if you just take the time to read this 80-page manifesto I brought with me."

... and finally...

"So... in conclusion... I'm not a communist, I’m just a guy who thinks Karl Marx had some solid points about cloud storage. Why is everyone walking away? I haven't even explained our stance on worker-owned bakeries yet!"

[niyad]

100. Actually, that was not what I meant at all. When someone uses those

words as accusation, I just look at them and say, "define it. what do you think that word means?" "oh, you cannot actually define it? Then you and I have nothing further to discuss. Go away." I used to carry papers with the dictionary definitions of "capitalism", "socialism", "communism", "fascism", etc., all written out. Saved time, and my temper, and my voice. And possibly lives.

I have had such interactions all my life. Define "demonic". Define "egghead". Define "heretic". Define "feminist". Define "witch". Define. . .ad infinitem.. ad nauseum, etc., etc.

[QueerDuck]

102. Yes. My point was to agree with you... that Democrats (or liberals, or progressives) should...

... not be the ones explaining and defending. Our message should be clear and not bogged down with "we'll we're not really socialists".

[Blue Full Moon]

11. Not afraid of Randall (republicans) anymore

?feature=shared

[creeksneakers2]

13. I say they've only won 3 primaries out of the whole country

And they won those over anger at Israel, not because anybody supports socialism.

[SamuelAdams]

14. But they are using a handful of candidates who call themselves socialists.

It's hard to fight against a term when some of your candidates embrace it. It would be better if we could convince our side not to use controversial labels and advocate radical policies. If we could call ourselves Democrats and run on liberal policies, that would be great.

[Wiz Imp]

18. They call themselves Democratic Socialists, not Socialists

there is a significant difference

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist and he is one of the most popular politicians in the country. The label has not hurt him. In fact a fair number of Republicans/Trump voters have positive views of Sanders.

[TBF]

26. lol - they'll just come up with something else to call them

I mean seriously. Republicans have been doing this for ages, and the McCarthyism on display this weekend is Trump pulling out very old cards since everything else has gone to shit for him.

They are going to take any term anyone uses and put a negative spin on it, it's what they do, and then the press they own will repeat the talking points.

[Escape]

16. The upcoming general election will pit candidates with an "R" behind their name against candidates with a "D"...

That's all we need to know.

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. Don't say New Deal

It won't resonate well with African and Asian Americans.

[Joinfortmill]

36. I always say I like the Nordic model. That usually shuts them up.

[SocialDemocrat61]

42. Nordic?

That will resonate with non-white people. Maybe we should consider language that all people will connect with.

[Joinfortmill]

54. Oh, for heaven sakes.

[SocialDemocrat61]

58. Shouldn't we recognize

that the Democratic Party is a multiracial party and just not only speak to white people.

[Joinfortmill]

64. I'm talking about the economic sytem...

known as the 'Nordic Model'. It can be applied anywhere. Jeez.

[SocialDemocrat61]

68. And the term Nordic

is not going to resonate with most people, especially non-white people.

[Joinfortmill]

69. I didn't create the name. It can be used to develop a basis

for something similar. I'm done with this discussion.

[SocialDemocrat61]

72. So why shouldn't we come up with a better

that will speak to all Americans?

[Torchlight]

59. Editorial or a cite?

[SocialDemocrat61]

60. Both and neither

Just recognizing reality.

[Torchlight]

61. Editorial.

[SocialDemocrat61]

62. Yes,

but based on reality.

[BannonsLiver]

82. Or anyone else under 100 years old.

[progressoid]

106. More importantly, a majority of Americans don't know what the New Deal is.

[SocialDemocrat61]

109. Very true

To most it's something the heard about in a history class.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

19. It really should not be hard to show people why they should be way more afraid of billionaires and...

....trillionaires gobbling up all the wealth in the world and relegating them to doing the sewer work that AI can't be bothered to do than to be afraid of affordable housing and healthcare, but here we are....

We think that if there are going to be billionaires and trillionaires they should be doing good things for you and your family--not stealing your wealth, paying no taxes, and destroying your children's' futures. Call it whatever the hell you want--we don't care.

Billionaires and trillionaires steal your family's basic dignity and right to affordable healthcare, housing, retirement, and living wages to fund their lavish lifestyles and insatiable appetites for everything you will allow them to take from you. They do not care. We do.

The alternative is handing your and your family's future to a group of people that will take everything from you and demand more. And one day you can try to explain to your grandchildren how the two words Democratic Socialism were so scary that you just couldn't possibly even try to keep the billionaires and trillionaires from vacuuming up every piece and every card and every bill on the Monopoly board and leave them with nothing.

[Dave Id]

20. Sounds good in theory BUT,

try having a reasonable conversation about an opposing position with a biased idiot is a waste of time. My brother is one of them.

[spooky3]

31. Agree. When someone refuses to accept basic facts and reality, there

are no facts you can present that will make a dent.

[MoseShrute]

21. How about this angle

After they flounder with the definition of communism, point out the characteristics of fascism and ask the magat if it sounds familiar to the current administration.

[Torchlight]

22. Given current beef, coffee and gas prices

I simply point them to those meritless price increases and mention, "whatever *this* is, it ain't workin' out too well. For anyone. "

The Commie assertions are just this month's meritless words from meritless minds and hold neither concern nor consequence in contrast to the substantive issues we walk into the mid-terms with.

[Farmer-Rick]

25. I don't believe in capitalism

I would never tell a MAGAT that I believed in capitalism. I believe that form of economics exists but it is a destructive form of economics that consolidates wealth, in the already rich. Capitalism forces most people to live with poverty level resources.

It's just as destructive as feudalism and slavery. In fact, capitalism works quite well with feudalism and slavery.

Like we evolved past feudalism, we need to evolve past capitalism. It's a destructive force for evil. It's what really caused WWII.

But I would never talk to a MAGAT about economics, it's a waste of effort. They are too stupid to have coherent thoughts. It's all about feelings for them...mostly hate....not about facts.

[Alpeduez21]

29. Exactly capitalism needs poor people in order for that system to exist

[harumph]

90. Gee, there are some capitalist countries out there with robust safety nets...

BUT, in such cases, it's properly regulated capitalism. One could argue what you're seeing in the US is a degraded capitalism - though we call it simply "capitalism." Maybe it's crony capitalism, anarcho-capitalism or some other kind, but it's neither free nor transparent. I do believe in the profit motive but also believe that when making said profit, there needs to be a tangible public interest/benefit. It is disheartening that people throw around and wrongly conflate terms that have an actual meaning in economics. The Nordic countries are capitalist countries, but their form of it is very different from ours. Proper regulation retains the profit motive but channels it into productive activity. Most Americans have no idea about well regulated capitalism. Philosophically, I'm more of a fixer than "Let's trash the system and start entirely over." type of person. The reason for this is that when we (trash) a system, chaos ensues and then meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[FadedMullet]

101. Exactly right. Those countries have the "safety nets" but very few folks are falling into them.

[Farmer-Rick]

110. Here's the problem with capitalism

Why do you need to regulate it? Why not just start with an economic system that doesn't have so many destructive forces that it must be kept in a tight little box...so to speak.

In the past, America has put tough regulations on capitalism. The Filthy-rich use to pay a 90+% tax. Today they don't pay hardly any taxes. What happened? In capitalism, capital is power. If you allow it for any length of time eventually you will get a class of people with most all the money and the power. Are these people grateful? Of course not.

The filthy-rich then go about destroying the very same system that gave them all their wealth. And they have the power to do it in a capitalist system. Capitalism is just too destructive to let it be. It should be replaced.

[harumph]

111. Yet, there appear to be many countries that somehow successfully regulate their particular capitalist system

I suspect it's lack of civic involvement and navel gazing on the part of Americans that allows things to slip out of control. Plus we have a significant number of religious people who don't understand it as simply wisdom literature and metaphor. In other words, many Americans believe in magic. You're advocating for a system that restrains the worst impulses - I get that. But any system can be compromised when people expect it to be on auto-pilot (you know, "it should just work&quot . To that end, let me submit that the educational system comes first and the economic system follows. Reading comprehension in the US is terrible and math proficiency is worse. People can't understand non-linear systems. They can't wrap their minds around climate change, partly because they believe "god" wouldn't allow that to happen. I don't think the problem is capitalism FR, it's a critical mass of some of the most privileged brain-washed dumb asses a western society has ever seen.

[Alpeduez21]

27. Maybe the Dems in charge could get on board with the reality that socialist Dems are what the voters want

I’d start with that

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Communism for billionaires keeps the oligarchs afloat

Tax breaks, write-offs, subsidies. Billionaires know how to feed at the public trough.

[spooky3]

30. "In Communism, the government owns businesses (the means of

production). No way would I want this President, or any other, to run business.”

[William Seger]

32. A 5th Grader could look up and understand the definition of "communist"

"Are you dumber than a 5th grader?"

[Joinfortmill]

33. I like it. Short and simple. Even these bums can get it.

[Blue Full Moon]

37. Actually just let him ramble

Donald is now a least popular name.
Despite what the billionaire owned media says he is despised.
Any democrat you can add 20 points to their poll numbers.
And a very liberal candidate almost took TN election that area is gerrymandered to the nth degree.
They have been saying this crap for decades. His dementia must be putting him in The All in the Family era.

[Boo1]

38. Stop telling people you are a socialist

And trying to explain the difference.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Way Simpler

"The accusations about communists are stupid lies."

[reACTIONary]

46. Nope. Being affirmative with an unassailable label...

.... is much better than denying a smear.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Nope - What I Said Is Not A Denial

It's an accusation the liar has to react to.

[reACTIONary]

74. What about both? The accusations about communists are stupid lies.....

....I'm a New Deal Democrat. Now let me ask you: Tell me exactly what is so radical about that?

[ProfessorGAC]

78. That's Pretty Good

But, I'm concerned about how the most of the electorate reacts to a restrained answer in today's politics.
Your idea would work on me, but I'm thinking the masses need to see a more aggressive & confrontational approach.
If that's not what they want to see, Hillary would have been our 45th president.
I very much like your reply, I am not sure convinced however, that it punches hard enough for people, unlike you & me, are not attuned to political philosophies.

[David__77]

43. How defensive. That's a losing approach.

[reACTIONary]

47. As opposed to what? What would your approach be?

[David__77]

83. Go on the attack on something else.

[reACTIONary]

87. So, do a "pivot" to avoid ....

.... answering directly?

That seems to work in some of these cases. Sometimes the "pivot" seems to me to be basically an admission that the accusation is true.

Don't know if that would be best, but it might work.

[David__77]

88. Yes he wants to play word games instead of talking about material issues

And it shows who he is serving

[reACTIONary]

44. Excellent! Avoid the socialist smear....

.... go with "new deal democrat"!

[Cirsium]

45. No

If you are explaining, you are losing.

Why are you worried about us appearing radical? Why are we talking about identity - "I am such and such." Don't operate within the Republican framing. That is extremely weak.

Trump is not trying to win voters with the "Communist" charge. He is playing us. He is trying to get us to flail around defending ourselves and arguing with each other, and it is working. Do not take the bait.

Don't people recognize the Republican playbook yet?

Trump: "they are Communists."

Gullible Democrats: "We are not Communists."

Trump: "they claim they aren't Communist, but who knows. Some very well respected people are saying, I saw that somewhere."

MSM for the next 6 months "let's discuss this hot issue. Trump claims Democrats are Communists. Is there any truth to that? Democrats claim they are not Communists, Our panel will discuss both sides."

[catbyte]

48. Found this on Facebook

[DemocracyForever]

49. Time to call Trump/GOP Nazis

and put Trump/GOP on the defensive. Their agenda is clearly taken from Hitler's paybook as in forcing women to give birth against their will, hatred of immigrants, hatred of anyone who doesn't look like them, no dissent, no holding the government accountable, no protesting, government telling companies how to run their business's and the list goes on.

[Martin68]

50. Great advice, totally logical and reasonable. But MAGAts will never accept the Democrats aren't communists because

their world view requires that their enemies be scary and dangerous. These people do not listen to reason. They don't want to listen to reason. They will stick their fingers in their ears and go "La-la-la-la-la-la..."

[krawhitham]

51. Hand them a dictionary?

[Doodley]

55. We also need to attack: Here are three reasons why we say the Republican Party has been taken over by fascists...

[blm]

57. Dem counties produce 70% of US economy. GOP counties contribute just 29%.

?fit=scale

[Blumancru]

66. Keep it simple

We are dealing with yamheads.

Anyone running for anything needs to loudly condemn communism as the bankrupt failed philosophy that it is.
Make the point that communism always ends in totalitarianism.
Don’t try to explain the finer points. That is like explaining calculus to a cat.
They need to hear this from us. Say it over and over. Stop letting that squealing snot Stephen Miller (aka Roy Cohn’s reincarnation) define us.

[ck4829]

70. You're going to be a "communist" to them no matter what you say

They could be for throwing virgins into volcanoes to appease the billionaires and you would be a "communist" for being against that.

[Karasu]

98. This. Been that way for like 80 years. Why are people acting like this is news? This is the oldest trick in the book.

To a Republican--least of all a modern Republican--everyone on the left is a communist. Period. Full stop.

[BannonsLiver]

81. Jesus H Christ

[mdbl]

84. also add...

"I also like to breathable air and clean drinking water"

[hadEnuf]

89. Basically a Democratic Capitalist.

[LeftInTX]

92. Stay clear of Party for Socialism and Liberation. They are the communist party and trying infiltrate the

Democratic Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a communist political party in the United States. PSL formed in 2004, when its members split from the Workers World Party.

PSL describes itself as a revolutionary socialist party in the Leninist tradition, because the party believes that only a revolution can end capitalism and establish socialism. PSL pursues this goal by participating in local protests, running candidates in elections, and conducting political education.[7][8]

Notable members include Claudia De la Cruz, Eugene Puryear, Gloria La Riva, Jodi Dean, and Michael Prysner.

I wished Biden would have investigated their financial scheme, but Trump is investigating them. I blame them for the 2024 presidential loss.

Sorry about the RW link. I googled "federal investigation of party for socialism and liberation" and this is the most recent. I find it ironic that Trump is investigating the political party that put him in the WH in 2024. I have heard that some of the GOP, like Roger Stone supported them financially. So, I think this is going nowhere.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/29/us-news/doj-investigating-marxist-millionaire-neville-roy-singham-over-potential-financial-crimes/

House Republicans have alleged ties between Singham and the Party for Liberation and Socialism, the People’s Forum, the ANSWER Coalition and more than a dozen other far-left groups.

Another article more in-depth. It's a yahoo version of a Fox News article
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/doj-launches-grand-jury-probe-120011239.html
(I don't know if any of the DSA candidates have any ties to PSL, but Democrats should not have ties to other pollitical parties. We don't have ties to the GOP and we also should not have ties to the PSL, whose goal is to destroy the Democratic Party. We're the Democratic Party, we support electing Democrats. We should not have support for any group that wants to destroy our party)


Note: The DSA, which endorses Bernie Sanders etc is not a political party. It is not the same as Party for the Socialism and Liberation. But they do have ties unfortunately. The DSA can decide who it wants to endorse. They can endorse a candidate from any political party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Roy_Singham
Neville Roy Singham (born May 13, 1954)[1] is an American businessman and social activist. He is the founder and former chairman of Thoughtworks, an IT consulting company that provides custom software, software tools, and consulting services, which he sold to a private equity firm for $785 million in 2017.

In 2019, Singham started a consulting business with partners in the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party; the partners are co-owners with Tongren City (Guizhou province) of a "media company that promotes anti-poverty policies" according to The New York Times.[3][4]

Singham, a socialist, is a benefactor of far-left causes, and an admirer of Maoism. According to The New York Times, he has provided significant funding for media outlets, organizations, and politicians around the world that promote pro-Chinese government propaganda.[5]

India also investigated Singham and pretty much came up empty handed.

________________

Anyway, stay clear of them. There is always a little bit of truth to what Trump says. These PSL groups are everywhere and they have been protesting amongst Democrats. (You can tell PSL by their signs on wooden stakes) Democrats should not take pictures with them or get friendly with them.

Anyway, just say, "I can't stand that Party for Socialism and Liberation" and you're good to go!

We're the Democratic Party. We are not the communist party. We are not the Green Party. We do not support them!

[Timeflyer]

107. I like it.

"Communist" is the current GOP playbook slur for Dems and others because the scary, scary midterms are coming--ooh, better ramp up the fear-inducing words before November. "Woke" doesn't give MAGA the fear-tingle it once did.

[OldBaldy1701E]

108. "Tell me exactly what is so radical about that?"

You are a Democrat.

That is all that matters to them. Logic, common sense, intelligence... all lost on those who refuse to even help themselves in their zeal to hurt others.

The United States is anything but these days. Pining for the 'old days' is just going to make things worse.

I know that capitalism is not the best system, but it is the one that we use (whether we like it or not), so we have to regulate the shit out of it, as well as remove any ability that a corporation has to affect the political process of this nation. Also, since they are so freaking 'all-in' on this personhood thing, start charging corporations for the murders that they and their products commit. Then, charge the entire board with being accessories to the crime. The main goal is to remove corporations ability to do anything other than make their widgets/offer their service ands that's IT.

Of course, with our entire system being completely corrupted by that same philosophy, it is difficult for a single person to do anything in our society any more. Then, add the people who have the ability to make changes being content to leave things as they are because they re doing great, so who cares about the rest?

What is radical to them is that the rest of us are still human, while they sold their souls a long time ago.