Democrat Communists - Call Them What They Are - Bill Maher, Van Jones, AND Ted Cruz Agree

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
47,500
36,570
113
No I’m right. Trump is much closer to a communist- see his forcing companies to give a piece to his government- than Democrats are. You’ll just dismiss that fact too.
Incorrect. Trump negotiated a small stake purchase of shares in certain companies and those investments have increased in value. No operational control by the government.
 

Flie_rivals154594

All-Conference
Nov 2, 2001
1,247
2,083
113
Inflation was 1.4% in January 2021 when Biden took office. It peaked at 9% a year and a half later. Supply chain disruptions certainly had an impact but you're dead wrong to suggest that $4 trillion of above and beyond spending didn't add fuel to the inflation fire and materially add to the debt.

Of course Trump took credit for anything positive and blamed the other guy for everything negative. It's B.S. but every president does it. That's politics.

I don't take your claim that "Trump" added $8 trillion to the deficit seriously. That was primarily due to covid and democrats who controlled congress had a major hand in all that spending. Like Rahm Emanuel said "never let a disaster go to waste". Heck, democrats lost their minds when Trump allowed covid era enhanced healthcare subsidies to expire in 2026. I've been very clear that the USA spend twice as much on Covid than what was necessary but it was clearly a bipartisan effort.

Biden didn't have record low unemployment but he did have low unemployment. Here are some (December) unemployment figures:
  • 2017 4.7% (Obama's last year)
  • 2018 3.9%
  • 2019 3.6%
  • 2020 6.7% (pandemic)
  • 2021 3.9% (Biden's first year)
  • 2022 3.5%
  • 2023 3.8%
  • 2024 4.1% (Biden's last year)
  • 2025 4.4% (Trump's first year
  • 2026 4.2% (June 2026)
I'd say the unemployment rate has been pretty stable and historically low over the past decade. In fact total payroll employment is currently at an all time high (as it should be with a growing population).

Of course the debt has risen steadily for decades. That was going to happen regardless of who was president. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff and they lose elections by threatening to take free stuff away. Also as Reagan said the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. Once you've added something it's nearly impossible to take it away. Those are major flaws in our system. That said there are events that add to the debt more than normal. The financial crisis, Covid, and Biden's extra $4 trillion are all examples. Once those things were done the spending never came back to pre crisis levels even when accounting for inflation.

Federal deficit:
2022 1.375 trillion (first year post covid)
2023 1.695 trillion
2024 1.833 trillion
2025 1.850 trillion (First year of Trump second term)
2026 TBD but I expect higher because of war and refunded tariffs

I think you'd be better served by looking at things objectively instead of limiting yourself to democrats = good and republicans = bad.

Trump did in fact add just under $8 trillion to the debt. You keep confusing deficit with debt by the way. The reasons for the spending don't change the fact that it happened during Trump's term. It's public record.

Inflation was around 2.9% before the pandemic hit and then went to near 0 during the supply chain crunch. The rebound from that was hard and it rose rapidly starting in 2020. That 1.4% inflation rate you referenced at the start of Biden's term was up from near 0% in a short period of time and kept climbing. It peaked in 2022 (along with gas prices) and then fell steadily after that. Steady recovery after the crisis. Biden was completely blamed for the 2021-2022 inflation and MAGAs ignore 2023 and 2024.

Unemployment hit 3.4% under Biden in 2023. Lowest in 70ish years so you are correct that it's not the all-time record. Just in our lifetime. The overall point to all of this is that all of these metrics point to a strong economy vs the state of the economy that Biden inherited.

Low unemployment, record high stock markets, low inflation rate, $3 gas which is not great but better than right now.

The debt has grown by $3.1 trillion so far in Trump's second term. What's the forecast for that at the halfway point?


"I think you'd be better served by looking at things objectively instead of limiting yourself to democrats = good and republicans = bad."

Look in the mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
4,170
4,291
113

Why Are Dems Dodging Questions About The DSA’s Radical Platform?​


Because it is their platform.

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/07/...ng-questions-about-the-dsas-radical-platform/

ack in June, we called on the mainstream media to pressure Democrats into answering questions about the increasingly radical Democratic Socialists of America platform.

“With the rapid takeover of their party by the Democratic Socialists of America underway,” we wrote, “it’s time for every Democrat to answer for what the DSA believes in.” (See: “10 Questions Every Democrat Must Now Be Made To Answer.”)

We’re glad that one news network, at least, has taken us up on our advice.

Fox News lately has been prodding prominent Democrats to answer whether they agree with planks in the DSA’s latest platform, which includes proposals such as defunding the War Department, nationalizing corporations, and abolishing the presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

It’s been almost comical to watch them evade the Fox reporters, or mumble that they aren’t members of the DSA, or regurgitate word salads.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said when asked about the new agenda. “I haven’t read the proposal.” That’s despite his having endorsed several DSA candidates.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., refused to even acknowledge the presence of the reporter.

California Rep. Pete Aguilar said, “I’m not a member of the DSA, so I can’t comment on any documents that they put out.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
4,170
4,291
113

Van Jones says phone ‘blowing up’ after saying democratic socialists ‘going too far’​


Great news.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5980669-van-jones-democratic-socialists-criticism-calls/

Liberal pundit Van Jones said Monday that his phone has been “blowing up” with praise from lawmakers and government officials from both parties after he took a swing at democratic socialists online.

In a post on the social platform X Saturday, Jones said that “some people in groups like the [Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)] are pushing an agenda FAR outside” left-wing positions like Medicare for All and criminal justice reform.


“Supporting Hamas is not progressive. ‘No police, no prisons, no borders’ is not progressive. Celebrating the murder of Israeli civilians is not progressive. These ideas are REGRESSIVE,” Jones added in his Saturday post.

During an appearance on CNN’s “OutFront” on Monday, Jones told host Erin Burnett that “this phone has been blowing up all day, governors from both parties, senators from both parties, Democrats in the House calling, thanking me for saying what everybody’s been saying behind the scenes, which is that this stuff is going too far.

“I am a progressive Democrat. You want to talk about prison reform? I’ve done it as well as anybody, Republican, Democrats, in the South, with [President] Trump, I’ve done prison reform. I never said, ‘Have no prisons,’” he added. “Where are you going to put the Klan? I’ve done police reform. I never said, ‘No police.’ Where are you going to put the pedophiles? Who’s going to grab the pedophiles?”

In the last year, many democratic socialist and progressive candidates have run insurgent campaigns against establishment figures in primaries, notching wins and stepping into the American political spotlight along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

tigres88

All-American
Aug 7, 2022
2,971
7,823
113

Dem establishment did this on purpose and it's the right move- the Black community is very suspicious of the DSA/far left and has every right to be. Choosing SC first is smart, as the Black community (which is heavily represented in SC and actually votes) will have the opportunity to be a major player in helping choose the most electable Democrat candidate for President and not an extremist
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

Allornothing

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
11,871
13,123
113
Dem establishment did this on purpose and it's the right move- the Black community is very suspicious of the DSA/far left and has every right to be. Choosing SC first is smart, as the Black community (which is heavily represented in SC and actually votes) will have the opportunity to be a major player in helping choose the most electable Democrat candidate for President and not an extremist
Can you tell all of us which candidate from the Dems is not an extremist?
 

hawkeyetraveler

Heisman
Aug 10, 2010
5,923
23,783
108
And he is in second place? How tone deaf are these people? Nobody likes that limp wristed BS
I find it interesting how you pivot to mannerisms as an indication of presidential competence.

And yet you seem to worship a man who dances to a gay anthem like he is jerking off two dudes.

Make it make sense for me piggy.

Personally I go for policy over demeanor so I could give two sh*ts how limp the presidential wrists are, but maybe you could at least be consistent.

Here is he pretending to get blasted by the money shot:

 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

JohnHughsPartner

All-American
Nov 19, 2016
6,338
8,662
113
I

I find it interesting how you really, really pivot to mannerisms as an indication of presidential competence.

And yet you seem to worship a man who dances to a gay anthem like he is jerking off two dudes.

Make it make sense for me piggy.

Personally I go for policy over demeanor so I could give two shuts how limp the presidential wrists are, but maybe you could at least be consistent.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TigerGrowls

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
25,891
24,830
113
I find it interesting how you pivot to mannerisms as an indication of presidential competence.

And yet you seem to worship a man who dances to a gay anthem like he is jerking off two dudes.

Make it make sense for me piggy.

Personally I go for policy over demeanor so I could give two sh*ts how limp the presidential wrists are, but maybe you could at least be consistent.

Here is he pretending to get blasted by the money shot:

Pete’s performance as transportation secretary should disqualify him in my eyes. Remember the EV charging rollout? Yeah, neither do I. (Dont think I’ve been to a non Tesla
Supercharger).


Anyway, I also think projecting an image of power is important, and Pete doesn’t do that. At all. Weak men don’t get respect. Pete took months off for paternity leave, I took 1 day off. I don’t respect him at all, and I think he would get easily defeated by Marco or JD. And a lot of that is due to the weak image butt juice projects. That’s my opinion, Sorry not sorry
 

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
9,980
13,347
113
ahh now everything makes sense. What an awful husband and father
Mayor pete is such a good father that he's recently been forced to interact with Child Protective Services for reference.

The reality is pete and his "husband" bought a couple kids and the secretary of transportation decided to take MONTHS off work during a supply chain crisis with no back up plan to backfill his responsibilities. His first action when he came back and was roasted by the public for going AWOL was to call roads and bridges racist. He is completely unfit and we really do need new laws banning two men from "adopting" babies.
 

hawkeyetraveler

Heisman
Aug 10, 2010
5,923
23,783
108
Pete’s performance as transportation secretary should disqualify him in my eyes. Remember the EV charging rollout? Yeah, neither do I. (Dont think I’ve been to a non Tesla
Supercharger).


Anyway, I also think projecting an image of power is important, and Pete doesn’t do that. At all. Weak men don’t get respect. Pete took months off for paternity leave, I took 1 day off. I don’t respect him at all, and I think he would get easily defeated by Marco or JD. And a lot of that is due to the weak image butt juice projects. That’s my opinion, Sorry not sorry
Personally I think arguing about his job performance is exactly the right conversation good or bad. While me might disagree on some points around his job performance I don’t fault you for thinking his track record would him a bad president. That’s a legitimate conversation.

And I don’t fault you for thinking he is a “weak man” either. You are entitled to your opinion. What I don’t get is why you think Trump is “strong” in comparison. He’s a run of the mill school yard bully who talks tough and tacos out routinely. He is arguably the biggest рussy for a president of my lifetime.
  • Real men take accountability - you know “the buck stops here”
  • Real men treat women with respect
  • Real men stand up to wrong doing, they don’t appease, excuse or pardon it
  • Real men help others in need
  • Real men don’t need adulation to function, they get the job done regardless of who is watching
  • Real men don’t lie, cheat or steal
  • Real men don’t need to hug flags, they respect what the flag stands for
Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the most alpha President in our history, would straight up put Trump in the hospital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
9,980
13,347
113
Pete’s performance as transportation secretary should disqualify him in my eyes. Remember the EV charging rollout? Yeah, neither do I. (Dont think I’ve been to a non Tesla
Supercharger).


Anyway, I also think projecting an image of power is important, and Pete doesn’t do that. At all. Weak men don’t get respect. Pete took months off for paternity leave, I took 1 day off. I don’t respect him at all, and I think he would get easily defeated by Marco or JD. And a lot of that is due to the weak image butt juice projects. That’s my opinion, Sorry not sorry
Pete has zero (yes, zero) polling with black people. They would have to anchor him to AOC or Kamala (lol) to run him on the ticket. I hope they do it 😂 it would be a historically easy win for rubio or vance.
 

hawkeyetraveler

Heisman
Aug 10, 2010
5,923
23,783
108
Pete has zero (yes, zero) polling with black people. They would have to anchor him to AOC or Kamala (lol) to run him on the ticket. I hope they do it 😂 it would be a historically easy win for rubio or vance.
True. Pete likely would not win the nomination because many African Americans are homophobic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,916
22,731
113
Personally I think arguing about his job performance is exactly the right conversation good or bad. While me might disagree on some points around his job performance I don’t fault you for thinking his track record would him a bad president. That’s a legitimate conversation.

And I don’t fault you for thinking he is a “weak man” either. You are entitled to your opinion. What I don’t get is why you think Trump is “strong” in comparison. He’s a run of the mill school yard bully who talks tough and tacos out routinely. He is arguably the biggest рussy for a president of my lifetime.
  • Real men take accountability - you know “the buck stops here”
  • Real men treat women with respect
  • Real men stand up to wrong doing, they don’t appease, excuse or pardon it
  • Real men help others in need
  • Real men don’t need adulation to function, they get the job done regardless of who is watching
  • Real men don’t lie, cheat or steal
  • Real men don’t need to hug flags, they respect what the flag stands for
Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the most alpha President in our history, would straight up put Trump in the hospital.

I personally think both suck. And I think every person on the dem shortlist sucks. Weak, incompetent, too far left, you name it. I voted for Rubio in 2016 and hope to have the chance to again. Voted for Haley in 2024, but I doubt she will be a serious contender again.