Ok, so no worries then, there can't possibly ever be any communism, lock the thread.
As for hunger, repression, mass deaths, etc, I've been told that presidents can't do illegal stuff so this is not an issue either.
I find it hard to find an argument among such fallacies.
How about focusing on the point that Kamala wants to achieve with her policy measures that everyone has the same results (which is what this thread is about and is very clear in the OP)? What do you call that?
How is it a fallacy to point out severe inconsistencies in your argument?
As far as I can understand the quote you've based this thread on, she wants to make government welfare to go to those who need it most... which I think is how it's supposed to work anyway, whether you like it or not. I didn't hear her say that businesses need to be nationalized, opponents need to be banished to Alaska (which I already tried to allude to in my response to BADecker but he seems to like it actually LOL), or any other signs of "communism", including the stuff that you ascribed to communism. So it sounds like a lot of conjecture on one phrase.
Whereas the other candidate is point blank saying that he would deport millions of people, jail opponents, let police do whatever they want, use the military in illegal ways - I can't help but think that you call
that "free world" and want to make up a scare about "communism" because of your own political bias.