I'm not going to approach a document that's nearly two-hundred years old with such a bias that has me guessing as to what you're talking about.
First, you're relying on leading language where you are using suggestive language that would guide me towards a particular conclusion. By asking me to read the Communist Manifesto and then compare it to the Democrats' plans, you're leading me to connect the two negatively, implying that the Democrats' plans are similar to or influenced by communist ideology. This method often leaves little room for an objective interpretation and cuts out the context in which the document was written.
You are providing bad faith argument.
Then, you're using paralipsis. That's where you pretend to omit something but actually draw attention to it. In this case, the phrase "If you still don't get it, I can't help you" implies that the conclusion (i.e., that the Democrats' plans are similar to communism) is so obvious that any reasonable person would agree. It's a way of saying that the only correct interpretation is the one the speaker has in mind, without explicitly stating it.
You're creating a space that leaves zero room for critical thinking. Is this what was done to you?