Whenever someone like Warren buffet or George Soros endorse Communism

Warren Buffet has supported communism for a long time, a large portion of his wealth is from non-negotiated government contracts. Should the US ever become a communist state, his actual lifestyle wouldn't change.

Source it. The man is a professional investor - to say that he doesn't believe in capitalism is like saying a doctor doesn't believe in medicine. It's ridiculous, and I can only assume that you're using a faulty definition of communism.

My Ph.D. is in Micro-Economic Geography, I am from a prominent family, and I am an Economist that operates under my family names. Several definitions exist for communism, but I am using the single party socialist state(political-economics). He is a 'professional investor'. He bought coca-cola after coke 2 and dropping sales. So he donates several billions, more than he invested in coca-cola, to various election for democrat governors. Those governors win, coca-cola gets exclusive 'soft-drink' machine rights from those state department of education. Well, coca-cola gets investigated by national democrats in the 90s whom Buffet donates to, and they are not investigated for non-negotiated contracts handed to coca-cola be democrat governors. Coca-cola is investigated as being unhealthy for children to drink. Buffet makes a big stink that it isn't his business model to hurt children, etc, etc. So, Buffet's coca-cola replaces the machines with powerade, because Powerade got what children crave after sports games... Buffet' investment to coca-cola was used to build the Powerade production line before everything. Buffet knows as long as he controls the capital (the states owned the machines/he owned the products inside), the tax system (which he promotes a higher tax system), and a political party (democrats) his life style doesn't change in a single party socialist state.

Watch Idiocracy the whole Brawndo thing was a wink to his Powerade maneuver using politicians and electrolytes.

Ok, well, as a PhD educated man (I'm not sure why that's relevant here, but let's run with it), surely you can understand that "his lifestyle wouldn't change under a one-party state" is not evidence of his support for a one-party state.

He supports the Democrats - so what? When has he ever stated that he wants all parties other than the Democrats banned?

You're the one that insisted my definition is faulty, my Ph.D. would require I have intimate knowledge of all major definitions of communism. Now, you're trying to use a strawman argument, you even went as far as to misquote me. Is it because you are unwilling to accept that Buffet endorses a single party socialist state? Or are you trying to protect the fact that he uses his savvy investment to create one?

1) all you had to do was define communism. Your education level has nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, you could have dropped out of high school and still know how to give a definition of communism. I've also known people who competed their doctorates who couldn't define a toaster. I'm arguing with you, not your qualifications.

2) if I've misunderstood your argument, please clarify, because I don't think I did attack a strawmam - I think I attacked the argument you presented. Buffet's controversial method of making his fortune is very typical of successful businessmen in an unfettered capitalistic society; shady businessmen don't typically try to destroy the system that made their fortune.

3) Yes! I am absolutely unwilling to accept that Buffet endorses a single party socialist state, because to my knowledge, he has never actually endorsed a single party socialist state! And you can settle this by quoting and sourcing his endorsement of a single party socialist state! Anytime now! When, where, what did he say on record that fits your definition of an endorsement for communism?

This is a strawman argument, "When has he ever stated that he wants all parties other than the Democrats banned?", I never made the case that he went as far as to say he wants all other parties banned. You're making another strawman argument, "When, where, what did he say on record that fits your definition of an endorsement for communism?" My argument, which you fail to see from the meme above, is that Buffet and Soros are so duplicitous that they’re condescending when they endorse democrats or individual socialist state policies (like single payer health care). You’re so caught up in Buffet as being a supercilious capitalist investor; that you failed to see from the coca-cola example his support for single party socialist state is paradoxical.

"I never made the case that he went as far as to say he wants all other parties banned." "...his support for single party socialist state." Both in the same paragraph.

I think it's fair to say that I have no idea what you are talking about. You are not making any sense.

Endorsing Democrats does not make someone a communist, nor even necessarily a socialist. Endorsing single payer healthcare does not make someone a socialist - EVERYONE except the United States has single-payer healthcare, it makes a lot of sense, it's a very reasonable position to take and the idea enjoys broad support from multiple ideologies.

If you don't want to show any actual evidence for any of this, that's on you, and now you know why nobody listens when people yell "but George Soros and Warren Buffet own the Democrats!"

Again, you misquoted me. Also the people who don't listen, like you, are the ones that did not want to hear what was being said anyways. They find ways, like misquoting or invoking strawman arguments, to distort what is being said into something valueless.

I literally copied and pasted your text and put quotation marks around them. If that's misquotation, then, well, good luck to you.

You removed the is paradoxical, which changes the context of the statement. Literally, you misrepresented me.