How about just 0 and 1? They didn’t specify what base.

I’d say more broadly the legal and political system works against any organizations that threaten the status quo, but yes America’s attitudes toward communism have been pretty obvious throughout the twentieth century. I just took issue with the idea that political parties or idealogies are illegal in and of themselves in the US, constitution still manages to protects some things.

Someone better tell these people they all could be arrested at any moment!

https://www.cpusa.org/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

No but seriously it’s an unenforceable junk law that no one has bothered to take the time to repeal that was never even really used in the first place. I mean, the communist party runs candidates for office to this day. Someone finally tried to use it in 1972 to keep a communist candidate off the ballot and a federal district Court promptly ruled it unconstitutional.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1zey0ee5l/arizona-district-court/blawis-v-bolin/

But that’s different you see. Because money is speech and therefore needs to be protected, including by allowing total anonymity of donors. Whereas we’re talking about online accounts, where people of course never engage in speech or express ideas. Hey, wait a second that can’t be right. Hmmm, okay maybe it’s because she’s saying it’s a security risk, because you don’t know if they’re a foreign national spreading propaganda online. This is totally different from political donations, which of course have never been bribes from foreign powers masked by anonymity… Hey wait! She got us again. Almost like she’s some kind of shill who wipes her butt with the constitution while trying to create a crony supported facist state. No that can’t be.

But yeah, according to Republicans, money is speech, but speech is not speech. I’m expecting their next campaign platform to be 2+2=5.