• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

Attitudes changed changed after FATCA, which was imposed upon Yanks earning more than 100K euros (close to the national wage in the US for a working family of two parents). We now pay taxes both in Europe and the US.

What is amazing is that there is no reciprocity whatsoever. Though the US promised to do so, in fact, the US does not report to home-country tax-officials EU-member incomes from investment accounts whether they live in the US or not ... ! (There is no mechanism to do so. There is nothing equivalent to FATCA that requires EU-residents in the US to declare their income to their national governments.)



There are three political "entities" in the EU - the National Governments, an elected legislative EU Parliament in Strasbourg, and the European Commission in Brussels (which is unelected and nominative).

EU citizens who are not French citizens are allowed to vote in French elections, if they subscribe to do so. They simply make a petition to do so at their local City Hall (which verifies that they are actually residents).

All national citizens elect two Parliaments by simple majority vote, one that of their home country/state, and the other that of the EU. Which is perfectly identical to the US. Except that in the US, your Executive is elected not by the popular-vote but by that of an Electoral College. Such does not exist in the EU.

The only real difference between the EU and the US is that the US has anelected Executive governance (the PotUS), whereas Europe has what is called a European Commission (EC). This commission is nominative and not elected. And it has great influence in proposing EU-law that is implemented by the national governments.

All heads of EU-governments are members of this Commission and have their say on matters that affect their country. But the European Commission cannot implement any law without having the agreement of all EU member heads of state. (Moreover, the heads nominated to various EC-departments are typically from all over the EU and most ex-elected officials in those states).

Back to FATCA: It was allowed by the European Commission to pass through to national member-states for implementation. Matters of taxation are typically not voted by the EU Parliament (Europe's "Congress") in Strasbourg. National taxation is thus strictly a matter of national application. Taxation is thus the privilege of national administrations, and the EU administration is funded every year by a "contribution" from all the EU nations to support its functioning.

(Meaning for instance, there is no Department of Defense in the European Commission. There are national Departments of Defense.)

What you have described to be in effect in Europe to elect people within the various states seems to be fairly parallel within the various states to the US.

Within the various states on both continents, the election results are based on popular vote. Offices that exist outside the various states seem to depart from the popular vote on both continents.

The selection of the Continental level office holders in Europe seems to be less associated to popular vote than in the US. Did I read what you wrote correctly?

Is there any office holder like a prime minister of the EU that speaks for the members of the union when that is needed? If yes, how is that office filled?
 
There is something you refuse to understand, and it is damn simple:
-The election of any (get it, any) person to office at the state or national level is performed by the popular-vote. (With only ONE EXCEPTION, the PotUS)
-It is the popular-vote that unites the American people at the national level. It certainly does that in Congress - but not in the presidency. (Which is why five times in the history of the US, the president elected actually had lost the popular-vote.

(Meaning we voted popular-vote "losers" into the highest office of the land!)

Our "democracy" has been warped by an antiquated, undemocratic trickster Article 12 of the Constitution that was hastily adopted at the very origin of our neophyte nation (1804). It has no basic reason or justification today - and has become a Bad Habit.

The Electoral College warps the duly elected representation by means of two methods:
-The number of votes to elect an Electoral College voter is disproportional to the population number between states, and as such is a misrepresentation of the popular-vote,
-The Electoral Vote summed is "winner-take-all" and thus again not proportional*.

What Replicants cannot get through their THICK SKULLS is that only the proportional-vote is the acceptable yardstick for electing representation for governance in a true democracy.

And, puhleez, enough of the infantile BS like "We are a Republic and not a Democracy!"

We are not morons on this forum so stop playing-with-words ...

*What is amazing is why Americans cannot understand that the Electoral College has never been adopted in any other democratic country on earth because of its disproportional intent to warp elections.

From your post:

"And, puhleez, enough of the infantile BS like "We are a Republic and not a Democracy!"

We are not morons on this forum so stop playing-with-words ..."

You will need to provide evidence to support that statement. You seem to be aware that there is a Constitution that is the law of the land.

You seem to be aware that the Electoral College is defined and mandated by this document.

You seem unable to make the connection that nay other way to elect the US President is not legal.

What is your malfunction in this?

By the by, we are a Federal Republic. There is a significant difference.
 
So you use facts, but you don't care if they are accurate. The topic is the Electoral College, no sense bringing up slavery and whatever tangent you choose.

So you dodge on the Amendment, you evade about the Vice President, and you clearly did nothing with respect to communicating with your Congressperson--clearly a demonstration of your lack of commitment.

Not my fault if your understanding of English is lacking.

For your edification, I'll make the point again. Nothing written two-centuries ago and called a Constitution is biblical in nature. Meaning, "the word of God".

Because the word of man is a highly changeable means of communication. The founding fathers were concerned with only one principle. Freeing themselves from monarchical rule and its failings. Nobody disputes their noble cause.

That does not necessarily mean, however, that they had any real notion whatsoever what a democracy should look like beyond freeing themselves of the yoke of monarchy. They overlooked the two facts that I mentioned, in the first instance because (in Agricultural Age) cheap manpower and lots of it were the key to production. African slaves were the answer.

Freedom for whites, yes. Freedom for slaves, no! Which is just one inconsistency of the Constitution.

The second was the identical freedom for both men and women, since both are the prime constituents of humanity. That notion did not grasp our founding-fathers either. It took another hundred and thirty-three years beyond the Constitution's for the 19th Amendment to be adopted giving women the right to vote.

And we are coming to the third factor that escaped them - in a market-economy where Supply and Demand dictate both profits and wages, there must be an equilibrium that permits fair compensation for all. Not an equality of earnings, but a fair distribution of incomes - that is, fairness throughout from the least net after-tax income earned to the most net after-tax income earned.

And yet, the American economy is plagued with Net Income unfairness.

That honest objective of fairness, we, as a nation, have not yet obtained. What we have is this:
20141108_FNC156.png


The unfairness in the sharing of Wealth (which is the consequence of Income) is highly obvious. As regards nation building, ours is still "work-in-progress" ...
 
Last edited:
More mangling of facts. There is no Article 12 of the Constitution, but there is a 12th Amendment and yes it was ratified in 1804.

A mangling of facts?

Perhaps bad English, but the facts are not mangled. You're reaching for arguments.

Moving right along ...
 
A mangling of facts?

Perhaps bad English, but the facts are not mangled. You're reaching for arguments.

Moving right along ...

Nice of you to cut off my quote of an undeniably mangled fact: "(With only ONE EXCEPTION, the PotUS)". Already proven wrong.

And of course, your blatant dodge of my question: "What did your Congressperson say when you asked him/her to propose an amendment to do away with the Electoral College? Or is it just us that have to listen to your complaining?"

I'm assuming No; and Hell Yes.
 
Not my fault if your understanding of English is lacking.

For your edification, I'll make the point again. Nothing written two-centuries ago and called a Constitution is biblical in nature. Meaning, "the word of God".

Because the word of man is a highly changeable means of communication. The founding fathers were concerned with only one principle. Freeing themselves from monarchical rule and its failings. Nobody disputes their noble cause.

That does not necessarily mean, however, that they had any real notion whatsoever what a democracy should look like beyond freeing themselves of the yoke of monarchy. They overlooked the two facts that I mentioned, in the first instance because (in Agricultural Age) cheap manpower and lots of it were the key to production. African slaves were the answer.

Freedom for whites, yes. Freedom for slaves, no! Which is just one inconsistency of the Constitution.

The second was the identical freedom for both men and women, since both are the prime constituents of humanity. That notion did not grasp our founding-fathers either. It took another hundred and thirty-three years beyond the Constitution's for the 19th Amendment to be adopted giving women the right to vote.

And we are coming to the third factor that escaped them - in a market-economy where Supply and Demand dictate both profits and wages, there must be an equilibrium that permits fair compensation for all. Not an equality of earnings, but a fair distribution of incomes - that is, fairness throughout from the least net after-tax income earned to the most net after-tax income earned.

And yet, the American economy is plagued with Net Income unfairness.

That honest objective of fairness, we, as a nation, have not yet obtained. What we have is this:
20141108_FNC156.png


The unfairness in the sharing of Wealth (which is the consequence of Income) is highly obvious. As regards nation building, ours is still "work-in-progress" ...

You got purpose of the 12th Amendment wrong. That isn't poor English, that is ignorance. I don't make fun of people for using the wrong word, but I will correct so you will know and do better.
 
You got purpose of the 12th Amendment wrong. That isn't poor English, that is ignorance. I don't make fun of people for using the wrong word, but I will correct so you will know and do better.

One-liner sarcasm.

It's all your good for ...
 
Nice of you to cut off my quote of an undeniably mangled fact: "(With only ONE EXCEPTION, the PotUS)". Already proven wrong.

And of course, your blatant dodge of my question: "What did your Congressperson say when you asked him/her to propose an amendment to do away with the Electoral College? Or is it just us that have to listen to your complaining?"

I'm assuming No; and Hell Yes.

Borrrrinnnnnggggggg!

M... r... a...
 
From your post:

"And, puhleez, enough of the infantile BS like "We are a Republic and not a Democracy!"

We are not morons on this forum so stop playing-with-words ..."

You will need to provide evidence to support that statement. You seem to be aware that there is a Constitution that is the law of the land.

You seem to be aware that the Electoral College is defined and mandated by this document.

You seem unable to make the connection that nay other way to elect the US President is not legal.

What is your malfunction in this?

By the by, we are a Federal Republic. There is a significant difference.

Only in tiny, tiny minds ...

Buy a dictionary ...
 
Is there any office holder like a prime minister of the EU that speaks for the members of the union when that is needed? If yes, how is that office filled?

There is none.

Only the EU Commission (unelected office) has a General Manager of sorts, which is a person nominated by the political heads of the European Union.

This must be done away with, but given the lingual diversity of the EU, it is not easy to find a political personage who would be acceptable to all countries given an electoral vote for the office.

Maybe Merkel ...
 
Is there any office holder like a prime minister of the EU that speaks for the members of the union when that is needed? If yes, how is that office filled?

There is none.

Only the EU Commission (unelected office) has a General Manager of sorts, which is a person nominated by the political heads of the European Union.

This must be done away with, but given the lingual diversity of the EU, it is not easy to find a political personage who would be acceptable to all countries given an electoral vote for the office.

Maybe Merkel ...
 
One-liner sarcasm.

It's all your good for ...

I'm going to stay away from your ignorance about what is sarcasm. What is the purpose of the 12th Amendment? Dazzle us with your dizzying ignorance. First you don't know what words mean (republic) and then that fact is pointed out, you then don't care what words mean. Apathy is so much more honest, go with it.

You've been whining and complaining enough about FATCA, have you complained to your directly elected Congressperson yet?

I can't wait to see what tangential deflection you come up with this time.
 
I'm going to stay away from your ignorance about what is sarcasm. What is the purpose of the 12th Amendment? Dazzle us with your dizzying ignorance. First you don't know what words mean (republic) and then that fact is pointed out, you then don't care what words mean. Apathy is so much more honest, go with it.

You've been whining and complaining enough about FATCA, have you complained to your directly elected Congressperson yet?

I can't wait to see what tangential deflection you come up with this time.

I frankly don't give a damn what you think.

I know that democracy and republic are words that are perfectly compatible.

I know that the 12 Amendment was intended historically to please southern states, less populated than the north - because immigrants were flocking into the northern colonies. And, the seeds of independence for the blacks had been planted.

That seed matured into the Civil War later in the century.

You have chosen to remain ignorant of these historical facts. Which is why you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And, as I do with obstinately unintelligent people who cannot debate without descending into sarcasm - a uniquely American trait, it seems - I'm putting you on "Ignore".

It's a long list, so you will feel perfectly at home ...
 
Last edited:
I frankly don't give a damn what you think.

I know that democracy and republic are words that are perfectly compatible.

I know that the 12 Amendment was intended historically to please southern states, less populated than the north - because immigrants were flocking into the northern colonies. And, the seeds of independence for the blacks had been planted.

That seed matured into the Civil War later in the century.

You have chosen to remain ignorant of these historical facts. Which is why you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And, as I do with obstinately unintelligent people who cannot debate without descending into sarcasm - a uniquely American trait, it seems - I'm putting you on "Ignore".

It's a long list, so you will feel perfectly at home ...

"I know that the 12 Amendment was intended historically to please southern states, less populated than the north - because immigrants were flocking into the northern colonies. And, the seeds of independence for the blacks had been planted."

Most people who are ignorant of a subject don't keep shouting out their ignorance. the 12th Amendment was to address the fact that no one liked having the 2nd place Electoral Vote getter becoming Vice President. The Electoral College was already in place before the 12th Amendment. Here is a link to the text so you can educate yourself:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You've been whining and complaining enough about FATCA, have you complained to your directly elected Congressperson yet? Keep those taxes coming or the IRS will get you.

No sarcasm has been used, implied or suggested. Your ignorance on these items is self-evident, if you actually read the posts you would understand.
 
Only in tiny, tiny minds ...

Buy a dictionary ...

Demcrats have a fascination with the world "tiny". First Trump's hands and now your mind.

You seem to think that you are making some kind of a logical point when you aren't.

The dictionary is where you can find that the there is no foundation for your thoughts.
 
There is none.

Only the EU Commission (unelected office) has a General Manager of sorts, which is a person nominated by the political heads of the European Union.

This must be done away with, but given the lingual diversity of the EU, it is not easy to find a political personage who would be acceptable to all countries given an electoral vote for the office.

Maybe Merkel ...

So the EU has addressed this issue with a process that is entirely removed from any connection to any democratic process and the US has addressed this issue by the Electoral College.

Still, the issue is recognized and addressed by both organizations of their various states.
 
So the EU has addressed this issue with a process that is entirely removed from any connection to any democratic process and the US has addressed this issue by the Electoral College.

Still, the issue is recognized and addressed by both organizations of their various states.

The EU has not needed to address the process, and when it does it will be a longggg day in hell before the EU institutes an Electoral College. The election off a President of the European Union will be by popular-vote.

The EC is a mischief perpetrated upon the American people by politicians craving for undeserved power. And it still is more than two centuries later.

Goodness, when the hell are WE, THE SHEEPLE ever going to wake up to this undemocratic electoral abomination called an Electoral College ...
 
Demcrats have a fascination with the world "tiny". First Trump's hands and now your mind.

You seem to think that you are making some kind of a logical point when you aren't.

The dictionary is where you can find that the there is no foundation for your thoughts.

Piffle ... (look it up!)
 
The EU has not needed to address the process, and when it does it will be a longggg day in hell before the EU institutes an Electoral College. The election off a President of the European Union will be by popular-vote.

The EC is a mischief perpetrated upon the American people by politicians craving for undeserved power. And it still is more than two centuries later.

Goodness, when the hell are WE, THE SHEEPLE ever going to wake up to this undemocratic electoral abomination called an Electoral College ...

You keep raving with passion and no logic.

You seem to have no grasp of the Constitution, the concept of the various states or the concepts supporting Federalism.

From this well of ignorance, you wail with passion and no wisdom.
 
Lafayette: you should take a gander at the rough draft of the 1787 Constitution. There was no electoral college, the president was elected by Congress for a single, 7 year term (never re-eligible). The reason for electoral college is that 1) there was no way to run a nationwide-popular vote in 1789 with the lack of communication and infrastructure at the time; 2) the problems presented by Congress electing the President, particularly that he wouldn't be "independent" enough from them to do his job.

Also, it's really only 3 times that the EC vote has been the opposite of the Popular vote. 1888, 2000, 2016. 1824 and 1876 don't really count. In 1824, many of the electors (1/3 of them actually) were appointed by state legislatures, not popularly-elected, so there's really no telling how the people of those states would have voted themselves. (This includes the 36 electors from New York, all appointed by the New York legislature, not by the voters). Also in 1876, an electoral commission of 15 members decided the election, not the EC directly (they were appointed to count the votes, and one of them was bribed by a southerner who wanted to end Reconstruction).
 
I picked up a copy of the Federalist Papers at B&N. I was reading the forward. The limitations of the series is that it's a work of propaganda: designed to convince New Yorkers to vote friends of the constitution in the ratifying convention. But it had more of an effect on our retrospective views of the constitution than on the ratification thereof at the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom