The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

[Lafayette]

Well, income disparity isn't perhaps the only distinction between the two countries. As you point out, the government off France sets up controls as to the degree somebody is allowed to criticize it.

Bollocks. I never even intimated that notion.

The problem in France is Too Much Free Speech. The French language, unlike English, is highly voluble. A French politician can bore the piss out of someone in 20 seconds flat.

Unlike Donald Dork who can do it in ten-seconds ...

 

[prometeus]

You asserted that the actual, real world, documented rise of the stock markets was nothing more than talking points.

It amounts to little more even if those who can enjoy the gains. Those gains can only be sustained by real policy and actions which simply to date do not exist. The sentiment that made the markets rise can and will quickly change, especially in light on adverse world events and natural disasters. And of course such negative events will always negatively impact markets but not nearly as severely when they rise was only based on sentiment.

I had previously asserted that the rise of the stock markets was a good way to measure the presence or absence of hope.

And that type of hope quickly diminishes in the absence of tangible events.

Trump's election and his drive to decrease regulation, reform our Byzantine system of taxation and renegotiate trade deals are the drivers of the hope.

And to date ha has accomplished NOTHING.

 

[Lafayette]

THE TAXATION RIP-OFF

Well, income disparity isn't perhaps the only distinction between the two countries. As you point out, the government off France sets up controls as to the degree somebody is allowed to criticize it.

The only "control" on degrees is, for instance, those who want to take medicine.

My wife was given the opportunity to "select" the Law School of her choice. The problem becomes acute around large population centers, where families can spare the higher-cost of accommodations. That's not different from the US.

Income Disparity is only one measure of the Net Worth Mechanism. Supposedly, in the US, if you go to a "better school" you get a "better job". I don't believe in such malarkey. It's the job that makes (or not) the person, and not the other way around.

Income Disparity is the consequence of America's infamous degradation by Reckless Ronnie of Upper-income Taxation. See that particular history here:

Look at the year 1980, the first of the Reckless Ronnie Administration. Then again in 1987, before he left. Woht Happind! Upper-income taxation had plummeted to a general level of below 30%. (From which it has since recovered only a bit.)

But, here's the best part. Called "Effective Income Tax Rate" according to Income Bracket. For that breakdown, go here: Effective Income Tax Rates. That is, what is actually paid.

These are the Effective Individual Rates for the upper 20Percenters (of population):
*81st to 90th Percentiles $134,600 8.1%
*91st to 95th Percentiles $181,600 10.7%
*96th to 99th Percentiles $286,400 15.1%

The highest effective rates are not more than 15% of Total Income.

I call that a Rip-off Racket on behalf of a Select Upper-class who don't need it and it benefits their offspring who don't deserve it ...

NB: Yeah, yeah. I'm just jealous.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

THE TAXATION RIP-OFF



The only "control" on degrees is, for instance, those who want to take medicine.

My wife was given the opportunity to "select" the Law School of her choice. The problem becomes acute around large population centers, where families can spare the higher-cost of accommodations. That's not different from the US.

Income Disparity is only one measure of the Net Worth Mechanism. Supposedly, in the US, if you go to a "better school" you get a "better job". I don't believe in such malarkey. It's the job that makes (or not) the person, and not the other way around.

Income Disparity is the consequence of America's infamous degradation by Reckless Ronnie of Upper-income Taxation. See that particular history here:

Look at the year 1980, the first of the Reckless Ronnie Administration. Then again in 1987, before he left. Woht Happind! Upper-income taxation had plummeted to a general level of below 30%. (From which it has since recovered only a bit.)

But, here's the best part. Called "Effective Income Tax Rate" according to Income Bracket. For that breakdown, go here: Effective Income Tax Rates. That is, what is actually paid.

These are the Effective Individual Rates for the upper 20Percenters (of population):
*81st to 90th Percentiles $134,600 8.1%
*91st to 95th Percentiles $181,600 10.7%
*96th to 99th Percentiles $286,400 15.1%

The highest effective rates are not more than 15% of Total Income.

I call that a Rip-off Racket on behalf of a Select Upper-class who don't need it and it benefits their offspring who don't deserve it ...

NB: Yeah, yeah. I'm just jealous.

"There you go again", off your own topic and with incorrect facts: the topic you created is the Electoral College and the Reagan administration began in 1981.

 

[Lafayette]

"There you go again", off your own topic and with incorrect facts: the topic you created is the Electoral College and the Reagan administration began in 1981.

Wow, have you got thing or two to learn about debates:
*This is a debate-forum and it ranges all over the place regardless of the initial subject!
*Because of lowered upper-income taxation passed by the Reagan Administration the percentage of total Wealth acquired by the super-rich (0.1% of the population) grew every year thereafter up to the point were it equals the same value as the other 90% of the population.

Moving right along ...

 

[Athanasius68]

Bollocks. I never even intimated that notion.

The problem in France is Too Much Free Speech. The French language, unlike English, is highly voluble. A French politician can bore the piss out of someone in 20 seconds flat.

Unlike Donald Dork who can do it in ten-seconds ...

How is too much free speech a problem in France?

 

[Athanasius68]

THE TAXATION RIP-OFF



The only "control" on degrees is, for instance, those who want to take medicine.

My wife was given the opportunity to "select" the Law School of her choice. The problem becomes acute around large population centers, where families can spare the higher-cost of accommodations. That's not different from the US.

Income Disparity is only one measure of the Net Worth Mechanism. Supposedly, in the US, if you go to a "better school" you get a "better job". I don't believe in such malarkey. It's the job that makes (or not) the person, and not the other way around.

Income Disparity is the consequence of America's infamous degradation by Reckless Ronnie of Upper-income Taxation. See that particular history here:

Look at the year 1980, the first of the Reckless Ronnie Administration. Then again in 1987, before he left. Woht Happind! Upper-income taxation had plummeted to a general level of below 30%. (From which it has since recovered only a bit.)

But, here's the best part. Called "Effective Income Tax Rate" according to Income Bracket. For that breakdown, go here: Effective Income Tax Rates. That is, what is actually paid.

These are the Effective Individual Rates for the upper 20Percenters (of population):
*81st to 90th Percentiles $134,600 8.1%
*91st to 95th Percentiles $181,600 10.7%
*96th to 99th Percentiles $286,400 15.1%

The highest effective rates are not more than 15% of Total Income.

I call that a Rip-off Racket on behalf of a Select Upper-class who don't need it and it benefits their offspring who don't deserve it ...

NB: Yeah, yeah. I'm just jealous.

You posted a similiar graph elsewhere. According to it, The periods of the greatest shrinking of disparity occurred during periods of economic distress. It was not explained why those periods of time should be considered as the model to target.

 

[code1211]

The Constitution has never been voted upon by national plebiscite (popularly voted). It was written by a group of intelligent men and voted into place by state-representatives who had negotiated initially that states elect the PotUS. This was officialised in Amendment 12.

Given the times, perhaps that was necessary. Even in 1812, nobody would canvas the United States (of 13 colonies) in a popular-vote. But, we are no longer in the 19th century, but the 21st.

So, it is time we consecrated presidents by means of the popular vote - and uniquely the popular vote. Which is the only bonafide way of electing the Executive Officer mandated by the people s/he governs ...

You are still missing the key foundational aspect of our Federal Republic. Our Federal Republic is a Federal Republic.

As long as that is the structure of our government, what you are suggesting is not supported by our law.

You will need to arrange a Constitutional Convention to redefine the equal status of the Various States in our Federal Republic.

I will not be among the supporters in the state in which I'll be living when your campaign gets under way. I suspect that there will be very few states in which you will find a majority to support your initiative.

While I don't support your goal, I do support your right to pursue it.

We all all have empty desires with no rational prospect of fulfillment. I look forward to a day when the University of Minnesota will win the Big 10 Championship in Football. This hasn't happened since 1967, but, even with the slim odds this holds, the odds of my hopes being fulfilled are far better than yours. Mine are also less damaging to the Republic. However, Hell could freeze over, so, there's that...

 

[code1211]

So you can't even read a dictionary, huh? That's just sad.

One more time....

FEDERAL is the union of states under one central government....and the REPUBLIC is the system of government guaranteed to each state by the Constitution.

Well, you are able to type the words.

Now all you need is the understanding of what you have typed.

What is the key to your misunderstanding? What entities does the Constitution propose to unite?

 

[code1211]

It amounts to little more even if those who can enjoy the gains. Those gains can only be sustained by real policy and actions which simply to date do not exist. The sentiment that made the markets rise can and will quickly change, especially in light on adverse world events and natural disasters. And of course such negative events will always negatively impact markets but not nearly as severely when they rise was only based on sentiment.

And that type of hope quickly diminishes in the absence of tangible events.

And to date ha has accomplished NOTHING.

He is working against the Congress which is striving mightily to stop anything he may wish to do.

The political gyrations of our legislators is comical in their obvious reluctance to help the American people.

Just the hope that we might enjoy the fruits of Trump's labors has driven the Stock Markets to repeating and record highs.

You are right, though. The stuck-in-reverse political parties are striving to crush hope and stop change. By the look of things, they have been successful up to now. Trump may be learning the art of triangulation mastered previously by Bill Clinton.

The people of the United States suffer under the paralysis of political parasites who work only to build their petty fiefdoms of influence and self aggrandizement. Any benefit that accrues to the public good is only an incidental by product of their true goals.

If the Financial Crisis of 2007 -08 taught us anything, it taught us that. The American people are not the beneficiaries of our political parties; we are the victims.

 

[prometeus]

He is working against the Congress

He is watching TV and playing golf. He hasn't done jack ****.

Just the hope that we might enjoy the fruits of Trump's labors has driven the Stock Markets to repeating and record highs.

And will disappear just as fast in the absence of real actions.

You are right, though. The stuck-in-reverse political parties are striving to crush hope and stop change. By the look of things, they have been successful up to now. Trump may be learning the art of triangulation mastered previously by Bill Clinton.

The funny thing is that Trump said that Clinton was a good President.

The people of the United States suffer under the paralysis of political parasites who work only to build their petty fiefdoms of influence and self aggrandizement.

We agree on that.

Any benefit that accrues to the public good is only an incidental by product of their true goals.

If the Financial Crisis of 2007 -08 taught us anything, it taught us that. The American people are not the beneficiaries of our political parties; we are the victims.

Yes, it is true.

 

[code1211]

He is watching TV and playing golf. He hasn't done jack ****.

And will disappear just as fast in the absence of real actions.

The funny thing is that Trump said that Clinton was a good President.

We agree on that.

Yes, it is true.

Of course Trump said that Clinton was a good President. They are with very few exceptions, the same person. One notable difference is the first lady. Talk about a silk purse and sow's ear.

 

[Lafayette]

You are still missing the key foundational aspect of our Federal Republic. Our Federal Republic is a Federal Republic..

It is first a democracy.

Republic: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

How do people demonstrate their "supreme power"? In elections, of course.

But in a "real democracy" it is the popular-vote the decides the outcome of elections throughout the free world - with the exception of One Country.

The USofA.

I live in La Republique de France. (Where the President is decided by a popular-vote) Nobody in France insists that it is a "republic", they've known that since childhood. Nobody even insists it is a democracy, since they have known that since childhood as well.

ONLY IN AMERICA DO SOME INSIST ON A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS. As if there were some mysteriously crucial difference between the two words that made America "exceptional".

But there is no difference. Except that the US refuses to elect its PotUS by means of a the popular-vote alone ...

 

[Moot]

Well, you are able to type the words.

Now all you need is the understanding of what you have typed.

What is the key to your misunderstanding? What entities does the Constitution propose to unite?

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Duhhhh....

Our public school system seems to have failed you....but I suspect that's mostly your fault.

 

[code1211]

It is first a democracy.

Republic: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

How do people demonstrate their "supreme power"? In elections, of course.

But in a "real democracy" it is the popular-vote the decides the outcome of elections throughout the free world - with the exception of One Country.

The USofA.

I live in La Republique de France. (Where the President is decided by a popular-vote) Nobody in France insists that it is a "republic", they've known that since childhood. Nobody even insists it is a democracy, since they have known that since childhood as well.

ONLY IN AMERICA DO SOME INSIST ON A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS. As if there were some mysteriously crucial difference between the two words that made America "exceptional".

But there is no difference. Except that the US refuses to elect its PotUS by means of a the popular-vote alone ...

Ah-ha! You are not in the "US of A". Are you a citizen of France or of the US of A?

I live in Indiana which is a State. You live in France which is also a State. We both are members of States that in turn are members of larger organizations of States. Me in the USA and you in the EU.

I'm sure there must be a charter of some sort that guides the interactions of the Member States in the EU and formalizes the methods by which the various states interact and cooperate.

In the USA, that charter happens to be the Constitution. The method of interaction between the member states of the USA allows each state to maintain its own self government but defines the method by which those states are represented at the Federal level.

The small "d" democratic process used by each state to select representatives to participate at the Federal level is left to each of the various states to determine.

The strength of each state's representative influence at the Federal Level is based in part on its population but also on the mere fact that it is a constituent state. This is to avoid what has been termed since ancient times "the tyranny of the majority".

It's really a very elegant system to assure the integrity of the wishes of the various states.

How is this riddle solved in the EU?

What prevents the populations of Germany and France from dominating the Populations of the member states of the rest of the EU?

I assume that the EU is not as United as the USA or the secession of Britain would have been responded to as the Southern States secession was. Where's Lincoln when you need him?

 

[code1211]

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Duhhhh....

Our public school system seems to have failed you....but I suspect that's mostly your fault.

You seem to be making progress. You have now grasped the FACT that the Constitution unites the STATES.

Now, if you can just bring yourself to discard the notion that the Constitution unites the individual people, you will FINALLY understand why your thinking is so confused.

Is there anything I may help you to understand?

 

[Lafayette]

Ah-ha! You are not in the "US of A". Are you a citizen of France or of the US of A?

I live in Indiana which is a State. You live in France which is also a State. We both are members of States that in turn are members of larger organizations of States. Me in the USA and you in the EU.

I'm sure there must be a charter of some sort that guides the interactions of the Member States in the EU and formalizes the methods by which the various states interact and cooperate.

The strength of each state's representative influence at the Federal Level is based in part on its population but also on the mere fact that it is a constituent state. This is to avoid what has been termed since ancient times "the tyranny of the majority".

It's really a very elegant system to assure the integrity of the wishes of the various states.

How is this riddle solved in the EU?

What prevents the populations of Germany and France from dominating the Populations of the member states of the rest of the EU?

I assume that the EU is not as United as the USA or the secession of Britain would have been responded to as the Southern States secession was. Where's Lincoln when you need him?

From the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

I pay taxes in France and thus contribute to the General Welfare of France where I live and have brought up my family. I find that perfectly normal.

Why I (as a permanent resident abroad) should pay income taxes in the US and contribute to the general welfare of YOUR FAMILY is beyond my comprehension, and I find it perfectly abnormal.

The taxes I pay in France contribute to the general funding of the EU in a way that is no different from the US. The funds go to support a common system of law and the necessary courts. The funds also go to support EU-farmers as well as some international educational institutions and research institutes.

Beyond that, however, most national taxation goes to support the nation in which the tax is obtained. The EU nation-states have their own governments as well. The parallel is the same.

However there is one singular difference. When a EU national leaves the EU TO LIVE ELSEWHERE - say, the US - they DO NOT PAY TAXES back in their country of origin. Which has been, since the creation of the EU, the law.

The legal and governmental parallels between the EU and the US (though different in the "constitutional sense") are similar, and often identical. The US was one of several "models" upon which the EU was created.

But never ever did that model include taxing EU-citizens wherever they lived in the world OUTSIDE OF THE EU. Nor does it do so now.

Only the US does that ...

 

[code1211]

From the Constitution:

I pay taxes in France and thus contribute to the General Welfare of France where I live and have brought up my family. I find that perfectly normal.

Why I (as a permanent resident abroad) should pay income taxes in the US and contribute to the general welfare of YOUR FAMILY is beyond my comprehension, and I find it perfectly abnormal.

The taxes I pay in France contribute to the general funding of the EU in a way that is no different from the US. The funds go to support a common system of law and the necessary courts. The funds also go to support EU-farmers as well as some international educational institutions and research institutes.

Beyond that, however, most national taxation goes to support the nation in which the tax is obtained. The EU nation-states have their own governments as well. The parallel is the same.

However there is one singular difference. When a EU national leaves the EU TO LIVE ELSEWHERE - say, the US - they DO NOT PAY TAXES back in their country of origin. Which has been, since the creation of the EU, the law.

The legal and governmental parallels between the EU and the US (though different in the "constitutional sense") are similar, and often identical. The US was one of several "models" upon which the EU was created.

But never ever did that model include taxing EU-citizens wherever they lived in the world OUTSIDE OF THE EU. Nor does it do so now.

Only the US does that ...

Your post is informative, but didn't seem to address my questions.

In the decisions related to the governance of the populations of the various countries, are the decisions based completely on simple majority vote? Is there some acknowledgement of the individual member states?

Is the EU a direct democracy for all citizens of Europe?

I assume that you are a US citizen since you pay taxes to the US. As a resident of France, are you allowed to vote in the local, national and continental elections?

Would you be allowed to vote in a Brexit kind of a vote regarding France should one be brought up?

 

[Moot]

You seem to be making progress. You have now grasped the FACT that the Constitution unites the STATES.

Now, if you can just bring yourself to discard the notion that the Constitution unites the individual people, you will FINALLY understand why your thinking is so confused.

Is there anything I may help you to understand?

Who said anything about "unites the individual people"? Oh, yeah....you.

Your posts are just too stupid and dishonest for my taste. See ya. :2wave:

 

[code1211]

Who said anything about "unites the individual people"? Oh, yeah....you.

Your posts are just too stupid and dishonest for my taste. See ya. :2wave:

Weren't you the one who was raving about the elimination of the Electoral College and democracy and your dream of a presidential election by popular vote?

I could have you confused with a different poster.

Then again, you might have yourself confused.

 

[Lafayette]

Your post is informative, but didn't seem to address my questions.

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.)

In the decisions related to the governance of the populations of the various countries, are the decisions based completely on simple majority vote? Is there some acknowledgement of the individual member states?

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.)

 

[Lafayette]

You seem to be making progress. You have now grasped the FACT that the Constitution unites the STATES.

Now, if you can just bring yourself to discard the notion that the Constitution unites the individual people, you will FINALLY understand why your thinking is so confused.

Is there anything I may help you to understand?

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.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

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.

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. However, all it did was change the procedure of the Electoral College so that there was a separate vote for Vice President (no, not just the President is elected this way) and not to the 2nd most number of Electoral Votes. The Electoral College is an original construct of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3).

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?

 

[Lafayette]

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. However, all it did was change the procedure of the Electoral College so that there was a separate vote for Vice President (no, not just the President is elected this way) and not to the 2nd most number of Electoral Votes. The Electoral College is an original construct of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3).

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 could give a damn about its "original construct" in the Constitution. There were many things wrong with the Constitution from the get-go. Two of which were that all humans regardless of colour were created equal and had free-will, and that women could vote and hold office equally with men.

It's taken us 200 years to get by both of those idiocies that were LEFT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS WRITTEN BY SLAVE-OWNING WHITE MEN seeking to protect their own riches by manipulating the election of the Head of State.

And that is still the case today, more than two centuries later. The only evolution being that the rich are both male and female, but their desire is the same. To maintain the status-quo that promotes the accumulation of Wealth in a select group of people ...

The Electoral College is and always has been an unacceptable manipulation of the popular-vote and should be done away with. Only then will America we able to consider itself a "truly free democracy".

Free, that is, of the political manipulation by an elite sect of wealthy individuals ...

PS: And no I am not "communist". I believe in the market-economy that develops income and then wealth which is unequal. Our American inequality however is a distortion that creates an enormous chasm between two groups of the same people. When push-comes-to-shove it is always the poorest who do most of the dying - either at war or in their homes.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I could give a damn about its "original construct" in the Constitution. There were many things wrong with the Constitution from the get-go. Two of which were that all humans regards of colour or origin had free-will including blacks, and that women could vote and hold office equally with men.

It's taken us 200 years to get by both of those idiocies that were LEFT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS WRITTEN BY SLAVE-OWNING WHITE MEN seeking to protect their own riches by manipulating the election of the Head of State.

And that is still the case today, more than two centuries later. The only evolution being that the rich are both male and female, but their desire is the same. To maintain the status-quo that promotes the accumulation of Wealth in a select group of people ...

The Electoral College is and always has been an unacceptable manipulation of the popular-vote and should be done away with. Only then will America we able to consider itself a "truly free democracy".

Free, that is, of the political manipulation by an elite sect of wealthy individuals ...

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.