• 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!

Hillary Clinton: misogyny 'certainly' played a role in 2016 election loss[W:84]

Phys251 said:
Tell you what. You lose the attitude, and I'll lose the resistance to give you a direct answer. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

yet another deflection argument. your concession is noted.
 
Lafayette said:
Reagan's landslide election was the worse thing that ever happened in America. He continued LBJ's reduction of upper-income taxation (at 90% before LBJ brought it down to 70%) and reduced it to 30%. (And that's BEFORE deductions!)

Which means that Romney (in the middle of an election campaign) gleefully acknowledged to his Replicant cohorts that his effective Income Tax was only $14M. See that reported here: Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011.

He was "bragging to the guys" how low he could pay less taxes on revenues of $14M. (Boys will be boys ...)

RELATED News: 4,000 millionaires in Romney's '47%' - excerpt:

And the Replicant Party, whose major donors are all multi-millionaires want absolutely NOTHING TO CHANGE - and We, the sheeple, continue to vote them into control (nowadays) the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers of American governance.
Click to expand...

Hmm I find it interesting that you leave out an important distinction and I wonder why the tax Policy center which is a left win think tank didn't mention
that those people were more than likely business owners in an LLC or a corp S business in which the income is claimed on their personal taxes.

however they are also afforded the same business deductions as any other business.
you really should do better research on things before making claims.

also if you had actually read your own articles many of the people have invested in tax free bonds.
which anyone can do.

Millionaires who owe no federal income tax - May. 9, 2011

A lot of these are people who probably made it very big on Wall Street years ago and who turned around and put it all in tax-exempt bonds," Johnson said.
Many of her clients are in their 50s or older, and "they're very leery of equity markets."
Williams offered a hypothetical example: A retired person with $10 million invested in municipal bonds paying 5% interest, or $500,000 a year.
"Because there is no limit on how much tax-exempt interest you can earn without having to pay taxes, she pays nothing to the federal government," he said.

their are also other reasons that they might not pay some tax on items.

they suffered more capital loss than gains.
they had overseas investments and paid the tax on it there in which they can deduct that from the tax here.

of course anyone has access to these same things.
 
Phys251 said:
Right back at ya!
Click to expand...

not really since I actually addressed your argument and you couldn't. no only that you made up something I never even said.
why is it you can't actually address what people say and have to make up stuff they didn't? that is the bigger question.
even given the opportunity to go back and actually address what was argued you refused.

that tells me you can't support your argument.
 
ludin said:
not really since I actually addressed your argument and you couldn't. no only that you made up something I never even said.
why is it you can't actually address what people say and have to make up stuff they didn't? that is the bigger question.
even given the opportunity to go back and actually address what was argued you refused.

that tells me you can't support your argument.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
 
Lafayette said:
The popular-vote in any democracy is the ONLY legitimate vote....
Click to expand...

You are correct, except that the United States is not a pure democracy nor was it intended to be.......
 
Nap said:
You are correct, except that the United States is not a pure democracy nor was it intended to be.......
Click to expand...

More insinuation from the Rabid Right of the US being a Republic and not a Democracy. You are refusing the patent evidence.

Go read both definitions, and see how they are identical. Did you never take a class in Civics? Did you pass the exam ... ?
 
Lafayette said:
More insinuation from the Rabid Right of the US being a Republic and not a Democracy. You are refusing the patent evidence.

Go read both definitions, and see how they are identical. Did you never take a class in Civics? Did you pass the exam ... ?
Click to expand...

We are a representative Democracy. That is part of the compromise made between the federalists and the anti-federalists (strong central govt v weak central govt). Why is someone from France trying to argue against this very basic premise?
 
ibelsd said:
We are a representative Democracy. That is part of the compromise made between the federalists and the anti-federalists (strong central govt v weak central govt). Why is someone from France trying to argue against this very basic premise?
Click to expand...

All democracies are representative. (France is no different from the US.)

The only singular difference is the institution of the Senate, which exists to varying degrees in most but not all democracies.

It is not a question of compromise - not to my mind. State laws in the US do not supercede national laws.

As regards the Electoral College - it is NOT a representative institution, which is why it gives rise to electing a national president in spite of the popular vote against that individual.

IN ALL FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACIES ON EARTH - AND PARTICULARLY THE EU - THE POPULAR VOTE IS THE ONLY VOTE THAT MATTERS IN THE ELECTION OF THE "HEAD OF GOVERNMENT".

The Electoral College is a mistake that occured at the birth of the nation that should have been corrected more than a century ago. Candidates who DO NOT OBTAIN THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE are able to become PotUS.

The latest example being Donald Dork who has no national voting legitimacy whatsoever as PotUS ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
More insinuation from the Rabid Right of the US being a Republic and not a Democracy. You are refusing the patent evidence.

Go read both definitions, and see how they are identical. Did you never take a class in Civics? Did you pass the exam ... ?
Click to expand...

How about we go from actual quotes from the men that founded this country who were against a pure democracy?
 
Nap said:
How about we go from actual quotes from the men that founded this country who were against a pure democracy?
Click to expand...

What you do not understand is that history has changed the US from what it was to what it is now.

Quotes from the "Original Fathers" of the country are always interesting from an historical point-of-view. But they are rarely fully relevant to today's democracies - except to those unable to progress their thinking. Which is why they are called "reactionaries".

Or, as defined here:
A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.
Click to expand...

Progressives, otoh, look to the future and its needs in terms of present exigencies - especially unfair Income Disparity. Foremost of which, this century, is the advent of Social Democracies that are defined in this manner (from its web-site):
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe
Click to expand...

Capitalism is NOT an ideology. It is simply an exchange mechanism (pay for labor, cost for goods produced) without which we would be obliged to return to barter. When capitalism goes awry by means of finagled upper-income taxation (as occurred during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s), then unfairness in the sharing of Wealth is what happens. Meaning, precisely, this research offered by economists at the UofCal (Saez & Guzman):
20141108_FNC156.png
 
Lafayette said:
What you do not understand is that history has changed the US from what it was to what it is now.

Quotes from the "Original Fathers" of the country are always interesting from an historical point-of-view. But they are rarely fully relevant to today's democracies - except to those unable to progress their thinking. Which is why they are called "reactionaries".

Or, as defined here:

Progressives, otoh, look to the future and its needs in terms of present exigencies - especially unfair Income Disparity. Foremost of which, this century, is the advent of Social Democracies that are defined in this manner (from its web-site):

Capitalism is NOT an ideology. It is simply an exchange mechanism (pay for labor, cost for goods produced) without which we would be obliged to return to barter. When capitalism goes awry by means of finagled upper-income taxation (as occurred during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s), then unfairness in the sharing of Wealth is what happens. Meaning, precisely, this research offered by economists at the UofCal (Saez & Guzman):
20141108_FNC156.png
Click to expand...

Only in the mind of a regressive is it more fair to take what someone has earned to give to those who didn't.

From an evolutionary standpoint the Progressive ideology of wealth distribution is truly regressive. As the cost of living and taxes rise, you see more and more successful people electing to have fewer if any children. Conversely, having kids you can't afford is being incentivized. Which family structure do you believe would provide a better upbringing and a more likely hood of success and what do you think the consequences of having a much larger percentage of the population raised by people who do not understand how to get ahead in life?
 
Lafayette said:
All democracies are representative. (France is no different from the US.)

The only singular difference is the institution of the Senate, which exists to varying degrees in most but not all democracies.

It is not a question of compromise - not to my mind. State laws in the US do not supercede national laws.

As regards the Electoral College - it is NOT a representative institution, which is why it gives rise to electing a national president in spite of the popular vote against that individual.

IN ALL FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACIES ON EARTH - AND PARTICULARLY THE EU - THE POPULAR VOTE IS THE ONLY VOTE THAT MATTERS IN THE ELECTION OF THE "HEAD OF GOVERNMENT".

The Electoral College is a mistake that occured at the birth of the nation that should have been corrected more than a century ago. Candidates who DO NOT OBTAIN THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE are able to become PotUS.

The latest example being Donald Dork who has no national voting legitimacy whatsoever as PotUS ...
Click to expand...

Again, perhaps because you are foreign to the U.S. you do not understand the role of our states. There was a compromise between two factions at our Constitutional convention. One of those factions demanded that the states held the majority of power and the other faction demanding a strong central government. There was, ultimately, a compromise. In the U.S. the states are independent from the federal government in many ways, accept where specifically noted in the U.S. Constitution. Hence, each state gets a representative say in our federal elections and, as part of the compromise, each state is allocated a proportional number of electoral votes. The compromise is to ensure that smaller states have influence, and this comes above the vote of the individual.

The electoral college isn't a mistake. It was a necessary compromise made to ensure the states agreed to form a union and that compromise is still important today.
 
ibelsd said:
The electoral college isn't a mistake. It was a necessary compromise made to ensure the states agreed to form a union and that compromise is still important today.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers and original designers of the constitution insisted on two essential components. First the fact that the balance of "power" should be assured collectively by three institutions - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches. Secondly, that it was only by a popular vote of the citizens of the nation that officials were elected.

For the most part, that second attribute is maintained for all elective offices EXCEPT ONE. The PotUS.

It is thus a colossal mistake because the 12th Amendment that instituted the Electoral College perverts the collective democratic will of the people as expressed at the ballot box to elect a president.

The Electoral College is not only a US idea, so read about it from WikiPedia, here: Electoral College - and note that in most of those instances mentioned either the president had no "official power" or the idea was actually abandoned.

Moreover, the US made also another great-mistake (that it has refused to annul) when it created "gerrymandering" at the state level in the early part of the 19th century. This method also confuses the collective democratic will of the people because it unfairly manipulates geographic voting boundaries.

With these two voting aberrations, how is it that you do not understand that your statement above quoted above is of no consequence whatsoever in a democracy where political representation of the electorate must be fair, equitable and without manipulation.

What is key to any True Democracy is that the will-of-the-people is demonstrated directly in the voting booth. But in the US, it is manipulated as a "game" to obtain and maintain political power ...
 
Lafayette said:
The founding fathers and original designers of the constitution insisted on two essential components. First the fact that the balance of "power" should be assured collectively by three institutions - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches. Secondly, that it was only by a popular vote of the citizens of the nation that officials were elected.

For the most part, that second attribute is maintained for all elective offices EXCEPT ONE. The PotUS.

It is thus a colossal mistake because the 12th Amendment that instituted the Electoral College perverts the collective democratic will of the people as expressed at the ballot box to elect a president.

The Electoral College is not only a US idea, so read about it from WikiPedia, here: Electoral College - and note that in most of those instances mentioned either the president had no "official power" or the idea was actually abandoned.

Moreover, the US made also another great-mistake (that it has refused to annul) when it created "gerrymandering" at the state level in the early part of the 19th century. This method also confuses the collective democratic will of the people because it unfairly manipulates geographic voting boundaries.

With these two voting aberrations, how is it that you do not understand that your statement above quoted above is of no consequence whatsoever in a democracy where political representation of the electorate must be fair, equitable and without manipulation.

What is key to any True Democracy is that the will-of-the-people is demonstrated directly in the voting booth. But in the US, it is manipulated as a "game" to obtain and maintain political power ...
Click to expand...


That's not entirely correct. The Senate was originally not left to a popular vote. When taken in context with the Electoral College, and a great many writings of the founders, it becomes pretty apparent that direct democracy was to be specifically avoided. Feared, even.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
That's not entirely correct. The Senate was originally not left to a popular vote. When taken in context with the Electoral College, and a great many writings of the founders, it becomes pretty apparent that direct democracy was to be specifically avoided. Feared, even.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding.. and we have a winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom