I am not fully convinced that you know what you're talking about.

Communism is an egalitarian ideal. It explains that everyone should be equal.

But only insofar as the rending of "history" (hitherto) is concerned. That is, equal in class, because there is a lack thereof.

How is paying someone more than another person being equal?

Because payment is not a necessary issue of class.

One determinant of class can be income.

It is a necessary, but not sufficient determinant. That's why even after the Bolshevik revolution, which saw the overthrow of the old monarchy and Tsarists, doctors were still paid more than lumberers. The necessary distinction that you are failing to make is that being paid more is not in and of itself a sufficient criterion for a "class", which is the primary consideration of the proletariat revolution.

If we are using Marxist literature as a reference for Communism, then there isn't a distinction between either Communism or Democracy. The two are mutually inclusive. Communism is an attempt to, quote: "...win the battle of democracy...", by returning the sociopolitical province to a more pure form by raising up the proletariat and removing private property (among other outlets), specifically land and its resources. That is, power is given to the collective to move the end of history and not an institution (i.e. actual democracy--rule by the many). And Marx doesn't reject enterprise, or the free market, or free market enterprise. He rejects the dialectic materialism of history (vis a vis "history") and Capitalism (insofar as his issue is with the worship of capital in the Capitalist system).

Now, there isn't such a thing as an "applied ideal" that doesn't meet the criteria of said ideal. There's just a skewing of the ideal; the examples provided by ThePyg, for example, are simply dystopian ones--especially in the sense that the Communist Manifesto is a Utopian project, as an End of History perspective, and therefore antithetical to what occurred in places like Russia. A dictatorship cannot be an "applied" form of Communism any more than a highly regulated market can be an "applied" form of a "free market" system.

I find it somewhat ironic that you'd prohibit preteens from voting because of their mental immaturity, but argue that the voting age should be reduced to 13 (13+). Does something magical happen between 12 and 13 that skyrockets mental maturity, such that a 13 year would make more informed decisions, about a world they are largely ignorant of ,than a 12 year-old?

I always find the notion of a "holy spirit dwelling in people" rather humorous, because it only seems to pop up after people discover Jesus through somebody else. There's never any spontaneous conversions in remote parts of the world where people have never heard of Jesus, and suddenly realize their inner spiritus sancti.

The CMPA is a conservative funded organization. Is it really that surprising that a conservative funded "nonpartisan" organization found that the most conservative "news" media organization is the most balanced?

The thing about Anarchy is that most people think of it as "chaos" and colloquially use the term to mean as much. But Anarchy in its "application" means that there isn't a government institution present in a given society. All tribal societies are anarchic in their structure and function perfectly well.

Interestingly enough, we do test the mentally handicapped to gauge whether they can give consent in myriad issues.

note: I remember an episode of Law and Order SVU that covered that very issue.

What are you talking about? If the age of consent is raised or lowered it does to have a direct bearing on the legal definition of consent. The legal definition changes to the new age.

You're conflating age of consent law with the definition of consent in law. With age, it's not the definition of consent that changes, it's who is permitted to give the legally defined consent that is changed.

Communism builds a classless society so nobody can have more than anyone else.

How? Rhetorical question. It's done by removing private property and infrastructures that can generate class antagonism. Not by making everyone get paid the same or ensuring that everyone only has one television in their house.