what was the sentence right after that in Manuel's post?

What about the pandemic, did the member states help each other out? — Manuel

I see it makes more sense now. :smile:

But that's not a consequence of the function of the EU but a result of the gross underestimation of the risks of a viral pandemic, which underestimation we've seen in almost every country that hadn't dealt with MERS and SARS. — Benkei

It's true that the world was unprepared. Most of it. Not Taiwan or South Korea. But as soon as Biden came to office, the US did way better than the EU in organizing vaccine rollouts.

Now that's not the case, due, in large part, to the denialism of large swaths of the US population. But there's no reason why Europe could not have organized itself much better to respond to a crisis. It's a fault in the organization of the EU, it need not happen this way.

Why take him so seriously? Greece and the other member states were collectively fucked by the banking industry, which claimed if Greece failed on its bonds it would cascade through Europe. Everybody feared that spectre and the resultant disintegration of the EU. Of course, Greece also got itself in that mess in the first place by window dressing its accounts through the use of off market swaps (courtesy of Goldman Sachs). — Benkei

Why take him seriously? He went to the EU to argue that they couldn't pay back the money they were being lent! They did not listen to him, and said what I quoted to you. What happened then? Brutal austerity. That's not a law of nature. It need not have occurred.

So really, who cares what he thinks? He probably makes some fair criticisms, I have some of my own especially around the introduction of the EUR but let's not pretend — Benkei

One only "cares" about people who seem to make some sense on what they're saying. That's the only extent to which anybody should care about what anyone says. Yes, he's overly critical in my estimation, but if you read about how the EU formed and how they dealt with the crisis based on the observations of an insider to the IMF, it's interesting and tragic.

I'm not saying the EU is ALL bad. Not having to carry passports over borders, being able to move freely and having a common currency is comfortable and good. But again, normal citizens don't have a say about what laws pass in the EU, or at least, very rarely.

Flawed democracies in the EU: — Benkei

Of course. There's no unflawed democracy at all. And the US is FAR from a political paradise. But they tend to treat each member state in a healthier manner than EU countries treat each other.

A sweeping statement completely devoid of argumentation. Useless. — Benkei

Is there some reason you can't engage others like a normal person?

I'm not saying EU is ALL bad. Not having to carry passports over borders, being able to move freely and having a common currency is comfortable and good. — Manuel

Would rather have a divided Europe, keeping in mind recent, twentieth century history with world war 1 and world war 2? A unified Europe is much better for world peace.

That is emphatically not what I said.

That is emphatically not what I said. — Manuel

Okay, but i am saying that the EU is important for world peace. Sorry for butting into your conversation. :sad:

No I mean, read the four words prior to where you quoted.

I agree with you. It's a shame they aren't better organized and coherent. They are important for the world.

You're not butting in.

No I mean, read the four words prior — Manuel

Your not the first person here to tell me what to read. :zip:

:lol:

I mean, it's four words, not entire sentences.

No worries man, it happens to all of us, particularly if we're emotional on a topic, which happens a lot in politics.

we're emotional on a topic — Manuel

I guess that explains the angry diatribe against US presidents in the OP. :gasp:

I like the businessman in political power, perhaps he'll do a good job. The military runs things anyway - the president is just a figurehead. I'm from merry old England, but cast opinion is not shrouded by my own greed. I'm being elegant. He has a few titles under his belt, stands against racism and is patriotic.

I like the businessman in political power, perhaps he'll do a good job. — Varde

That's pretty much how it works here in America. Government representing special interest groups insurance companies and big business. Nevermind the people, we fend for ourselves.

Not a very strong democracy, imo.

I'm well aware my old bean.

:victory:

So, barring illness Trump will be the next president of the USA, simply by virtue of him not being in a position to fuck things up whereas Biden will. How should other countries react to the fascist douche being elected? — Benkei

If Trump really wins the elections fair and square, then nothing.

Take him as the President of the United States and simply try to deal with him like with any US President.

You should remember that the US Administration is far more than the POTUS. In the end it's the job of the Americans to select their President, not ours.

Just like we will accept what the Dutch choose as their leader.

Is there some reason you can't engage others like a normal person? — frank

You're a grown man. If you throw out comments like a five year old and subsequently whine about how I react to them I even have less of a reason to engage you normally. As is quite apparent, even in this thread, I take plenty of time to discuss things with people in a normal manner if they make at least a bit of an effort.

Well we accept Orban too but we're not silent about it.

If you throw out comments like a five year old — Benkei

So what I'm gathering is that you didn't know the EU is just a partial government. It's not a fully functional government like the USA. So you need an argument before you'd believe that.

That's just... odd

Well we accept Orban too but we're not silent about it. — Benkei

One thing for media to criticize foreign governments, another thing for governments of other countries to weigh in. There is a reason that we do have diplomats, because otherwise nation states would ferocious wolves to each other. Nothing would be more easy to spread hostility and discontent between two countries.

Basically the US is like an arguing couple (with Mr & Mrs DNC/GOP) that you have to be with in the same table. The last thing a third party sitting with Mr & Mrs America would want would be to take sides in this heated marriage quarrel. And even if one does want to be outside of the couples fierce fights, the couple will actively draw into their quarrels those who sit close to them (as happened with Ukraine). Honestly, nobody wants to participate in that shit show.

Hence governments will be somewhat calm, but in truth a Trump-Biden-Trump presidency would be really a toxic mix that would put down and out the "Last Superpower". Talk about nonexistent or negative leadership.

So what I'm gathering is that you didn't know the EU is just a partial government. It's not a fully functional government like the USA. — frank

As the name states, it's a Union and unlike the Federation that the US is, it's an union of independent states. No matter what bullshit people in Brussels want to fantasize it being.

The precise term would be a Confederacy, but that term (thanks to US history) has a bad rhyme to it.

The last thing a third party sitting with Mr & Mrs America would want would be to take sides in this heated marriage quarrel. — ssu

:100: That is spot on, as far as allies (sitting with) are concerned. Putin, not so much.

Yeah Frank. Why don't you go on and explain to me what the EU is. :rofl:

The precise term would be a Confederacy, but that term (thanks to US history) has a bad rhyme to it. — ssu

It's not a confederacy either. It's entirely it's own beast, so let's just call it the union.

Putin, not so much. — James Riley

Exactly. Yet the Russian have a specific agenda: the objective is to increase the distrust Americans have on their government. And have NATO go the way of SEATO and CENTO: to the dustbin of history. Naturally Americans can do this by themselves, but why not help your enemy with this?

This is how democracy works: prior to the American civil war there were five different parties that claimed to be anti-slavery. Only one party was pro-slavery.

The result was that anti-slavery energy was scattered at best and divided against itself at worst.

Lincoln gathered all the anti-slavery parties together and thus won the presidency. — frank

No, that's how a polarized, simplificationist two-party system works. In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails, not what the issue is about or how well it is being handled in terms of economics, logistics, and such.

But indeed, Americans tend to call that "democracy".

Plurality of parties usually means there's either no pressing issues to deal with or there's apathy about dealing with the issues at hand.

Typical American response.

Again, no. A country has to deal with dozens of issues at any given time, most of which require some creativity, ingenuity. A dichotomous two-party system kills that creativity, ingenuity.


In the example of slavery: this was an issue on which two camps were possible at the time, in those circumstances, so there were party A, B, C, D, E who were against slavery, and party F who was for it.

But on some other issue, such as gun ownership, those parties couldn't form those same two camps, but, for example, A, B, F on the one side, and C, D, E on the other side.
While on the issue of women's rights, they could be divided in three camps, A, B vs. C, D vs. E, F.

There's a reason why there is a mutltitude of parties: because they do have different views, different programmes, which only partly overlap, and overlap differently on different issues.

The difference between old-school European politics and American politics is that old-school European politics approaches political communication as a means to solve a problem, a constructive exchange of ideas so as to jointly come up with the best solution of a problem. Whereas American politics is all about persuasion, persuading others of one's view, the prevailing of one will over another.

From what I've seen, Americans tend to be this way in general as well: "Either you're with me, or you're against me. Either you see things the way I do, or you're wrong/bad/defective. (But look, I'm so nice that I sometimes even let you have your wrong opinion!)" This is more pronounced with Republicans than with Democrats (although Democrats are still firmly in that dichotomous way of being). And this doesn't pertain just to how they handle politics, it's about everything, from cosmetics, to cooking, to the meaning of life: that same dichotomous mentality.


What you see as "apathy" in EU politics is actually putting the solving of a problem first, and placing the desire to rule as a distant second, or further down the list. EU politics is like a brainstorming session and teamwork to implement the best idea.

In short, the EU has a long way to go to become democratic. — Manuel

I wonder what you mean by "democratic".
It seems you mean something like "being voted into a position of power, as opposed to inheriting it or usurping it".

In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails — baker

Yes. Believe it or not, democracy is about power.

Well, that would be a step in the right direction. As far as I can recall, you can only do this for the EU parliament, which has no power though.

I'd prefer that by "democratic", the EU would follow the will of most of its participants when it comes to policy. That's still a long way off.

The EU should do what France did when we fought King George. If Trump can turn to Russia for help in his insurgency, certainly we can ask the EU to ally with the United States against that insurgency.