Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you don't like the US Senate functioning as designed.  Got it.


Thank you for answering.  Now kindly direct me to your posts that complained about this "minority rule" during the four years of the Trump administration.  After all, the GOP held a majority of the Senate seats, how dare the Democratic minority stymie the GOP legislation.

I asked you a question. You demanded I answer a counter question, which I patiently did.

Now you pose another counter question, without having answered my original.

Ok. You cannot answer my question. Repeat of the thread on Puerto Rican statehood.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 03:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I asked you a question. You demanded I answer a counter question, which I patiently did.

Now you pose another counter question, without having answered my original.

Ok. You cannot answer my question. Repeat of the thread on Puerto Rican statehood.

I can answer it.  Unlike you my positions are consistent.  I'll reiterate, if you have an issue with the Senate as designed why didn't you make any posts about it during the years it stymied the Trump administration?  The answer is because you're a massive hypocrite, but I always want to give someone a chance to respond themselves.  As for me, I have zero issue with the Senate functioning as intended, never have.  This is called consistency, which I realize confuses you.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2021, 03:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean here. Senators represent states as opposed to population. 

But equal representation of states is still representation, even if Senators are supposed to be "independent" of judicial or executive control and more "deliberative" than the House. 

But all states do include voters, and those voters elect the Senators, right? 

If Senators don't do what their voters want, they are generally not re-elected, right? 

And given that they represent states with very disparate populations, this means in principle that
on some votes, Senators whose states include a minority of American citizens could win Senate votes,
even if the losing sides states included a majority of the population. 

That would all be as the Framers designed, were it not for 1) the filibuster, which allows an even smaller minority to control
the process, thus preventing the passage of legislation by simple majority vote, and 2) the current situation in which a party places loyalty to person over Constitutional principles, such as the responsibility to oversee the executive.

Can you indicate where this transits from historical-political fact to "echo chamber nonsense." 

I've never been a fan of the filibuster so I have no problem if it's gone.

They represent states, not populations.  Each state gets equal representation.  There is no minority gets the majority.  

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can answer it.  Unlike you my positions are consistent.  I'll reiterate, if you have an issue with the Senate as designed why didn't you make any posts about it during the years it stymied the Trump administration?  The answer is because you're a massive hypocrite, but I always want to give someone a chance to respond themselves.  As for me, I have zero issue with the Senate functioning as intended, never have.  This is called consistency, which I realize confuses you.

And yet, you still haven't. That's the "consistency" in your position.

My question was not "Do you have zero issue with the Senate functioning as intended?" 

The question was --Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 

or was it designed to require a supermajority?

If I can't get a "yes" or "no," or even a "yes but" on the fourth call, I'm content to let the matter lie.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 05:52 PM)Dill Wrote: And yet, you still haven't. That's the "consistency" in your position.

My question was not "Do you have zero issue with the Senate functioning as intended?" 

The question was --Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 

or was it designed to require a supermajority?

That actually wasn't your question, but I'll answer it.  Originally, no.  It has, however, operated in that fashion for a substantial amount of time and I think the 60 vote threshold is well in keeping with the chambers purpose.

Quote:If I can't get a "yes" or "no," or even a "yes but" on the fourth call, I'm content to let the matter lie.

Again, I'll ask my question, did you make any posts complaining about the filibuster during the four years of the Trump administration?  We know you didn't make any, but I'll enjoy reading your dodge.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2021, 05:52 PM)Dill Wrote: And yet, you still haven't. That's the "consistency" in your position.

My question was not "Do you have zero issue with the Senate functioning as intended?" 

The question was --Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 

or was it designed to require a supermajority?

If I can't get a "yes" or "no," or even a "yes but" on the fourth call, I'm content to let the matter lie.

In the specific incident where you bemoaned “minority rule” it actually was set up to where a relatively small minority could decide.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In the specific incident where you bemoaned “minority rule” it actually was set up to where a relatively small minority could decide.

The interesting thing about the shift we've seen since Biden took office is all the new things that left leaning people want change that they never made a peep about the previous four years.  It's also interesting to see things they really, really, cared about, like the border crisis, become non-issues.  

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting thing about the shift we've seen since Biden took office is all the new things that left leaning people want change that they never made a peep about the previous four years.  It's also interesting to see things they really, really, cared about, like the border crisis, become non-issues.  

Eh, I find that a bit simplistic. Dems cared about the border crisis especially because the Trump era's approach were things like a family separation policy used as a deterrent. Many also scolded Biden for initially not increasing the number of refugees. They did not stop caring about these issues.


---
And since the debate goes nowhere anyway: I can understand and do find it extremely odd and unfair that a state like Wyoming, with less inhabitants than Hamilton County, gets two senators, or the Dakotas getting four, on the simple grounds that this is grossly overrepresenting certain american populations living there. That is unfair on its very face and yeah if that's touching the foundation then so be it.

And sure it leads to a majority of senators representing a minority of Americans. Now I get federalism and states rights and everything, but I also see the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming and some of those other rectangular, apparently randomly drawn states as somewhat of a non-factor. I might even say that keeping all these rural, little populated states is a "republican power grab", just as giving statehood to PR is seen as a democratic power grab. No statehood for PR, but keeping all these states heavily favors republicans, after all.

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2021, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting thing about the shift we've seen since Biden took office is all the new things that left leaning people want change that they never made a peep about the previous four years.  It's also interesting to see things they really, really, cared about, like the border crisis, become non-issues.  

Eh, that's politics. Yu just have to expect it, much like the Republicans not caring about the deficit when they are in control.

(05-07-2021, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: And since the debate goes nowhere anyway: I can understand and do find it extremely odd and unfair that a state like Wyoming, with less inhabitants than Hamilton County, gets two senators, or the Dakotas getting four, on the simple grounds that this is grossly overrepresenting certain american populations living there. That is unfair on its very face and yeah if that's touching the foundation then so be it.

And sure it leads to a majority of senators representing a minority of Americans. Now I get federalism and states rights and everything, but I also see the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming and some of those other rectangular, apparently randomly drawn states as somewhat of a non-factor. I might even say that keeping all these rural, little populated states is a "republican power grab", just as giving statehood to PR is seen as a democratic power grab. No statehood for PR, but keeping all these states heavily favors republicans, after all.

Understanding the reason behind it all helps to see why it happened this way, but it doesn't, in my opinion at least, justify keeping it this way. During the formation of this country, the smaller population states would have had more in common with each other than the larger population states. They would have had shared interests. But also slave states v. non-slave states. States with sea ports and those without. The idea behind it is that with the states having these varied interests, their Senators would vote based on that. They would group together in these ad hoc coalitions to pass legislation. They did not anticipate the formation of political parties to the extent we see them, today, an they certainly did not foresee them having the power to sway the vote of a Senator against the best interests of their own state.

Herein lies the problem. We have a system which is designed well, but there is this wrench in the gears called political parties. It doesn't take them into account because the system was suppose to prevent the factionalism that arose. It's one of the reasons why I am not necessarily the sort to hold the framers in the high esteem that is typical of some. They designed the system this way, then immediately set out to tear it down by creating parties almost immediately. The ones that knew better did it anyways.

This is the sort of thing that has caused me to call for a new Constitution for quite some time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eh, I find that a bit simplistic. Dems cared about the border crisis especially because the Trump era's approach were things like a family separation policy used as a deterrent. Many also scolded Biden for initially not increasing the number of refugees. They did not stop caring about these issues.

Allow me to rephrase and say it is much less of a public issue now.  I don't think that's even debatable.  I will absolutely concur that there are people whose attitude on the situation has been consistent.  They are certainly a minority.

Quote:And since the debate goes nowhere anyway: I can understand and do find it extremely odd and unfair that a state like Wyoming, with less inhabitants than Hamilton County, gets two senators, or the Dakotas getting four, on the simple grounds that this is grossly overrepresenting certain american populations living there. That is unfair on its very face and yeah if that's touching the foundation then so be it.

And sure it leads to a majority of senators representing a minority of Americans. Now I get federalism and states rights and everything, but I also see the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming and some of those other rectangular, apparently randomly drawn states as somewhat of a non-factor. I might even say that keeping all these rural, little populated states is a "republican power grab", just as giving statehood to PR is seen as a democratic power grab. No statehood for PR, but keeping all these states heavily favors republicans, after all.

Yes, The US is unique or unusual in a lot of ways compared to other democracies, this certainly being one of them.  It comes from being founded by men who both saw the value of a strong central government and also intensely distrusted it at the same time.  In fact, and not to diverge the topic, but the Second Amendment is another example of exactly that.  So, I can understand from an outside perspective how the system does not appear egalitarian, because it was deliberately made not to be in some ways.

What I don't like, and I cannot countenance, is people within the US; politicians, pundits or whatever, who only decry the system when it doesn't work to their advantage.  Or want to change the foundation of the system to solely benefit themselves. 

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the sort of thing that has caused me to call for a new Constitution for quite some time.

Thanks for the insightful reply. There's nothing to respond really than a thumbs up, especially since I know from past encounters that I probably concur with 99% of the things you say about that topic.

Also, the founding of the US is one of the most remarkable events of history to me and I still find incentives to learn more about it through replies like yours, so saying thank you is not just a figure of speech.

(05-07-2021, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to rephrase and say it is much less of a public issue now.  I don't think that's even debatable.  I will absolutely concur that there are people whose attitude on the situation has been consistent.  They are certainly a minority.

Well... I think I concur to a large extent, after all consistency usually is not the most important trait, left or right.
I will say this though, it also is less of a public issue now because some of the imho most controversial rhetorics are no longer heard and some of the most controversial policies are not followed any longer. I'd wager there's be more attention and ongoing outrage if Biden had said he plans to keep the Trump era's family separation policy.

(05-07-2021, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, The US is unique or unusual in a lot of ways compared to other democracies, this certainly being one of them.  It comes from being founded by men who both saw the value of a strong central government and also intensely distrusted it at the same time.  In fact, and not to diverge the topic, but the Second Amendment is another example of exactly that.  So, I can understand from an outside perspective how the system does not appear egalitarian, because it was deliberately made not to be in some ways.

What I don't like, and I cannot countenance, is people within the US; politicians, pundits or whatever, who only decry the system when it doesn't work to their advantage.  Or want to change the foundation of the system to solely benefit themselves. 

Yeah... we've been there, and I still feel that while I totally get where you're coming from (because sure I for example also think most democrats want PR statehood mainly becuase they hope it benefits them) there's still the issue of what aside from party politics would be the right thing. There's an argument to be made why reforms, like PR statehood, are the right (in this case, democratic) thing and I made points for that. My issue with your take is that no liberal or democratic politician could ever make these exact same points without being open to the accusation of only wanting to benefit their own side, resulting in an automatic dismissal of all these points made. To which I'd reply, even if party politics were to be the main or even only real motication here (which might be true, but still is rather assumption than fact), the points don't get any less objectively valid because of that.

Of course I don't want to claim that what I deem right is objectively right and every other take is not. I just try to explain why this particular counterargument of yours, imho, can be seen as flawed or weak in that respect, or why I see it as such.

As for the other parts, the reply to Bels also applies to you. It is not designed to be egalitarian is an interesting insight, albeit not a totally unfamilar one. It's apparently true, and the whole basis of me severely questioning it (whilst getting the arguments for it).

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 08:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: Keeping with the overarching theme of the thread. The partisan witch hunt in AZ is going as you'd expect, they are now searching for bamboo fiber in the paper because of an online conspiracy that 40k ballots were shipped in from China. The fallout part though that really matters is that the DOJ Civil Rights Division has sent a letter to AZ expressing concerns with the process and it potentially being illegal. Violations of these federal laws could put all AZ election matters under the oversight of a federal judge for the next decade...all because they are chasing ghosts for Donald Trump.

Well that makes sense. According to a Cyber-Ninja rep, the Chinese have been planning to take over the US without a shot since 1963. This could have been part of their big push, finally.  While the MSM was following the "Russia Hoax", Dems snuck Chinese ballots into AZ--probably across the Mexico border, the parts with no wall. And it worked, as the Chinese now have their man in Washington.

Unfortunately, it looks like the recount will have to stop my May 14, because the venue will be rented to other customers. And as of two days ago, only 200,000 votes had been counted. 

All this "federal law" BS is part of the steal. This whole election mess would have been avoided if all election officials and judges had been required to swear an oath to Trump instead of the Constitution, but how's that going to happen when the deep state operates a fourth branch of gov.?

[Dill]

(05-07-2021, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In the specific incident where you bemoaned “minority rule” it actually was set up to where a relatively small minority could decide.

Ok I am not sure what you mean here, as the "bemoaning" you originally addressed referenced a GOP vote in the Senate which voided Trump's removal from office.  Impeachment requires a super majority. I was not claiming that the GOP was in the Senate minority then, or that they somehow won the impeachment vote with fewer votes.

My reference to "minority rule" concerned the ability of a party representing a minority of the population to keep effective control of the government. Remember the context: I was reminding Hollo that Trump support has never been a majority of the voters; it has rarely exceeded even 40%. So while my complaint may include current functioning of the Senate, it is not merely that, but speaks to a larger constellation of political innovations, including Gerrymandering and voter suppression, which enable a minority to exercise outsize power, especially to keep itself in power.

To flesh out the Senate's part of this: even under simple majority votes, it is possible for 50 senators from the states with the least population--16% of the total population--to block legislation desired by the 50 senators with the remaining 84%.  When the filibuster effectively requires supermajorities, then 41 Senators representing only 11% of the population could potentially block the will of the majority.

Because the US is, ultimately, supposed to be a Democracy based upon the principle of majority rule--that's what makes democracies democracies--something is wrong with this picture. Even if senators were not intended to represent "population," the effect of current arrangements re-produces the very flaw/problem which led the Founders to scrap the Articles of Confederation and re-affirm the principle of simple majority voting. They were tired of a few minority population states holding the entire government hostage.

The problem the founders faced is intensified by the addition of party politics (which as Bels explained above, tends to negate the regional and economic divisions that Federalists assumed would mitigate factional dominance). And that party problem is worsened now that, for the first time in U.S history, we have party demanding allegiance to a person/personality rather than to principle. (That's the import of the Cheney op ed posted above.)

I don't think we disagree on how or what the Senate was meant to represent--which is states, not population. As someone who grew up in a small pop-state, I am fine with federalism. (I esteem the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming much more than does Hollo.) I am fine with the original simple majority requirement for passing bills. And I am even willing to countenance a TALKING filibuster at this point, if it helps assure accountability and thorough debate. So you could say I "hate" the current Constitution much less than Bels does. 

But I am not fine with a situation in which, for example, a person not in power can, through his control of a party's duly elected officials, effectively select and block legislation willed by the majority of US voters, in part because the Senate is set up to represent states rather than population. 

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 06:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The question was --Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 
or was it designed to require a supermajority?

That actually wasn't your question, but I'll answer it.  Originally, no.  It has, however, operated in that fashion for a substantial amount of time and I think the 60 vote threshold is well in keeping with the chambers purpose.

What was my question, then?  Here is the original from post # 24:
Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, or was it designed to require a supermajority?

Then there is this restatement in #35: Now--Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation,
or was it designed to require a supermajority?

To the second bolded: So when you say the Senate is functioning "as designed," you mean as designed since since the latter 19th century, not as originally designed, so that a simple majority vote could pass legislation in the Senate?

You appear to agree, finally, that the Framers "designed" the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority vote, yet you also maintain that a 60 vote threshold is "consistent with the Chamber's purpose." You mean consistent with the "redesigned" purpose, then? Because a 60 vote threshold for passing bills isn't consistent with the founder's intent--even of anti-Federalist Jefferson.

(05-06-2021, 06:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, I'll ask my question, did you make any posts complaining about the filibuster during the four years of the Trump administration?  We know you didn't make any, but I'll enjoy reading your dodge.

??  I have not complained about the filibuster before under ANY administration, including Trump's or Obama's. So why would I "dodge" that?

I think I see the angle:

lever a "hypocrisy" charge, ex post facto, diverting discussion of current thread topics to discussion of my alleged character flaw. 

But a bit premature.  If I defend the filibuster next time Dems are in the minority, then you might have your "hypocrisy" case.

For now, my finally including the filibuster in critiquing a package of innovations which enables superminority control of the government doesn't suddenly make me a hypocrite because I have never criticized--or defended--the filibuster before. That's pushing the hunt for outrage rather too far.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 06:39 PM)Dill Wrote: What was my question, then?  Here is the original from post # 24:
Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, or was it designed to require a supermajority?

Was that the post I responded to?

Quote:Then there is this restatement in #35: Now--Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation,
or was it designed to require a supermajority?

To the second bolded: So when you say the Senate is functioning "as designed," you mean as designed since since the latter 19th century, not as originally designed, so that a simple majority vote could pass legislation in the Senate?

I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.

Quote:You appear to agree, finally, that the Framers "designed" the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority vote, yet you also maintain that a 60 vote threshold is "consistent with the Chamber's purpose." You mean consistent with the "redesigned" purpose, then? Because a 60 vote threshold for passing bills isn't consistent with the founder's intent--even of anti-Federalist Jefferson.

I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.

Quote:??  I have not complained about the filibuster before under ANY administration, including Trump's or Obama's. So why would I "dodge" that?

I think I see the angle:

lever a "hypocrisy" charge, ex post facto, diverting discussion of current thread topics to discussion of my alleged character flaw. 

But a bit premature.  If I defend the filibuster next time Dems are in the minority, then you might have your "hypocrisy" case.

For now, my finally including the filibuster in critiquing a package of innovations which enables superminority control of the government doesn't suddenly make me a hypocrite because I have never criticized--or defended--the filibuster before. That's pushing the hunt for outrage rather too far.

By your own admission you have not complained about the filibuster before, despite it being in place since the mid 1800's.  As it now stymies your apparently preferred agenda you suddenly take issue with it.  Does this make you a hypocrite?  No, many of your other positions reveal your hypocrisy, but this is not one of them.  Hence my not making the assertion in this instance.  What it does make you is inconsistent, which is the charge I levelled against you in this instance. This is neither "rather too far" or even too far, it's precisely on point.  I must say, watching your edifice of genteel erudition erode by the post is amusing me to no end.  My how the mighty have fallen.  

[*michaelsean*]

(05-07-2021, 06:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok I am not sure what you mean here, as the "bemoaning" you originally addressed referenced a GOP vote in the Senate which voided Trump's removal from office.  Impeachment requires a super majority. I was not claiming that the GOP was in the Senate minority then, or that they somehow won the impeachment vote with fewer votes.

My reference to "minority rule" concerned the ability of a party representing a minority of the population to keep effective control of the government. Remember the context: I was reminding Hollo that Trump support has never been a majority of the voters; it has rarely exceeded even 40%. So while my complaint may include current functioning of the Senate, it is not merely that, but speaks to a larger constellation of political innovations, including Gerrymandering and voter suppression, which enable a minority to exercise outsize power, especially to keep itself in power.

To flesh out the Senate's part of this: even under simple majority votes, it is possible for 50 senators from the states with the least population--16% of the total population--to block legislation desired by the 50 senators with the remaining 84%.  When the filibuster effectively requires supermajorities, then 41 Senators representing only 11% of the population could potentially block the will of the majority.

Because the US is, ultimately, supposed to be a Democracy based upon the principle of majority rule--that's what makes democracies democracies--something is wrong with this picture. Even if senators were not intended to represent "population," the effect of current arrangements re-produces the very flaw/problem which led the Founders to scrap the Articles of Confederation and re-affirm the principle of simple majority voting. They were tired of a few minority population states holding the entire government hostage.

The problem the founders faced is intensified by the addition of party politics (which as Bels explained above, tends to negate the regional and economic divisions that Federalists assumed would mitigate factional dominance). And that party problem is worsened now that, for the first time in U.S history, we have party demanding allegiance to a person/personality rather than to principle. (That's the import of the Cheney op ed posted above.)

I don't think we disagree on how or what the Senate was meant to represent--which is states, not population. As someone who grew up in a small pop-state, I am fine with federalism. (I esteem the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming much more than does Hollo.) I am fine with the original simple majority requirement for passing bills. And I am even willing to countenance a TALKING filibuster at this point, if it helps assure accountability and thorough debate. So you could say I "hate" the current Constitution much less than Bels does. 

But I am not fine with a situation in which, for example, a person not in power can, through his control of a party's duly elected officials, effectively select and block legislation willed by the majority of US voters, in part because the Senate is set up to represent states rather than population. 

I understand what you meant by minority rule, and as stated previously that I disagree.

But the specific instance you mentioned (Trump’s potential removal) is a poor choice to complain about your idea of minority rule as constitutionally a minority of actual senators can stop it.

While I find the timing of the anti-filibuster rhetoric questionable, I am fine with it being removed as long as the ones doing the removing don’t start bitching when the tables turn. Since the talking filibuster requires a certain number of the non-filibustering party to be in the chamber to make up a quorum , I don’t think we will see the return of that.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-07-2021, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eh, I find that a bit simplistic. Dems cared about the border crisis especially because the Trump era's approach were things like a family separation policy used as a deterrent. Many also scolded Biden for initially not increasing the number of refugees. They did not stop caring about these issues.


---
And since the debate goes nowhere anyway: I can understand and do find it extremely odd and unfair that a state like Wyoming, with less inhabitants than Hamilton County, gets two senators, or the Dakotas getting four, on the simple grounds that this is grossly overrepresenting certain american populations living there. That is unfair on its very face and yeah if that's touching the foundation then so be it.

And sure it leads to a majority of senators representing a minority of Americans. Now I get federalism and states rights and everything, but I also see the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming and some of those other rectangular, apparently randomly drawn states as somewhat of a non-factor. I might even say that keeping all these rural, little populated states is a "republican power grab", just as giving statehood to PR is seen as a democratic power grab. No statehood for PR, but keeping all these states heavily favors republicans, after all.

I’m not sure of how the EU works. (Hey at least I’m honest) Does Austria get an equal vote in any part of it?

Of course the best solution is to keep as much power in the states as possible thereby negating any real or perceived unfairness in the federal system. New York and California deciding what happens in Wyoming is equally ridiculous.

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 07:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m not sure of how the EU works.

Yeah that kinda makes two of us.
It's not very transparent to say the least.

(05-07-2021, 07:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Does Austria get an equal vote in any part of it?

Well, that is surprinsingly complicated to answer. There's an European parliament where Austrian delegates are elected to in proportion to the population, eg. not so many. Small countries are slightly overrepresented. What this parliament does in practice, well, that would take too long to moan about. In theory, control and legislate.
The "government" is the Commission, every country gets to send one person into that Commission. Usually local politicians we don't know what to do with. The actual overall goals are somewhat informally decided in the European Council, where every country gets a vote through their head of government. The principle of unanimity applies in most cases. You can imagine how much gets done there. Eg. Poland always says no and the thing is dispersed.
But hey we also got the Council of the European Union, where ministers (think heads of department) from every country decide things in their respective fields. Eg. foreign affairs are decided there by the foreign ministers of each country, again principle of unanimity, again there's a reason we do not really have a common foreign policy. There are topics where a "double majority" is enough, representing the double amount of people, where Austria could get overruled. I really don't know when this applies though.

Now you might ask how this all works and how the cogs match. There's just no easy way to tell and I figure you weren't really after the long uneasy way to tell. The EU basically doesn't work properly, so it's a tough comparison to the US really.

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2021, 07:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Now you might ask how this all works and how the cogs match. There's just no easy way to tell and I figure you weren't really after the long uneasy way to tell. The EU basically doesn't work properly, so it's a tough comparison to the US really.

Yeah, the EU is a mess. There are some things I like about it, but they overcomplicated it. Which, to be fair, was destined to happen with that many cultures trying to come together.

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, the EU is a mess. There are some things I like about it, but they overcomplicated it. Which, to be fair, was destined to happen with that many cultures trying to come together.

Yeah, there might not be an easy way, and politicians have to sell the whole idea in their countries after all or else they brexit away. Which demands a lot of compromise and makes the whole thing pretty ineffective.

There's an overall picture of a continent devastating itself in two gruesome wars and the EU being a peace project to avoid this ever happening again. Which makes me a passionate EU proponent despite all its severe flaws.