s0crates

I knew I couldn't be the only left leaning person who felt this way:

I know my history, so I'm deeply uncomfortable finding myself on the side of right wing European nationalists. Nonetheless I cannot help but think the lady has a point. Democracy matters.

Don't they have a trans-national election to elect the President and parliament of the EU?

Don't all the member states participate in said election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

There is another one in 2019. UK has a say. So does Germany. So does France. So does all the other members.

Or am I missing something?

Again my understanding of this is quite limited, so I welcome any corrections, but I don't think there is really such a thing as "President of the EU." Each branch of the EU government has its own president, so they have at least these four "presidents":

1. President of the European Council

2. President of the European Commission

3. President of the European Parliament

4. President of the Council of the European Union.

My understanding is that the European Parliament is the only elected body, and their power is quite limited. The executive role is mainly filled by the European Commission.

It seems you're right that European citizens did have a vote on President of the Comission for the first time in 2014, although apparently the rules stipulate that said votes only need to be "taken into account."

To be honest, it is awfully unclear to me how the Kafkaesque EU government works. I have a hard time blaming Brits who want out of the bureaucratic nightmare, but I'm not very confident in my opinion here. I'm open to being corrected by people who understand this mess better than I.

Personally, I'd say its more like the original 13 colonies giving up state powers to a federal government who gets to set some rules that trump the state rules.

Is that so? Honest question.

It doesn't sound to me like the EU gives member states representation the way our federal government gives individual states representation.

My understanding is that the EU consists of these 7 institutions: European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors.

The legislature consists of The Council of the EU and The European Parliament (with budgetary oversight provided by the Court of Auditors). The executive role is filled by the the European Commission and European Council. The judiciary is the Court of Justice of the EU. The European Central Bank is a bit like the Fed.

Of these institutions, only the European Parliament is democratically elected. So it would be a bit like US citizens only being able to elect members to the House of Representatives (only with the House having even less power), but having no say in the Presidency or Senate.

That's my limited understanding anyway. Admittedly I don't know much about this, so I'd welcome any corrections.

Found on Twitter:

"Brexit could be followed by Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakout, Latervia, Byegium. Only Remania will stay"

The UN?

Yeah just noticed that myself, thanks though.

We all know the answer to that. Texas.

The difference is the people of Texas have representation in the federal government.

I cannot believe I'm agreeing with conservatives (again), but it sounds like the EU is totally undemocratic. Hard to blame the Brits for insisting on their sovereignty.

However you feel about gun control, this is a good argument:

“I think that’s kind of a fundamental line for a lot of Republicans, and I would hope for a lot of Americans,” Cornyn said. “Any time you’re denying an American citizen their constitutional rights, it ought to be with evidence, the burden ought to be on the government, and it ought to come from a court.”

I would like to see the same line of reasoning applied to things like the Patriot Act and NSA spying.

Oh I see. I think I gave DCF156 a more charitable reading than you, but I understand why you attributed the aforementioned nonsense to him. His response to Burgold was a bit muddled.

So I guess that's one person who said something like that, but who was "the second vote"?

Ah, a second vote for the notion that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property" means "you can take his car keys, but not his gun".

As far as I can tell, nobody said that the due process clause meant "you can take his car keys but not his gun" except you. I certainly didn't say that. All I said is that the state cannot take your rights or property without due process, and one of those rights is the right to bear arms.

We could quibble about what "due process" involves or what your "rights" are, but I think we'll agree that your rights include those laid out in the bill of rights, and due process involves a fair and speedy trial in which you are charged with a crime, hear the evidence against you, and have the opportunity to defend yourself.

I don't think your analogy between taking a drunk driver's car keys and taking a bad guy's gun is exact, mainly because a constitutional right to travel is implied at best, whereas a constitutional right to bear arms is stated quite explicitly, nonetheless it is a close enough analogy for my purposes here. Regarding your analogy, I would say something like this:

1. We have enacted laws against drunk driving for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with drunk driving, take your car, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your license, your car, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your car and freedom back.

2. We have enacted laws against armed robbery for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with the crime, take your gun, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your right to to bear arms, your gun, your freedom, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your gun and freedom back.

The way I understand it, the state must charge you with a crime and convict you in order for you to be deprived of your rights and property. Of course you may be temporarily deprived of your rights and property while you await trial, but only if you are charged with a crime first.

It seems that gun control advocates would like to take people's guns without charging them with any crime (unless you have to be charged with a crime to get on the "no fly" list, which is not my understanding). That seems to be the force of the objection from gun rights advocates, and I don't think it is altogether unreasonable. Sticking with your analogy, this would be a bit like the police taking your keys and drivers license because they think you might be a drunk driver in the future.

Anyway this has turned into a long post, and I'm not overly committed to either side of this debate, but I wanted to reply to the nonsense you twice attributed to me. I didn't say anything like you seem to think I said.

I'd also like to add that I've generally found you to be one of the better posters in this thread. This debate is difficult because we have to weigh individual rights against the general welfare, and you usually seem to appreciate that difficulty. So hopefully you won't take this as a total disagreement, my intention is more to set the record straight.

Funny, my copy of the constitution doesn't say that.

Could you quote me the part of your copy, that does?

Well it does say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I imagine he's thinking that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is part of "liberty."

This video has been posted and discussed before.

No doubt cops have very dangerous and difficult jobs, and sometimes they have to make life or death decisions in a split second, but as others have pointed out, the video is irrelevant to many of the cases being discussed in this thread.

There may also be something about putting on the badge that makes people act in ways they wouldn't ordinarily. For example, consider the Stanford prison experiment, which showed that merely being named a prison guard had profound psychological effects.

I appreciate all the feedback guys, thank you!

I'm still hoping somebody can explain this PSLF business to me though . . .

Are the interest rates the same on all the repayment options? If so, chose option 2, pay as if you were paying option 1. Then, if something bad happens, you arentnup the creek at much.

Thanks. The interest rate is the same, just the term is different. The longer you take to pay, the more interest you pay. I see what you mean about taking option 2 for flexibility, but it looks like I'm allowed to switch payment plans whenever I want anyway, so it's somewhat of a moot point.

If you haven't read it thru, do so.

Basically the best way to achieve it is to do income based repayment. Standard 10 year plans will have nothing left to forgive.

Thanks for your response. I think your basic point is right.

I have read that info about PSLF through. It sounds like I should qualify, I am a full-time state employee working in education. If I do qualify, then my cheapest options are either the 25-year plan or income-based plan.

I'd rather be sure I will qualify so I don't pile up interest for 10 years and find out I don't. My concerns are:

1. Will it matter that I'm on 9 1/2 month renewable contracts? That is, will the 2 1/2 months a year prevent me from qualifying?

2. Although I have every hope of remaining in my current job for the next 10 years, and I seem to have a fair amount of job security right now (we're offering 15-20 sections of the classes I teach every semester, and my bosses like me), nothing is guaranteed in higher education these days. There is no such thing as tenure anymore. What if I lose my job between now and then?

3. The government might change the laws between now and then. What are the odds of that, and how might it effect me?

It seems like my best bet is to go for the lowest payment and apply for PSLF in 9-10 years to have the balance forgiven, but it also feels like a bit of a gamble. I'd like to have some kind of assurances that I would qualify. Who could I call for more information? Maybe Dept of Ed?

Update on my situation!

My loan has a new servicer (nelnet), and I'm officially back in good standing. My next payment is due in May, and I have to choose a repayment option before then. My current balance is $38k. Here are my options:

1. Standard repayment. $490/mo. for 10 yrs. (about $55k total).

2. Extended repayment. $290/mo. for 25 yrs. (about $85k total).

3. Income-based repayment. (Don't know how much, but probably lower per month and even more interest).

4. Graduated repayment. (Forget it).

I'm strongly leaning towards option #1. I can afford it, and if circumstances change, then I can switch plans at any time. I'd rather get it paid as soon as possible and pay less.

One thing makes me hesitate though: I may qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF). If you're in a full-time public service job for 10 years, and you make 10 years worth of payments, then you can apply to have the balance of the loan forgiven at the end of those 10 years. If I qualify, then it may be best to go for the lowest possible payments for 10 years and try to get the balance forgiven.

The "if I qualify" question is tricky though. I am a full-time public community college teacher, which ought to qualify, but my contract is a renewable 9.5 month contract. Will that count? It's hard to say, because they aren't even making the application available until October 2017. Also there is no guarantee that my circumstances don't change in 10 years. It seems like a bit of a gamble to rely on that.

Any advice? Anybody know the details of the PSLF?

Here's a link on PSLF: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

I agree with Larry and Predicto. Peaceful resolution is preferable if at all possible.

When you contrast this situation with Waco or Ruby Ridge, you have to think this has been handled better.

I'd take that bet.

Really?

The whole thing is puzzling. These guys obviously believe very strongly in something, it's just hard to tell what.

Yeah I've seen some of this sovereign citizen stuff. I get the general "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want" attitude. It's the specifics that puzzle me.

Some of it I kind of understand, like I saw a guy who insisted he did not need a drivers license or plates because he had a constitutional right to travel, and he was able to give several SCOTUS rulings to support that. I wouldn't try that stunt, but at least that kind of makes sense.

I even get the open carry guys, the 2nd amendment does say they have the right. Not that I support it, but I can at least follow the logic.

It's all this admiralty law, yellow frilled flag, persons as corporate legal fictions, your name in caps means something different, you are an unwitting slave and subject to the Queen stuff that I cannot make heads or tails of. I mean there must be some rationale behind it, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

It means that there are many parallel universes where things are different. When conditions are right people from ours are swapped for those in a different one. No one, including those that have been displaced, are aware this has occurred. The results are wild inconsistencies between the facts of our reality, and the beliefs of those unfortunate individuals.

Thats hysterical, but I really do wish somebody could explain to me what she's talking about.

Can somebody explain to me what this means?

http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AVR095-openlettertosheriffward.pdf

I'm a little surprised to learn about my being subject to the Queen, hoping for some clarification.

I was just having a conversation with somebody about "socialism," and it occurs to me that the BLM is obviously an evil socialist institution. I'm sure these fine citizens are just trying to protect us from a Stalinist nightmare.  Why if the BLM is allowed to proceed with this tyranny then the next thing will be forced labor camps and mass graves.

Am I doing it right?

I'm really disappointed with the Feds on this one. Even capturing them as they leave will feel somewhat hollow (not totally, but a little).

I mean, they've been so passive in attempting to avoid another Waco that they went fully the other direction. Now you've got employee's with their information potentially compromised, and a whole community has been harassed by people directly in threatening manners.

I have to disagree here. I give the authorities a lot of credit for avoiding a Waco/Ruby Ridge-type situation.

I do agree the Feds should do something about these idiots, but it should be done in a way that avoids bloodshed.

Lol I wrote the same thing in the prediction thread yesterday.

- Packers td before the half should have been negated on an illegal shift penalty but wasn't.

- Reed ruled down on a non review able call.

- Pass interference called on an uncatchable ball.

- Not a single holding call called on Green Bay all game.

7 penalties on us, only 3 on GB.