CO Civil Rights Division

[Ah Pook]

I don't post the the L&P forum but this seems the best place.

The Phillips family seems to be the whipping boy for all things "nit wit". The Co Civil Rights Division is the driving force behind it.

I am not in lock step with the Phillips family's values but I will defend their rights to have those values.

I am against everything the CO Civil Rights Division is tasked with. Vague mission, no oversight for a government funded entity and no accountability. Weren't they defunded this summer?

Canada has 12 of these commissions and there is growing push back.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39555/colorado-christian-baker-court-again-time-its-over-hank-berrien?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_ content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

[DDT951]

foxtrot...

Would you say "Just say no" applies to the passing of TABOR?

I think that is the one thing that has kept DEMs in check.

[Eric P]

I would rather have it take 60% of eligible voter to say pass, than 50% of those that vote. If it is absolutely needed, it needs to be sold to all.

[Irving]

I think the encouragement for every person to vote has been a bad thing for the US.

[DDT951]

Agreed there. On top of universal suffrage (not talking about women...)

What's given can never be revoked, so I know this isn't realistic. And I've talked about it before.

But to vote, you should have to prove two things:
a) Citizenship
b) You have future vested interest in the country.

Vested interest could be shown through one of a variety of methods:
A) Paid some federal taxes last year that were not credited/refunded.
B) Real property owner of at least (some minimum size, e.g. not 1SF parcels)
C) Business owner (with minimum thresholds)
D) Parent that pays for at least some portion of your own childcare expenses and insurance.
E) Other similar ideas.

This would still probably result in 60% of the pool being eligible to vote, as it's not that restrictive.

Social benefits, to the extent they exist (SNAP, disability, medicaid, etc.) should opt the recipient out from voting for the year(s) in which they were received. That doesn't mean they would get voted away either, as qualified voters still like a safety net too, and recipients could still vote after they stop receiving benefits.

Some might find this objectionable, but the purpose is to eliminate voters ability to directly vote themselves the treasury, a long killer of governments whenever a republic transitions to a democracy. I think this, even despite "get out the vote" campaigns, would still preserve an intelligent vote prevailing.

But, I know once given, never taken away, so we're boned to be a idiocracy eventually. At least we'll have Branwdo

Sounds good.

But 9 people wear robes wont allow that because hundreds or thousands of people would lose their power.

[DDT951]

Social benefits, to the extent they exist (SNAP, disability, medicaid, etc.) should opt the recipient out from voting for the year(s) in which they were received. That doesn't mean they would get voted away either, as qualified voters still like a safety net too, and recipients could still vote after they stop receiving benefits.

Let us not forget Social Security. We (those that work) pay FICA tax and old people get entitlements. Before someone says "paid in" show me anywhere where the Federal Government says FICA is not a tax. You have no account with your name on it. You pay a tax to be redistributed to old people.

Some might find this objectionable, but the purpose is to eliminate voters ability to directly vote themselves the treasury, a long killer of governments whenever a republic transitions to a democracy.

I agree 100%.

Just look at what old people do when their SS entitlement is even hinted at being reduced or capped.

A system where people can vote to have money stolen for them via threat of government force, is not sustainable. Right now it is leading to massive deficits. At some point, it will come crashing down (and hard).

[Great-Kazoo]

Let us not forget Social Security. We (those that work) pay FICA tax and old people get entitlements. Before someone says "paid in" show me anywhere where the Federal Government says FICA is not a tax. You have no account with your name on it. You pay a tax to be redistributed to old people.







I agree 100%.

Just look at what old people do when their SS entitlement is even hinted at being reduced or capped.

A system where people can vote to have money stolen for them via threat of government force, is not sustainable. Right now it is leading to massive deficits. At some point, it will come crashing down (and hard).

Don't get old. Since this old guy is using a portion of my money, or someones to get my SS check.
I've also never fallen for the Democrats scare tactic of the R's want to take your SS benefits. Besides who in politics really gives a shit what "you" think? Certainly not the D's or R's

[ben4372]

Agreed there. On top of universal suffrage (not talking about women...)

What's given can never be revoked, so I know this isn't realistic. And I've talked about it before.

But to vote, you should have to prove two things:
a) Citizenship
b) You have future vested interest in the country.

Vested interest could be shown through one of a variety of methods:
A) Paid some federal taxes last year that were not credited/refunded.
B) Real property owner of at least (some minimum size, e.g. not 1SF parcels)
C) Business owner (with minimum thresholds)
D) Parent that pays for at least some portion of your own childcare expenses and insurance.
E) Other similar ideas.

This would still probably result in 60% of the pool being eligible to vote, as it's not that restrictive.

Social benefits, to the extent they exist (SNAP, disability, medicaid, etc.) should opt the recipient out from voting for the year(s) in which they were received. That doesn't mean they would get voted away either, as qualified voters still like a safety net too, and recipients could still vote after they stop receiving benefits.

Some might find this objectionable, but the purpose is to eliminate voters ability to directly vote themselves the treasury, a long killer of governments whenever a republic transitions to a democracy. I think this, even despite "get out the vote" campaigns, would still preserve an intelligent vote prevailing.

But, I know once given, never taken away, so we're boned to be a idiocracy eventually. At least we'll have Branwdo

I like this. I've been the victim of too many renters voting yes for some of the DUMBEST tax increases. Four big tax increases in the last 12 years. Low income transient people that don't own property worry not about property taxes.

[Irving]

I think there are too many things to vote on at once. The amount of info out there is too much. You could quit your job and dedicate all your time to researching issues and still not understand what's going on. I think there should be a cap for things to vote on at once. Some people don't care either way and they won't change, but it will still slow down changes.

[iego]

As foxtrot alludes to, when uneducated about how to vote, you should just vote no. Every yes vote is for change, and change in general, is not what you and I view as beneficial. TABOR was a, "oh my gosh, please help me, and stop the Government!" cry.

The crux of the matter, however, is not what you and I can vote for, or how we vote. It's the loss of our rights.

Our rights. The framers of the constitution knew they had built a document that gave the Federal Government (Government) all sorts of power. The power to tax, the power to judge, the power to execute.

So they gave us, the people, a Bill of Rights.

The Right to Free Speech
The Right to Bear Arms
...

---
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.
--

Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
No quartering of soldiers.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
Other rights of the people.
Powers reserved to the states.

We have rights... voting is just one of them, and not really that important. It's how we elect representatives, nothing more.

-John