• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the boogaloo? How online calls for a violent uprising are hitting the mainstream

share with us the context which was lost. i welcome you to do so


it would then appear that you now agree that restrictions are being imposed upon rights

Kinda like a judge in court, not doing your job for you. Go back and read what i was quoting in my original post. If you cant figure that part out there is no point of me trying to explain further.

I have always believed restrictions exist. I have the right of freedom but i dont have the right to freely walk into your house. You are the one that is having trouble understanding.
 
you seem to be unable to grasp that imposing more restrictions on what must be documented to make one eligible to vote causes some to be rendered ineligible to vote ... despite being honest citizens of voting age

You seem to be unable to grasp a very simple method i laid out.

If they are not currently registered and voting, it does not matter
If they are voting, there is some method in place to verify identity. May be as simple as giving name and address possibly. I have always provided photo id so not sure. However, what ever means is used in a state use that method to create a voter photo id database.

This is not complicated.
The right of someone to vote does not outweigh my right to make sure my vote is not offset by someone who is not supppse to be voting.
 
I think future terrorist attacks by right-wing extremists are just as likely, if not more likely, as terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.

Timothy McVeigh swam in the same toxic ideological stew as these right-wing militia types. That's why I referred to him.

There are isolated kooks all over the place. Whatever justification they offer for being a kook is kooky.

You seem to be asserting that a defined philosophy will produce a predictably violent outcome in behavior that will be more violent if it comes from extremists on the political Right.

Psychoses and neuroses produce abhorrent behavior from otherwise normal, if a bit quirky, individuals. People possessed by such quirks exist across the political spectrum.

Violence is the exception in our society. That's why it's on the news every night. "If it bleeds, it leads".

However, judging by the recent examples in the news, I think I would be more likely to be violently accosted when wearing a "MAGA" hat in public than when wearing a "Feel The Burn" hat.
 
There are isolated kooks all over the place. Whatever justification they offer for being a kook is kooky.

Right-wing extremists aren't isolated. They are organized, well-equipped, and more likely to be successful in conflict than any other political faction predisposed to violence.

You seem to be asserting that a defined philosophy will produce a predictably violent outcome in behavior

Yes, that is my assertion, and it's true. The people on the far-right involved in the various militia groups and like-minded organizations have a defined political philosophy matched with a particular strategy that is more likely to result in violence, yes.

that will be more violent if it comes from extremists on the political Right.

Compared to other terrorist attacks motivated purely by politics, for recent years, this is true.

ideology_attacks.jpg

https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf

Psychoses and neuroses produce abhorrent behavior from otherwise normal, if a bit quirky, individuals. People possessed by such quirks exist across the political spectrum.

I think Timothy McVeigh is a good example of right-wing terrorism for a variety of reasons and that's why I used him. One reason is that Timothy McVeigh did not have any serious mental illness.

March 29, 2001 -- Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, "has no major mental illness," says Dr. John Smith, the psychiatrist who evaluated McVeigh for the defense during his trial for the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.

"After I examined Tim, I knew that he was not deranged," says Smith for the first time. McVeigh has, however, suffered from depression, obsessive-compulsive traits, and at least one severe panic attack, according to Smith, who spoke to PrimeTime Thursday with the permission of his former patient.

PrimeTime: Inside McVeigh'''s Mind - ABC News

--

Violence is the exception in our society. That's why it's on the news every night. "If it bleeds, it leads". However, judging by the recent examples in the news, I think I would be more likely to be violently accosted when wearing a "MAGA" hat in public than when wearing a "Feel The Burn" hat.

This is not true for recent years:

ideology_attacks.jpg

https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
 
Last edited:
I would tell you to read slow but i really dont think you know another way to.

If people are not currently able to vote because of lack of documentation, then further regulation will not change that.
If they currently vote and are NOT required to provide documentation, then simply create the database based on the SAME information that allows them to vote now.
Those who were voting because they are eligible as American citizens of legal age to vote will be unable to do so once an ID document, requiring documentation of birth, is implemented

What you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that the absence of birth documents is what is preventing their ability to vote going forward

What would you propose as the cure to that conundrum?
 
You seem to be unable to grasp a very simple method i laid out.

If they are not currently registered and voting, it does not matter
If they are voting, there is some method in place to verify identity. May be as simple as giving name and address possibly. I have always provided photo id so not sure. However, what ever means is used in a state use that method to create a voter photo id database.

This is not complicated.
The right of someone to vote does not outweigh my right to make sure my vote is not offset by someone who is not supppse to be voting.

Actually, this can be quite complicated. A person who was born early in the last century may not have access to birth documents because they were not routinely available in many areas at that time

The purpose of the photo ID is to confirm the voter is a citizen of the United States of legal age and therefore eligible to vote. Without that birth certificate there is no ability to document their citizenship. What is the easy answer to this problem
 
Those who were voting because they are eligible as American citizens of legal age to vote will be unable to do so once an ID document, requiring documentation of birth, is implemented

What you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that the absence of birth documents is what is preventing their ability to vote going forward

What would you propose as the cure to that conundrum?

Seriously? Have you read my comments?

If a person has not been voting, it does not matter.
If a person has been voting, use the same method that is currently being used in that state.

You just want to keep your talking point and not look at solutions.

You do realize that voting records are kept for each election? It is a pretty simple process to see if someone has been voting.
 
Seriously? Have you read my comments?
especially your "solutions". they make NO sense
If a person has not been voting, it does not matter.
of course it matters when a citizen is unfairly deprived of their ability to vote
If a person has been voting, use the same method that is currently being used in that state.
that same method is no longer available to this voter. something you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend
that person is without birth documents. the voter ID soon to be required, compels the availability of birth documentation to verify citizenship
those persons who were born in locales where such documentation was not provided are then without the essential birth documents to prove their native
citizenship
that absence of documentation - thru no fault of their own - prevents them from obtaining the voter ID, which then prevents their exercise of the right to vote

you keep insisting that there is an easy solution, but you are unable to offer it
instead you simply repeat the suggestion to follow current practices (which voter registration practices are being changed to compel the birth documents). in short, that is the problem. not having access to birth documents. so, your "easy" solution is to follow local practices - which will soon compel birth documentation that the voter cannot obtain. what you propose as a solution is actually the very problem i have repeatedly identified of you

my conclusion is that you see no solution but refuse to admit it. unfortunately, given this problem, voter rights will be regulated away for those without birth documents to prove they are - and have been - American citizens

You just want to keep your talking point and not look at solutions.
the solution - or a solution - is to do for these persons what was done for social security recipients soon after citizens qualified to receive social security compensation. the same dilemma was then presented; individuals not having birth certificates. the government provided federal employees to certify those without birth certificates to become eligible by providing other documentation acceptable to the government. the government aided this research and used materials such as census records to confirm those persons' eligibility, despite the absence of birth documents
this onus should again be imposed upon the government, and not those who are victims of the new voting eligibility rules, to establish (in)eligibility

You do realize that voting records are kept for each election? It is a pretty simple process to see if someone has been voting.
if that person has been voting illegally, would this process not legitimatize them as eligible voters going forward? however, those voting records together with other documentation could and should be used to confirm their citizenship/voter eligibility
 
especially your "solutions". they make NO sense

of course it matters when a citizen is unfairly deprived of their ability to vote

that same method is no longer available to this voter. something you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend
that person is without birth documents. the voter ID soon to be required, compels the availability of birth documentation to verify citizenship
those persons who were born in locales where such documentation was not provided are then without the essential birth documents to prove their native
citizenship
that absence of documentation - thru no fault of their own - prevents them from obtaining the voter ID, which then prevents their exercise of the right to vote

you keep insisting that there is an easy solution, but you are unable to offer it
instead you simply repeat the suggestion to follow current practices (which voter registration practices are being changed to compel the birth documents). in short, that is the problem. not having access to birth documents. so, your "easy" solution is to follow local practices - which will soon compel birth documentation that the voter cannot obtain. what you propose as a solution is actually the very problem i have repeatedly identified of you

my conclusion is that you see no solution but refuse to admit it. unfortunately, given this problem, voter rights will be regulated away for those without birth documents to prove they are - and have been - American citizens


the solution - or a solution - is to do for these persons what was done for social security recipients soon after citizens qualified to receive social security compensation. the same dilemma was then presented; individuals not having birth certificates. the government provided federal employees to certify those without birth certificates to become eligible by providing other documentation acceptable to the government. the government aided this research and used materials such as census records to confirm those persons' eligibility, despite the absence of birth documents
this onus should again be imposed upon the government, and not those who are victims of the new voting eligibility rules, to establish (in)eligibility


if that person has been voting illegally, would this process not legitimatize them as eligible voters going forward? however, those voting records together with other documentation could and should be used to confirm their citizenship/voter eligibility

You keep saying I have offered no solutions.

The very last sentence you wrote summarizes what I was laying out. Not once did I ever say that the only way to provide documentation was a birth certificate.
 
especially your "solutions". they make NO sense

of course it matters when a citizen is unfairly deprived of their ability to vote

How will voter id deprive someone if they have not been voting?
 
Right-wing extremists aren't isolated. They are organized, well-equipped, and more likely to be successful in conflict than any other political faction predisposed to violence.



Yes, that is my assertion, and it's true. The people on the far-right involved in the various militia groups and like-minded organizations have a defined political philosophy matched with a particular strategy that is more likely to result in violence, yes.



Compared to other terrorist attacks motivated purely by politics, for recent years, this is true.

View attachment 67274498

https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf



I think Timothy McVeigh is a good example of right-wing terrorism for a variety of reasons and that's why I used him. One reason is that Timothy McVeigh did not have any serious mental illness.



PrimeTime: Inside McVeigh'''s Mind - ABC News

--



This is not true for recent years:

View attachment 67274498

https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf

You seem to be starting with a conclusion and then trying to backfill the justification for it.

You are fixated on Timothy McVeigh. Obviously a deranged psychopath or sociopath or both. HE BLEW UP A BUILDING. Your cited "expert" says McVeigh "was not deranged". Again, HE BLEW UP A BUILDING!

There are actual, real world examples of violence against folks wearing MAGA hats. Examples of the reverse are staged, make-believe, Jusie Smollett productions of political stupidity. The "U" should be all the hints needed.

Whether the whackadoodle, social outcast latches onto right wing extremist views or left wing extremist views (or religion or philosophy or whatever) the key is this: The whackaddodle is a whackadoodle.

Just like an addictive personality will produce an addict, the actual thing to which the addict is addicted is secondary. Most addicts are addicted to multiple things simultaneously.

It's the personality, not the drug or activity, that produces an addict. Additional wrong things like robbing friends and relatives to support the addiction go along with the addiction, but the addictive personality is the root of the issues.

Whackadoodles see the world in ways that the rest of us do not. Blowing up a building serves no reasonable purpose to a normal person. In McVeigh's mind, obviously, some purpose was served.

Your sig line is revealing of your bias. Why in the world would the idea to Make America Great Again equate inane way with racism? You are a victim of propaganda, not somebody's uncle.
 
Back
Top Bottom