6 ms·

> very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views. The US govern

> very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views. The US government explicitly said that they seek to promote racist and fringe-right views? Do you have any sort of evidence to back it up?

Sharlin 8mo ago
Sure, if that’s your problem with my comment, feel free to rephrase it in your mind to something like "to promote fringe-right and anti-immigration parties and movements that any sane observer recognizes as authoritarian and racist because they’re not even bothering to dogwhistle". If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news.
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  > not even bothering to dogwhistle So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist? Is there any evidence of this? > If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news. Nice deflection. You are the one making outlandish claims, so the proof is on you and not the “news” that someone is supposed to follow.
  - pdpi 8mo ago
    You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      > You want concrete proof? Yes. > Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
      - vel0city 8mo ago
        The court case established the ability for ICE to go and harass anyone who they think looks like they're potentially a migrant. Hmm, I wonder what they'll use to profile those people...
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”? You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?
        vel0city 8mo ago
        > to promote racist and fringe-right views So yeah, this is promoting racist views of "assume everyone who looks non-white and speaks a language other than English as a potential undocumented migrant and go harass them with impunity".
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        vel0city 8mo ago
        Who do you think was involved in this supreme court case? Who was racially profiling people and doing the harassment based on race again? Which group was doing this policy that the SC gave a green stamp to continue doing?
vel0city 8mo ago
Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    > And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence. Given he's the president, if Trump's own tweets don't count, what possibly could?
    - pousada 8mo ago
      Just keep moving the goalposts on what evidence actually would be and you can never lose an argument, it’s genius
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I did not move a goal post. Show me where the US government explicitly states that their goal is to promote racist ideology. Not a new article about nothing and filled with interpretations. But an actual evidence.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking
  - dr-detroit 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - grayhatter 8mo ago
Angostura 8mo ago
Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/us/politics/vance-far-right-germany-munich-afd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/us/politics/vance-far-rig...
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  I’ve read the article and I do not see any evidence to the original claim. Where did Vance say that he supports racist ideologies? Being anti-immigration is not racist.
  - nielsbot 8mo ago
    > Being anti-immigration is not racist it de facto is even if you claim otherwise or hide behind "but economics" we do not need to give anyone in this administration benefit of doubt.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      > it de facto is So, when Bernie in 2016 said that illegal immigration is bad thing he was racist?
      - nielsbot 7mo ago
        I didn’t say “illegal immigration” I said being “anti-immigration”. Not sure why you’re mentioning Bernie—think that’s more a comment on your politics than mine. But to be explicit: The current administration’s deportation push is racist. The administration is racist. If you think there’s any other rationale you’re either lying or being duped.

Sharlin 8mo ago

Sure, if that’s your problem with my comment, feel free to rephrase it in your mind to something like "to promote fringe-right and anti-immigration parties and movements that any sane observer recognizes as authoritarian and racist because they’re not even bothering to dogwhistle". If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news.

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
> not even bothering to dogwhistle So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist? Is there any evidence of this? > If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news. Nice deflection. You are the one making outlandish claims, so the proof is on you and not the “news” that someone is supposed to follow.
- pdpi 8mo ago
  You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    > You want concrete proof? Yes. > Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
    - vel0city 8mo ago
      The court case established the ability for ICE to go and harass anyone who they think looks like they're potentially a migrant. Hmm, I wonder what they'll use to profile those people...
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”? You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?
        vel0city 8mo ago
        > to promote racist and fringe-right views So yeah, this is promoting racist views of "assume everyone who looks non-white and speaks a language other than English as a potential undocumented migrant and go harass them with impunity".
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        vel0city 8mo ago
        Who do you think was involved in this supreme court case? Who was racially profiling people and doing the harassment based on race again? Which group was doing this policy that the SC gave a green stamp to continue doing?

vel0city 8mo ago

Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
[flagged]
- ben_w 8mo ago
  > And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence. Given he's the president, if Trump's own tweets don't count, what possibly could?
  - pousada 8mo ago
    Just keep moving the goalposts on what evidence actually would be and you can never lose an argument, it’s genius
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      I did not move a goal post. Show me where the US government explicitly states that their goal is to promote racist ideology. Not a new article about nothing and filled with interpretations. But an actual evidence.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking
- dr-detroit 8mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- grayhatter 8mo ago

Angostura 8mo ago

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/us/politics/vance-far-right-germany-munich-afd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/us/politics/vance-far-rig...

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
I’ve read the article and I do not see any evidence to the original claim. Where did Vance say that he supports racist ideologies? Being anti-immigration is not racist.
- nielsbot 8mo ago
  > Being anti-immigration is not racist it de facto is even if you claim otherwise or hide behind "but economics" we do not need to give anyone in this administration benefit of doubt.
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    > it de facto is So, when Bernie in 2016 said that illegal immigration is bad thing he was racist?
    - nielsbot 7mo ago
      I didn’t say “illegal immigration” I said being “anti-immigration”. Not sure why you’re mentioning Bernie—think that’s more a comment on your politics than mine. But to be explicit: The current administration’s deportation push is racist. The administration is racist. If you think there’s any other rationale you’re either lying or being duped.