Comment by reliabilityguy
3 days ago
> 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?
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.
> 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.
You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
19 replies →
Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/us/politics/vance-far-rig...
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.
> 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.
1 reply →
Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?
[flagged]
> 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?
3 replies →
> And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence
It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.
You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.
Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.
Are they cheating again?
Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?
That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!
6 replies →
[dead]