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.
Sure, but it is not the same thing as explicitly promoting racist and fringe-right ideas.
JD Vance may have voiced support (I didn’t listen to his speech) for conservative or right-wing political forces in Europe, but it is not the same as promoting explicitly racist and fringe-right ideas. There is a night and day difference between the original claim, and the evidence presented.
Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right?
AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence.
The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately.
The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough)
The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent.
If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
> Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right?
I have no idea what is the practical difference. I would say that far right is a party or a group that believe in inherent superiority of certain race over the other. Like, white power, etc. I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist or makes you far right.
> AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence.
> The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately.
> The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough)
It shows support by JD Vance, sure.
> The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent.
I would not agree that this constitutes as explicitly promoting. In my view explicitly promoting an ideology is standing on a stand and repeating the goals of said ideology. Did JD Vance said that reimigration is a good thing, and that he fully supports it for Germany? Idk, if he did, let’s see, and I will concede.
> If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.
In my view and my experience the journalists discredited themselves so much in the past 5 years, so I simply do not trust their interpretations at all (regardless of their political affiliation). Show me the source, so I can see myself.
I showed you all the sources but you prefer to close your eyes.
Of course even the most hardcore AFD racists wouldn’t go on a stand and proclaim that they support remigration, because that would get the party banned and destroy all chances of them getting to power.
I know it’s a tired example online but at least I know a bit about it: do you think the Nazis wrote in their party agenda and proclaimed in their public speeches that the white race is superior and they would start a genocide to exterminate subhumans?
Of course they only revealed their true faces between each other or AFTER they achieved absolute power. Anything else would be ridiculously stupid.
> I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist
It’s not as racist as the other example you gave but it’s very nationalistic - and from that it’s just a small step to go “if my culture is better, why shouldn’t we rule the world?” - “if my culture is better why should we allow other (worse!) cultures to exist”?
If you arrived at that point you almost have to exterminate other cultures - how could you allow something bad to poison and destroy the people? They could be saved by your obviously better culture! You would almost be a monster not “liberating” them!
“Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen” - look it up
> shows support by JD Vance, sure
He is the vice president of the United States - it’s not like he is some random guy whose opinion has no weight
> Show me the source, so I can see myself.
Then just listen to the speeches and proclamations of your heads of state.
If you are as antiracist as you claim it should be easy to reveal the agenda they never quite state openly but that is always present between the lines
> do you think the Nazis wrote in their party agenda and proclaimed in their public speeches that the white race is superior and they would start a genocide to exterminate subhumans?
This is funny. Are you saying that germans of the early 20th century had the same perspective as you?
> It’s not as racist as the other example you gave but it’s very nationalistic - and from that it’s just a small step to go “if my culture is better, why shouldn’t we rule the world?” - “if my culture is better why should we allow other (worse!) cultures to exist”? If you arrived at that point you almost have to exterminate other cultures - how could you allow something bad to poison and destroy the people? They could be saved by your obviously better culture! You would almost be a monster not “liberating” them!
Maybe, maybe not. The same thing can be said about left as well, and we have a lot of examples in history how left ideologies were taken too far and millions of people had perished in the process: industrialization of USSR by Stalin, Mao's great leap, etc.
So, the bottom line is that extremes are bad.
> Then just listen to the speeches and proclamations of your heads of state. If you are as antiracist as you claim it should be easy to reveal the agenda they never quite state openly but that is always present between the lines
Which ones? Why is it always a referral to something abstract that I have to go an look up in order to prove your point? Do you have a particular speech in mind that you've listened to, where on minute XYZ JD Vance stated something that made you believe that he pushes racist or what not agenda? Please share.
Or, perhaps, you've read about the fact that JD Vance made the speech (and you never listened to it in its entirety), and you've read an article where the journalist attributed some things to JD Vance and his speech?
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...
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?
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".
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.
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?
You're ignoring that "to promote racist and fringe-right views" isn't grouped with the foreign things.
Do you see the difference?
I see that you still do not understand the stated claim. Let me break it down for you, maybe English isn't your first language (do be worried about a Kavanaugh stop if you travel in the US though, sorry, I hope they don't detain you for too many weeks):
The claims were:
- sowing discord within the US's former "allies"
- to weaken Europe
- to promote racist and fringe-right views.
Where is the entirely foreign requirement for racist and fringe-right views?
But sure, continue moving the goalposts. I guess to you its only a bad thing for the government to promote foreign racist policies. Is it not a bad thing for the candidate for VP to openly say racist lies and openly acknowledge he knew he was lying and he would continue saying such lies if it accomplishes his political goals? Are you OK with him doing so? Why continue supporting it?
I did not move goal posts at all. In my first reply to your comment I asked for evidence. Even if I use your current parsing (and yes, English is not my first language), I am sorry, but using a Supreme Court decision that is related to domestic matter as evidence of sowing discord and weakening of Europe is ridiculous.
Even if I focus on the "promotion of the racist and fringe-right views", this court decision does not prove it at all. The court is independent, and rules based on their interpretation of the law and the constitution. It has no goal to promote anything.
> Are you OK with him doing so? Why continue supporting it?
No, I am not. But politics today are like this, and you won't find a politician who does not do it.
This whole discussion stemmed from your wild claim, and I did not believe your claim, and I was interested to know how you would prove it.
And yet here you are, moving the goal posts again.
> using a Supreme Court decision that is related to domestic matter as evidence of sowing discord and weakening of Europe is ridiculous.
The statement "to promote racist and fringe-right view" is a separate concept you just continue to choose to ignore. Adding it as a requirement when it wasn't is precisely the definition of moving the goalposts. Painting that statement as having a foreign requirement isn't arguing in good faith, especially after this gets pointed out multiple times.
I'm glad I didn't bother wasting my time providing you with more evidence. It wouldn't have made any difference to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
> this court decision does not prove it at all
This court decision tells the administration feel free to use race as much as you want to harass people even if there's zero other signals they might not have legal status. Once again, if you can't see the racist enablement of this decision you're choosing to be blind to it.
> But politics today are like this, and you won't find a politician who does not do it.
I can absolutely find politicians that don't call black people monkeys and claiming foreigners are eating your pets. It's really not that hard. It's sad you seem to think that's normal. You might want to re-evaluate who you support if you think they all do this stuff.
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.