I remember debating politics with an ardent Quebec sovereigntist many years ago who, in reply to my declarations that the current pro-Quebec political realities of Canada run counter to historic injustices, told me that (regardless) perceptions ARE realties, nothing less.
I think you have just accurately described @Sam_Stone’s perception (his personal reality).
I agree with this for the most part.
Mueller states up front that since collusion is not a crime, he was not going to weigh in, one way or another, on collusion. He then went on to describe, “140 (IIRC) instances of close interaction with and coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.” Many of those interactions satisfy the ordinary, everyday definition of collusion.
It is completely bonkers for someone, with any familiarity with the Mueller Report, to say, “What I haven’t seen evidence for is collusion between Trump and Russia. To be fair, neither did Mueller, remember?”
Completely. Bonkers.
Sam doesn’t know a single thing about the Muller report that wasn’t spoken of in indignant tones from some RW media dipshit.
The same Steele dossier that the public first heard about in December of 2016?
Feel free to take a read as Senate Republicans detail exactly how the Trump campaign and Russia communicated throughout the election.
Mueller also spent half of his report detailing how the Trump administration openly and blatantly obstructed his investigation. It was an analogy to “we investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong”.
Sanctions. Baby Trump took a meeting with Russians to discuss removing sanctions. Before the election.
You’re either happily ignorant of actual facts while peddling easily-debunked bullshit, or you don’t actually give a damn. Either way, you deserve the condemnation and ridicule you receive.
Aaah, one of those. Just another “I don’t see race” privileged asshole.
I was under the impression that “Magnitsky Act” was shorthand for “sanctions.”
Yes, I’m part of those roving gangs of assholes going around treating people as individuals and not pre-judging them based on the color of their skin. The horror.
It is. The Magnitsky act put sanctions on Russia for the killing of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian jail.
Is that what you’re doing? And here I thought you were using race-blindness as a convenient smoke screen for ignoring white privilege and systemic racism. Silly me…
How have you managed to bypass or suppress all the messages society has been sending you, most of which white people don’t even detect, about the inferiority of black people and the superiority of white people?
Nah, the horror is that you are supporting the leaders that do so.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-emphasis-on-racial-divides-worries-republicans-11594164503
Ever since Trump embraced birtherism (and he claimed later that he did drop it, but in Trumpian fashion he was reported to still believing on it) it is very naive to support a party that supports such a ruler.
And about what you willfully avoided early: when are you going to accept that Republicans are dead wrong about ignoring climate change and have you stopped to listen to the misleaders of that and have you finally learned why your sources did lie to you about Rachel Carson?
That’s a good summary of the ideology of center to center-right Democrats like Biden. So why are you supporting people who actively reject all of that?
Because RW media gives him an emotional rush. Sam is a dog salivating at a bell. Hannity telling him something outrageous about Dems dumps warm, satisfied happiness into his brain. He’s an addict that’ll believe anything, convince himself of anything for the next hit.
How do you know that and given person does not detect them, and that they are thus so brainwashed that they will be hopelessly and irredeemably racist? And furthermore, even if many people have subtle prejudices that they recognize and try to correct for, that this still has more impact on society than the 30% or so of Americans who are outwardly so okay with racism that they vote for an obvious and documented racist? To me it seems like the obvious problem is individual racism which is enabling and historically has created institutional racism, not the alleged cryptoracism of every person who happened to be born with a certain amount of melanin.
See, I read that as Sam_Stone espousing ideologically Randian philosophy. Given his posting history, it’s much more in line with is political views.
Huh? No idea what this has to do with my post. I’ve called no one, much less Sam, “hopelessly and irredeemably racist”.
Any social safety net is explicitly non-Randian, so even a social safety net just for those who really need it is not ideologically in line with her. Aside from that , I was commenting on the words that I quoted in my post, not a bunch of other stuff in his posting history, and interpreting them at face value rather than as Republican doublespeak (like ‘freedom of association’ actually meaning ‘it’s fine to have a “no dogs or chinese” sign’).
You implied that it is impossible for him to treat people like people and not pre-judging them. However, I agree with Gigo that even if that is the case, that
Don’t do that. Because you sorta did. Using a very wide brush.
Now, maybe your point is that all people, regardless of ethnic background, have a tendency to be influenced by social bias about the “other”. Which is fair enough. But you were very specific about it with respect to Sam_Stone and about a very specific racial bias.
Like fuck, he did.
I stand corrected.