Miller lying, as always.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Miller lying, as always.

---

I guess the New York Times and the government itself is lying as well?

[the immigration surge during President Joe Biden's term is documented by economic and demographic data as the largest single-term migration wave in modern U.S. history.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html

[U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded nearly 10 million nationwide migrant encounters during the Biden administration]

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/22/startling-stats-factsheet-biden-administration-on-track-to-reach-10-million-encounters-nationwide-before-end-of-fiscal-year/

[Pew Research and Census figures noted that the foreign-born population reached a record high of over 53 million people, pushing the foreign-born share of the U.S. population past 15%, a proportion not recorded since the late 1800s]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Miller lying, as always.

---

I guess the New York Times and the government itself is lying as well?

[the immigration surge during President Joe Biden's term is documented by economic and demographic data as the largest single-term migration wave in modern U.S. history.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html

[U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded nearly 10 million nationwide migrant encounters during the Biden administration]

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/22/startling-stats-factsheet-biden-administration-on-track-to-reach-10-million-encounters-nationwide-before-end-of-fiscal-year/

[Pew Research and Census figures noted that the foreign-born population reached a record high of over 53 million people, pushing the foreign-born share of the U.S. population past 15%, a proportion not recorded since the late 1800s]

---

No, not unless they're saying the Democrats willfully caused it.

historian said:

---

When they say they want to abolish ICE, tear down Trump's wall, give amnesty to all illegals, etc. Some even say that the border has a big welcome mat (Talarico). They don't have to use the phrase "open borders" to be obvious that it's their goal.

One does not have to be a genius to see this.

---

Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

Calling something "anti-whiteism" doesn't automatically make it racism against white people. If you are going to make that accusation, identify the specific policy, statement, or action that discriminates against people because they are white.
Criticizing racism, white supremacy, historical injustice, or racial privilege is not inherently hostility toward white people. Likewise, opposing a particular policy that happens to benefit or disadvantage a racial group is not automatically racial hatred.
If your standard is that racial discrimination is wrong, then apply that standard consistentlyincluding when the target is white. But don't turn every criticism of racial inequality into "anti-whiteism." That simply replaces an argument with a label.
If you believe there is actual discrimination against white people, then demonstrate it. Name the policy. Show the unequal treatment. Provide the evidence. Otherwise, "anti-whiteism" is just an accusation looking for an argument.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

When they say they want to abolish ICE, tear down Trump's wall, give amnesty to all illegals, etc. Some even say that the border has a big welcome mat (Talarico). They don't have to use the phrase "open borders" to be obvious that it's their goal.

One does not have to be a genius to see this.

---

Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

So when your party campaigns on eliminating ICE, what do they really mean?

When they say the boarder is secure but 20 million walked right through, what do they really mean?

When they talk about amnesty for illegals that were brought here as children, what do they really mean?

When they make sanctuary cities and refuse to help rid the country of illegals, what do they really mean?

MSFT executive meeting right now pic.twitter.com/DoDfxXfSNq https://t.co/FfNX2xKGWq

— Fanatic 🇺🇸 (@crusade_enjoyer) October 8, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

🚨 10M new visas granted this year to mostly Indians. 1.32M naturalizations, also mostly to Indians.

Stealing jobs and benefits.

Birthing anchor babies.

Trump is selling out his country for cheap labor friends.

TOTAL. TRAITOR. pic.twitter.com/NdjlY4MOr3

— Uncle Sam Hates Us (@TrumpsLostBalls) October 6, 2026

---

And without Trump in office is would be 10x that number and open borders….

I have long advocated for a reduction in the scale of legal migration. But we can't blame Trump for what legal pathways the Congress has set up

He has of course taken massive steps on illegal migration (something the President can do)

---

Today was a great start!

But they need to keep going! Fight the courts and institute the $100k a year H1-B fee.

Ive never felt such rage before as knowing that an entire country's economy was being propped up by exploting mine https://t.co/UA7kto0aA8

— Johann (@LookAtMyMeat1) October 8, 2026

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

When they say they want to abolish ICE, tear down Trump's wall, give amnesty to all illegals, etc. Some even say that the border has a big welcome mat (Talarico). They don't have to use the phrase "open borders" to be obvious that it's their goal.

One does not have to be a genius to see this.

---

Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

I didn't redefine anything. I repeated the stated the positions of prominent people on the Left, including their candidates.

Lying about my statements while pretending to be stupid is unserious.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

When they say they want to abolish ICE, tear down Trump's wall, give amnesty to all illegals, etc. Some even say that the border has a big welcome mat (Talarico). They don't have to use the phrase "open borders" to be obvious that it's their goal.

One does not have to be a genius to see this.

---

Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

47, one of the least coherent posters on the board, suddenly making full sentences. The demon kid predator ally found some ghey AI to answer his questions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Miller lying, as always.

---

I guess the New York Times and the government itself is lying as well?

[the immigration surge during President Joe Biden's term is documented by economic and demographic data as the largest single-term migration wave in modern U.S. history.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html

[U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded nearly 10 million nationwide migrant encounters during the Biden administration]

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/22/startling-stats-factsheet-biden-administration-on-track-to-reach-10-million-encounters-nationwide-before-end-of-fiscal-year/

[Pew Research and Census figures noted that the foreign-born population reached a record high of over 53 million people, pushing the foreign-born share of the U.S. population past 15%, a proportion not recorded since the late 1800s]

---

No, not unless they're saying the Democrats willfully caused it.

---

They willfully refused to do anything about it

Trump has shown that a President with the will to drastically reduce illegal immigration and clamp down on abuse with legal immigration programs…a President like that can do vast amounts….not pretend to be impotent in the face of mass migration like the Democratic Party

.@Sonderling47: "I am hereby suspending from the Permanent Labor Certification Program some of the largest IT outsourcing firms in the world — Cognizant, Infosys, Tata, Wipro, HCL, and Capgemini — and also, due to multiple active federal investigations, @USDOL is suspending… https://t.co/ENyAFHSo93 pic.twitter.com/DZXcRMp22L

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 8, 2026

The institutions who gave 30 year mortgages to people supposedly here temporarily deserve every loss they get on this.

— GodIsIAmWeAre - Hopetogether 🔥❤🔥🎶🌿 (@HopeBarbaraAnne) October 8, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

🚨 10M new visas granted this year to mostly Indians. 1.32M naturalizations, also mostly to Indians.

Stealing jobs and benefits.

Birthing anchor babies.

Trump is selling out his country for cheap labor friends.

TOTAL. TRAITOR. pic.twitter.com/NdjlY4MOr3

— Uncle Sam Hates Us (@TrumpsLostBalls) October 6, 2026

---

And without Trump in office is would be 10x that number and open borders….

I have long advocated for a reduction in the scale of legal migration. But we can't blame Trump for what legal pathways the Congress has set up

He has of course taken massive steps on illegal migration (something the President can do)

---

We can blame him for blocking immigration reform. He kept switching his support from one bill to another, pissung off Sen. Majority Leader McConnell so much he vowed to not bring another immigration bill to the floor.

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

🚨 10M new visas granted this year to mostly Indians. 1.32M naturalizations, also mostly to Indians.

Stealing jobs and benefits.

Birthing anchor babies.

Trump is selling out his country for cheap labor friends.

TOTAL. TRAITOR. pic.twitter.com/NdjlY4MOr3

— Uncle Sam Hates Us (@TrumpsLostBalls) October 6, 2026

---

And without Trump in office is would be 10x that number and open borders….

I have long advocated for a reduction in the scale of legal migration. But we can't blame Trump for what legal pathways the Congress has set up

He has of course taken massive steps on illegal migration (something the President can do)

---

We can blame him for blocking immigration reform. He kept switching his support from one bill to another, pissung off Sen. Majority Leader McConnell so much he vowed to not bring another immigration bill to the floor.

---

Immigration didn't need reformed and still doesn't. The border needed securing and now it doesn't.

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

Here's an excellent video including clips of some of Talarico's craziest statements. I've heard each of them elsewhere. It's a useful compilation.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

When they say they want to abolish ICE, tear down Trump's wall, give amnesty to all illegals, etc. Some even say that the border has a big welcome mat (Talarico). They don't have to use the phrase "open borders" to be obvious that it's their goal.

One does not have to be a genius to see this.

---

Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

47, one of the least coherent posters on the board, suddenly making full sentences. The demon kid predator ally found some ghey AI to answer his questions.

---

Truth is truth about reality and argument skills, not simple stock phrases and a fantasy reality.

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

The point is: you substitute reasoning and coherency with stock memes from Britbart, Haritage, Federalist et al.
Now review your comment.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

The point is: you substitute reasoning and coherency with stock memes from Britbart, Haritage, Federalist et al.
Now review your comment.

---

Ai or not, this roast of historian is funny as hell!

A revolution of whiners? That's been happening forever. Congratulations on joining the crowd of perpetual victims.

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

You're funny as hell. Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

I didn't redefine anything or anyone. I cited the words I have heard them use. Do the research. It should be easy to find the video clips.

Stop lying about what I said. Talk about a straw man!!

historian said:

---

Here's an excellent video including clips of some of Talarico's craziest statements. I've heard each of them elsewhere. It's a useful compilation.

---

Where is the link?

Guy Noir said:

---

historian said:

---

Here's an excellent video including clips of some of Talarico's craziest statements. I've heard each of them elsewhere. It's a useful compilation.

---

Where is the link?

---

Where is Low T Paxton?

Good question. I'm unsure how I forgot to include it. I'm looking.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

You're funny as hell. Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

the weak, completely unqualified, pro-kid-transitioning, Talarico is the one who has put himself in the most extreme version of himself. He is completely extreme and it's sad that people like you have abandoned all reason in pursuit of your sexually perverse agenda.

yall are freaking monsters supporting transing kids. You don't get to pretend to be a reasonable person and support such a monstrosity - you are not even a man at that point, you are a pawn for demons.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

You're funny as hell. Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

the weak, completely unqualified, pro-kid-transitioning, Talarico is the one who has put himself in the most extreme version of himself. He is completely extreme and it's sad that people like you have abandoned all reason in pursuit of your sexually perverse agenda.

yall are freaking monsters supporting transing kids. You don't get to pretend to be a reasonable person and support such a monstrosity - you are not even a man at that point, you are a pawn for demons.

---

If you want to argue that Talarico's position on transgender issues is extreme, then make the argument with facts. Calling people "monsters," "demons," or "not even men" is not an argumentit is name-calling designed to replace evidence with outrage.
And the claim that supporting Talarico automatically means someone supports "transing kids" is an enormous leap. You take the most extreme characterization of an opponent's position and treat it as established fact. That is not political reasoning; it is caricature.
I have serious questions about medical interventions involving minors, and those questions deserve a serious discussion about age, consent, evidence, risks, benefits, and long-term outcomes. But if your case depends on demonizing everyone who disagrees with you, you have already abandoned the reasoned debate you claim to be defending.
If Talarico is truly as extreme and unqualified as you say, you should have no trouble proving it without resorting to insults and moral hysteria.

Houston Chronicle endorsed Gene Wu, but skewers Bo French who endorsed a similarly zero sum view of race just from the other side... https://t.co/BriB6rkTPt pic.twitter.com/K2fE4oYGBW

— True Discipline (@TruueDiscipline) October 16, 2026

Waco1947 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Since I didn't do any of that, I'm not sure what your point is. I referenced the Dems' own words. They have said such things repeatedly for years. I've seen multiple videos of them clearly stating them. If you don't believe it, do the searches. It's readily available.

---

You're funny as hell. Let's be clear: you don't get to redefine someone's position into the most extreme version of it and then pretend you've defeated their argument. That's not serious debate; it's a straw man.
That argument depends on treating the most extreme interpretation of someone's position as though it were their actual stated goal.

---

the weak, completely unqualified, pro-kid-transitioning, Talarico is the one who has put himself in the most extreme version of himself. He is completely extreme and it's sad that people like you have abandoned all reason in pursuit of your sexually perverse agenda.

yall are freaking monsters supporting transing kids. You don't get to pretend to be a reasonable person and support such a monstrosity - you are not even a man at that point, you are a pawn for demons.

---

If you want to argue that Talarico's position on transgender issues is extreme, then make the argument with facts. Calling people "monsters," "demons," or "not even men" is not an argumentit is name-calling designed to replace evidence with outrage.
And the claim that supporting Talarico automatically means someone supports "transing kids" is an enormous leap. You take the most extreme characterization of an opponent's position and treat it as established fact. That is not political reasoning; it is caricature.
I have serious questions about medical interventions involving minors, and those questions deserve a serious discussion about age, consent, evidence, risks, benefits, and long-term outcomes. But if your case depends on demonizing everyone who disagrees with you, you have already abandoned the reasoned debate you claim to be defending.
If Talarico is truly as extreme and unqualified as you say, you should have no trouble proving it without resorting to insults and moral hysteria.

---

my case is based on Talarico.

You have 3 options:
1) Stop skirting the issue. Denounce his stand on transing kids, his stand on celebrating lgbtqxyz in elementary school, having a favorite trans who's specialty is kids. Be LOUD and call it an abomination.

2) Agree with him and loudly proclaim it. Align yourself with the demons.

3) Pretend that his positions are misunderstood. Stay quiet on the subject yourself and use AI to try to make your argument sound reasonable.

You choose 3 because you are a fake. You are a self-admitted liar. You lied to your flock about your real positions. And here you are talking about truth. You should be ashamed.

If you had watched the CNN Town Hall you'd have your answers but you wouldn't believe. You'd rather side with a lap dog criminal who supports Trump's ass-kissing of Putin and Netanyahu's wars.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

If you had watched the CNN Town Hall you'd have your answers but you wouldn't believe. You'd rather side with a lap dog criminal who supports Trump's ass-kissing of Putin and Netanyahu's wars.

---

The fact that "transing kids" is the leading issue the republicans are leading with is a good tell of how little ammo they actually have in the race.

Based on the best available data, less than 25,000 minors have received any kind of gender intervention treatment since 2018 (which is a tragic thing for any of those children who were misled or regret their treatment) while roughly 22,000 children have been killed by firearms in the same time.

I'm skeptical the number is that high. Best I can find from googling is about 1100 minors a year over a 5yr period (so 5500-ish from
2018-23) got "gender affirming" surgeries. Google says 95% of that number is breast reductions or removals, and a solid chunk of those have nothing to do with gender identity. I can think of at least two girls I grew up with who got breast reductions in the early 2000s (between 15-17yrs old) just so they could function and do athletics.

HuMcK said:

---

I'm skeptical the number is that high. Best I can find from googling is about 1100 minors a year over a 5yr period (so 5500-ish from
2018-23) got "gender affirming" surgeries. Google says 95% of that number is breast reductions or removals, and a solid chunk of those have nothing to do with gender identity. I can think of at least two girls I grew up with who got breast reductions in the early 2000s (between 15-17yrs old) just so they could function and do athletics.

---

My number includes minors who received hormone treatment and puberty blockers as well. Most the of the surgical interventions were breast removals per JAMSA.

Point remains that "transing kids" is extremely rare and no more prevalent than many other harms that are shrugged off entirely by the right as just things that happen.