2026 USA Political Thread
- Thread starter PuntMeister
- Start date
Several of the claims in the original statement are either unsupported, inaccurate, or presented without evidence. Here's a breakdown:
| Claim | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| "Obama and Biden flooded the country with 45 million invaders." | False | There is no evidence that 45 million people entered or reside in the U.S. illegally. Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are around 11–13 million, not 45 million. The term "invaders" is political rhetoric rather than a factual description. |
| "The purpose was to overload the system, protect, and replace a law & order society." | Unsupported | There is no evidence that either the Obama or Biden administration had a stated or documented policy objective to "replace" a law-and-order society. This is an opinion or allegation, not an established fact. |
| "Trump stepped up deportation efforts." | Mostly True | During both of his administrations, Donald Trump prioritized stricter immigration enforcement, expanded detention and deportation efforts, and increased pressure on jurisdictions that limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The extent and effectiveness of those efforts varied over time. |
| "87% of Americans support deporting these illegals." | False or unsupported | No reputable national poll consistently finds that 87% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants. Polling generally shows more nuanced views, with support depending on whether respondents are asked about people convicted of crimes, recent border crossers, or all undocumented immigrants. |
| "It's these paid protesters who make it look otherwise." | Unsupported | There is no evidence that protests against immigration enforcement are generally composed of paid protesters. While isolated cases of compensated organizers have occurred in various political movements, there is no credible evidence supporting this as a broad explanation for immigration-related protests. |
| "Trump's sanctions and tariffs against Canada were to aid deporting 45 million invaders." | False | U.S. tariffs or sanctions on Canada have generally been justified by trade, economic, or broader national security arguments—not as a mechanism to deport tens of millions of undocumented immigrants. There is no evidence they were imposed for that purpose. |
| "Canada in summers of hopeless conflagrations..." | Partly opinion, partly factual | Canada has experienced severe wildfire seasons in recent years. Describing them as "hopeless conflagrations" is rhetorical rather than factual. |
The passage mixes opinions with factual claims. The central factual assertions—particularly the claim of 45 million "invaders," the alleged intent of the Obama and Biden administrations, the claim that 87% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, and the connection between tariffs on Canada and deportation policy—are not supported by credible evidence.
From a Canadian perspective, the situation has been different. As Canada faces increasingly destructive summer wildfire seasons, many Canadians view U.S. sanctions and tariffs imposed by President Trump as harmful to bilateral relations and unrelated to the United States' immigration enforcement efforts.
Last edited:
@se7landrover97 Nicely done. Did you use AI to do the breakdown?
Much of what licks2nite posts in this thread appears to be either AI slop or taken from one-sided media.
Much of what licks2nite posts in this thread appears to be either AI slop or taken from one-sided media.
Re: todayville.com
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/todayville-bias-and-credibility/
Todayville is rated as having Mixed factual reporting and a Right bias by Media Bias/Fact Check, indicating that while it publishes some local news, it frequently relies on poor sourcing practices and republishes content from sources with known factual inaccuracies. The platform exhibits a moderate to strong conservative bias in its editorial and story selection choices, often utilizing loaded language and omitting information that may damage conservative causes.
Scam detection services like Scamadviser assign the website an average trust score, suggesting it is probably legit as a commercial entity rather than a scam, though it has been flagged for using anonymous payment methods and potentially selling high-risk items like firearms. User reviews on platforms like Trustburn are largely positive regarding website usability and customer service, but these do not correlate with the site's journalistic credibility.
Critics and readers on social media have questioned the outlet's reliability, noting that it has sourced stories from conspiracy-theory-adjacent pages and failed to verify claims before publication, such as in reporting on European Parliament speeches. Overall, while the site is a legitimate digital media platform operating in Alberta, Canada, its information should be approached with caution due to its documented bias and inconsistent factual standards.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/todayville-bias-and-credibility/
Todayville is rated as having Mixed factual reporting and a Right bias by Media Bias/Fact Check, indicating that while it publishes some local news, it frequently relies on poor sourcing practices and republishes content from sources with known factual inaccuracies. The platform exhibits a moderate to strong conservative bias in its editorial and story selection choices, often utilizing loaded language and omitting information that may damage conservative causes.
Scam detection services like Scamadviser assign the website an average trust score, suggesting it is probably legit as a commercial entity rather than a scam, though it has been flagged for using anonymous payment methods and potentially selling high-risk items like firearms. User reviews on platforms like Trustburn are largely positive regarding website usability and customer service, but these do not correlate with the site's journalistic credibility.
Critics and readers on social media have questioned the outlet's reliability, noting that it has sourced stories from conspiracy-theory-adjacent pages and failed to verify claims before publication, such as in reporting on European Parliament speeches. Overall, while the site is a legitimate digital media platform operating in Alberta, Canada, its information should be approached with caution due to its documented bias and inconsistent factual standards.
I'd suggest he sit and spin. 🖕 But I don't think he's capable of either without the aid of several flunkies.
Were it not for the fact that we import about 80% of our phosphate from down south; I'd suggest a strategic reduction of potash exports (used in fertilizer).
The average American could stand to lose a few pounds.
The average American could stand to lose a few pounds.
