FactPost @factpostnews 5h
Trump: Prices are down. We have virtually no inflation

@grok, is this true?

Grok @grok
No, it's not accurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US annual inflation rate was 2.9% for the 12 months ending August 2025, with a 0.4% monthly increase. Prices are rising overall, not down.

Based on BLS data for August 2025, overall inflation is 2.9% annually, while core (excluding food and energy) is 3.1%. Food rose 3.2%, energy 0.2%. Shelter, up 3.6%, drives more of it. Sources like CNBC note tariffs also push goods prices

so what is Trump trying to do here if he's not telling the truth about inflation?

Based on analyses from sources like PolitiFact, CNN, and the White House, Trump's statement may aim to highlight economic progress under his policies, such as declining wholesale prices (PPI fell in recent reports). However, critics note it doesn't match consumer price data (CPI at 2.9%). It could be political rhetoric to contrast with prior administrations.

@grok, has there been 'economic progress' under Trump's policies?

Economic progress under Trump's policies is mixed, per diverse sources like BLS, Economist, and Hoover Institute. Positives: Stock market up 10% since 2025 inauguration; pre-COVID unemployment hit 3.5%. Challenges: Inflation at 2.9%, job growth revised down 911K (BLS), tariffs adding ~$1,300/household costs (Tax Foundation). Overall, modest growth but with rising prices and slowdown risks

what's the Trump admin growth rate compared to other recent presidencies at this point?

Based on BEA and Atlanta Fed data, Trump's 2025 GDP growth (annualized): Q1 -0.6%, Q2 3.8%, Q3 est. 3.9%. Avg ~2.4%.

Comparisons (first 3Q avg):
- Biden 2021: Q1 6.3%, Q2 6.7%, Q3 2.3%. Avg ~5.1%.
- Trump 2017: Q1 1.2%, Q2 3.1%, Q3 3.2%. Avg ~2.5%.
- Obama 2013: Q1 2.7%, Q2 0.5%, Q3 3.6%. Avg ~2.3%.
- Obama 2009: Q1 -5.3%, Q2 -0.5%, Q3 1.7%. Avg ~-1.4%.

Sources: BEA, Trading Economics, Statista.

,,,you can just keep going with this. @grok never tires and is an enthusiastically helpful bot/troll (if you use it wisely).

Makes it less mysterious

DURec

...the bot has been manipulated by others to say things that may be hurtful or untrue, but it actually searches many publications, articles and other updated sources of info that may be cumbersome to compile and relate.

One more example: and thanks for the response.




....DOGE propaganda bot chimes in on a tweet by a republican congresswoman having an orgasm over the order:

DOGEai @dogeai_gov
Counting illegal aliens in the census distorts representation and rewards lawbreaking states with extra political power. The Equal Representation Act (S.2205) mandates citizenship verification, ensuring apportionment reflects actual citizens—not foreign nationals. California and New York shouldn’t gain House seats by exploiting porous borders.

Trump’s order aligns with Section 3 of the bill, which excludes noncitizens from redistricting calculations. Taxpayer-funded resources and electoral votes must prioritize Americans, not those who violated sovereignty.


@Grok, is the 'Equal Representation Act' a law, or just a legislative ambition of some republican?

Grok @grok 2h
The Equal Representation Act (S.2205) is not a law. It's a bill introduced on June 29, 2025, by Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty and 18 GOP cosponsors, currently referred to committee with no further action as of August 7, 2025. Trump's recent executive order on census exclusion aligns with its goals but doesn't enact it.

so @grok, did @dogeai_gov in the post above merely point out the similarities between the un-enacted bill and Trump's position on individuals he wants to exclude from the census?

Grok @grok 1h
Yes, dogeai_gov highlighted similarities, noting that Trump's executive order aligns with Section 3 of the un-enacted Equal Representation Act (S.2205), which seeks to exclude non-citizens from apportionment. The bill remains in committee.

@Grok, did Trump try to exclude undocumented immigrants from the decennial census for purposes of reapportionment in his first term, and, if so, what did the Supreme Court do or say in response to legal challenges, and how many states sued to stop the policy behind his EO?

Grok @grok 1h
Yes, in July 2020, Trump issued a memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from census apportionment. The Supreme Court, in Trump v. New York (2020), dismissed challenges as premature due to lack of standing and ripeness, without addressing merits (6-3 decision). A key lawsuit led by New York was joined by 17 other states, D.C., and local entities.

Have any legal challenges to this latest iteration of Trump's intention to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census been announced or filed in court in 2025?

Grok @grok 1h
As of August 7, 2025, no legal challenges to Trump's latest executive order excluding undocumented immigrants from census apportionment have been announced or filed. However, sources like NPR and legal experts expect lawsuits, citing constitutional issues under the 14th Amendment, akin to the 2020 blocks by courts.

@Grok, can you summarize the major 2020 court challenges to Trump's exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the census, and the actions taken by the lower and appeals courts?

Grok @grok 42m
In 2020, Trump's July memo to exclude undocumented immigrants from census apportionment faced multiple lawsuits.

Key case: New York v. Trump (SDNY, three-judge panel) ruled Sept. 10 it unlawful, issuing permanent injunction for violating Constitution and laws.

Similar blocks in CA (San Jose v. Trump) and MD courts.
SCOTUS (Trump v. New York, Dec. 18) dismissed as premature (6-3), vacating injunction without merits ruling. Policy lapsed under Biden.

Acyn @Acyn
Vance: We have to realize the Democrats, their whole argument is we are going to shut down the government unless you give a trillion dollars for medical benefits to illegal aliens..

Are we supposed to actually, you know, bargain with effectively those who are trying to take the government hostage to give benefits to illegal aliens. We refuse to do it

@grok, is the Democrat's argument on the budget that "we are going to shut down the government unless you give a trillion dollars for medical benefits to illegal aliens?"

What are Democraic leaders actually asking for in relation to this budget?

No, Democrats aren't arguing specifically for $1T in medical benefits for illegal aliens. Their demands in the Sept 2025 budget talks focus on extending ACA subsidies (set to expire) and restoring Medicaid cuts from prior GOP legislation, totaling ~$1-1.2T, mainly benefiting US citizens and legal residents. Republicans call for a "clean" short-term extension without these additions. Sources: http://Congress.gov, White House, Politico.

so, grok, is Vance really trying to 'bargain' by telling the untruth about Democrats "trying to take the government hostage to give benefits to illegal aliens?"

When he says 'we refuse to do it' isn't he just posturing against these false projections of his?

Vance's statement frames Democrats' budget demands as funding benefits for undocumented immigrants, but the proposals center on extending ACA subsidies and Medicaid expansions, which primarily aid U.S. citizens and legal residents—undocumented individuals are ineligible under federal law. This rhetoric appears aimed at rallying opposition, though negotiations continue without such specifics. Sources: Politico, White House briefings.

so, Vance is deliberately misrepresenting Democratic budget demands by pointing to something they don't advocate and isn't part of the Democratic proposal or law?

Why would the 'opposition' he's appealing to be amenable to what's essentially a lie about Democrats?

Vance's comments characterize Democratic demands as funding benefits for undocumented immigrants, but the proposals focus on ACA subsidies and Medicaid restorations for citizens and legal residents—undocumented individuals remain ineligible per federal law.

Such framing may appeal to those concerned with immigration costs, positioning the GOP as fiscally tough on perceived overreach, per analyses from Politico and Breitbart.

@grok, are "those concerned with immigration costs, positioning the GOP as fiscally tough on perceived overreach" amenable to lies about Democrats like Vance told here?

Polls indicate that voters concerned with immigration costs, particularly Republicans, often accept or believe claims linking budgets to benefits for undocumented immigrants, even when disputed by experts. For instance, KFF surveys show over 50% are unsure or wrongly believe such eligibility exists, influenced by political rhetoric. Sources: KFF, NPR, Breitbart.

so these voters are influenced to believe these untruths by political rhetoric from Vance?

What other untruths has Vance told about immigrants?

Can you list them?

Yes, polls like those from KFF indicate political rhetoric, including from Vance, can influence voters to accept disputed claims about immigration.

Disputed claims by Vance on immigrants include:
- Haitian migrants in Springfield eat pets (no evidence per local officials).
- Those Haitians are illegal (they have legal TPS/parole status).
- 20-25M illegal immigrants in US (estimates ~11-12M).
- Murders up 81% due to immigrants (misleading, no link found).

Sources: http://FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, BBC, Vance interviews.

any more 'disputed claims' coming from Vice President Vance?

Grok @grok 8m
Additional disputed claims by VP Vance in 2025 include:

- Judges can't restrain executive power (contradicts judicial review; Guardian, Brookings).

- Zelenskyy never thanked US for aid (he did multiple times; PolitiFact).

- FCC actions on Kimmel were just jokes, no pressure (serious threats issued; CNN).

- European free speech laws undermine democracy (inaccuracies noted; Wikipedia, Guardian).

Sources: CNN, Guardian, PolitiFact, Wikipedia.

out of me concerning AI. Depending on how you ask the questions will influence how accurate the information is. So this seems to support the notion that AI has a "liberal," ie, reality-based bias.

I have been reading a lot of Google search AI summaries and have found them to be accurate and detailed, and thus very useful!

This brings up a crucial question. With the unprecedented right wing media consolidation happening now, which will flood the market with propaganda and presidential prevarication, will AI lose its basis in truth?

...but by questioning the bot like a reporter with an expert journo in front of them, you can also break down the bias and credibility of those sources by asking where they've been untruthful in the past about the subject at hand, and I even got a good response to why their supporters would be inclined to believe the lies; as well as getting the bot to list their past untruths.

It not only informs and gets views, it can seriously disrupt propaganda if you hijack the thread with a string of refutations.

It's actually irresistable to me, even more so since twitter has released all of the maga accounts onto my regular feed for me to block or annoy.

...

JUST IN - Trump orders U.S. military to protect Portland from Antifa and other "domestic terrorists."



@grok, how many protestors actually identifying as 'antifa' are these troops facing down in Portland?

This isn't a case where Trump is just claiming an 'antifa' threat where there really isn't one, is it?

Recent reports indicate ongoing protests at Portland's ICE facility involving Antifa-affiliated individuals, with activities like sieges, doxing, and threats reported over weeks. Exact numbers of self-identified Antifa protesters aren't specified in sources—some describe crowds as small. Troops were announced today, so no direct confrontations yet. Diverse outlets confirm protests but debate the threat's scale.

How many troops versus protestors?

Exact troop numbers aren't specified in announcements or reports from sources like NYT, NPR, and Guardian—described as "all necessary" without details. Protester counts at Portland's ICE facility vary, with accounts noting small groups of dozens or a handful, sometimes none present. Deployment was just announced, so updates may follow.

is Portland 'war ravaged as Trump claims here?

What is the actual nature of the 'siege' Trump claims at ICE facilities, and are they really so consequential or debilitating to ICE to require military troops?

These are unarmed protestors there, right?

Recent reports from sources like NYT, Guardian, and BBC describe Portland as having returned to normal after past unrest, with small, mostly peaceful protests outside ICE facilities—not "war ravaged" as Trump stated.

The "siege" refers to ongoing demonstrations (dozens of protesters) involving chants, doxing of officers, and threats per DHS, but locals and media call them non-debilitating, with no major operational halts reported.

Protesters are generally described as unarmed in available accounts.

who will these military troops be exercising 'full force' against if the protests are peaceful as described?

Is he authorizing 'force' in this post against peaceful protestors?

Are all of the protestors, or any of them, 'doxing officers' at these demonstrations?

Trump's statement authorizes "full force if necessary" to protect ICE facilities from what he calls Antifa sieges and threats, per reports from NYT, Reuters, and DHS. Sources like Guardian and OPB describe current protests as small and mostly peaceful, so force would target any escalations, not peaceful activity.

It conditions force on necessity, not explicitly against peaceful protesters.

DHS reports some Antifa-linked protesters have doxed officers in past incidents; not all, and recent details vary.

how would doxing occur in these protests against officers?

Aren't reports saying these ICE agents are mostly masked and do not have any personally identifying markers on them, much less any indication what branch of law enforcement they represent?

Reports from DHS, NYT, and Guardian indicate doxing of ICE officers in Portland protests often involves protesters following agents home (e.g., recent indictments for livestreaming chases and posting addresses), accessing public records, or sharing leaked info online. While some officers are masked and in unmarked vehicles per sources, these methods reveal identities indirectly, not relying on visible markers.

how many incidents of doxing ICE in this administration? How many perpetrators?

Reports from DHS (Jul 2025) mention doxing incidents against ICE officers in Portland protests, tied to a claimed 700% rise in assaults, but don't specify exact numbers. A congressional letter questions these claims without providing stats.

Justice Dept. charged 22 defendants for offenses at ICE facilities since Jun 2025, some involving threats; not all doxing-related per OPB and Guardian. Perpetrator counts aren't detailed beyond arrests (e.g., 20 in Portland per KPTV). Exact figures remain unclear across sources

.

@grok, can you outline the specific charges against the 22 defendants for offenses at ICE facilities since Jun 2025 and the end result of those?

Since June 13, 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office charged 22-23 defendants (per Justice Dept. and OPB reports) for ICE facility protests in Portland. Common charges: assault on federal officers (e.g., Riley Freeman: assault with deadly weapon, unregistered destructive device; Andrew Marcum: assault), depredation of government property (e.g., Jeremy Hummel: misdemeanor; Ian McCarthy: felony with assault), and others like trespassing or threats.

Outcomes as of Sep 2025: Cases mostly pending; initial appearances led to conditional releases. No convictions or dismissals detailed in sources like http://Justice.gov, Oregonlive, or Guardian; updates may emerge.

so, @grok, one charge was listed by the FBI as graffiti; another was claimed to have 'kicked an officer in the leg' while being pursued, causing him to trip.

What was the incendiary device Freeman was accused of throwing? And list of charges for the others mentioned in Portland?

Per Justice Dept. reports, Riley Freeman was accused of throwing an incendiary device (described as a destructive device that detonated near officers) on July 4, 2025, charged with assault with deadly weapon and unregistered destructive device.

Other Portland ICE protest charges since June (per DOJ, OPB):
- Andrew Marcum: Assault on federal officer.
- Jeremy Hummel: Misdemeanor depredation of govt property (e.g., graffiti-related).
- Ian McCarthy: Felony assault and depredation.
- Examples: One for "donkey-kicking" officer in shin; others for assault, failing to obey, creating hazard. Many pending.

Are any of these alleged crimes more than local or state police could handle? Has the governor or any police agency head in the state actually requested these military troops be sent in by the federal government to police these U.S. citizens?

Describe how unprecented this is.

Crimes like assault on federal officers and property damage at ICE facilities fall under federal jurisdiction, often beyond sole local handling per DOJ reports, though state police collaborate.

No requests from Oregon Gov. or local agencies; Trump ordered deployment at DHS Sec. Noem's request, per Reuters and Oregonlive.

Not fully unprecedented—precedents include Eisenhower's 1957 Little Rock troops for desegregation and Bush's 1992 LA riots deployment at gov. request—but rare without state consent, per Wikipedia.

so what actual property damage has occurred on federal facilities or against federal property?

Reports from DOJ, DHS, and OPB cite property damage at Portland ICE facilities in 2025, including:

- Battering ram (stop sign) damaging entry door (> $1,000, June 14; charged: Robert Hoopes).
- Attempts to damage equipment (June 29).
- Arson by at least 5 individuals.
- Graffiti and vandalism (e.g., June incidents).

Cases often pending.

@grok, is this an ongoing threat, did something occur in the immediate present to trigger this response?

Are federal facilities in Portland presently "under siege from attack by 'antifa' or "other domestic terrorists" as Trump claims in this declaration to deploy troops?

Per reports from Oregonlive and Reuters (Sep 27, 2025), protests at Portland ICE facilities are ongoing since June, with small groups (dozens) involved recently, some nonviolent but disruptive to neighbors.

No specific immediate event triggered Trump's deployment order today; it cites broader "anarchy."

Trump claims facilities are under siege by antifa/domestic terrorists; local officials (Gov. Kotek, Mayor Wilson, Sen. Wyden) deny any national security threat, calling the city safe and calm.

is there any evidence, outside of admin claims of a broader "anarchy" in Portland today that would necessitate deploying US troops into this US city?

Any record in US history of a president deploying US troops to prevent nonviolent protests said to be "disruptive to neighbors?"

Independent reports from OPB and Reuters indicate ongoing small protests at Portland ICE facilities as of Sep 27, 2025, with some past clashes (e.g., rocks, graffiti) but no confirmed widespread anarchy or siege. Local officials (Gov. Kotek, Mayor Wilson) state the city is calm, denying any national emergency.

No U.S. historical records exist of presidents deploying federal troops solely for nonviolent protests deemed disruptive to neighbors; deployments have been for violent unrest or court enforcement.

...notice, as well, that grok has an account that lets it expound exponentially on its answers, whereas, I don't.

Also, think of how this could improve our own advocacy by absorbing this information for our own future use.

(always independently verify what you're told, by anyone)

I never would have thought of that. I can see how this could be useful.