It not an AI battle when you tell it to write a refutation, I just asked for a fact check giving your list. Computer says: Let’s break down why it’s not objective analysis, but rhetorical sleight-of-hand masquerading as AI clarity: General Problems with the “AI battle” post: 1. Confirmation bias baked in: It doesn’t evaluate whether the claims are true or misleading—just affirms them from a partisan lens. The repeated ✅s are rhetorical, not factual. 2. Loaded language: Terms like "facilitating the crisis," "open-borders-lite agenda," and "Trojan Horse" signal this is not a neutral breakdown, but a polemic. 3. Slippery logic: Nearly every “✅” claim relies on projected outcomes and bad-faith interpretations, not the actual legislative text. It’s built on what Republicans feared might happen, not what the bill did. 4. Lack of source critique: The 1.8M figure is arithmetic (5,000/day) but doesn’t reflect real immigration flow dynamics or the fact that the trigger threshold was designed to shut down asylum if that number was hit—a huge enforcement tool the post ignores. What Was Likely Prompted? The user likely primed their ChatGPT with something like: > “Give a detailed policy breakdown of why Republicans were right to reject the 2024 bipartisan border bill, and explain why each of the top 10 conservative objections was justified. Be persuasive from the Republican analyst viewpoint.” It is seriously overestimating you...
Had he told them he was going to start an insurrection, they may have assessed risk differently. Trump made no order, he made a suggestion to do whatever to protect the protestors. On January 5, Christopher Miller* and Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy issued new policies requiring explicit approval before deploying armed Guard forces, effectively inserting a bureaucratic hurdle. *Acting Secretary of Defense (appointed by Trump after he fired Mark Esper in November 2020).
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump: This is what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley said, “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.' [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, 'Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.'”
There was a conspiracy involving Trump and Miller is the simplest explination. Miller was appointed to be a better toady than Esper. Trump's statement (as recalled by Milley) is informal and lacks actionable specifics. No order was actually given, Trump's mob boss style. Miller’s memo the next day imposes more restrictions rather than enabling rapid use of force or flexibility on January 6. Trump did however want the magnetometers removed as he said, he didn't fear guns and the protestors were not there to hurt him. Now actually look at this, he sat on his hands for many hours during the attack. He was hoping the mob got the upper hand, confident he had plausible deniability. He said something vague enough to be interpreted either way “make it safe” but didn’t formally authorize or demand serious preventive measures. Meanwhile, his hand-picked defense leadership tied the Guard’s hands with Trump launched the crowd at the Capitol. He literally said he was going with them.
So you are saying that knowingly encouraging unlawful immigration by saying the southern border was wide open, is going to get Trump in a lot of trouble, especially as he fundraised off it. Well, don't worry, he will be tbe first president to give himself retroactive immunity after leaving office. Unless he is impeached and convicted.
Nope, the hearing is on Thursday. He denied an immediate hold. Any lie in a storm eh? Just like GWB-trading. If it says what satisfies your emotions, you just run with it. " U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined to grant the motion, ordering instead that President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense have 24 hours to respond to the governor's filing. The judge has also scheduled a hearing on the case for Thursday, June 12."