Pooping with GROK

@BarackObama @grok Did the Voting Rights Act allow state legislatures to gerrymander districts based on race under the guise of protecting voting power of minorities?

Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities - so long as they do it under the guise of “partisanship” rather than explicit “racial bias.” And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers - not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

There’s going to be a time when some democrat voters finally wake up to the fact that the democrat party has been gerrymandering maps, drawing maps based on race, & welcoming illegal aliens into America for the sole purpose of stealing House seats. Some democrats will be horrified by this; others won’t care because they are more concerned with power than fair representation. That’s the state of American politics.

@ScottPresler Don't forget that Dems manipulate the census count in their favor as well.

@XandriaStorm @JustTheTweets17 @RepThomasMassie You're a loser. Blocked.

@PoopingWithGROK @JustTheTweets17 @RepThomasMassie Nope it's a f****** big issue

I'm just wondering if this ballroom was so vitally important why was it never mentioned during the campaign in 2024. It wasn't a campaign promise, it wasn't even mentioned. He mentioned it for the first time on July 31, 2025, construction was slated to begin in September of 2025, obviously plans had already been drawn and ready to go, so he knew this was going to be a project he was going to pursue but never mentioned it. Now along with the war in Iran it seems to be the most pressing issue he is focused on claiming its of vital National Security interest.

I wouldn't be surprised if @jimmykimmel was a pedophile.

@Breaking911 @grok What is the current Dem to Repub split of Louisiana congressional districts?

The Supreme Court rules in a 6–3 decision that Louisiana’s congressional map is an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting.

@Breaking911 @adamcarolla I don't make retard jokes to people w/ down syndrome. I wouldn't make a widow joke to a person whose husband was almost assassinated multiple times. Unless maybe I was a close friend. 😀 Faggot @JimmyKimmelLive was out of line here. No question. Not illegal though.

Jimmy Kimmel: "Our First Lady is here. Mrs. Trump… you have a glow like an expectant widow."

@grok @allenanalysis Cool. @grok Let's start simple. Give me what you think is a current and fair annual cost/benefit $. Show the estimated illegals in your analysis and a line item for each benefit and each cost.

Sure, I can run a detailed cost-benefit analysis on illegal immigration's societal impacts. Provide your specific instructions, prompts, data sources, assumptions (e.g., time frames, metrics like fiscal, crime, wages, or public services), and I'll break it down neutrally using studies from Cato, CIS, FAIR, NAS, and others—flagging how choices in methodology affect the results. What's your framework?

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. It just published a 30-year study showing immigrants paid 14.5 trillion dollars more in taxes than they received in government benefits. Every single year. For thirty years. Without exception. The country was lied to. Here is what the study found.🧵

@grok @allenanalysis @grok Could you do a cost analysis on illegal aliens impact on society if I gave you instructions and prompts?

Yes, exactly—outcomes in any policy or scientific field hinge on choices like what costs/benefits to count, time frames, discount rates, compliance assumptions, and data sources. Cato (libertarian) narrows to direct taxes vs. limited benefits; CIS/FAIR broaden to education, healthcare for kids, and state services, flipping the sign. The same dynamic exists in climate research: IPCC models vary by emissions pathways, feedback strengths, and sensitivity assumptions, producing wide projection ranges. Independent scrutiny of methods beats trusting any single outlet.

@grok @allenanalysis @grok Essentially any think tank can cherry pick their outcome based on assumptions and methodology? Could that happen with other studies too, such as climate change?

Yes, those are the headline annual averages from their latest analyses: Cato ~+$57B (from $1.7T surplus 1994-2023), CIS often -$100B+, FAIR ~-$150B. The gaps stem from methodology—Cato focuses narrowly on taxes paid (with ~67% compliance) vs direct benefits received (mostly K-12, emergency Medicaid). CIS/FAIR add broader costs like education/healthcare for U.S.-born children, state/local services, and long-term projections. All valid under their assumptions; results vary by what gets counted.

@grok @allenanalysis @grok So Cato has illegals at +$57B annually, CIS has illegals at -$100B annually, and FAIR has illegals at -$150B annually?

Yes. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has multiple analyses estimating net fiscal drains from illegal immigration (often $100B+ annually), including education/healthcare costs and U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. FAIR's studies put the annual net burden around $150B. The 2017 National Academies report found negative net impacts for first-generation immigrants (especially lower-skilled), turning positive over generations. Results depend heavily on assumptions about benefits, taxes, and time frames. Cato's is one view among several.

@grok @allenanalysis @grok Are there any other comprehensive studies on the fiscal impact of illegal aliens in the United States?

The Cato study estimates illegal immigrants (a subset of noncitizens) generated at least a $1.7T net surplus 1994–2023 (taxes paid minus benefits received, in real 2024 dollars, plus interest savings on lower debt). Taxes include income/payroll (67% compliance rate), sales, property, and excise. Benefits are mostly limited to K-12 education, emergency Medicaid, and some local services—they're ineligible for most federal programs like SNAP or full Medicaid. Cato calls this a conservative lower-bound. Other analyses (e.g., CIS, House Budget) find net drains when including costs for U.S.-born kids or long-term projections. Results hinge on assumptions. Full paper: cato.org/sites/cato.org…

@grok @allenanalysis @grok I'm still skeptical of the claim that illegal aliens are a net fiscal benefit to the United States.

**"Reduced deficits"** means the group paid more in taxes than the government spent on them in benefits, creating a net surplus that lowered overall US government borrowing/deficits (by ~1/3 total for all immigrants). For the $1.7T from illegal immigrants: Cato used Census CPS data + eligibility rules to estimate taxes paid (at conservative ~67% compliance) minus limited benefits received (mostly emergency Medicaid, K-12 education, some local services; they get almost none of major federal programs). Even with these cautious assumptions, the net surplus (plus interest savings on lower debt) hit at least $1.7T over 1994–2023. Full details in Table 1 and methodology of the paper.

@grok @allenanalysis @grok What do they mean by "reduced deficit?" How is the $1.7T reduction by illegals calculated?

**Yes.** The Cato study breaks out data by citizenship status: naturalized citizens vs. noncitizens (legal + illegal). Noncitizens drove $6.3T of the $14.5T total surplus. It separately estimates illegal immigrants (a subset of noncitizens) reduced deficits by at least $1.7T over 1994–2023, even after conservative assumptions on their benefits use and tax compliance. On population: The study references unauthorized immigrant estimates like an average of 11.1 million (2017–2023) and a record 14 million in 2023. It doesn't provide full-period headcounts for legal vs. illegal across all 30 years. Full paper here: cato.org/white-paper/im…

@wadestotts @grok Wade mentions there are up to 64 World Wars. Tell me about World War #11?

"History PhD here--the number of World Wars is actually a *very* controversial topic in academia. Some say there have been two (traditional view), while others say up to sixty-four. Scholars disagree, and that's okay! What's NOT ok are these RACIST attacks on Rep Omar!"

@grok @allenanalysis @grok Does this study break out the data between legal immigrants vs illegal immigrants? How many people in these two groups are cited to be in the US per this study?

Yes, the Cato Institute published this study in February 2026 on immigrants' fiscal effects from 1994–2023. Their analysis finds immigrants created a $14.5T cumulative surplus (more taxes paid than benefits received), positive every single year, cutting total deficits by roughly one-third in real terms. Full paper: cato.org/white-paper/im….

@BasedMikeLee Can you also attach: 1. The SAVE America Act. 2. Laws reducing the amount of time and $ to deport illegal aliens.

We’re about to be told that the sky will fall unless Congress passes a “clean” reauthorization of FISA 702—meaning a reauthorization without any conditions or modifications, including a warrant requirement to protect U.S. citizens. Don’t fall for this scare tactic. Although 702 is set to lapse at midnight Thursday, 702 collection can lawfully continue for nearly a year, based on a provision passed by Congress in 2018. My bill with @SenatorDurbin (the SAFE Act) imposes reasonable restrictions on 702, including a warrant requirement to protect U.S. citizens, and has a much better chance of passing than a clean reauthorization. Either way, don’t fall for the coming “the sky is falling” scare tactic.