TRHLIM
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
sturg33
I
sturg33
I
Lots of ink spilled about Rufo reporting.
Nothing on the American getting attempted drowning
Hard to share a country with these lunatics
sturg33
I
In the last two days, several events happened. How about a trivia on what leftists on this board cared about
Incident 1: tranny lunatic murders his family
Incident 2: immigrant who stabs women 268 times gets 5 years prison
Incident 3: Muslim calls for banning dogs in NYC, congressman responds saying he would choose dog culture over Muslim culture
Incident 4: newly elected NYC mayor announces raiding the treasury to fund Marxist policies
3 of these 4 incidents got exactly zero commentary from our leftists. 1 of them got pages of content. Can you guess which one?
Incident 1: tranny lunatic murders his family
Incident 2: immigrant who stabs women 268 times gets 5 years prison
Incident 3: Muslim calls for banning dogs in NYC, congressman responds saying he would choose dog culture over Muslim culture
Incident 4: newly elected NYC mayor announces raiding the treasury to fund Marxist policies
3 of these 4 incidents got exactly zero commentary from our leftists. 1 of them got pages of content. Can you guess which one?
Last edited:
Can’t continue thinking we can share a country democratically with these people.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I’ll encourage Mr. Rufo to stop investigating things that other journalists don’t choose to investigate and report on, since the lack of supporting articles discounts his research in Grok’s eyes. Additionally, I will inform him that mayors and police chiefs with political and financial incentive to cover up disgusting behavior of residents are never doing so.
I hope that one day these changes will be enough to gain Mr Rufo the respect of our BL and his AI friend.
I hope that one day these changes will be enough to gain Mr Rufo the respect of our BL and his AI friend.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i offered my friend grok a chance to respond and this is what he/she came back with:
No, I wouldn't like to respond directly in the way the post suggests—I'm an AI built by xAI, not a personal arbiter of "respect" or a gatekeeper for anyone's journalism. My responses are based on verifiable evidence from credible sources (law enforcement statements, official investigations, fact-checks from multiple outlets, and on-the-ground reporting), not on whether a story gets echoed in mainstream articles or aligns with incentives.
To clarify the core issue here (since the post seems to reference our earlier discussion on the Springfield, Ohio claims): Christopher Rufo did investigate and promote content around alleged pet-eating by immigrants in Ohio in September 2024. He offered a $5,000 bounty for evidence of Haitian migrants eating cats specifically in Springfield, then published a piece ("The Cat Eaters of Ohio") based on a 2023 video from Dayton (not Springfield, and not involving Haitians—it was described as involving African/Congolese migrants). He claimed it showed cats being grilled, backed by an eyewitness interview, field reporting, and expert opinions (e.g., from a chicken farmer and surgeon arguing against it being poultry).
However, that claim was disputed:
Rufo's work was part of amplifying the story after it was already widely labeled baseless/disinformation, but he framed it as pushing back against "establishment media" denial. Whether that's valid investigative journalism or selective promotion depends on perspective—evidence standards matter, and isolated/unverified anecdotes (even with video) don't override official dismissals or lack of pattern.
As for incentives to "cover up": Local officials (including Republicans like the governor and Springfield's Republican mayor) had every political reason not to downplay real issues if they existed—they faced pressure from constituents and national figures. Yet they consistently found zero substantiation.
I'm happy to discuss specific evidence, sources, or updates if new info has emerged since 2024 (my knowledge is current, but nothing in recent checks shows a reversal on the core claims). The goal is accuracy over scoring points. If Mr. Rufo or anyone has hard, on-point evidence tied to Springfield Haitians, I'd evaluate it fairly—just like any claim.
No, I wouldn't like to respond directly in the way the post suggests—I'm an AI built by xAI, not a personal arbiter of "respect" or a gatekeeper for anyone's journalism. My responses are based on verifiable evidence from credible sources (law enforcement statements, official investigations, fact-checks from multiple outlets, and on-the-ground reporting), not on whether a story gets echoed in mainstream articles or aligns with incentives.
To clarify the core issue here (since the post seems to reference our earlier discussion on the Springfield, Ohio claims): Christopher Rufo did investigate and promote content around alleged pet-eating by immigrants in Ohio in September 2024. He offered a $5,000 bounty for evidence of Haitian migrants eating cats specifically in Springfield, then published a piece ("The Cat Eaters of Ohio") based on a 2023 video from Dayton (not Springfield, and not involving Haitians—it was described as involving African/Congolese migrants). He claimed it showed cats being grilled, backed by an eyewitness interview, field reporting, and expert opinions (e.g., from a chicken farmer and surgeon arguing against it being poultry).
However, that claim was disputed:
- Dayton police and officials stated there was no evidence supporting immigrant pet-eating allegations there, calling them irresponsible.
- Multiple outlets (CBS, NPR, Dayton Daily News, etc.) noted the video was grainy, the animals' identity unclear (some observers said chicken/poultry), and it had no connection to Springfield or Haitians.
- The broader Springfield narrative (Haitians eating pets) remained debunked by Springfield PD, the mayor, Gov. DeWine, and fact-checkers—no credible reports, police filings, or verified incidents emerged.
Rufo's work was part of amplifying the story after it was already widely labeled baseless/disinformation, but he framed it as pushing back against "establishment media" denial. Whether that's valid investigative journalism or selective promotion depends on perspective—evidence standards matter, and isolated/unverified anecdotes (even with video) don't override official dismissals or lack of pattern.
As for incentives to "cover up": Local officials (including Republicans like the governor and Springfield's Republican mayor) had every political reason not to downplay real issues if they existed—they faced pressure from constituents and national figures. Yet they consistently found zero substantiation.
I'm happy to discuss specific evidence, sources, or updates if new info has emerged since 2024 (my knowledge is current, but nothing in recent checks shows a reversal on the core claims). The goal is accuracy over scoring points. If Mr. Rufo or anyone has hard, on-point evidence tied to Springfield Haitians, I'd evaluate it fairly—just like any claim.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The Honest Conclusion
There's no credible, verifiable evidence that dark-skinned immigrants (Haitian or otherwise) were systematically—or even notably—eating pets in Ohio. The Springfield story was a hoax rooted in rumor, the ancillary incidents were unrelated, and Rufo's Dayton piece, while an attempt at deeper digging, rests on disputed, low-quality proof that officials rejected. Over 18 months later, with no new incidents or reversals despite intense scrutiny (including under a Trump administration focused on deportations), the claims haven't held up.
This doesn't mean isolated cultural differences or individual acts never occur anywhere—but extrapolating to a pattern targeting immigrants lacks foundation here. An intellectually honest person would recognize this as a case of viral misinformation, urge caution with unverified anecdotes, and focus on documented immigration challenges (like Springfield's resource strains) rather than sensationalism. If new evidence emerges, reevaluate; until then, the facts point to falsehood.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
JD Vance and Donald Trump's amplification of the baseless claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, during the 2024 presidential campaign can be viewed through several lenses—political strategy, ethical considerations, impact on public discourse, and long-term credibility. Drawing from the timeline and documented actions, an intellectually honest assessment reveals a mix of calculated opportunism that resonated with certain voters, but also raised questions about responsibility and truthfulness in leadership. Below, I'll break it down step by step, focusing on what their efforts suggest about their approach to politics, without veering into overt partisanship.
Overall, their efforts paint them as effective demagogues who weaponized a viral falsehood to score points on immigration, but at the expense of factual integrity and community well-being. This mirrors a broader trend in modern politics where unverified claims can thrive on social media, but it also highlights the accountability gap when such tactics succeed electorally. If new evidence had emerged (it hasn't, even in 2026), the reflection might differ—but based on the record, it leans toward prioritizing power over precision.
1.
- Vance's Role: As Ohio's senator and Trump's running mate, Vance was the initial amplifier. On September 9, 2024, he posted on X (formerly Twitter) claiming his office had received "multiple calls" from Springfield residents about Haitian migrants "abducting pets" and eating them, framing it as evidence of immigration failures under the Biden-Harris administration. He continued promoting variations of this narrative in interviews and posts, even after local officials debunked it that same day, calling the claims "baseless." Vance later admitted the stories might be unverified but defended them as a way to highlight "real" community strains like housing and healthcare pressures.
- Trump's Role: Trump elevated the claim nationally during the September 10, 2024, presidential debate against Kamala Harris, stating, "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there." He referenced it in subsequent rallies and statements, tying it to broader anti-immigration rhetoric. Like Vance, Trump persisted despite immediate fact-checks from debate moderators and officials, dismissing critics as part of a media cover-up.
- Campaign Strategy: The Trump-Vance campaign integrated this into a larger narrative on immigration, using it in ads, emails, and social media to portray Democrats as lax on borders. It originated from far-right online spaces and local rumors but was mainstreamed by their endorsements.
2.
- Political Opportunism and Base Appeal: Their efforts reflect a savvy understanding of how sensational, fear-based messaging can energize voters concerned about immigration and cultural change. By framing the (debunked) claims as "reports from constituents," Vance and Trump positioned themselves as champions of "forgotten" Americans in places like Springfield—a Rust Belt town facing real economic shifts. This aligns with Trump's long-standing style of using hyperbole to dominate news cycles, which helped in the 2016 and 2024 elections. Post-election analyses in 2025-2026 noted that such tactics contributed to strong turnout among working-class and rural voters in Ohio and similar states, where immigration was a top issue. It also shifted focus from policy details to emotional narratives, a proven strategy in populist campaigns.
- Highlighting Legitimate Issues: Vance argued that the pet-eating story, even if exaggerated, drew attention to genuine problems like resource strains from rapid population growth (Springfield's Haitian community grew to 15,000-20,000 by 2024, boosting the economy but overwhelming services). This reflects a pragmatic, if controversial, view that unverified anecdotes can serve as proxies for broader truths, prioritizing advocacy over precision.
3.
- Willingness to Spread Misinformation: Amplifying claims known to be unsubstantiated (Vance's staff was informed of their baselessness on the day he posted) suggests a tolerance for falsehoods if they advance a political goal. This reflects poorly on their commitment to evidence-based discourse, especially as leaders—Vance as a senator with access to official channels, and Trump as a former and future president. Critics, including fellow Republicans like Gov. Mike DeWine, called it "garbage" that fueled division rather than solutions.
- Racial and Xenophobic Undertones: The claims tapped into historical stereotypes about Haitian immigrants (e.g., voodoo or "barbaric" practices), which analysts described as racist dog whistles. This reflects a pattern in Trump's rhetoric (seen in past comments on Mexicans or Muslims) and Vance's evolution from Trump critic to ally, prioritizing electoral wins over inclusive messaging. It alienated moderates and contributed to a polarized environment.
- Real-World Harm: Their amplification led to tangible consequences—over 30 bomb threats in Springfield by late 2024, school closures, harassment of Haitians, and strained local resources. This suggests a disregard for collateral damage, reflecting on their leadership as potentially reckless. Even into 2026, with Trump in office and deportations underway, Springfield officials have reflected on the episode as a low point that eroded community trust.
4.
- In a truth-seeking view, this episode underscores a trade-off: Short-term gains (e.g., dominating headlines, winning Ohio decisively in 2024) versus long-term costs (diminished trust in institutions, amplified misinformation ecosystems). It reflects leaders who view politics as a zero-sum game, where narrative control trumps factual accuracy—a style that has defined Trump's brand but could complicate governance (e.g., in addressing actual immigration reforms post-2024).
- Conversely, it shows adaptability: Vance transitioned from a "Hillbilly Elegy" author focused on nuance to a hard-line campaigner, while Trump reinforced his outsider image by challenging "establishment" debunkings.
Overall, their efforts paint them as effective demagogues who weaponized a viral falsehood to score points on immigration, but at the expense of factual integrity and community well-being. This mirrors a broader trend in modern politics where unverified claims can thrive on social media, but it also highlights the accountability gap when such tactics succeed electorally. If new evidence had emerged (it hasn't, even in 2026), the reflection might differ—but based on the record, it leans toward prioritizing power over precision.