If your claim is true and this is a tactic to control the flow of discussion, the goal should be to redirect. What I've outlined in my post is a template for doing so. In my experience, dismissing things out of hand has a counterproductive effect, people believe you're not addressing things because they're inconvenient or you're attempting to conceal the truth.
I'm not agreeing with a white supremacist. I'm agreeing with a factual statement a white supremacist made and while you're here calling me retarded, it's a distinction you and many other enlightened ones are failing to appreciate solely because you dislike the messenger. If someone tells a truth, the fact that they're a racist/bigot/etc does not somehow override that fact.
If we don't care what she has to say then direct your ire at the OP for creating the thread in the first place and opening the topic up for discussion.
While I believe Ann Coulter is a suspected white supremacist, I disagree with this wild notion that whether or not we agree with facts depends on if we like the person who's saying those facts.
We can ask one simple question to test whether or not what she said in regards to Kamala's identity is true: Is Kamala a foundational black American, a descendant of enslaved Americans?
By her own admission, she is not. This doesn't make her unqualified to be president or a worse choice than Trump. It's pretty disheartening that brothers here, who are ostensibly adults with higher order thinking completely blinded by emotion.