placeholder

Anyway, as the evidence I linked to show, the judge has already ruled that there is no factual basis for questioning the validity of the Dominion voting machines. The issue is going to be one of intent. Whether Fox acted with actual malice or reckless regard for the truth towards Dominion.

It's called a poisoned chalice. If Biden had opted to send troops back to Afghanistan, the Republicans would have exploited that. As it was, he followed through and got blamed. I think one piece of ineptitude that can be laid at the Biden Administrations withdrawal is that they didn't publicize that fact that what they were doing was in accordance with the agreement signed by the Trump Administration. That should have been put front and center. Even someone like sqwakvfr, who clearly is personally very familiar with the situation inside Afghanistan, didn't know that it existed.

I got some exciting news for you. The judge has already ruled that the allegations about Dominion's voting system were clearly false. And the trial will not be conducted with that as an issue. Is that too complicated for you? Read below your quoted comments for further elucidation. Fox News’ Claims About Dominion Were False, Judge Rules—But Leaves Election Defamation Issue Up To Trial Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems are set to go to trial in their contentious $1.6 billion lawsuit over defamation claims after a judge declined to rule sooner Friday—but while the judge in the case left it up to a jury to decide if Fox committed defamation, he ruled claims made on the network about 2020 election fraud involving Dominion voting machines were clearly false... The evidence in the case “demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote, and found that Fox’s behavior constituted defamation per se, meaning the statements exposed the company “to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.” Davis didn’t rule now on the question of “actual malice”—which would mean Fox made the statements knowing they were false—because he said there were “multiple genuine issues” involving the facts in the case on that, which should be left up to a jury to decide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/31/fox-news-claims-about-dominion-were-false-judge-rules-but-leaves-election-defamation-issue-up-to-trial/?sh=58ed9e9874ea

And you could also note that Trump's lawyers have been castigated and even fined by judges for their delaying tactics.

Actually, whether it's Clinton or any other opponent, in a way it's kind of a no-lose situation for Trump. Because even if he loses in the official electoral count, his supporters will cry fraud and claim that he really won.

Whether or not that's true, his career was not based on racism. Whereas Loomer's career is entirely based on bigotry.

Another instance of both-sidesism.

A very tiny history and the second comment listed, was not overtly racist. And took place in 2008. Loomer has made a career out of spouting her vitriol.

I recall when you blamed Joe Biden for the 3.7% decline in GDP for the year 2020. You know, when Trump was President.

Wrong as per usual. That may be what you'd like the topic to be, but here's what it actually is: "Joe Biden administration blames chaotic Afghan pull-out on Trump"

You're the one who quoted a false point. And you have failed to defend it. As for the Biden administration ignoring violations... So did the Trump administsration. It continued its withdrawal of troops despite Taliban violations.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51735315 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Rising Civilian Death Toll in Afghanistan_Costs of War_Dec 7 2020.pdf https://www.voanews.com/a/south-central-asia_us-confirms-airstrike-afghan-taliban-amid-peace-talks/6199486.html

If I were the type to believe in conspiracy theories, I would have no problem believing that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was secretly working for the Democrats.

Well, just because you don't have much use for facts, or consider that the difference between 83 billion and 7 billion is insignificant, those of us who live in a reality based world think differently. And the fact is that the conditions for the collapse were due in large part to the Trump adminstration's withdrawal of forward based troops in Afghanistan. In fact, the deal was obviously a bad one from the start and reflected Trump's oft-stated desire to get the heck out of there.

Given that the Trump administration moved ahead on removing 40% of American troops from Afghanistan as stipulated by the agreement, it's clear they weren't waiting for that to happen. There is nothing in the agreement between the United States and the Taliban that stipulates that. Here's a link to the agreement: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/02.29.20-US-Afghanistan-Joint-Declaration.pdf

The Telegraph based this article on the word of 1 person on the strength that he was once a military procurement officer. A purchasing agent in other words. And this article was written while the withdrawal was still ongoing. So here are the facts: "However, the $83 billion figure cited by Republicans — more precisely $82.9 billion — is far too high. It comes from a July 30 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and represents the total appropriated funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund going back to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.... About a quarter of the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund since 2001 — more than $18 billion — has been specifically for equipment and transportation, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction report. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/republicans-inflate-cost-of-taliban-seized-u-s-military-equipment/

Thanks for posting something as close to nothing as a comment can be.

Trump officials back away from 2020 Taliban peace deal after withdrawal chaos A number of former senior Trump officials have sought to distance themselves from the Taliban peace deal that was signed in February 2020, with chaos erupting after the militants took control of Afghanistan this week. Why it matters: The agreement has come under new scrutiny for laying the groundwork for the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan, which coincided with a sweeping Taliban offensive that ended in the fall of Kabul on Sunday. The big picture: The Trump administration agreed to withdraw from the country by May 1, 2021, if the Taliban negotiated a peace agreement with the Afghan government and promised to prevent terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State from gaining a foothold. https://www.axios.com/2021/08/20/trump-taliban-agreement-doha-biden

You mean a small, suicidal peacekeeping force? Ya think American forces are invincible no matter how small the contingent and how powerful the enemy is? Trump says a lot of things. And the agreement doesn't even allow for the retention of a small peacekeeping force.

Can you share with us what fake news source you got that 85 billion dollar figure from?

Bidens' comments were made a long time ago. Clearly, he's changed. Loomer is an unrepentant bigot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US–Taliban_deal

The Trump administration signed an agreement that stipulated the US withdraw by May 31, 2021. The Biden administration got it extended by 3 months to aug 31, 2021

To be fair, the Biden administration could have done better. In one regard particularly. They were very slow in helping Afghanis who had aided American forces out of Afghanistan. A lot got left behind. But for the overwhelming majority if Afghanis withdrawal would have been a disaster no matter what party was in power in the US.

So before you claimed you weren't attempting to mitigate the contents Trump's posts against the Judge and DA and now you are? Or is this just another pointless fact that you are throwing into the mix?

Then what was your point in raising the fact that judges and DA's will receive threats in the course of their career? Was it just an irrelevant factoid that you thought to throw in for no particular reason?