Messages
41
Reactions
36
Maybe Trump ordered that the next president to close Bagram air base, remove all air support from Afghan troops, stick them in an indefensible airport and tell the world, that they are on their own, date certain.

Funny Bidet signed 52 executive orders during his first 30 days but, as commander in thief, couldn’t even execute or reverse Trump's exit plan.
 
Messages
159
Reactions
149
hey hook from cali whats it like to be so STUPID biteme is president.trump had nothing to do with it.what a dumb arse!
From original post:
" I'm sure we all have things to say, but decency standards won't allow us to really say what we truly think"

I guess decency does not apply to all posters eh ?
 
Messages
41
Reactions
36
Maybe someone can explain. Ignoring all of the Trump decisions Bidet reversed in his first 30 days, considering "Trump didn't leave a plan", why was Bidet forced to follow the plan of the previous administration. Sounds like a very illogical argument.
Yup, Trump did not leave a plan when he surrendered America to the Taliban. ...........
Fixed Typo..
 
Last Edited:
Messages
537
Reactions
562
It is pretty easy in my mind. Anything that goes wrong or needs some actually thought to hard for joe biteme et all.
Until the next election is will be Trumps fault.
They have mucked up the southern boarder, only the media does not cover it much. The masses do not use their brains and use critical thinking. They believe the government will take care of them. Remember the book/movie the Time Machine?
 
Messages
2,251
Reactions
2,260
You do realize it was DJ Trump that, in secrecy, entered into a surrender of America to the Taliban, don't you ?
Trump told them batsards to cease and desist, else he'd turn the head of the Talibastards into atoms, and his village, too. They knew Trump meant it after we'd eliminated Sulimani and some other piece of walking sewage. For about eighteen months there were ZERO American soldiers killed in combat in AFG. Trump's "deal" to the Talibidens was "you stop killing American soldiers and I won't kill you." They knew he'd do it if they screwed-up, so they held to the agreement until Trump was gone from the Oval Orifice. Trump would never surrender to the evil that is the Talibidens. Joe BiteMe made every effort to do so, to include leaving the enemy billions in equipment for which I paid as an American taxpayer.
 
Messages
41
Reactions
36
According to military records only 4 American service members were killed in 2020 in combat operation, two of them in a NATO operation. During Bidet’s operation Fumble-Bum 13 service personnel were killed. Pretty good ratchet up of dead Americans after arming the Taliban equal to a small nation.

Bidet or his controllers are idiots hellbent on destroying the nation or “fundamentally transforming” it like Obama put it.
 
Messages
159
Reactions
149
Trump told them batsards to cease and desist, else he'd turn the head of the Talibastards into atoms, and his village, too. They knew Trump meant it after we'd eliminated Sulimani and some other piece of walking sewage. For about eighteen months there were ZERO American soldiers killed in combat in AFG. Trump's "deal" to the Talibidens was "you stop killing American soldiers and I won't kill you." They knew he'd do it if they screwed-up, so they held to the agreement until Trump was gone from the Oval Orifice. Trump would never surrender to the evil that is the Talibidens. Joe BiteMe made every effort to do so, to include leaving the enemy billions in equipment for which I paid as an American taxpayer.
From factcheck dot org:

"The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal."

Interesting view you have.
 
Messages
537
Reactions
562
There was no point of including the AFG puppets, they left the country when we did.
Our government over the decades as supported many people in power only to find out that they did not support us or more common they were thieves and only in it for themselves
 
Messages
41
Reactions
36
From factcheck dot org:

"The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal."

Interesting view you have.
Hmmm, How did we all of a sudden get to the August 30, 2021 date if it was a "date certain", Why wasn't May 1, 2021 binding, if the "agreement" was binding?

Was it all political convenience, with an $80 Billion equipment bribe to the Taliban that he had been communicating with for months?
 
Messages
159
Reactions
149
Hmmm, How did we all of a sudden get to the August 30, 2021 date if it was a "date certain", Why wasn't May 1, 2021 binding, if the "agreement" was binding?

Was it all political convenience, with an $80 Billion equipment bribe to the Taliban that he had been communicating with for months?
I suspect that since Trump did not have a detailed plan established, and it is not something that can be established with any serious degree of precision over the weekend, someone wanted more time to develop a detailed plan. My dad was a war planner on the Joints Chief of Staff in the 1960s. He said that planning took a while to develop, as they had to create various contingency plans ... none of which ever went that way. Why do you think a Donald Trump plan would go as planned ?
 
Messages
2,251
Reactions
2,260
At least the media is finally reaming him a new one over the border. Remember the ho' was put in charge of that issue. If there is a plan for this, it escapes me.
The Criminal Left Media is giving BiteMe some very minimal heat so that they do not have to report on the Durham Indictment. According to Dan Bongino, Durham has found many things about the Russia Collusion Hoax that go all the way to the Oval Orifice when a Kenyan Marxist was stinking-up the place. Himmlery Rotten Klantoon is dirty as a Southside Chicago street in the thing. Everybody on the Criminal Left who was involved it and oodles of "investigative reporters" of the Criminal Left Media KNEW from very early-on that the whole thing was a LIE-- yet they proceeded with it for four years. The Insane Left so hated Trump in the White House that they sought with $45 million in taxpayer money to negate the 2016 vote of the American People.

If it was up to me, I'd hang every last one of them batsards who sought to destroy the way we vote in this nation. First one up the gallows: Himmlery Rotten Klanton, the bravo-itch's trapdoor to be pulled by Chucky Bullschumer. Second up: Chucky Bullschumer, his trapdoor to be pulled by Nancy Foolosi. And on and on it will go. Hundreds to be sent to Hell for the crime they perpetrated against our fragile Liberty. What they did can never be minimized nor forgotten. Men and women in uniform have died on foreign shores to defend our freedom as Americans. Then these liberal filth come along and try to change the solid and certain outcome of an election. What they did may very well be the greatest crime ever committed against the American People.
 
Messages
326
Reactions
630
From factcheck dot org:

"The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal."

Interesting view you have.

Just because a jar of pickles is labeled “peaches”, doesn’t make it so. “Facts” these days are relevant to one’s bias, and cognitive dissonance.


The world is a dark wilderness, do NOT put your faith in anyone claiming they know “the way through”… they will NEVER fail to disappoint.


Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.


Big tech’s efforts to fight “misinformation” are growing as they bring on supposedly neutral fact-checking groups to expose lies. The problem is these fact-checkers have the same liberal biases as the news media and social media companies and often aren’t checking facts, so much as opinions they dislike. It’s narrative checking.

FactCheck.org is one of them. The site is the granddaddy of all the fact-checkers. Launched in 2003, it’s a bit stodgier and more academic than its competitors. It shuns flashy ratings scales involving Pinnochios or Pants on Fire, because they are not scientific. FactCheck’s Co-founder Brooks Jackson said, “I have never felt that we had any sort of academically respectable way to measure the degree of mendacity in a statement.”

But that doesn’t make the group unbiased. Journalism is dominated by liberals and fact-checking is run by journalists, so bias is the natural outcome. FactCheck focuses far more on President Donald Trump than other politicians. The site has also failed to expose the media when it accepted Chinese propaganda, and has defended Planned Parenthood and climate alarmist and children’s television star Bill Nye “The Science Guy” against valid conservative criticism.

Historically, fact-checking was started to help liberals.The frustration of being unable to defend a Democrat from an attack ad spawned fact-checking organizations like FactCheck.org. Jackson told Politico they evolved from journalists’ discontent over an ad targeting Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988.

FactCheck.org may be older, but these days it is in with the in-crowd at Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube. All four tech companies partner with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) run by the liberal Poynter Institute, which receives funding from many liberals, including billionaire George Soros.

FactCheck is one of IFCN’s certified fact-checkers. The organization’s funding page indicates Facebook paid it more than $300,000 in 2020 for being a fact-checking partner with the social media giant. Google also donated $100,000 for the group to fight COVID-19 misinformation.

  • The liberal media panicked in April, claiming the U.S. had more deaths from coronavirus than China. Despite U.S. officials and media outlets warning China was undercounting deaths, all nine of Facebook’s IFCN fact-checkers (including FactCheck.org) failed to expose these media stories as false or partly false given that China was almost certainly lying about the number of deaths.
  • When Trump used a partial video highlighting an obvious Biden gaffe where the Democrat uttered the words “we can only re-elect Donald Trump,” FactCheck was upset by the “deceptive editing.” Yet, this is the kind of editing used by news media, pundits and campaigns of all stripes.
  • Like its competitors, FactCheck focused almost exclusively on the president’s State of The Union speech in 2020, barely noticing the Democratic response. In total, the site checked 14 Trump statements, and offered just one sentence about Gov. Whitmer’s falsehood that wages “stagnated” under Trump. Although its ratio was better than some other fact-checkers.
  • FactCheck provides fact-checks to Facebook and Google, liberal companies with biases. In 2018, the MRC found Google listing “reviewed claims” against 6 of the top 20 conservatives news sites, and not a single one of the top 20 liberal outlets. In 2020, it became a fact-checker for YouTube, a sister company to Google.
  • Trump is a favorite target of fact-checkers, a fact confirmed by The Guardian when it wrote about the “exhausting” work of fact-checking him. “We haven’t had a break,” said FactCheck director Eugene Kiely. “I don’t want to write about Donald Trump every day. I would like to write about some other things. But it is what it is.”
  • FactCheck.org partnered with other liberal fact-checkers for the FactStream app project (paid for by the left). It attempted to provide live fact-checking during political events like the State of the Union. In 2019, the app crashed only a few minutes into the speech.
  • All the big fact-checking groups, including FactCheck, let liberal Stacey Abrams claim “I won,” after she lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race.
  • FactCheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at University of Pennsylvania. It was funded exclusively by the Annenberg Foundation through 2010. After 2010, it continued to receive funding from the foundation, as well as the Flora Family Foundation and individual donations. The Annenberg Foundation has ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with former President Barack Obama from 1995-2001.
  • Watts Up With That called out FactCheck.org in 2016, for splitting hairs in order to accuse Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., of lying about hydraulic fracturing.
  • FactCheck helped spread the idea that undercover video of Planned Parenthood was deceptively edited, by publishing a so-called fact-check “Unspinning the Planned Parenthood video.” It hit conservatives for saying the group was making a “profit” selling aborted baby body parts. And while a statute discussing the remuneration of human fetal tissue does appear to provide a fig leaf for Planned Parenthood to hide behind, the for “profit” or not for “profit” distinction seems an absurd thing to emphasize when the ghastly larger point was 100% accurate. Planned Parenthood sold baby body parts.
  • Bill Nye has an earned degree in engineering, not climatology or any other science. But FactCheck.org defended him in order to smear Sarah Palin for calling him “as much of a scientist as I” and criticizing his global warming alarmism.
  • When President Obama’s administration provided states with a workaround for welfare work requirements, critics accused him rightly of getting rid of work requirements. CNN, backed by FactCheck.org and others insisted this was a “campaign distortion” and “false claim.”
  • It lists Pamela Geller’s website in its “misinformation directory.”
Contact FactCheck.org: (215) 898-9400, Editor@FactCheck.org, Facebook, Twitter or by mail: 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806
 
Messages
41
Reactions
36
I suspect that since Trump did not have a detailed plan established, and it is not something that can be established with any serious degree of precision over the weekend, someone wanted more time to develop a detailed plan. My dad was a war planner on the Joints Chief of Staff in the 1960s. He said that planning took a while to develop, as they had to create various contingency plans ... none of which ever went that way. Why do you think a Donald Trump plan would go as planned
I have no idea if the Trump plan would go as planned but there are two points to be made here:

If your dad was a “war planer” you know plans go out the window at the first engagement; Marines "improvise, adapt, overcome" (the plan isn't working Carl).
Trump did not give a “Date Certain” and neither you, me, or the media have details of Trump’s plan. I am much more prone to believe Trump’s plan had conditions, since no serviceman had been killed in the previous 18 months and Trump didn’t kiss foreign a$$, like Bidet does.

Second point: why is it that everyone claims Bidet had to stick to Trump’s plan but he arbitrarily changed the withdrawal date, turned it into a “Date Certain”, and has reversed almost everything else Trump did?

When you attempt to barricade yourself with your predecessor’s decisions make sure the barricade you present is more resilient than toilet paper.

You truly have to suspend all reality to believe much of what Bidet says, if you understand it.
 
Messages
9
Reactions
1
Yup, Trump did not leave a plan when he surrendered America to the Taliban. Typical Trump is my thought. It takes a long time to develop a plan of the magnitude required. The sudden action of the Afghan military dropping their weapons and fleeing left the new administration how long to create a plan ? It was created in secret, as it is a matter of simple web search to find that Trump did not involve, or tell the Afghan administration that they were pulling out (a form of surrender in my book). The buffoon lost the election. Yup you have that right, and I see the results of exercising that right. An example clearly was January 6th.
You and those like you are the problem.
 
Messages
2,251
Reactions
2,260
That's one helsinki of a post, Stomper! I think we've just had a "tactical nuke of truth" landed on this thread. I'm lovin' it!
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top