From that article: "leading member nations to contribute tens of billions of additional dollars to ensure their own security.."

As I said, spend on their military, not NATO's budget. And the NATO SG still had to deal with Trump for two more years at the time of that article, so he'd need to say things to keep him happy.

(sigh)... You are quite delusional. And you continue to demonstrate you have no clue what you are talking about.

The $100 billion did not affect NATO's budget. The requirement was that member nations spend a certain amount ON THEIR OWN defense department. Trump complained that other countries weren't spending as much as the US. That was largely because the US spends much more than needed on defense. Many NATO counties did up their defense spending (totaling $100 B), but not of Trump's temper tantrums, but, due to Trump's incompetence, the world was a much more dangerous place, and they felt they needed to prepare.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump's term, because Trump was giving Putin everything he wanted --- he was weakening Ukraine & NATO. Once Trump left, Putin knew that Biden would rebuild both, so he had to attack Ukraine fast.

Yes, Trump did -- and did incredible damage to the US's crediblity with other countries, which Biden is trying to repair. (It also allowed Iran to restart its nuclear program which is also on Biden's list of things he has to fix).

Just canceling the Doha agreement wouldn't be enough. Trump had already pulled out 80% of the troops. Biden would have had to BRING TROOPS IN, which no one wanted.

The "certain conditions" were that the Taliban pledged to prevent al-Qaeda from operating in areas under Taliban control. Right from the start, the Taliban disregarded that. Nevertheless, Trump reduced the military presence in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 2,500. He also pressured the flailing Afghan government to release 5000 Taliban terrorists they had in prison. And remember, the Doha agreement was between the US and the Taliban without the involvement of the Afghan government. Trump was negotiating to turn the country over to the Taliban.

2500 troops are not capable of controlling an entire country. Biden had a choice: pull the remaining troops out as quickly and safely as possible; or, throw out the agreement, bring in thousands more troops, and start the whole US-Afghan war all over again (getting thousands killed).

The first and third are good. The 2nd is a bit jarring with the breast springing out of nowhere.

From that article:


Completely white-washing Trump's role. Trump didn't merely "announce" the "beginning" of the process. He, and his administration, completely negotiated all aspects of the withdrawal, including the final date. Biden's only "decision" was to abide by a commitment made by his predecessor --- which he had to do, or no foreign country would ever trust an agreement made by a US president, if it were policy to just tear them up once a new guy became president. (Trump would have done that, which is why we're now fighting to rebuild our reputation after the damage Trump did to it).

Wait, wait wait...

for 1) You can move one match to make it say "9 + 3 - 4 = 8"

1) Well, a simple fix would be to move the verticle line on the plus and put it on top of the equals, so it says
"8 minus 3 minus 4 does not equal 0" but I think that may be cheating.

2) Only 3 has an unobstructed pipe.

3) Father's chair says "Novel"
Father's ear & glasses says "book"
Mother's shoulder's/book says "Story"
Tree says "words"
Son's torso says "page"
Dog and daughter's heads says "read"

4) 3rd row down, 2nd from the left looks a bit larger than the rest.

5) Didn't see it at first, thought I try looking at it from the edge, so I loaded the page in my phone and BOOM, I immediately saw the "20". Even on a desktop computer, it's more noticeable if you scroll the page back and forth quickly.

"Often referred to as “psychological transference”, psychological projection involves an individual transferring negative qualities about themselves (feelings, emotions, actions, traits, etc.) onto a different individual, institution, or object. Projection allows the individual to take their unwanted feelings and put them into an external threat. "

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/psychologists/understanding-projection-psychology/

HaHaHaHaHa

I've worked in the computer industry for 40 years. I know quite a bit about data forensics.

Faking an email is trivial. -- It's all text, and the standard includes no checksum hash to validate the content. There's is DMARC, but that's a 3rd-party add-on, which you'd have to add & enable on your system.

If the FBI did a full forensic analysis of the laptop contents, they probably could determine if they were real or fake. But, they'd need a reason to. A decades-old photo of a person who could be Hunter Biden snorting cocaine or a video of him having sex wouldn't be verified, as there's no prosecutable federal crime there.

And, again, there's no chain of custody leading back to Hunter Biden, so the laptop is worthless as evidence in a trial. Add to that, the fact that the whole scene is right out of the KGB playbook, looking exactly like smear campaigns they've run dozens of times over the years, the FBI probably spent little time on it.

You're putting two and two together and getting seven.

"The New York times did In fact admit that the material that was from Hunter Biden's laptop was real"
Yes and no. NYTimes states that a handful of emails on the laptop were real. However, these emails should no wrongdoing.

"therefore the laptop is real." Absolutely not. I assume you are familiar with laptops and files. Copying things onto them is trivial. Putting a couple of real files on a new laptop is trivial, as would be filling a stolen laptop with faked evidence. Faking the evidence would be more difficult, but the KGB has been doing that for 60 years, and they are quite good at it.

Well, I'll admit that there are a number of actual facts in the article (such as "The discovery of the laptop came just weeks before the 2020 presidential election. But the reaction from most of the media—including the Times—was to ignore it."). But they are completely irrelevant. (The media ignored it because they recognized it as nonsense)

Other details in the article are flat-out lies, such as "Now that the Times has admitted that the laptop was real". No one has admitted the laptop is real. The NYTimes acknowledges that a handful of real emails were found on the laptop. But they could easily have been copied onto it. And even if the laptop actually is Hunters, any amount of fake information could have been copied to it. Without a proper chain of custody --- the identity of every hand that touched it from Hunter to today --- it is completely worthless as evidence.

There were eggs for millions of years before the first chicken.

Clearly, you share Trump's love affair with Putin. You don't realize what they are capable of/have done:

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2017-01-11/ty-article/kompromat-the-storied-and-sordid-history-of-russian-blackmail/0000017f-f01f-dc28-a17f-fc3f1b220000

(Note, that article of from 2017, long before the Hunter Laptop story)

You might notice the word "opinion" prominently on that page, snd even right in the URL. The author is "a senior contributor to the Federalist." so that's just more of the Right-wing spin.