Biden Why Pour Fire On A Big Old Fire?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (93 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 8 days ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/15358292_f1024.jpg
    What sense does it make for Biden to pour gas on an out of control fire?   The day after the Jan 6th riot at the Capital Biden came out to address the Nation. Stating it was time we come together, and heal... However, he saw fit to bring up and compared law enforcement treatment of the crowds at past BLM protests to how law enforcement handled the crisis at the Capital that occurred on Jan 6th. IMO this was not the time or place to bring up the subject. To me, it stuck out as a political ploy. A  cheap political ploy to stir the flames, using race-baiting. It would appear Biden was keeping to tactics that he learned in his 47 years in Washington.  Race-baiting. is the highest card the Dems play from their politicking handbook, and they have a long history of playing. that card.

    "Biden recalled a text conversation he'd had over the last day with his granddaughter about how differently law enforcement officers treated the rioters from how they treated Black Lives Matters protesters during summer demonstrations over the death of George Floyd.

    "No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn't have been treated very, very differently from the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," he said, recalling the words of his granddaughter.

    "We all know that's true. And it's unacceptable. Totally unacceptable,"

    Do you think Biden should have brought up the difference in how BLM and the Jan 6th protester were treated by law enforcement? when talking to the Nation about coming together to begin healing?

    Do you think his attitude, and words promoted racial tension, in regards to his statement?

    Did Joe promote actually two adverse problems - one racial tension, and also promote or support the ongoing ideology that law enforcement treats black people differently?

    Should have Biden even brought up these subjects when tensions are so raw, could have this conversation waited for a more opportune time?

    IMO  --- Biden clearly knew what he was stoked, he was race-baiting. Pointing out that black people were treated differently by law enforcement in regard to the separate groups of protesters.  He clearly hoped to stir up racial tension. And it worked ... Media was up and running with his statements and sentiment within hours.

    https://www.abc27.com/news/biden-blm-pr … l-rioters/

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics … index.html

  2. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 8 days ago

    Cue the Trumpers chiming in to project their idol's worst qualities onto Biden....
    5....
    4....
    3....
    2....
    1....
    GO!

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

      I have moved on to keep an eye on the new person that will inhabit the White House. IMO Trump was president and we have a new one now.. I realize it will be hard for some to move on. For me it's easy...

      How about addressing the subject. It has nothing to do with Trump's words, the context of the subject is Biden, and the words he used to heal the Nation. Hope you will join in on the subject.

      This just does not have anything to do with Trump. All about Biden and how he handled the Jan 6th crisis. IMO, he race-baited, poured a ton of gas on a really bad situation.

      What are your feelings about his "let's come together and heal speech?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        I have no problem with Biden stating the truth. It is a fact that preparations for the MAGA rally were different from preparations for the BLM rally. It is part of being an adult to be able to face hard truths. Our nation will not fully heal without addressing hard truths.

        All he did was state a fact that is easily discerned, and he stated it in a somber and respectful manner. That is not race baiting; that is being the adult in the room. Get used to it.

        1. ScottSBateman profile image82
          ScottSBatemanposted 8 days agoin reply to this

          This also is a case of cherrypicking. Most of his statement was about the Capitol attack.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merrick-ga … 021-01-07/

          That said, I think Biden should have emphasized the lack of police protection at the Capitol riot versus the overwhelming force at the DC protest when he went to the church.

          Trump sent the DC National Guard to the church protest and kept it away from the Capitol riot.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Why do you think Pres.-elect Biden should have "emphasized the lack of police protection at the Capitol riot versus the overwhelming force at the DC protest in this address. "? Why do you think this address was the place and time to do this?

            I watched the entire 22 minutes of your link, again, because I saw it when it was live on TV. I thought that for about 21 minutes he was excellent, presidential, and sincere. I thought it was exactly the kind of address we should want to hear from our new president. Although I know little about his nominees, (except Garland), I  finished feeling confident about his choices.

            What was jarringly out of place was the minute, (or so), of his "Point of Personal Privaledge" where he spoke of the disparity, re. BLM protests and the Capitol Hill assault. I don't think he was wrong, or that the issue should not be addressed, but I do think it was the wrong place and time for it, and that, as Sharlee says; It was throwing gas on an already raging fire.

            I am open to opposing considerations, but I think Sharlee was right—in the context of the wrong place, the wrong time.

            GA

            1. ScottSBateman profile image82
              ScottSBatemanposted 8 days agoin reply to this

              Because most Republicans are still refusing to condemn the mob attack. They are refusing to support the 25th Amendment. They also are refusing to support impeachment.

              They are showing they are perfectly fine with the mob attack on Capitol Hill.

              Biden tried the conciliatory approach. The Republicans threw it back in his face.

              As a result, Trump fanatics will head back to DC on the 20th, more heavily armed than before.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                No, they are mad due to people telling them what to condemn, what to believe in regard to the election, what to believe in regard to why they voted for Trump, and they have become aware they can't trust media, social media, government representatives in their states or Federal Government, they are sick of hearing they are the root of all evil. These people you speak of are more than mad, and most likely will head back to Washington. It would seem we are a divided nation. And a lot of citizens are opting not to talk about change but hit the streets and yes maybe fight like hell to bring change about. 

                I must ask why do you think you can expect citizens to adopt your thoughts in regards to Pence using the 25th amendment or impeachment. I would think it time you woke up, many do not support either, and they all as individuals have that right.  This form of unearned superiority is the biggest part of today's biggest problem.   Mt gosh listen to yourself.

                "conciliatory approach. "   Actually he made a vague go at making black people feel different as if they already did not realize that the protests were policed differently.  Joe saw the opportunity to stir the pot, just inflame the situation.   I don't argue this statement being true (though I could) I am just pointing out he stirred the race pot. To truly unify I would think it important to ask us all to come together, not point out at this moment in time race relations.

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                None of that makes any sense, relative to this discussion.

                Who are the "most Republicans' you mention? I don't think it would be the "most" rally goers that stayed outside and did not participate in the assault. Or the "most Republican" legislators or network contributors I have seen on the networks, especially on Fox.

                And to say it was appropriate because most Republicans don't support invoking the 25th or impeachment sounds like an even sillier rationalization for making such comments as we are discussing—in the middle of a Unity and Healing address..

                I thought your link was nearly Biden's first consequential address concerning the assault. Can you show examples of the Republicans throwing previous attempts "back in his face"?

                It sounds like you are saying the time was right because you are angry.  'Let the consequences be damned, they pooped on the floor so rub their noses in it."

                As a side note; I am listening to a Democrat Congressman at the moment on Fox and his thought about addressing this issue is that "The most important thing we need to do at the moment is to lower the temperature in America." I agree.

                GA

                1. ScottSBateman profile image82
                  ScottSBatemanposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  Of course it does. You accuse Biden of inflammatory rhetoric but ignore the same by Republicans.

                  I don't think you are understand my exact words. Again: "most Republicans are still refusing to condemn the mob attack."

                  The "most Republicans" are the Trump Cabinet, members of Congress and a majority of Republican voters (according to polls).  They are either dead silent or come up with a silly deflection about a single comment in a Biden statement.

                  Do you deny the provable truth of the above paragraph?

                  The more relevant question is how you can attack Biden and ignore what Republicans are doing to encourage an even worse attack on Inauguration Day by staying silent.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    Hold on now, I didn't directly accuse Biden of inflammatory rhetoric, (although criticizing the timing may be taken as such), but, I most certainly did not ignore the same rhetoric by Republicans—simply because that was not part of the discussion. Maybe you should reread my responses to understand the point I was making.

                    If your exact words were that "most Republicans are still refusing to condemn the mob attack." then I will repeat what I originally asked; who are those "most Republicans"? All Republican speakers I have seen in media presentations have condemned it. Most conservative news pundits I have heard have condemned it. As I think about it, I haven't heard any voices that didn't condemn it. The "Trump cabinet" is resigning, almost en masse', they can't be who you are referring to. The original cadre of Republican legislators that were going to 'object'' to the states' electoral submissions shrank from a dozen to a couple. So, of course, I would also be interested in your poll sources that say Republican voters didn't condemn the Capitol Hill assault.

                    Since you are so big on asking that questions be answered, I will ask again, who are the "most Republicans" you refer to?

                    Obviously, yes. I do disagree with your "above paragraph." Here is your chance to prove me wrong with proof of your contentions.

                    Your last question, which you deem the most relevant is, in my opinion, the least relevant. No one was talking about Republicans, and no one was attacking Biden for the content of his remarks. The criticism was about the effect of his timing.

                    So, as you frequently like to say, forget the deflection and false equivalencies and address the content of my responses, which, from the beginning, were about the timing of Biden's "Point of Personal Privilege" remarks.

                    GA

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

              Over the weekend our Governor made a statement that people that voted for Trump voted for him due to "their whiteness".  Governor Whitmer is well known to hang on and follow much of what other Dem Representatives say. She parrots them.  Pelosi made the statement last week. To quote ---  "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is accusing the Trump supporters who rioted in the Capitol this week of choosing “their whiteness over democracy.”

              https://www.kron4.com/news/national/pel … whiteness/

              I would think this race-baiting agenda will lead to more tension. Funny how many can't see that division is being stoked by Dens using racist comments.   I realize this is a strong statement, but I truly feel it is true.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                Some easily offended white people like to blame everyone else for their discomfort with the truth. While I agree some Democrats use race as a weapon (as do some Republicans), it does not exonerate those who use it as an excuse for their own racist discomfort and anger.

                After all, why would one get angry about the truth unless one were harboring racist thoughts?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  In my view, the race-baiting was well planned, first Biden then Pelosi, and actually my Governor. 

                  I am going to share my gut feelings when I heard Biden say those words. Just sheer honesty.

                  I thought Oh my God how would I feel if I were black, always being made to feel diffrent. Different with respect to how treated in the summer protests, and now with a new president that uses that very fact to stir up more decent, when he was asking for American's to come together and mend, but if I am black, I may as well forget it, even now with a horrible crisis being black leaves me on the outside looking in. If I were black I might have felt in the first minutes of Biden's speech that I was included. But in the end, I would have been reminded, no not me. This kind of politicking does not heal, it does not help in any respect to continuing to jab at open wounds.

                  This is my opinion just my thoughts.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    Okay/

                  2. Valeant profile image82
                    Valeantposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    'I thought Oh my God how would I feel if I were black, always being made to feel diffrent.'

                    Try skipping the imagining part and go make a black friend and ask them what they think.  I saw from many of my black friends' posts that they were pissed from what they saw as a vastly different treatment of Trump supporters and BLM protesters.

                    And making a public acknowledgement that our government recognizes the issue is done to show understanding that there is a problem that needs addressing and there will be action taken.  It's done to preempt the need to form a protest by certain groups.

                    There's the difference in leadership - Trump can literally go to Kenosha and says he supports the police after they shot an unarmed black man and deny that systemic racism exists - further instigating protests.  Biden calls out law enforcement in DC for their obvious different approaches to groups made of different racial makeups.

                    It's almost like this thread is an attempt to hinder the goal of reaching equality.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                It's called "divide and conquer", and liberals have long been known for division rather than consolidation.  Particularly when it comes to race issues.  Or racial non-issues, for that matter.

                1. ScottSBateman profile image82
                  ScottSBatemanposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  I still await your answer to my previous question. Do you support or condemn the attack on Capitol Hill?

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Trump Trump Trump!  Russia Russia Russia!   So predictable.

            1. ScottSBateman profile image82
              ScottSBatemanposted 8 days agoin reply to this

              Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Trump had nothing to do with how the protest on Jan 6th would handle in regards to troops. that would fall on other officials to make that dession.

            "Mayor Bowser requested the activation on Dec. 31 and the request was approved Monday by the acting defense secretary, said a senior defense official. Unlike other states' National Guards -- whose activation is controlled by state governors -- the responsibility for the D.C. National Guard falls to the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, who then must have the decision approved by the defense secretary."

            1. ScottSBateman profile image82
              ScottSBatemanposted 8 days agoin reply to this

              Absolutely false. Trump controls the DC National Guard. In fact, your quote proves it.

              Does the defense secretary not report to Trump?

              Even the right-wing Forbes magazine said Trump opposed the move.

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 … d39c81e18b

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                I suggest you check out what went on in regards to how and who took control over the Jan 6 protest.  The plan was constructed by a few entities. They can take the responsibility for the force not being sufficient for the crisis. It would seem they planned poorly, now would it not. The President did not in any respect gett involved in how law enforcement would handle the day.

                I have looked into what happened that day in regard to law enforcement. It is evident that it started with the Capitol Police, and then snowballed. Hint --- "The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate."

                I started there and progressed to my mistakes. None of which involve Trump.  The trail is easy to follow if you want the truth. Start with our wonderful Congress. They are great at pointing the finger putting up mirrors and twists and turns. They were the first to drop the ball.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                From your link:
                "After a mob of his supporters broke into the Capitol building on Wednesday, President Donald Trump was initially hesitant to deploy the National Guard to respond"

                After the fiasco in Portland, and being vilified for sending in the guard, I'd probably be hesitant, too.

                "The Pentagon deployed all 1,100 members of the D.C. National Guard in response to the mob on Capitol Hill."

                So the Pentagon, not Trump had the authority to do it.  And did.

                "In a statement announcing the deployment, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller said he spoke with Pence and congressional leaders, but he didn’t mention Trump."

                Sounds like the order not to deploy never came from Trump, as you insist it did ("Trump sent the DC National Guard to the church protest and kept it away from the Capitol riot."

                I'd have to say your own link directly contradicts your claim that Trump took action to deny the Guard.  Rather, that action came from DC police and Capital security.

                1. ScottSBateman profile image82
                  ScottSBatemanposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  Again, does the defense secretary report to Trump? Or to the tooth fairy?

                  Miller talked to Pence because Pence called him and told him to release the Guard. And because Trump refused to do it.

                  Your own comment reinforces the point you are attempting to refute. Trump refused to authorize the Guard. Pence had to do it.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    Actually, Congress is responsible for the Capitol Police. They knew about the Trump rally for weeks. Maybe, they should have planned for such a large crowd. Perhaps they just did not think Trump supporters would cause any form of trouble?

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-cour … l-n1253547

                    How did a pro-Trump mob of rioters breach the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon, accessing the Senate floor and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s desk? And why did the riot continue for hours?

                    These questions will be asked, scrutinized, and investigated for days and months to come as the dust settles from the unprecedented events that occurred in the nation’s capital on Wednesday. In the meantime, there are a few basic points to keep in mind about how things usually work and what we know so far about what happened.

                    The building’s security is manned by the U.S. Capitol Police, which is small: The force provides roughly 2,000 officers (with 2,300 employees total, including civilian employees) and is “responsible for protecting Congress and the public, and maintaining order while protecting the U.S. Capitol.” It is overseen by the four members of the Capitol Police Board, with Congressional oversight. The Capitol building covers more than 16 acres large and on Wednesday was surrounded by many thousands of armed rioters.

                    David Ramsey, a former police chief of Washington, D.C., told CNN that “they got overwhelmed awful quick. There’s no way they should’ve gotten into that building.”

                    Over three hours after the Capitol building had been breached, a safe perimeter had not yet been reestablished, with rioters in a standoff with police on the building’s steps for hours. Reporters were openly asking when the area would be cleared. CNN on-the-ground reporter Pete Muntean reported late in the afternoon that no large security forces had arrived, despite promises of both National Guard officers and police from D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.

                    As some have pointed out, the security response was likely slowed by the fact that Washington, D.C., is not a state: Because D.C. does not have a governor, D.C. Guard deployments must be approved by the city’s National Guard army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, the Associated Press reported. This is a slower process than a governor hastily declaring a state of emergency and calling in National Guard forces in large numbers.

                    Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser reportedly put in a request on December 31 for a limited National Guard deployment on the streets from Tuesday to Thursday, to support the Metropolitan Police Department during protests. But only 340 D.C. National Guard members were activated, with plans for around 115 to be on duty at any time. They were not armed.

                    Trump never refused to authorize the National Guard. That is not factual.

          4. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            I thought it was the capital police that planned the response - that Trump had nothing to do with it?  Or has that changed now, and his nonexistent commands that he gave to keep the national guard out is something to blame him for?

            1. ScottSBateman profile image82
              ScottSBatemanposted 7 days agoin reply to this

              Please try to stay on point.

              I don't think you understand the difference in job duties and authority between Capitol police and the President of the United States.

              Of course police plan a response. Of course Trump doesn't do police security plans. But Trump has authority over the DC National Guard and refused to call them out.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

          Yes, he used a very serious Timbre. And that should make all the difference. (To some)

          Cue the Joe Bro's chiming in to project their idol's worst qualities... Funny how tables have turned. So hypocritical.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Your silly tactics are not working because there is no comparison of the two that ever favors your idol. Keep it up, though. It's very entertaining.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

              Really, I would have thought you would see how "silly" your words actually were,   Hey, you pointed them at me, I directed them right back at you. Were you not "Blanketing"?  It is a trait you appear to use often.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                I have never used the term "blanketing" that I can remember.  You must have me confused with someone else.

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          Preparations were different, yes.  Perhaps there has been precious little rioting from Trump supporters vs a years worth from BLM "protests", I couldn't say.

          But it was beyond the pale to insinuate that the people that died there were treated better than those at BLM riots, all because of the color of their skin.  Of course it works well politically, but then many lies to when a gullible public is happy to take them in as truth.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      Can non-Trump supporters chime in too? (or maybe I might be a 'closet' Trump supporter :-0). I think Sharlee is referring to the same Biden speech/appearance that I referred to in another thread.

      I agree with Sharlee, it was the wrong time for such a statement.

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        It's never the wrong time to stir the pot...

        We've gone from belligerent bloviated Trump... to belligerent bygone Biden.

        Biden is as big of a gaffe machine as anyone (Trump included) from calling regular folks asking him questions “damn liar,” “fat” and “too old to vote for me” to insulting hosts  "you ain't black," and "you're ignorant"...

        Remember when confronted by a factory worker about gun laws?  Biden told the worker he was “full of shit” and threatened to “slap” the man in the face.

        Well we wanted more dignity and reserve in our next President, we wanted a articulate individual that could inspire us with words... like JFK, but heck we would have settled for a Reagan, someone who could make us feel there were better days ahead.

        We got Biden... which would be considered a total disaster, a debacle, a downward turn of epic proportion, if he had followed anyone else.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        Well, I have been told that I value truth to a fault. Imagine that. lol

        I just think it's ridiculous to call it race baiting. It is reasonable to disagree on timing, but calling a simple truth "race baiting" is ridiculous.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

          And it was the timing that I spoke to, so maybe we aren't too far apart.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Yes, I can respect disagreement on the timing.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

          There is a time and a place for everything.  And Biden saw the perfect time to race-bait.     As I said it worked media ate up, and yes this bait added to the heat.  But, your opinion is noted and welcomed.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

            I can respect believing the timing was wrong. I cannot respect referring to stating the truth as "race baiting" just because it makes some white people mad.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

              That's pretty much all you needed to say. I was just looking for opinions, not a huge back and forth.  I can respect your opinion, and really mull it over.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

        I offered just two links to his words of wisdom, even offered up CNN so as to not show bias. I appreciate you saw my point. 

        Well, his statement caused a big protest in my quiet town. A community that is made up of stick in butt conservative types. So, where will all this lead? So, peaceful, so scary to see so many mad, that as a rule would care little about much but 401k, golf, and leaving for the winter. 

        So many are seeing huge problems, not due solely to the election, but a big pot of stewing problems. To include freedom of speech.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

          A man states the truth, and white people are offended and mad, and it's the truth teller's fault.

          Not understanding this line of thinking at all.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Let's get something straight before you take my comments out of context. I never said anything about the truth or nontruth of Joe's statement. (I could certainly argue the facts on that) I did not attack his right to say it or if there is any truth to it. I said he was pouring gas on a fire, and I gave my opinion that he knew what he was doing, rase-baiting.

            AND NOTHING TO DO WITH  ALL "WHITE PEOPLE". My opinion is not the entire opinion of the white race.

            I think my original comment was very clear, with a clear context. Hopefully, I have further clarified the comment.

            What fool saved that statement to the end for a well-known purpose. As a rule, the last words are the most remembered. Speech 101

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 7 days agoin reply to this

              Oh, was it black people in Michigan who got angry about Biden stating the fact that the law enforcement preparations for the BLM rally were different from the preparations for the MAGA rally? If so, my bad.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                I am not sure how a black person felt about Biden's statement. I can imagine it caused them to become very angry at Trump. Was that not why he said it? To cause anger... Otherwise, why bring it up at that point? He wanted to incite anger, he pointed out a racial difference in how rallies were handled by law enforsment. I would think it in any respect a statement that points out a racial difference is meant to invoke some form of emotion, some form of opinion. And I am sure it provoked individual emotions depending on the individual. I saw race-baiting, and a means to stoke discontent with law enforcement. Two birds with one stone.

                I am pretty open-minded, so I see where you're coming from.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  Pointing out a racial injustice might be simply exposing racial injustice so it can be addressed. It is not all race baiting. Only racists would get upset about someone truthfully pointing out a racial injustice, seems to me.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    Again I will clarify -- No problem with the statement I don't feel it was the right moment to bring up the subject. I would have had more respect if he started with that subject, it was inappropriate in a speech that was meant to unify, after a very horrible event. I never said his entire speech was race-baiting in fact in fact I critiqued the first of the speech a unifying.

                    Not sure how you feel "Only racists would get upset about someone truthfully pointing out a racial injustice, seems to me." 

                    No, actually I am pretty sure how you derive an opinion.

  3. Kenna McHugh profile image92
    Kenna McHughposted 8 days ago

    This is the first of many mistakes Biden will make (intentionally).

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      Hi Kenna, is Trump still going to be president after January 20?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

      I agree, and yes it will be intensional as the words he used in his Jan 7th "Heal the Nation Speech."  It's called cheap politicking.

    3. ScottSBateman profile image82
      ScottSBatemanposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      Do you support or condemn the mob attack on Capitol Hill?

  4. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 8 days ago

    Actually, he pretty much mirrors what the Dem could not tolerate in Trump. But now, it seems all he said and said in the past 40 years is no problem. Hey, he has many knows telling what to do and say. --- "hey joe run out onto the stage, get dramatic use a serious timbre in your voice here and there. You got it, Joe.." "Put on these clothes Joe..." Read the script Joe, and do not take questions from anyone off the list we gave you"

    It's all downhill, get ready for the ride. Four years will fly by.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      "Actually, he pretty much mirrors what the Dem could not tolerate in Trump."

      Aw, if that's what you see, then you should adore him.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

        I have made my sentiments about Trump well known. It's you that just can separate individuals and their ideologies. But, I can look the other way, you blanket not only people but subjects.  This is just my opinion. And I know it's ruff, and as a rule, I see no reason to be ruff. But, I am not willing to take ridiculous jabs.  You never seem to say much that is not some form of vague insult.   Biden is so much like Biden in so many ways it's laughable.  But Trump would not and could not be handled. I think Joe will be easily handled.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          Yes, you have made it clear you recognized his terrible character flaws but voted for him anyway.  That's why it's so entertaining watching you try to compare Biden to Trump as if it's even close.

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          I would be more worried if Biden wasn't so much like Biden, (I know, I know, just a slip-up, we all do it, but I can't resist an open door. ;-) )

          Also, maybe Pres. Trump might have benefitted if he had allowed a little 'handling'

          GA

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

            Trump could have been a wonderful president if he kept his mouth shut most of the time. He certainly could have benefited if he listened more and said less.  He did not walk in quietly, and he sure is making a memorable exit.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            Drain the Swamp, Build the Wall, America First...

            The first goal made him enemy #1 with the DC Establishment...

            The second two goals flew in the face of global trends, the UN, China, etc.

            Biden won't be merely handled, he is nothing if not a front man for the establishment and the changes that are to come.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 6 days agoin reply to this

              I think we are in for a bumpy ride...

              1. ScottSBateman profile image82
                ScottSBatemanposted 6 days agoin reply to this

                Trump fanatics swarming Capitol hill with bombs, knives, guns, mace and molotov cocktails do tend to make things a bit bumpy.

  5. emge profile image79
    emgeposted 7 days ago

    Biden is a politician first and a leader later that's the way I look at him.I would remind all those celebrating the arrival of Joe Biden as the President of the United States in the hope that they will get emancipation from white domination may not work out true. Anybody who has a sense of history knows that the Democrats have been presidents of America umpteen times and they have always played the race card; Did the racial atmosphere improve for the last 100 years? From the time in 1915, I think when 15 black soldiers were summarily hanged to death to 2020 when an Afro American was strangulated to death by a white policeman, what has changed? Is BIDEN going to change the thinking? Let's wait and see.

  6. NayNay2124 profile image83
    NayNay2124posted 7 days ago

    Amen Valeant!!!

  7. Valeant profile image82
    Valeantposted 6 days ago

    I'm more than willing to pass the blame around in the days leading up to the rally after reading multiple sourcing. 

    But multiple sourcing is also reporting, as well as the DC Council itself, that the request for the National Guard was denied after the Capitol was stormed and Capitol Police were overwhelmed.  Looking at the chain of command, there were only two people that leads to, hence why we need to start with Miller since Trump, as he has done in the past, will refuse to testify about anything.

    'Trump's previous view was to deploy the NG for any and all riots that occurred all last summer. Not sure why he would not want to send them in on Jan 6th. He is pro-law enforcement., and has always been.'

    There are plenty of reasons why he would not want to deploy the National Guard. 
    1.)  Trump is a bully and to create a threat is a possible tactic he might have wanted to employ that day to try and sway Congress. 
    2.)  Trump is facing legal threats to his actual freedom and fortune should he not be re-elected.  A man of his age, facing possible prison time, would possibly resort to whatever means, including violent ones done at his behest (see McDougal intimidation).
    3.)  The summer protests were not his base.  We've all seen how Trump gives favorable treatment to his people - see Flynn, Stone, Papadopoulous, Manafort, Arpaio.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)