Biden Why Pour Fire On A Big Old Fire?
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- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0Cue the Trumpers chiming in to project their idol's worst qualities onto Biden....
5....
4....
3....
2....
1....
GO!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?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.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.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.
GABecause 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.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.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.
GAOf 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.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.
GAYou didn't "directly accuse" him using those words. You just criticized him in support of the race baiting post. Accusing someone of race baiting is accusing them of inflammatory rhetoric.
Otherwise, I already answered your question. I suggest you are:
- Listening to the wrong people
- Not acknowledging the dead silence by Republicans in Congress
- Ignoring the polls of Republican voters
- Not going to conservative social media sites
- Overlooking the effort on here to deflect away from the Capitol Hill attack.
Note that some of your cohorts here won't even condemn the attack when asked.
On a related note, the FBI just issued a warning that it is expecting the strong possibility of armed protests in DC and all 50 state capitols.
If the Republican party wants unity -- which it clearly does not -- it would take a forceful stand against more violence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-m … r-BB1cEVr5Scott --- "You didn't "directly accuse" him using those words. You just criticized him in support of the race baiting post. Accusing someone of race baiting is accusing them of inflammatory rhetoric."
Here is GA's comment that gave his views very clearly on the subject of this thread. He does not in any respect criticize Biden for
"race-baiting". He clearly states he felt the statement was brought up in the "wrong place, the wrong time".
Conext, and fact matter. It's very apparent you feel whatever you say is factual. But, this attitude can become trying to some.
"GA ANDERSON WROTE:
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""It was throwing gas on an already raging fire."
Enough said.In some opinion, his statement was just not appropriate, wrong place wrong time. No one. I don't think anyone felt his comparison was not his right. Just inappropriate. Now me, I saw it as clear race-bait... Pandering to black people. A real useful ploy for Dems. But, appropriate in a "heal the Nation Speech" -- not so much. maybe you were confusing GA with me?
Biden is so well known for racist comments, he just has handlers now that have thought him a bit about adding that perfect bait. You know, come on ho Dems like to be assured of the balck vote. It's called pandering.
Your only response to my questioning your "most Republicans" claim is that I am listening to the wrong people? Geesh. Why can't you just support your claim by noting who those "most Republicans" are?
I did support one point—the timing issue, in a post you declared to be a race-baiting comment. I don't think you can note any other aspects of that post that I addressed. Is it your position that if I support any point of a comment then I support all of the comment? That's a pretty cheesy validation of your opinion. It seems to indicate yours is an all or nothing perspective, "If you ain't with me, you're agin' me." Is that your position?
I can't acknowledge the "dead silence" of Congress because I haven't looked into what the Republicans are saying in Congress, but, I have heard multiple Republican members of Congress express outrage and condemnation on media outlets. And, it was on that bastion of Republican supporting media—Fox News. I would imagine that if a "Republican media outlet" is broadcasting multiple Republican Congress folks condemning the Capitol Hill assault, then there almost must be others that non-Republican media outlets are also finding to interview.
I asked Google about those polls you are relying on, and . . .
I found a PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Friday. that gave a number of `17%/18% of Republicans supported the Capitol Hill assault, (page 11) That is a far cry from "most Republicans."
Then I found a YouGov poll that "claimed*" that 45% of Republicans supported the Capitol Hill assault. Even that number doesn't support your "most Republicans" claim.
(The "*" on "claim" was because I have to look further to figure out why there is such disparity between the Maris poll and the YouGov poll.)
I also found an Ipsos poll that said only 19% of those surveyed supported the Capitol Hill assault. But, this poll did not identity any survey results by party affiliation, so it may not be pertinent. Still, only 19%?
Most of the other stories I found were reporting on one of these three polls. So, 17%, 18%, 19% and 45%. I would guess you are most inclined to believe the 45% poll, (even though it doesn't support your "most Republican claim), but I would also have to ask why you would support that one and dismiss the others?
You did get me with your "Not going to conservative social media sites" point. Except for HP, I do very little social media site participation. (my retweet of the "Arnold" link was my first Twitter activity in almost a year). However, even if I did participate, I would be very hesitant to try to validate an opinion by what I see on such sites. You don't seem to have that concern.
And then comes the real winner:
" Overlooking the effort on here to deflect away from the Capitol Hill attack."
Do you really want to use the participation of less than half a dozen conservatives in this forum as validation for your "most Republicans" claim? I am not a Republican, but I am a Conservative. By just a rough count on my fingers, lumping all of us together, (Republicans and Conservatives), I still don't think you will find support for your "most Republicans" claim.
I thought that last point was the "real winner," but I scrolled up and discovered your "your cohorts" crack.
For me, that says it all Scott. Your mind is closed and the "support" you have tried to use to validate why it is closed is as weak as your claim.
We should probably just leave this horse where it lays. I have tried to be polite, but I am worried about another 'passive-aggressive' charge when I think I have been extremely cordial and restrained. (well, maybe just a little passive-aggressive, but I did try to restrain myself) :-0
We have ended up here before Scott. Let's wait for another opportunity for interaction.
GA
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.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?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.'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.Here was Cred's view.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4169593
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.
I still await your answer to my previous question. Do you support or condemn the attack on Capitol Hill?
Trump Trump Trump! Russia Russia Russia! So predictable.
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.
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."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 … d39c81e18bI 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.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.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.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.Multiple factual errors. You are mixing the Capitol Police and the DC National Guard.
Congress is responsible for the Capitol Police. Trump has authority over the Guard.
Activation is not the same as deployment. Trump refused deployment. Pence acted because Trump refused.No, I think my link covers all that and more. I posted earlier that Congress is responsible for the Capitol police. And yes Trump can deploy the guard which Pence did. You assume Trump was against this move I asked you to prove it... You have absolutely no idea if Pence spoke with Trump.
I do know all knew two weeks before Mayor Bowser admits she did not want any additional law enforcement. Poor decision on her part as well as Congress. They certainly could have made more Capitol police on duty.
AS I said the Capitol Poice was the first to drop the ball...
"Our Mission
Protect the Congress – its Members, employees, visitors, and facilities – so it can fulfill its constitutional and legislative responsibilities in a safe, secure, and open environment."
https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/our-mission
Just easier to make up a story, and put Blame on Trump for many's failures to think ahead.
You have no idea what went on in regards to who called in the Guard. I am still waiting for a quote where Trump told the protesters to charge the Capital.
I would also like to see a quote from Pence or Trump or any human with a face and name on this statement --"Trump refused deployment. Pence acted because Trump refused."
I notice you very rarely post quotes. Just not acceptable to make accusations without some form of backup.I already posted a link to the right-wing Forbes that Trump did refuse the Guard. Many news sources posted the same thing.
Here it is yet again:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 … a46dcb1e18
Denial isn't truth.Facts matter ---
AS I said the Capitol Poice was the first to drop the ball...
"Our Mission
Protect the Congress – its Members, employees, visitors, and facilities – so it can fulfill its constitutional and legislative responsibilities in a safe, secure, and open environment."
https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/our-missionThat has nothing to do with my comments. Contrary to your claims, which you don't support with any links, Trump refused to deploy the DC Guard. Pence had to do it.
No that just is not true... Maybe you could add a source, with a QUOTE from someone with a face a name.
Not sure what you are getting at. I have been asking Scott to supply a quote from the president where he makes a statement in regard to refusing to send in the National Guard. Here is our conversation. Very clear cut, no mention of any agencies, Just Scott once again spreading an unverified rumor.
SCOTTSBATEMAN WROTE:
That has nothing to do with my comments. Contrary to your claims, which you don't support with any links, Trump refused to deploy the DC Guard. Pence had to do it.
Shar -- No that just is not true... Maybe you could add a source, with a QUOTE from someone with a face a name.
If you want my opinion all three agencies dropped the ball in regards to being ready for a huge ass crowd that they knew were coming for weeks, and yes could become violent. It has been widely spread over social media this was coming, and many were coming to cause trouble. Get we have a very poorly organized bunch policing Washington DC. And that's my last word on why protesters made their way into the Capitol.I guess you don't know who oversees the Department of Defense. Or who is in charge of the DC National Guard - that would be Trump and the Secretary of Defense. So that statement by the DC Council implicates one of them.
Like I said this all came about due to all three involved should have been ready and waiting. Maybe you could offer a line or two from the president where he states he will not send in the Guard. And so very pleased you brought up the Department of Defense, his name is Christopher Miller by the way.
I have not witnessed media widely cover the statement offered by Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller where he offers what went on in the week leading up to the Jan 6th rally, his conversation with Trump in regards to needs to cover the day's events, and his explanation of what went on the day of the riot. I used Millers' statement to derive my opinion several days ago. As I have said, I like facts, I prefer firsthand explanations over bylines and reports sighting unknown perhaps made-up White House aids...
"In a statement Wednesday, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller did not mention working with Trump. He said he "spoke separately with the Vice President [Mike Pence] and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol."
"While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week."
"The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C.," said Kash Patel, Miller's chief of staff. "During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings."
I think Newsweek provided a non-bias event of the event. Please read it in its entirety to glean full context. Hopefully, this just may help you revise your opinion that Trump was fully responsible for there not being adequate protection of the Capitol building. He had alligated the decision to Miller days before the problem occurred. On my part, I feel that Trump used good problem-solving ahead of the time.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did … ol-1560186I'll agree with you that many are culpable on the front end. Once the Capitol had been seized, there are only two people who could have denied the request for the National Guard - Miller or Trump.
Miller, in his less than two months on the job, had already been obstructing Biden's transition. Wonder who tasked him with doing that? It will be interesting when Congress runs the investigation and puts Miller under oath and asks him if Trump ordered him not to deploy the National Guard.Valeant,
I must heap massive amounts of praise on you and your extensive knowledge on mobilizing National Guard troops. I await your lecture on the (I'm sure you know what this is) SOP - Standard Operating Procedure when it comes to each mobilization. The Chain of command and the responsibilities for each member in the chain of command for such a scenario. I won't even claim to hold a candle to a person, such as yourself, who has such a vast knowledge of the Army and its procedures. I know this, because I've seen your links to Wikipedia pages concerning the Army. I'm surprised you are not offering these skills to the US Army as a consultant. You should not let the tremendous amounts of knowledge you possess go to waste.It might be a very helpful act at this point to request a statement from Miller. He certainly did state the President gave him the authority to handle any needed National Guard for the Rally, a week before it was scheduled. Miller certainly could clarify the matter, and answer the question did Trump drag his feet the day of the riot to employ the Guard. I see no proof Trump did that. Miller as well as Pence could clarify what was done and when it was done.
At this point, it is clear Miller's statement that Newsweek saw fit to provide is not being picked up and reported. I consider this media bias and only reporting what they want the public to hear. A good bit of fuel to insight more hate IMO.
I as of now will take Miller's statement as fact, he came forward and offered it up. I can't imagine why we need to investigate Miller. He met with Trump a week before the rally to discuss the crowd size and gave him the authority to make the mission on using the Guard.
I must ask, do you ever question what the media could be promoting these past four years, and perhaps just looking deeper into any salacious story might show a different view than what they implied? This report in regard to the rumor that Trump did not want the NG deployed is one of those reports, there is no evidence of the accusation being true. Yet many believe it.
One could even take such a report with a grain of salt... 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 6ht. He is pro-law enforcement., and has always been.
"An aid was frustrated"? Come on, as always no name no face, no quote. It seems you believe anything without any form of the true source.
At any rate, as I said, and posted links with factual information. It was the Capital Polices responsibility to protect the Capitol, and yes they can request assistance, but just did not. Neither did the Mayor. In fact she weeks before refused the offer of the National guard.
Hopefully, you can come up with a statement from a live person that claims Trump would not send in the Guard. Otherwise, why continue with an unfounded rumor? So many dropped the ball, so much for Government.I shouldn't believe right-wing media or a member of Trump's staff?
Actually, I would think at this point you should believe whatever can be proven with facts. And I provided multiple links.
And actually, this thread is about Biden race-baiting during his Heal The Nation Speech ... LOL
I choose to deflect back to slappy Joe...That doesn't answer my question.
No, you claimed without proof that Trump didn't refuse the Guard. I proved with links that he did.
Yes, I understand the desire by Trump supporters to deflect from a deadly mob attack on Capitol Hill.No, your link gave no indication Trump refused to send the national guard. It made claim an unnamed aid claimed Trump was not willing to approve sending in the guard. This aid could have been puled out of thin air. I like quotes, people that have names. You have offered nothing that can be called factual. None of us have any idea if Pence and Trump spoke as the siege was going on. Neither has given statements about what occurred.
So Trump officials and right-wing media are lying about Trump. OK, got it.
Let me repeat there just is no credible information. Even if one person would stand behind the article to confirm your claim that Trump did not agree with sending in the Guard the story could hold true. Forbes just repeated what was on the wire, along with tons of other outlets. The Aid story is all over the internet. Actually, CNN makes claims multiple aids begged the President to send in the Troops... The fish story got bigger and bigger. Yet no name to back it up. We just don't know what went down in regards to what the President did in regards to sending in the Guard or dragging his feet. My point is the event known about for over two weeks, was discussed by the Capitol Police, the DC police department, as well as Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller that also knew about the rally, and ultimately was the one to send in 1,100 members of D.C. National Guard.
It would appear all involved dropped the ball, and the matter needs to investigate, and they all need to realize the wrong decisions were made. Hey, you want to Blame Trump have at it...
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 0e5cd68ea0
We are coming at the same problem from different directions. I am disturbed our combined law enforcement agencies did were not prepared to handle such a crisis. I would assume they did not think there would be a problem. Not sure why, because the rally has been being talked about openly on social media. One could see people were stewed up, some dog-whistling to come ready to fight, and so on... Not sure how our Government missed a huge pissed off crowd was going to show up on Jan 6th to protest the election.
It would seem you just feel it was Trump's fault that enough force was not on the ready. Go figure. If you want to play the blame game, there are plenty beside Trump to blame. Maybe if some did their jobs correctly no one would have made their way into the Capitol, maybe they would never have even tried.
I am done with this conversation, I will agree to disagree.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
GAIt'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.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.And it was the timing that I spoke to, so maybe we aren't too far apart.
GAThere 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.
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.
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.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.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 101Oh, 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.
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.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.
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.
This is the first of many mistakes Biden will make (intentionally).
Hi Kenna, is Trump still going to be president after January 20?
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.
Do you support or condemn the mob attack on Capitol Hill?
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."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.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.
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.
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'
GATrump 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.
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.
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.
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.
Related Discussions
- 39
Wavering Black voters: Biden is flawed, but Trump is unacceptable
by Tim Mitchell 5 weeks ago
Wavering Black voters: Biden is flawed — and Trump is unacceptable by NBC News (Feb 29, 2024)https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna140786"Months of polling has shown a segment Black voters, a key part of President Joe Biden’s base, souring on his performance and growing more...
- 94
Political Differential Law Enforcement = Witch Hunt
by Sharlee 9 months ago
Elon Musk@elonmuskSubscriber"There does seem to be far higher interest in pursuing Trump compared to other people in politics. Very important that the justice system rebut what appears to be differential enforcement or they will lose public...
- 74
What Did Joe Say? What Possessed Him To Say That?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Yesterday I (Feb 2, 2021) watched Biden expressing his condolences to the families of two FBI agents that were killed while trying to serve a warrant in Florida. President Biden used some eyebrow-raising words, that shocked me almost out of my seat. “By in large the vast majority of...
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 2 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 24
FBI: Black Identity Extremists (BIE) Domestic Terrorist Threat
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
Well, this has gone largely unreported. The 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., has spawned a violent domestic threat from “black identity extremists” who have stepped up attacks on police.“It is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African-Americans and the...
- 51
Trump's documented lies chronicled by the New York Times. A report.
by Kathleen Cochran 12 days ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … ruths.htmlDocumentation of Trump's lies written as a news article - not opinion. (I know. It's NYT - highly suspicious in spite of its multiple Pulitzers) Still. Your thoughts? By Angelo Fichera April 7, 2024Since the beginning of his political...