Have you heard of the 1994 "tough on crime" law?
I think Joe would come to your parents' basement, wake you up, fit you for a straitjacket, and take you to your rubber room. :)
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Disregarding the blatant delusion in the first paragraph, the question is prefaced with the condition that the riots do break out under Joe's presidency, so an answer based on "well the riots wouldn't break out" is not a viable or reasonable response.
The blatant delusion? Are you on crack? Have you not been paying attention to what Trump has been doing? You really want to try to convince me Trump hasn't been stoking racial division at every opportunity. Go ahead. I love great fiction. Take a shot at it.But since you clearly need everyone to play your game, how's this.Joe would have called the BLM leaders from each city together in a summit, listened to what they had to say, talked it through with them, committed the resources of the government to address the issues they raised on the condition that they returned to their cities and calmed down their groups and ceased the violent protests.
I take it you'd be fine, for example, linking the video of him praising white supremacists?
Why don't you link the video of him "praising" them cause I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. If you weren't trying to twist and distort it you would admit that the comment was he disagreed with them strongly but still found a way to work with them in a civil manner to get things done. His quote was “At least there was some civility,” Biden said. “We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished." He certainly wasn't praising them or their racist views. And he sure as hell didn't refer to them as "some very fine people" as Trump referred to white supremacists one of whom had just run over and murdered an innocent girl. Sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. The people in those states put those two in office, not Biden. As a 31 year old junior senator in his first term, he didn't have the luxury to tell them screw you, I won't even talk to you. Also, it was 45 years ago. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have to work with a racist like Trump. They do it cause they have to but I don't think you're going to see them praising his racism either. I'm pretty sure the African American community in the U. S. knows who Joe is, what he stands for and how he feels about racism. This talking point of yours that the right wing is so desperate to have gain traction will I suspect, be as effective in hurting Biden as calling him a senile pedophile and Harris a whore.
I was referring to your quote in your initial statement about Trunp, not Biden, which you finnily enouvh elaborates on about the "very fine pelple" thing. So now that we're clear, would you like to link the video of Trump allegedly referring to white supremacists as very fine people?
Allegedly? We all heard him say it after the Charlottesville protests. The "there were very fine people on both sides" quote. I'm sure you did too. You can google it if you need to hear him say it again.
Yes, I did. And he was referring to the people who were on each side of the confederate monument debate. And in doing so, he even explicitly condemned the white supremacists who showed up. He said, I quote, "You had some very bad people in that group (refering to the white supremacists). But you 'ALSO' had people that were very fine people on both sides (referring to the non-white supremacists on one side and the people who oppose the statue on the other side)." Then he clarifies “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” Now I ask you: did you hear about this, or are you being selective with what evidence you want to acknowledge? Because this is some pretty explicit and clear stuff. Either your news sources are lying to you, or you favor self-induced delusion over reality.
Dude, the group with the torches, automatic weapons and the Nazi insignia? They were ALL white supremacists made up from as many as 11 different white extremists and Neo Nazi groups according to the U. S. intelligence. There were ZERO people marching with that group who were not white supremacists. No one saw them marching with guns and torches and Swastikas shouting Jews will not replace us and thought to themselves, "We're very fine people. We condemn their values but they seem like they'd be fun to hang with so let's march with them". Everyone marching with that group were white supremacists and since Trump made his comments two days after the event, he surely had been briefed of that and knew that.On the other side, the counter protesters were peaceful. They were not armed, they were not carrying torches to engender fear, they were not shouting antisemitic slogans. Yet Trump condemned them as well trying to imply their tactics were as offensive and hate filled as the White Supremacists which was nonsense. He knows these white supremacists are an important part of his base and didn't want to offend them or single them out so he claimed both sides were in the wrong but also both sides had some very fine people. Since there were no "non-white supremacists" marching with them and he knew this, he called White Supremacists very fine people. Period. I believe Trump is a racist but even in the unlikely event he is not, he has clearly supported racism, validated it as a legitimate viewpoint and refused to denounce it outright as with Charlottesville making sure he gave the racists an out to believe they were one of the very fine people he was referring to even though they were ALL racists.You can keep trying to dance around it. But, accept it or not, that's the reality. The myth that there were non-white supremacists marching with them and those were the very fine people to whom Trump was referring is laughable.
Gotcha. So Trump "knows these white supremacists are an important part of his base and didn't want to offend them" which is why he explicitly said "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
Exactly. They already know he has their back and believe firmly he's one of them so what they heard is what they know Trump was obligated to say politically which he gets a pass for and then the very fine people part which is where they know he was signaling to them how he really feels about them. That's how dog whistles work and exactly how they're used. I'm surprised a smart guy like you is naive enough not to understand that.
Do you believe shape-shifting reptiles run our government, too?
Nope, just weasels.
Like that nasty ole, woman-hating, supremacist-supporting, black-hating cheeto-man!
Hey, I didn't change government response to peaceful protests. They did it in the 60's too - watch some footage of those gatherings, where cops just roll in and start pummeling and gassing unarmed peaceful black protesters.Then go to iraq war protests in 2003, peaceful, but most gassed and beaten anyways. A woman holding her baby was hit in the face with a tear gas grenade ffs.. the protest was totally peaceful and included parents and kids.Go to youtube , there's more videos of police brutalizing peaceful protesters than there are of riots breaking out during protests, by a longshot. I don't care about your responses because they are intentionally provoking and obviously whatever truths exist, you won't allow them to change your opinion, so um.. good luck with that.
A politician's goal is to get elected and re-elected, and re-re-elected on some premise- any premise. Politicians need to make voters THINK that something is happening, while it really IS NOT or is but only in a trifling amount. . Then every four years, they can say "look at what we started- re-elect me and we can finish it". Well, it is seldom ever going to get finished, but the politicians will keep getting re-elected because the voters believe that it might- just might- happen. Don't hold your breath on that one!The people of the United States got a curve ball tossed because President Trump is NOT a politician. He's a businessman. The goal of a businessperson is to "make the deal and close the deal", and to worry considerably less about any 'bedside manner". People were familiar with the eloquent but illusory, grammatical ramblings of the previous president: lots of nice-sounding words, but precious little content. Voters just were not used to such simple observations such as, "That's great. That is really outstanding. " They were still waiting for more words, as if more WORDS bring more security or happiness. They can't- but handling a situation with a businessperson's goals in mind, can.
You're not wrong about politicians, however you are wrong about businessmen and Trump.Trump is a politician, he is a businessman, but he is also a politician. He is both at the same time, he first became a politician in the year 1999 when he began his campaign to take over leadership of the reform party (true story). Since then he backed off of politics, but seemingly seeing an opportunity during the Obama years, he slipped himself back into the spotlight and attacked Obama on many political issues, this was the true start of his 2016 presidential campaign. He attacked Obama on his birth certificate (which Obama released, I wonder when Trump will release his taxes?), Ebola, the amount of golf he played, etc.The fact of the matter is that this worked well because it was true, Obama was a do nothing president, but as far as I can tell, Trump hasn't done better. Trump just used Obama's laziness as the reason why the country needed a businessman.And the true purpose/goal of a businessman is to make money and succeed. That's it. Deals dont matter, nothing matters as long as you succeed, that is how business works. Trump will burn the country down for his own benefit if he thinks it'll be worth it. To that end Trump is playing his part very well, he is fooling idiots like you into thinking he is a good guy, meanwhile he's using the position to make money, by having people stay in his private hotels when they travel for business/politics.Tell me, what has Trump achieved? Even the wall, which was an objective waste of money, isn't complete, Trump is in the exact position you described "they can say 'look at what we started, re-elect me and we can finish it' ".
Also, don't get me wrong, I hate both Obama and Trump, they're both useless and divisive president who damaged the country more than helped it, and preferably I would have them both imprisoned for treason because they abused the country for their own benefit, same with Biden, Harris, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, Pence, etc. They all in it for their own benefit and nothing else. They all benefit from dividing America so that they get to hold onto their power. If you look past the partisanship, you'll see that the people on top are secretly working together to oppress the people on the bottom, they just pretend to hate each other so that the poor people get caught up in the anger and start fighting amongst each other. You think Democrat politicians really hate Trump? At most they hate his big mouth, they don't rally against his military budget or try to argue that the government should help the people during a pandemic, they agree with Trump on almost every issue when it comes to actually passing a law, the only thing they have to really criticize him for is his tweets because they agree with everything he is actually doing, because the democrats are as corrupt as he is.
Let's make the (groundless) assumption that the riots couldn't/wouldn't break out if he was president, why does a hypothetical condition need a realistic, indisputable, and strictly applicable foundation?If I asked you, "if you had a billion dollars, what would you spend it on?" would you then ask me "how could I, cofeewithcream, obtain a billion dollars within reason?"