President Biden thread

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

He just said that Trump asked him to use his forces to "crack skulls", "beat the f-bomb out" "just shoot them" of what the general called protestors.   

I'm not sure if the forces Trump asked him were National Guard, but are they not military?  

When you say "sure" does that mean you approve of sending the military/National Guard to shoot Americans?  

 Worked out well in my lifetime in Kent State in 1970.

I understand that people were  upset with the protests and the violence, "setting cities ablaze and causing billions in property damage" and the were riots.  I get that.

I'm also tired of talking about Trump.  (I keep saying that but here I am)

Any amount of protests that turn violent is one too many.  But I am a bit bewildered about the concern for violence during BLM protests and a "meh" over the many mass shootings and gun violence.  Seems a bit off to me.  

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-Summer-2020/

I feel that General Milley would find it hard to refere to any riot as a riot if being perpetrated by the apparent small group of BLM members that decided to become violent,loot and burn things. 

In some cases, if the National Guard was allowed or assigned to be in areas where the worst riots were happening, it may have been less violent and  may have been deterred further riots. 

I have seen some claim the same when describing Trump offering or wanting to send the National Guard in some areas. This translated into "Trump wants to send the military after BLM protesters". When in reality is was in reference to the riots,that were going on for days,if not weeks,not the peaceful protesters. 

It's all good tho, General Milley would have tipped them off anyway. I'm not sure how he finds the time while trying to learn about his "white rage". 

3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

So they had found that Trump had contact with Russians opporatives?

Seems that you are having trouble accepting that  if there was something illegal Trump did, at the very least, they could not do anything about it? 

On another note, how do you feel about General Millie's communication with China and reassurance that if Trump was to plan an military assault, he would give them notice?  

"They" found he didn't do anything either by informing a hostile military if there were to be military attack,he woukd be the first to tell him. 

Point being,  speaking to people of a country that is at odds with the US  doesn't prove "collusion". 

As found with Gerneral Millie, these types of communications are usual and common. 

Nah...they could do something about it but the DOJ apparently follows some kind of memo that gives any president (or former?) some sort of qualified immunity.  The problem is that qualified immunity should not include corrupt attempts to gimmick our national elections system.  But they have a memo, so...

Millie is so well educated and is well spoken so much of the time.  I think that he used poor judgment several times during Trump's term.  I wonder if Trump's behavior had him on his heels, it was so unconventional and impulsive that maybe it stressed him in ways that he was unprepared for. Millie thought that Trump might impulsively start WW3, maybe that affected his judgement. 

I know what collusion involves. 

There was very little that occurred during the Trump term that qualified as usual or common for most presidential administration's, in my view.  

It wasn't a matter of sending in troops as a deterrent like they did in Washington, it was sending in troops to shoot.  Granted he said shoot them in the legs and wasn't about trying to kill them.

I did say at the time that it was unfortunate that the violence overshadowed the message.

I applaud Milley for trying to understand uncomfortable topics.

Those were some tough times and I'm going to drop the subject.

How refreshing to have a president who cares about the issues that face Americans today, rather than worrying about photo ops and golf outings. I bet he wishes he had a son-in-law to fix everything. Doesn’t he know the way to fix staff issues is to fire them by tweet?

2 hours ago, Beerman said:

"On the menu today: President Biden whines to aides that “everything landed on his desk but locusts,” and “if it’s not one thing, it’s another.” It’s a shame no one informed him that the job of the president is difficult, and that he would be expected to address multiple problems at once, before he sought the office. The White House is beset by three major problems simultaneously: a president wallowing in self-pity; an in-over-its-head staff that feels the need to keep the president away from cameras; and the few experienced voices of reason, like perhaps Treasury secretary Janet Yellin, getting boxed out by the Twitter Left"

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-president-needs-to-stop-complaining/

He inherited a disaster and calling it that is no exaggeration. I have no doubt he knew how difficult it would be and he has handled it with grace and dignity. 

I find the article catty.  Biden has never shrunk from acknowledging the state of affairs and "wallowing in self pity" is rhetoric by someone guided with an agenda that's they can't see past.  Biden derangement syndrome

10 hours ago, Tweety said:

It wasn't a matter of sending in troops as a deterrent like they did in Washington, it was sending in troops to shoot.  Granted he said shoot them in the legs and wasn't about trying to kill them.

I did say at the time that it was unfortunate that the violence overshadowed the message.

I applaud Milley for trying to understand uncomfortable topics.

Those were some tough times and I'm going to drop the subject.

If General Milley has a skin condition in which the lack of melanin makes him angry with rage, then absolutely he should understand himself better. Maybe consult with a dermatologist and/or psychiatrist . Perhaps this is what caused him to reassure China that they would be notified if the US government plans a military strike. He's probably reading about "Asian hate", good for him! 

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I don't know what evidence there is that he cares.  I guess that's really the best and only positive thing you can say about his presidency.  If he cares or not, we're still where we are.

Funny you mention photo ops when Biden is going to give his first interview in over three months.  On Jimmy Kimmel...LOL

With dignity and grace?  That's debateable, and irrelevant.  But, really not much else positive to say about him, is there?

I think Hunter is in no position to help bail out his father. Unless lying on firearms applications, smoking crack while in possession of a firearm can "bail out the big guy". 

4 hours ago, nursej22 said:

How refreshing to have a president who cares about the issues that face Americans today, rather than worrying about photo ops and golf outings. I bet he wishes he had a son-in-law to fix everything. Doesn’t he know the way to fix staff issues is to fire them by tweet?

Of course Biden doesn't wish his son could bail him out. Hunter is the one who needs bailing out. Lying on firearm application, possession of illegal drugs while in possession of a firearm while taking selfies with his member out......Prostitutes.....

3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Of course Biden doesn't wish his son could bail him out. Hunter is the one who needs bailing out. Lying on firearm application, possession of illegal drugs while in possession of a firearm while taking selfies with his member out......Prostitutes.....

Hunter is not an elected official. He has not been put in charge of COVID response, bringing peace to the Middle East, or running a re-election campaign. He does not serve in an official capacity in the White House. 

Why do you feel the need to post prurient details about a private citizen when the conversation was about how the President is tasked with dealing with multiple national crises?