Forget the tu quoque comparisons to Trump, who did exactly what one would expect him to do.
“The violence is fueled by dangerous rhetoric from far-left politicians that demonize our nation and demonize our police,” Mr. Trump said Monday at a news conference. “The violent rioters share Biden’s same talking points, and they share his same agenda for our nation,” he added. “The rioters and Joe Biden have a side — they’re both on the side of the radical left.”
To suggest that Biden has given solace to rioters is clearly false. But then, Biden’s policy goals are far more aligned with the protesters than Trump’s, and while Trump has grossly overstated the case, has Biden been left to thread the needle between condemning violence without offending the violent?
In Pittsburgh Mr. Biden assailed the excessive use of force by police, and then he turned to the “violence of extremists and opportunists—right-wing militias, white supremacists, vigilantes—who infiltrate protests carrying weapons of war.”
Only after that did he denounce violence in general terms. “I want to be clear about this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting—it’s lawlessness—plain and simple,” he said. “And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, only destruction. It’s wrong in every way. It divides instead of unites.”
There is no question that he condemned rioting and looting. He did. He said the words, as he’s spoken similarly before. But what he could not do is condemn the rioting without the requisite Gertruding about police and right-wing militias, which are only now on the front burner following the killings by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse and of 39-year-old Aaron Danielson. What of the three months before?
Much like rioters in Portland blamed the introduction of Trump’s DHS agents for their violence, when they were pulled back, off the radar and out of the streets, the protests and riots continued without them as the excuse and few seemed to notice that the story faded but the violence continued.
Fair enough, but for a man of the left, denouncing right-wing militias is easy. Surely Mr. Biden knows that the protests and riots since Memorial Day are overwhelmingly led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Mr. Biden didn’t mention those groups in his prepared remarks, and he never used the words “left-wing” to describe those who are burning businesses and attacking police precincts. Mr. Biden conflated the two sides, though leftist militants are dominating urban streets.
Each side naturally tends to condemn the other while avoiding harsh words for their own. But that raises the question so many prefer to deny: Does Biden consider Antifa on his side? Or does Biden believe that while it’s integral to violence, to say its name is to invite electoral disaster. After all, Biden needs the votes of the radical fringe as well as what’s left of the rational wing of the Democratic Party. Can he afford to alienate them? Does he want to?
Mr. Biden spent most of his speech attacking Mr. Trump for stoking division, and sometimes the President has. But the concern many Americans have about Mr. Biden is that he won’t be strong enough to take on the radical left. On that point his speech wasn’t reassuring.
To be fair, Biden has clearly stated that he does not support abolishing police, and clearly condemned rioting and looting. But is he trying to thread the needle with as much finesse as he can muster? Was his failure to call out the left, while calling out the right, substantively different than Trump’s flagrant pandering to the alt-right? Has this become a battle of delusions?
Assuming, arguendo, that Biden’s condemnation was all one could ask of him under the circumstances, yet another question is raised. Will the rioters and looters heed his call to end the violence? They may vote for him, but do they care what he has to say or do they only care that he’s not Trump, and otherwise Biden’s just their next target after Darth Cheeto is eliminated?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Biden’s statement is mainly theater.
Police in blue precincts of blue cities in blue states will continue to detain and kill black people in disproportion to their overall fraction of the population. But because no one wants to address the underlying causes of police license (qualified immunity, police unions), it will continue.
The people in the streets, and I’ve been one of them, mostly aren’t going to listen to or vote for Biden. Socialists and anarchists saw Biden’s speech as proof that he is what we thought all along – the author of the 1994 crime bill. The protestors who will listen to Biden, like those at Sharpton’s protest in Washington, believe in permitted protests and coordinating their civil disobedience with police ahead of time. Members of groups like the People’s Revolution Movement, on the other hand, used similar tactics when Obama was president and will continue to do no matter who wins in November.
I wonder how broad and deep this pool runs, and whether it’s enough to swing the vote to Trump despite everything he does to lose the election.
You need to look at both sides of the equation.
Your viewpoint that he’s doing what he can to lose the election is what is gaining him votes on the other side.
Would his supporters abandon him if he occasionally didn’t spew inane nonsense and lies?
They ignore his tweets and comments and look at results.
Just like the progressive types ignore Biden’s lack of coherence.
Biden is condemning the violence, I guess that’s a good thing. Certainly beats the alternative. But we all know the rioting and looting isn’t because of Trump, or at least not directly. So after Trump leaves office, whenever that should be, the beatings will continue; morale has not improved.
I wonder what Biden will do about it? Maybe he can shut up and listen, as the protesters demand, so they can throw water bottles at his head as they did when Portland’s mayor tried the same. That’ll probably fix everything.
I wonder what the proper response to violence out of anger over violence is? Because so far, we’ve tried nothing, and we appear to be all out of ideas.
If Biden wins, he inherits these riots. His options aren’t any better than his Dem mayor counterparts.
So, our choices are between one party that condemns the wholesale destruction of our society, but won’t lift a finger to stop it, and the other party that wants to send in the troops to flatten what’s left and make the rubble bounce, with both firmly believing only their methods will restore “truth, justice and the American way”. The carnival of American politics has taken a macabre turn and shows no indication of returning to the family friendly days we knew in the previous century. Meanwhile, those of us in the peasant class are presented with an ever growing list of boxes to check before we can legally venture out into the world to work, shop, seek medical care, or conduct any of the daily routines that were a normal part of our, um, daily routines. Socializing is strictly forbidden unless it involves peacefully antagonizing, vandalizing, looting, burning, assaulting or killing the sanctioned target du jour.
Where are the parties/candidates/leaders of any stripe who are offering a legitimate “return to normalcy” and a plan to make that happen? The never ending “lock downs” are doing far more harm across this nation than the adrenaline junkies in the streets, but neither party is suggesting they will walk away from the societal control they have heretofore only imagined in their wet dreams. Are there any “good” electoral choices out there?
This theory, which seems to me uniquely American, that officials whose reelection prospects hinge on the recovery of the economy are secretly delighted by corona restrictions because they’ll pave the way to the totalitarianism they crave is nuts. And it’s flatly contradicted by the behavior of those officials – if anything, state governors of both parties and the Don have been overeager to claim that the worst is past and the recovery’s coming. Not everything is some Caesarian conspiracy.
There are numerous video and photographic examples of elected officials openly ignoring the COVID restrictions they themselves have promoted or put in place within their own jurisdictions (restrictions are for the little people). Nancy Pelosi, Jim Kenney, are the most recent examples, not to mention Andrew Cuomo, and Bill DeBlasio almost every week. They obviously don’t believe the restrictions apply to them, so why should they apply to anyone else?
“They can be stupid so why shouldn’t I” is not a great life philosophy.
My point is that leadership is more than issuing edicts and then ignoring them yourself. The vast majority of our nations citizens are following the government imposed restrictions and the sacrifices that comes with them, in the belief their elected officials are acting in their best interests, and will shoulder the burden equally. When these same elected officials are publicly exposed ignoring the policies they put in place, it calls into question not only their ethics, but the severity of the problem being addressed. “Leading by example” was once the golden standard for anyone who aspired to a leadership role in government or business. Sadly, this has fallen into disuse and is seldom applied these days.
As the resident lefty, I will hold my nose and vote for Biden. I don’t know any among my network who claims otherwise. As for what he says or doesn’t say between now and November, you must realize the bar for something awful is pretty damn high at this point. Unless and until Uncle Joe starts talking about sexually assaulting women, I’m not really paying attention.
Solidarity forever.
I’m nothing but consistent in my view that Trump’s an empty suit, woefully lacking in foundational characteristics necessary for world leadership. Since 2016, I have become entirely convinced that we’d be better off with a bowl of Jell-O for president. At least an inanimate object could do no further harm.
Brother Jake, you aren’t the only lefty here. Voting for Biden doesn’t feel great. Then again, I’ve never felt great casting my vote for any of the options I’ve had. Yet we still have to put up with Pops crying that Biden is paying mere lip service to the “radicals”. He didn’t transform into a revolutionary socialist overnight even if he has to pander a bit more to placate the left wing of his party. He’ll be able to get back on his law and order horse once the election is over, if he wins.
I think Biden did what was necessary. I also think it was too little too late.
Say what you will about the Republican Party but they’ve been consistent with their messaging: violent riots are going on across the country. Democrats for the most part either ignored the destruction and chaos or lumped it with “mostly peaceful protests.”
Only after three people died in two days does Biden then come out and denounce the violence and destruction, then tells Trump he’s got to do that for the “far-right” protestors. The problem with that is Trump’s condemned all the rioting and violence, no matter the political or ideological motivation.
At the end of the day Biden came off as the grandpa telling the kids with the pitchforks and torches to settle down or no one gets a Werther’s Candy. It just looked weak.
I’m missing something about this video. Maybe I don’t want to know?
The demonstrators have let it be known that the police are not welcome. However, infiltrators bent on using the occasion to loot and burn their favorite businesses make them look bad. Therefore it is upon the true demonstrators to police themselves and those among them whose only mission is lawlessness.
If they can not accomplish this their message will get lost in the noise as streets full of broken glass and burning businesses will send a far louder and different message.
Conflicts between demonstrator factions need to cease. Their violence upon each other is magnitudes greater than that inflicted upon citizens by the police. When did violence replace all other means of civil discourse. It’s nothing more that political racism. “ You are not from my group so I must change you over to my beliefs or bash your head in with a brick. Either way it’s okay because my side is right and your side is wrong.”
At some point government will have to step in and arrest all demonstrators as the police and national guard can not be tasked with separating the good from the bad in the field under such circumstances.
If government takes a knee, the inner cities won’t need cops; good or bad; as they will be ghost towns with no one to arrest and no businesses to tax.
“However, infiltrators bent on using the occasion to loot and burn their favorite businesses make them look bad.”
That’s a rather large assumption. If the majority of people in an area are involved in smashing, looting, and burning, are they really infiltrators? If a crowd shows up every night for three months to the same location that always turns violent, have they really been infiltrated? Even if it was just a “few bad apples” committing violence, that still means the majority are happy to keep showing up to provide them cover (both figuratively and literally).
As to our host’s question: Of course Biden’s just trying to thread the needle on all this. He’ll do whatever he thinks will get him elected, anyone who thinks different (or that the “wonderful” things in his platform are in any way related to reality) is deluding themselves. And honestly I think his not calling out the rioters on “his” side because he needs their votes is just as bad as Trump’s “bad people on both sides” comment.
The Kenosha County (WI) sheriff’s office has reported that of the 205 people arrested since the protests began there last week, 114 were from outside Kenosha. All were from 44 different cities.
Since all law breakers were not arrested it’s impossible to really know the ratio of locals to outsiders. If the arrest ratios are applied to the entire crowd one could say the majority were infiltrators (or simply those bent on arson and looting or whatever else it takes to get arrested during a demonstration/riot).
I think you might’ve misunderstood my point. If the majority of the group is burning and looting, by definition they’re not *infiltrators*. They’re the majority. The “peaceful protestors” at that point are the ones trying to infiltrate a riot.
Will the rioters stop their violence because Biden asks it? Once the Kraken is loosed, it is very hard to bind it again.
Dealing with this is a problem for Biden, so of course he puts it off. If he somehow manages to blow the election, it won’t ever be his job. Maybe he thinks when he is elected, it will magically resolve. If not, he will inherit it and there is no reason to think he will be able to do any better than Trump has. Especially if he is unwilling to admit that right-wing militias are not the dominant force at work in the rioting.
The New York Times says they are. Are you calling the Times a liar?
At this point, that would be as superfluous as calling Trump a liar.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uJVdl_1598893806
I think that age 35+ black voters will be the determining factor in the in the election. If they shift 15 to 20% in favor of Trump, he holds the battleground states. I have a sense that this demographic so not thrilled about white goo boys and schizoid white girls ranting “BLM! BLM! BLM!”
Whether or not Biden thinks Antifa is on his side, it appears that Antifa thinks so. Simply point your browser to antifa.com and see where it redirects. (Answer: joebiden.com)
Do you have any idea, any idea at all, how mind-numbingly fucking stupid that is? Any idiot can buy a URL and send the link anywhere he wants it to go.
I think it doesn’t matter what Biden says; no one is paying any attention. Every news source I see begins with three stories about Trump saying outrageous things followed by a line in small, grey print saying Biden said something more or less sensible. Journalists find Biden boring.
And, at base, the protests and riots are not a federal matter. It’s for the Governors and Mayors to figure out.