While an investigation has not yet concluded- all evidence points to Joe Biden having no direct involvement, and most likely no secondary involvement in the sacking of any suburbs.
Encouragement to protest is not direct or secondary involvement in rioting and looting, no. That is why one action is called a “protest” and the other “riot.” They gave them separate words to help keep them straight I suppose.
That logic is faulty. “Because some one does not condemn/immediately condemn something, they are clearly in support or advocating it.” That’s simply not a tenable position, I could bake any number of issues which known public figures have not condemned. I’ve never heard Mike Pence speak out against pimps beating rent boys- is that proof that Pence is complicit or supports pimping out men for male on male sex? He HAS spoken out against homosexuality... so then is that proof he is all for beating gays as he has not said otherwise? Faulty logic.
Yes. It’s a tad questionable as well why the GUY IN CHARGE is telling people to panic while things are going to shit. I do believe that traditionally, the executive level of an administration is responsible for the overall health and direction of their charge. We could of course argue that people keep “not letting him do what he wants to solve the problem.” But that is in fact- part of the job of being the leader of a democratic republic- a despot or dictator is the one who gets to do whatever they think is best without checks and balances or having to work with anyone else. But let’s not even touch the fact that our present executive is the one who allowed a situation to develop to start with- and has fanned the Gaines on numerous occasions.
Comments