Okay. You asked why I referred to it as possibly. I mistakenly assumed you had a problem with my usage of the term. Sorry.
Ha! I do, actually. I think the behaviour was absolutely problematic, and there's enough evidence to make that case, in my mind.
It was the rest of your point...around politicizing and Biden's actions, etc, that I thought might not have been directed at me. Disingenuous acts concern me more than political messaging, and acts against the democratic principles the US is supposed to be based on concerns me more than disingenuous acts.
1. That he's not going to cower in his office or bow down to violent rioters like the governors.
You're kidding, right?
Trump reportedly demanded his church photo op because he didn't like being mocked for hiding from protests in a bunker
Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check
I've already linked to the Australian live feed.
2. The Bible? "In God We Trust", presumably. And all the principals of justice brought in the Bible of which the US was founded on.
I'm almost scared to ask which Biblical principles of justice you're referring to.
Suffice to say I think he belittles the Bible my holding it up, and belittles the Church by using it as a prop. There was no need for him to do either.
And I'm an atheist. Were I Christian I'd be livid about the misuse of my religion.
Ahead of Trump Bible photo op, police forcibly expel priest from St. John’s church near White House
3. Maybe not in the Bible part. I don't know. But the main point was to show leadership and strength in the face of terror.
Our views on leadership are very different, then. To me, this is brittle and small minded politics in the face of widespread problems at a systemic and societal level.
4. That, I do not know. It happened right after he finished his speech. Was it politically planned by his staff or was it on a whim? I have no idea.
5. Before they knew he was on the way or after?
I'll tie these two together.
According to the White House there was always a plan to expand the perimeter around the White House, so the police actions were for that reason, and not for Trump's walk.
However, church personnel hadn't been told about this. And the protesters (I've seen no claims of them being rioters) were removed in the period leading UP to curfew. Wait a half hour and anyone there was breaking curfew. But at the time the action was taken?
They weren't.
What can I say? I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to handle matters when people are throwing bricks and water bottles and other stuff at you.
Well...I'd suggest the appropriate action for bricks or water bottles would be different.
And the action for those not throwing them...or pointing a camera...would be different again.
But whatever forcible action I was going to take would be done at or after curfew.
As I've said already, anything - anything - any politician does nowadays, will immediately be taken as trying to score political points. That's why I'm less concerned with that aspect of Trump's threat. Here's hoping they find a way to argue the legality, because no one has a better solution so far. The governors and mayors are cowering in their offices. Police depts. are backing down. The country is really going up in flames. What I'm concerned about is the safety of the innocents caught in the crossfire.
But in this case the only people injured were protesters, including reporters.
And the timing and execution of the acts lead me to believe it was done to clear the streets of protesters, to facilitate the President's movement.
The alternatives seem unlikely to the point of absurdity.
BTW, thanks for the ongoing discussion. I appreciate your efforts to discuss this in a coherent fashion.
I think (in general terms) the world can use more of that these days.