Posted on Feb 22, 2021
The Speech: Where and When | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
401
14
12
4
4
0
Since 1934 the Annual State of the Union speech has been given by the President in January or February. I wonder why President Biden hasn't scheduled it yet? Oh wait, I do... Corn pop pony face dog soldier...
The Speech: Where and When | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Posted from history.house.govPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS) Congress
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
2
2
0
Oh I don't know perhaps because we're in the middle of a pandemic for the last year? Maybe that's why. There was an attempted coup a month and a half ago. It hasn't been a real typical year last year or starting this year either.
"Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, additional security and health measures are being coordinated by the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and the Attending Physician of the United States Congress,[3] with potentially a smaller number of members of Congress, government officials, and invited guests being present in the chamber of the House than at a typical State of the Union or Joint Session."
I mean - if you really wanna harp on tradition you better be calling out things Trump didn't do as President. Smh.
Edit: Also: "Since 1989, in recognition that the responsibility of reporting the State of the Union formally belongs to the president who held office during the past year, newly inaugurated presidents have not officially called their first speech before Congress a "State of the Union" message."
"Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the Speaker of the House to the President typically several weeks before the appointed date."
"Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, additional security and health measures are being coordinated by the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and the Attending Physician of the United States Congress,[3] with potentially a smaller number of members of Congress, government officials, and invited guests being present in the chamber of the House than at a typical State of the Union or Joint Session."
I mean - if you really wanna harp on tradition you better be calling out things Trump didn't do as President. Smh.
Edit: Also: "Since 1989, in recognition that the responsibility of reporting the State of the Union formally belongs to the president who held office during the past year, newly inaugurated presidents have not officially called their first speech before Congress a "State of the Union" message."
"Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the Speaker of the House to the President typically several weeks before the appointed date."
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty - Yes that was an attempted coup and an insurrection.
1983 sure is brought up a lot - those were terrorists yes. Not comparable to Jan 6, 2021. They did not harm anyone and had no intents to do so. They warned people to get out prior to the explosion. It wasn't an attempt to stop an election certification. So not comparable.
1971- no injuries.
1954 - "The nationalists who staged the attack on the Capitol supported the most extreme interpretation of the latter—use violence to draw attention to their demand for immediate Puerto Rican independence. " Not an attempt to stop any constitutional process. Wrong and an attack but not the same.
1915: "As the nation headed into the Fourth of July weekend in 1915, a former Harvard University professor named Erich Muenter exploded three sticks of dynamite in the Senate Reception Room. Muenter later explained that he was angry that American financiers were aiding the U.K. in World War I despite America’s official neutrality at the time. There were no injuries—the Senate was out of session" Again not trying to stop any processes. Some dude mad at the government and did it when they weren't in session.
I consider it comparable to 1814. And not comparable to any "skirmishes" between anything else.
The Feb 23 is still tentative as well. From everything I Googled it's not solidified. It's still TBD - and that's tomorrow.
1983 sure is brought up a lot - those were terrorists yes. Not comparable to Jan 6, 2021. They did not harm anyone and had no intents to do so. They warned people to get out prior to the explosion. It wasn't an attempt to stop an election certification. So not comparable.
1971- no injuries.
1954 - "The nationalists who staged the attack on the Capitol supported the most extreme interpretation of the latter—use violence to draw attention to their demand for immediate Puerto Rican independence. " Not an attempt to stop any constitutional process. Wrong and an attack but not the same.
1915: "As the nation headed into the Fourth of July weekend in 1915, a former Harvard University professor named Erich Muenter exploded three sticks of dynamite in the Senate Reception Room. Muenter later explained that he was angry that American financiers were aiding the U.K. in World War I despite America’s official neutrality at the time. There were no injuries—the Senate was out of session" Again not trying to stop any processes. Some dude mad at the government and did it when they weren't in session.
I consider it comparable to 1814. And not comparable to any "skirmishes" between anything else.
The Feb 23 is still tentative as well. From everything I Googled it's not solidified. It's still TBD - and that's tomorrow.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
LT Brad McInnis - Who is "protecting Biden?" There's nothing that says SOU has to be in Jan or Feb. YOU Trumpublicans go out of your way to defend Trump for everything. EVERYTHING.
I have a video to share that explains the difference between Biden VOTERS and Trump SUPPORTERS. The biggest difference - people voted for Biden aren't his "fans" and aren't "supporters." Biden voters don't prop him on a pedestal like Trumpublicans do Trump. Or worship him or idolize him. I'm not sure why anyone props up elected representatives. I will call out Biden on any bullshit as easily as anyone else's.
The people without food are in Texas because their state failed them.
Where is gas $18 a gallon? When has it ever been that much? Oh never. Someone's a drama queen.
"Why they can't do anything they want..." No one can do "anything" they want. There's laws, rules, etc. So there's consequences (usually) in most cases that someone does something they aren't supposed to. So I don't know where the "do anything they want' comes from. Who gets to do "whatever they want?"
I have a video to share that explains the difference between Biden VOTERS and Trump SUPPORTERS. The biggest difference - people voted for Biden aren't his "fans" and aren't "supporters." Biden voters don't prop him on a pedestal like Trumpublicans do Trump. Or worship him or idolize him. I'm not sure why anyone props up elected representatives. I will call out Biden on any bullshit as easily as anyone else's.
The people without food are in Texas because their state failed them.
Where is gas $18 a gallon? When has it ever been that much? Oh never. Someone's a drama queen.
"Why they can't do anything they want..." No one can do "anything" they want. There's laws, rules, etc. So there's consequences (usually) in most cases that someone does something they aren't supposed to. So I don't know where the "do anything they want' comes from. Who gets to do "whatever they want?"
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Watch : joe biden says n wordPresident Biden on Monday announced plans to help “mom-and-pop businesses” benefit from a loan program crafted by Congress, sayi...
Or maybe because he's so far into dementia he accidentally utters the 'n' word to a worldwide audience?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcAeZPviHI
And before you get your panties into a wad, I'll be the first to admit that he most certainly did not MEAN to say that....
...but he DID say that.
So yeah, no. No pandemic excuses for him. He's going to be 25A'd within the year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcAeZPviHI
And before you get your panties into a wad, I'll be the first to admit that he most certainly did not MEAN to say that....
...but he DID say that.
So yeah, no. No pandemic excuses for him. He's going to be 25A'd within the year.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
SFC (Join to see) - The only one really harmed on Jan 6th was they young AF vet who was shot by the cops. The fire extinguish story has been debunked by members of his own family. That they intended to stop anything is not clear, and the damage they did was less than any of the other incidents. To be clear, what happened was wrong, and inexcusable, but to label it an insurrection or a coup is a stretch at best, for certain members of Congressional leadership to say it was the worst attack in capital history is almost ludicrous. That 1971 and 1983 caused no injuries was pure luck. Neither group had a history of being particularly concerned with loss of life. Measured by the level of damage, intent to cause loss of life, and general mayhem, Jan 6th was second rate.
There are a lot of questions to be answered. I saw many videos that were puzzling at best, and showed many incongruities. I have my suspicions, but will hold my piece until I am sure. What is clear is that there was intel that there might be trouble, and that national guard troops were offered and rejected despite that intel. It appears that decision was made by the Speaker of the House. I have also seen multiple reports from both Capital and DC police that they were stood down at 1030, before the rally even started. It is also clear that the violence broke out before the rally started.
There are a lot of questions to be answered. I saw many videos that were puzzling at best, and showed many incongruities. I have my suspicions, but will hold my piece until I am sure. What is clear is that there was intel that there might be trouble, and that national guard troops were offered and rejected despite that intel. It appears that decision was made by the Speaker of the House. I have also seen multiple reports from both Capital and DC police that they were stood down at 1030, before the rally even started. It is also clear that the violence broke out before the rally started.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google