🇳🇱
My god the Irony and Hypocrisy of this new Biden administration.
Lets see, we have a press conference, on federal land, in a federal building, discussing how important Bidens new mask mandate is that makes it illegal not to wear a mask on federal land or in federal buildings...
and yet, the speaker isnt wearing a mask, literally as she explains why we the public will get arrested for doing the very thing she is doing as she announces it, and the very same thing Biden did just the day before.
Biden is and always has been above the law and this is just more of the same, take away everyone else's rights, but of course it never applies to Biden.
https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-asks-why-biden-001201825.html
🏳️🌈
@freemo Biden and the speaker aren’t the same person
@louiscouture ummm, obviously.. nor did I suggest they were. This is why I pointed out how **both** of them (as seperate people and all) violated the very law they just enforced.
@freemo but I think Biden was alone in the capitol at the point where he didn’t wear a mask
@freemo maybe it’s just a mistake or forgot to put them on. Sure he should have put on that mask but he still did it 99% or the time, is that really worth cancelling him over this? Also, Joe Biden didn’t wore a mask before the law took place, he isn’t breaking his own laws, because the law wasn’t in effect.
@louiscouture That is some weak excuse man... I never said he broke the law for starters, I said he was a hypocrite.
Second if he feels it so strongly that it should be illegal then he should be walking around doing it, the fact taht he did it less than 24 hours before signing a law doesnt get him off the hook.
Third if its so easy to "just forget", and if that is entierly excusable then.. and ill say this slowly... dont... make... it... a... law.
Fourth and more important.. no I wouldnt cancel Joe biden **just** for this, the laundry list of horrifically immoral things that man has done wouldn't have this small infraction anywhere near the top of it. He was canceled long long ago before this particular misstep. But it does show my judgement of his character as a horrible person is consistent and correct.
Executive orders can and do apply to people who aren't federal employees, but only when on federal land (which is the point). The federal government basically only has jurisdiction on federal land. For many things that means they cant touch you with an EO 99% of the time, but if its a federal matter then you are entierly beholden to it.
Take, for example, the EOs Trump passed that insisted illegal immigrants trying to cross the border be detained and tried, and his EOs around deportation. Obviously those people effected were not federal employees, but he was able to effect them because crossing borders is federal jurisdiction.
Texas isnt federal land, so no they cant, that is also irrelevant to the discussion.
Biden cant make you wear a mask on the street, in the city, or anywhere else, thats state jurisdiction. But he **can** (and did) make executive orders where federal jurisdiction has discretion. the feds are free to say who can or cant be on federal land, make any rules they wish, and that includes planes because they cross borders and thus are federal jurisdiction.
If it only applies to federal employees then why is the first of his two EO specific to civilians on planes? Your argument makes no sense, EOs 100% can effect anyone in a place with federal jurisdiction.
His first order literally doesnt allow people to enter the USA on a plane if they refuse to wear a mask, how arwe foreigners on planes federal employees now?
Only the courts can decide that. for now your going to get arrested/fined/not allowed to enter the country. Federal employees follow these orders. Now if someone bothers to fight it in a federal court, perhaps needing to take it up to the supreme court (depending on the ruling) then you may turn out to be right and they could be ruled unlawful... but by default they can and will be treated as valid.
A quote on it for you:
The order covers interstate travel, the White House says. It applies to commercial aircraft, trains, public maritime vessels, including ferries, and intercity buses. The order also covers “public transportation,” defined broadly under a U.S. code section as “continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that are open to the general public or open to a segment of the general public defined by age, disability or low income.”
they have to charge you with a crime under a law.
which violating an EO is not.
a foreigner may be denied entry (entry discretion for foreigners is already executive purveiw), a federal employee can be fired, a private citizen.. could be made to leave a building?
biden can't sign an EO saying everyone must cram dildos down their mouth and jail them if they don't. there's nothing to charge you with for failure to gargle the dildo.
@freemo but he isn’t a hypocrite because he never broke his own law.
@louiscouture That makes no sense.
If you decide you are going to pass a law, you have decided the thing you are making illegal is immoral, wrong, and hurtful to others. Therefore if you violate it, even if you do so in the hours before it comes into effect, you are violating the very ethical code you are trying to enforce on others via the law.
Can you only be a hypocrite if you pass a law then break it? that sounds absurd to me. Biden, and anyone else would be just as much a hypocrite if no law were even passed and all he did was say "it is wrong to not wear a mask" and then walk around not wearing a mask. your grasping at straws to excuse his behavior.
@freemo alright I’ve seen the video, he is alone, with someone at 2 m distance and literally nobody else. This is just a manufactured outrage by Fox News. There was no transmission possible. The law is really more meant for federal buildings with many people inside like airports. It’s funny that suddenly people care about laws and ethics because the past president had none and broke many laws.
@louiscouture Already covered that in my first response. The law/order he passed does **not** make exceptions for the distance you happen to be from people. So again, not an excuse in the slightest.
The argument you make is the very reason why such laws/orders should not exist, because they are situational and people have the right to judge those situations and decide if a mask is suited for them or not... thats the whole point of the hypocrisy.. you cant say "people need to 100% wear masks or else its against my rules!" and then pick and choose when to wear masks and when not to yourself. If you feel it should be mandated all the time then I damn well expect you to be wearing one all the time.
Also, the speaker was inside a federal building (she is part of the administration) so not really much wiggle room on this.
@freemo mask mandates are the laws in Quebec, not just for government building but everywhere except your house or outside.
The law is applied through the common sense of shops owners and or law enforcement.
If somebody truly forgot to wear a mask, somebody would tell him they have to wear one without entering the building.
@louiscouture I cant speak for Canada or how the laws go there. If a shop owner wants to ask someone to wear a mask I dont particularly care, if law enforcement is going to tell me I have to thats a different story, then I might be against it. But again, not the point here really anyway.
Health is a provincial jurisdiction, meaning Canada doesn’t have a say in what Quebec choose.
The law says mask are mandatory everywhere except your home and outside or if you sit down in an exam room with enough distance.
They aren’t *choosing* to not accept maskless customers, they have to apply the rules.
@louiscouture well we are entierly off subject, but no I wouldnt find it acceptable to support that as a matter of law even though i do not oppose the voluntary use of masks.
@freemo I’m not saying he shouldn’t have gone to that building without a mask, but it’s really not as big of a deal as the complete shitshow the trump administration was, and I remind you it literally tried a coup.
What’s really hypocritical is that the trumplican side suddenly cares about laws and ethics where they give no damn during the last 4 years.
> it’s really not as big of a deal as the complete shitshow the trump administration was, and I remind you it literally tried a coup.
Why are you even mentioning Trump right now? What does Trump have to do with the conversation on any level.
> I remind you it literally tried a coup.
I presume "it" is Trump here? Not that it is relevant to the conversation but Trump never tried a coup, no idea what your talking about, he said he would leave peacefully when asked early on, when a small handful of people got violent in his name he quickly got on TV and told them to stop and go home, and he left the office on time and without any trouble. In fact he even said some nice things about the incoming administration in his farewell address.... so not sure what your even talking about here.
> What’s really hypocritical is that the trumplican side suddenly cares about laws and ethics where they give no damn during the last 4 years.
What Trumplician side. I was literally anti-trump for 4 years straight and im still calling biden out on this shit and think Biden is a horrible president... Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation on any level.
@louiscouture
1) He was not alone, in fact the speaker even pointed out in her response that he wasnt alone mentioning some of the people that surrounded him.
2) the law he passed does **not** make exemptions for being alone or for when you have distance between yourself and others. So even if he was alone or sufficiently distances this is no excuse if we are to judge him by the same standard the order he passed judges us.