You can’t use executive orders, unless you are a dictator.

[Hammster]

Absolutely there is hypocrisy there. But it's really tough to get worked up about it when both sides are guilty. This happens over and over again.

If there’s hypocrisy, then the president should be called out. His whole point was that his side wouldn’t do it.

 

[Hammster]

No, I think his statement about EO's was false. If he says another 32,572 or so false statements/misleading claims he might even catch up with Trump.

FYI, I don't think that I've ever met or heard a politician in my entire life that didn't lie or stretch the truth and who was never guilty of hypocrisy. I'd be shocked if Biden was the first. In fact i already know that he's not.

I’m not mentioning Trump. If he issued too many Executive Orders, that’s for another thread. Biden, who apparently is honest until he hits some threshold, campaigned that he wouldn’t be like his predecessor. Last I checked, it only takes one lie to make someone a liar. And a hypocrite.

 

[Hammster]

Is that really so shocking? Trump told me Mexico was going to pay for his wall. I didn't believe that either.

That’s completely irrelevant. Unless you are okay with what Trump did because Biden is lying as well.

 

[Michael]

That’s completely irrelevant. Unless you are okay with what Trump did because Biden is lying as well.

Frankly after reading what he said in *context*, I don't even think that Biden meant what you're claiming he meant in the first place. It sounds to me like Biden was simply noting that it would be necessary to get congressional support to get things accomplished because *no* US President is a dictator and has the luxury or ruling by decree. I'm absolutely certain that Biden knew that other presidents besides Trump had signed EO before and I don't believe that Biden was calling them all 'dictators'. I think you're simply taking Biden's statements out of context.

 

[Hammster]

Frankly after reading what he said in *context*, I don't even think that Biden meant what you're claiming he meant in the first place. It sounds to me like Biden was simply noting that it would be necessary to get congressional support to get things accomplished because *no* US President is a dictator and has the luxury or ruling by decree. I'm absolutely certain that Biden knew that other presidents besides Trump had signed EO before and I don't believe that Biden was calling them all 'dictators'. I think you're simply taking Biden's statements out of context.

This is the type of reasoning that the Left decried when the Right defended Trump.

 

[Michael]

And yet, here he is with a record number of EOs in his first week.

I feel like I'm getting first hand experience of ambiguity being used to promote an idea I didn't mean, which makes me more sure that you're misconstruing his meaning.

His statements in question had no nefarious intent as far as I can tell. He wasn't calling any previous President a 'dictator' as you seem to suggest, nor is he being a hypocrite as you're suggesting.

Sure, there are *some* things that a President can get done by himself, without getting congressional approval before hand, but those powers of the President are *limited*. To affect major change in our democracy requires that the Congress present a President with bills to sign. That's all he meant. Period. Full stop.

But go ahead and read whatever you want into his sentences, because clearly nothing I'm likely to say is going to make any difference on how *you* choose to interpret those few sentences.

I've tried hard to explain my position. All politicians misrepresent the facts at times. They're all hypocrites to some degree or another. In *this particular* case however, none of that happened as far as I can tell. All that's happening is you seem to be taking the worst possible 'spin' a two or three sentences, and from my vantage point at least, you didn't correctly understand what he was trying to convey. That's all that's going on here IMO.

 

[Hammster]

I feel like I'm getting first hand experience of ambiguity being used to promote an idea I didn't mean, which makes me more sure that you're misconstruing his meaning.

His statements in question had no nefarious intent as far as I can tell. He wasn't calling any previous President a 'dictator' as you seem to suggest, nor is he being a hypocrite as you're suggesting.

Sure, there are *some* things that a President can get done by himself, without getting congressional approval before hand, but those powers of the President are *limited*. To affect major change in our democracy requires that the Congress present a President with bills to sign. That's all he meant. Period. Full stop.

But go ahead and read whatever you want into his sentences, because clearly nothing I'm likely to say is going to make any difference on how *you* choose to interpret those few sentences.

I've tried hard to explain my position. All politicians misrepresent the facts at times. They're all hypocrites to some degree or another. In *this particular* case however, none of that happened as far as I can tell. All that's happening is you seem to be taking the worst possible 'spin' a two or three sentences, and from my vantage point at least, you didn't correctly understand what he was trying to convey. That's all that's going on here IMO.

Welcome to the world of Trump supporters. I watched them make the same arguments for four years.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Exactly, but that point doesn't fit the OP's narrative to find fault with President Biden. As I said, it's as if Trump loyalists are determined to find something to pin on President Biden and criticize him for it.

Determined to find? It isn't like one has to look very far. The point of the OP however, is that Biden said doing what he is now doing was the act of a dictator. It isn't the standard the opposition to Biden is putting on his actions it is his own standard that says he is acting like a dictator.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I feel like I'm getting first hand experience of ambiguity being used to promote an idea I didn't mean, which makes me more sure that you're misconstruing his meaning.

His statements in question had no nefarious intent as far as I can tell. He wasn't calling any previous President a 'dictator' as you seem to suggest, nor is he being a hypocrite as you're suggesting.

Sure, there are *some* things that a President can get done by himself, without getting congressional approval before hand, but those powers of the President are *limited*. To affect major change in our democracy requires that the Congress present a President with bills to sign. That's all he meant. Period. Full stop.

But go ahead and read whatever you want into his sentences, because clearly nothing I'm likely to say is going to make any difference on how *you* choose to interpret those few sentences.

I've tried hard to explain my position. All politicians misrepresent the facts at times. They're all hypocrites to some degree or another. In *this particular* case however, none of that happened as far as I can tell. All that's happening is you seem to be taking the worst possible 'spin' a two or three sentences, and from my vantage point at least, you didn't correctly understand what he was trying to convey. That's all that's going on here IMO.

Taking the worst possible spin on something someone said? When has that ever happened? Are you saying you don't believe Biden is using dog whistles? For instance when he says "unity" you don't think that his base doesn't know that he really means "make outcasts of those Trump supporters until they surrender and agree with our agenda "?

 

[Michael]

Welcome to the world of Trump supporters. I watched them make the same arguments for four years.

Ya, and you kind of expect that in politics, and every President probably feels that way. Still, there's a big difference between misconstruing a few ambiguous comments and *organizing* and participating in a process that directly led to riots.

 

[Hammster]

Ya, and you kind of expect that in politics, and every President probably feels that way. Still, there's a big difference between misconstruing a few ambiguous comments and *organizing* and participating in a process that directly lead to riots.

Which I guess, in your mind, somehow makes Biden’s hypocrisy valid. We need a new hashtag. #notasbadasTrump.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Oh please. All Trump ever had to do was tell the truth and the DC riots would never have occurred. All he had to do is *not* summon his mob to DC, not lie to them, not have his lawyer call for 'trial by combat', not tell them to "fight light hell" or they won't have a country. All he had to do is stop acting like a selfish spoiled little narcissistic child, and concede defeat like every other losing candidate in my lifetime. All he had to do is show a little class and show a little respect for our system of government, just like Gore and Clinton. Instead he chose to participate and even help to organize a failed coop attempt that nearly got his own VP hung outside of the Capitol on January 6th.

All Biden had to do was not become a dictator according to his own definition.

 

[hislegacy]

If there’s hypocrisy, then the president should be called out. His whole point was that his side wouldn’t do it.

Speaking truth to power! I guess that is no longer valid.

 

[Yarddog]

Former United States Vice President Joe Biden, who is running against President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, said that he would not use executive orders to implement his policies because "you can't use executive orders unless you are a dictator.""

https://www.t-g.com/blogs/stevemills/entry/76498

Biden actually said "there are some things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator," with no reference to legislation.

 

[CatsRule2020]

Biden is having to right the moral ship of this country's government. So far, he has had to issue 25 Executive Orders in order to start the process. Trump had issued 220 Executive Orders during his Russian assisted term in office. So Biden has a lot of work ahead of him in restoring the moral compass of this government.

 

[hislegacy]

Trump had issued 220 Executive Orders during his Russian assisted term in office.

I didn’t think anyone but Hillary was still clinging to the Russia hoax.

Regardless, since you didn’t offer proof of your claim, let me point out that joe has issued 40 in his first 9 days. If the benevolent dictator continues his Imperial Orders will surpass Trumps in about a month.

 

[Guinan]

@CatsRule2020, I don't have a problem with President Biden trying to correct what Trump did during the four years of his regime. A few other Never Trump Republicans whom I've spoken to expressed the sentiment that President Biden should erase Trump's legacy from memory, but I disagree. I think his legacy should be preserved to be a sober reminder of the disaster that will strike the Republican Party whenever Republican politicians compromise and sell out to a avaricious egotistical charlatan.

However, I agree with other Never Trump Republicans who believe that these Republican leaders who sold out to Trump should face some severe consequences for supporting his failed efforts to overturn the election results. We think the next election should be a Day of Reckoning for these sell outs if they aren't forced to resign beforehand. Personally, I could go either way just as long as they're out.