Biden makes appearance on 'Late Night with Seth Meyers' for interview
Biden appeared almost 10 years to the day after he was a guest on the first “Late Night” show with Meyers when he was vice president in 2014.
President Joe Biden made an appearance Monday on "Late Night with Seth Meyers," where he answered questions about topics ranging from his age and the Israel-Hamas war to the conservative conspiracy about Taylor Swift.
The interview comes almost 10 years to the day after Biden was a guest on the first “Late Night” show with Meyers, which aired on Feb. 24, 2014, when Biden was vice president. It also follows a decision this month to skip a Super Bowl interview that had a much larger audience.
During Monday's Q&A, Biden was asked early on how he addresses voter concern over his age.
“Take a look at the other guy, he’s about as old as I am," said Biden, who at 81 is four years older than former President Donald Trump.
"It’s about how old your ideas are. Look, I mean, this is a guy who wants to take us back," Biden added, pointing to Trump's positions on abortion rights, which he suggested were outdated.
Biden saying this is a joke
He is Catholic and Roe versus Wade happened on Biden's watch
Did not even try an executive order or anything
His ideas are old as well just look at his other policies such as his and prosecutor Kamala's outdated cannabis stance
The state of our education is really sad that you failed civics so hard. No executive order can reverse R.v.W. This has to be a troll or a child.
why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Show us how an executive order can reverse a supreme court decision. None of these examples have anything to do w what is being asked.
Yeah, he absolutely should have replaced the supreme Court judges trump placed that made the ruling! Or at least he should have ordered them to rule differently by executive order!
Maybe he should have pushed for something to happen when he happen to be VP during a super majority 🤔
Why didn't he, as VP, push to legalize something that was already legal and viewed as settled law when the president was focused on the ACA during the, what was it, like 2 weeks they had a super majority?
Come on man.
Maybe he should've. It looked like a settled issue at that point with the duration of precedent. It might have been better if he did, during the brief window that supermajority existed, but that doesn't mean it happened on his watch. Those judges were put in office when he was out of office and could do nothing, and when the ruling happened it was entirely out of his hands.
Again, the issue of judges is something the Dems, including him, could have fixed in period of super majorities. Biden was part of at least two. VP during one. They could done in 1993 with Clinton, it was already well established that the constitution of the supreme Court was an issue and that the Republicans were trying to take control of it.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/ronald-reagans-big-impact-on-the-supreme-court
That's entirely on them. You know how ommission is still a lie? Well inaction works the same.
And that makes him just as bad as the people who actively campaigned for and carried this out. On the same level, with no discernable difference between them, and that's why we should let the guy who nominated the judges who actually did this back into office so he can carry out the vengeance he's promising. I expect that'll work out great. Virtually identical to another Biden term.
Yup. 1:1 identical.
Look. The Dems are not good enough. 100% agree. But there's still a vast difference between "inadequately good" and "actively malicious", and it's pretty clear which party is which here. There's no comparison between the people who failed to protect abortion, and the people who want to send women to jail for miscarriages and herd trans people into camps, and if the inadequately good party had held power through the trump years instead of the actively malicious party, we wouldn't have the fucked up dobbs ruling, we wouldn't have the fucked up IVF ruling, we wouldn't have Tennessee making it legal to refuse to conduct marriage.
The Dems are weak. The Republicans hate us and want us to suffer and die.
It's not that the Dems aren't good enough, it's that they are willfully letting it happen because the fear panders to their base. It's the pied piper strategy. One that worked oh so well for the Dems primary and Hilary if you recall.
So, again, you'd rather this gets significantly worse. Because that's what comes from letting the republicans win.
Also Biden's done a lot of positive things. I voted for "not Trump" and he's well exceeded expectations. There have also been significant disappointments; I wanted him to be better on Israel / Palestine, but that's no good reason to give the office to the guy who'll happily nuke Gaza before he fellates Putin.
No what I'm telling you is that you are actively participating in this vicious cycle. And yeah actually, being actively complicit in genocide (an actual legal term under international law) is indeed a good reason not to vote for someone.
Do you think that if you don't participate it goes away? Because people tried that in 2016, and it didn't go away, it got worse. You are participating in this world until you leave, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but you still have to eat. The device you are writing your posts on most likely owns a share of a dead slave child. You can't live in this world and have totally clean hands. The best you can hope for is to steer it, a little bit, in a better direction, and sitting on your hands so you don't have to recognize the inevitable blood on them and get to feel pure ain't it, friend.
Don't worry, he also said:
So I'm sure he'll accept the blame for Trump's shit if he wins in November since sitting around sniffing your own farts is nearly as bad as actively destroying democracy.
He's done quite a few executive orders and/or implemented policies easing access to abortion. As federal EOs though, they only concern the federal government's treatment of abortion and do not affect state law.
They dont like what youre sayin. Neither do i, truth be told. but it is the truth.
It's not, though. They're basically saying Biden should reinstate Roe via executive order, which a president cannot do.
Please don't speak for others. Bidens personal feelings on abortion and his voting record on it is well documented. Have a look, then you tell me if you think his historical record on abortion tells you about what he might do going forward.
Like, don't listen to platitudes, lookit what he does when the chips are down. Just like you would evaluate any other human being
EDIT: fixed broken link, apologies
Read the fucking executive orders, doofus. Also your MSNBC link is dead.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/24/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-actions-in-light-of-todays-supreme-court-decision-on-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/03/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-at-the-first-meeting-of-the-task-force-on-reproductive-healthcare-access-2/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-presidential-memorandum-on-ensuring-safe-access-to-medication-abortion/
link 1: Biden directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to identify all ways to ensure that mifepristone is as widely accessible as possible in light of the FDA’s determination that the drug is safe and effective—including when prescribed through telehealth and sent by mail.
link 2: there's a lot of lawyer speak there, some of it is repeating things from link 1 but generally is outlining a plan to further protect the current levels of access to birth control? and create a task force to decide what must be done. This 'task force'... I will need to see what it has accomplished i guess, cuz it's not listed there. Finally it sets up an opportunity for lawyers to volunteer to protect abortion rights of patients seeking care. (Too bad by the time it hits the courts the baby will be born lol).
link 3: ok wait a second are these ALL just whitehouse.gov links talking about the same executive order? I mean... lets be real... Is this gonna be unbiased? I am suuuuuper cynical about some press release from the whitehouse. I actually wanna know more about what is ACTUALLY happening on the ground, what impact this exectutive order has had on the ground. I ain't even saying your links are bad per se, just redundant.
I'm gonna see if i can find some of that impact i mentioned. i'll hit you back in a few minutes
Dude, I just linked the first four Whitehouse.gov links about executive orders. There are dozens if not hundreds of actions the Biden admin has taken on abortion, mostly related to rule and policy-making within executive departments, including the military. I'm not here to hold your hand through this, and you've offered no alternatives, just vague, baseless criticism
Your name calling does you no favors. I don't suppose you thought it would silence me or change my mind, so what you did was for your own benefit. Do you often get this angry with whom you disagree?
I'm going to read your links (and fix mine, thank you).
It will take a few minutes. Think in the meantime how you might better present yourself and your point to me and other commenters.
Lmao
Yes, when the chips are down you see what people are capable of, don't you? who they really are.
and that is your limit. This is your capability. When you find someone you disagree with, this is who you are. a childish name calling internet tough guy, lacking the required knowlege and conviction to convince others, and lacking any actual skill with words to back up your hubris
Remember this moment so you can look back on how far you've come when you improve.
roe vs wade was a wide reaching decision on privacy, biden could absolutely enact executive orders that ensure women have necessary access to healthcare nation wide while they shake out a more permanent solution legislatively
Saying that he can is not the same as explaining how.
Except it would be completely pointless and unenforceable. I'm interested to hear how you think an order "to ensure women have necessary access to healthcare nationwide" would be worded and then implemented in such a way as to, e.g., affect access to abortion in Alabama?