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guy who wants to take us back,” Biden added, pointing to Trump’s positions on abortion rights, which he suggested were outdated.
Aww. Seth put on a suit for Biden.
It was the 10th anniversary of the show
Did Biden jump out of a cake?
Happy anniversary Mr late night
Where my jackals at?
Here, anxiously awaiting for Friday.
Just enjoying my negroni.
Can’t wait to see if the negroni encased in a giant fake ice cube was the climax of that bit or if there’s something even more delightfully unhinged waiting for us.
It’s Mac Tonight night
Drinking from my jackel mug right now!
Yoooooo
Do you have link to the full interview?
Don’t think they’ve released it to stream yet, they usually post to YouTube some time the following day
Am i missing something or is the actual video of his full appearance not even in this article?
I tried posting on Lemmy, downvoted to oblivion in an hour. 😦
2014 was 10 years ago already? Dang. Remember to go out there and live life.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
During Monday’s Q&A, Biden was asked early on how he addresses voter concern over his age.
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guy who wants to take us back," Biden added, pointing to Trump’s positions on abortion rights, which he suggested were outdated.
Pressed by Meyers about calls for an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war, Biden said, “There is a path forward, with difficulty,” and he commented on the ongoing hostage situation.
Biden made a similar remark before the interview aired, telling reporters in New York, “My hope is by next Monday we will have a cease-fire."
In a more lighthearted exchange, Meyers asked Biden about whether he was involved in an “active conspiracy” with Swift after a conspiracy theory on that right claimed the pop star’s relationship with Kansas City Chiefs player Travis Kelce was manufactured to boost Democrats in the 2024 elections.
The original article contains 399 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“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
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.
Did anything happen with his safe harbor initiative? I admit i haven’t looked into it since biden spike on it after roe fell
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.
Except that it wasn’t and the Republicans had been talking about attacking it since Regan You people are as cultists as the other group of fuck heads, it’s unbelievable.
You mean they had been using it to raise money and get people to the polls for 30 years but no one thought they were dumb enough to actually overturn it.
There were more pressing issues at the time.
Yes precisely. It had been part of their platform for THIRTY YEARS, for THIRTY YEARS they told you they would do this. And in those THIRTY YEARS, including TWO super majority none of the Dems thought “you know, maybe we should make sure it doesn’t happen.”
As I said, inaction is as complicit as omission is a lie. Omission is a “lesser” lie, but it’s still a lie.
no one thought they were dumb enough to actually overturn it.
Surely the leopard won’t eat my face!
Pretty sure the left has been telling you guys this for THIRTY YEARS.
Ok, what’s your solution then? Because 1 of 2 people are going to be president in February of 2025 and one of them actually appointed the judges responsible for the decision while the other one didn’t do enough to stop it (in your opinion) while he was VP.
Surely the leopard won’t eat my face!
Not sure you understand that expression if you think it applies here. I certainly didn’t vote for anyone who was in favor of overturning Roe.
Go look up how long the Democrats had a supermajority. I’ll wait.
You should at least try to educate yourself on things you are absolutely furious about.
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
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.
You know how ommission is still a lie? Well inaction works the same.
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.
Seriously… what are they teaching in schools today?
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
Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been implemented by executive order, including the racial integration of the armed forces under President Truman.
Two extreme examples of an executive order are Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States”, and Executive Order 9066, which delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone (used to target Japanese Americans, non-citizen Germans, and non-citizen Italians in certain regions). The order was then delegated to General John L. DeWitt, and it subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 in 2001, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. The order was criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, who say it “violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC 2201–07”, and adding that the order “potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation”. President Barack Obama subsequently revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.[19]
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.
SO glad to see this nonsense downvoted. I have hope for the future of lemmy not being full-tilt communist.
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.
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
What exact power under the presidency would remotely grant that? The Supreme Court explicitly gave that power back to the states, an EO saying “ignore the SC” wouldn’t hold up under even the most liberal of courts.
The closest/largest thing available was directing the military to facilitate moving servicemembers around for care.
And updating the definition for emergency care for everyone else and telling hospitals that take Medicare to use the federal definition of care:
Seems to me that they’ve been cautious about which EOs to enact to prevent the courts from further limiting access.
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?
