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guy who wants to take us back,” Biden added, pointing to Trump’s positions on abortion rights, which he suggested were outdated.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s the problem with you people, you are convinced that electoral politics is the only way to affect change, when it really is one of the least effective ways.

                • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Oh fuck off, nobody believes you’re about to overthrow the government.

                  One of the least effective ways, second only to crying about it on the Internet I suppose.

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                What’s your point? You tell me what they achieved during this short, but completely unimpeded time. Did they reform the supreme court? Did they codify Roe v Wade? Tell me. I’ll wait!

                • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Haha, I guess you looked it up! That’s a start. But I wonder, did you not bother also reading what went on leading up to and during that time, and what they spent their efforts on? Because it was kind of a big deal and major news at the time. Also, it wasn’t unimpeded! One of the Senators, who later left the Democratic Party, impeded them greatly.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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!”

    • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

            • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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.

                • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

                  • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    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.