320

Biden says he regrets referring to 'an illegal' and defends direct criticism of Supreme Court in State of the Union (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 8 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

111 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 130 points 8 months ago

From the transcript of the speech:

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: What about Laken Riley?

(Cross-talk.)

AUDIENCE: Booo —

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: Say her name!

THE PRESIDENT: (The President holds up a pin reading “Say Her Name, Laken Riley.”) Lanken — Lanken (Laken) Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed.

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: By an illegal!

THE PRESIDENT: By an illegal. That’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?

I don't see the problem. His response rightly points out that murders happen regardless of the perpetrators legal status.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 53 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's just how propaganda works.

At any given time, there are a few different anecdotal-type "talking points" that are the new thing everyone's talking about. You're going to be hearing about Biden saying "an illegal" for a little while, even though as your transcript notes, it wasn't even him that chose the wording. People form their picture of the world through these little gestalt-facts, and if you can pick one that will shape the narrative you want to present, and arrange for people to hear it over and over from a variety of sources, and do that in a constant stream that all points to the same types of conclusions, it actually does a pretty good job at controlling how they'll perceive the totality of the situation.

It's almost exactly the same as how you will hear over and over that:

We broke a record for fossil fuel extraction in 2023
Biden's climate bill includes giving money to oil and gas companies

... and then all this weight of emotion behind how bad Biden is for the climate, how he's just the same, how it's such a shame that I as a good climate-change person can't support him... etc etc. Because the little factoids are in fact accurate, and properly sized and shaped to stick in your brain, they count as "supporting evidence" for Biden being bad on the climate.

The reality is, the way to analyze Biden's performance on the climate is to ask what's the total content of the climate bill he got passed, and what impact it's expected to have. That's it. Just like the reality is that how he performs on immigration has nothing at all to do with whether he said "an illegal" in this specific context.

If you hear someone repeating one of these specific little factoids, or if you start to see one specific one that is commonly repeated, my advice is to become suspicious of the message on top of which it is being placed, like a little evidence-cherry.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 points 8 months ago

I mean the effects of the climate bill in comparison to the scale of the problem are fairly modest. And the US continues to slow-walk real change at the international stage as well. It’s a fair criticism.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 8 months ago

That, what you said, is a completely fair statement. Let me expand on it. Here's a pretty solid summary of what was in the original bill. Here's what actually passed. They are both, sadly, fucking tragically, too little, and absolutely unforgivably late. But, blaming that aspect of it on Biden specifically, when he just got here and started immediately fighting to get something unprecedented in American climate action to start happening the instant he got in, seems unfair. As does shifting the conversation away from "how much is this gonna do" and towards "does this involve giving money to oil companies" or similar focus-grouped talking points, blaming him for not doing more, and saying he's just the same as the people who stopped him from doing it.

load more comments (24 replies)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

The only real problem is he gave them a sound bite.

Which, I mean, even if he didn’t, they’d try and manufacture something anyhow.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 72 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

load more comments (15 replies)

[-] juergen@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 8 months ago

I dislike Biden immeasurably less than Trump, and I plan to vote for him in November, yet:

“It is a red line," Biden said, adding, “but I’m never gonna leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical.”

That sounds to me like there is, in fact, not a red line.

Drawing a line without any consequences for crossing it is worse than not drawing a line at all (source: my pedagogy prof, many, many moons ago).

I realize that Biden did not, in fact, say that there were not going to be any consequences at all - but the other thing with lines is that the consequences need to be known in advance, and they need to be adhered to. From all I'm hearing in interviews, the US government seems very hesitant to commit to any consequences, and if the slaughter keeps going, it may save Netanyahu's political career, but seriously bite Biden in the tush come election day.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Didn't he say something about a 2 state solution being the eventual goal?

[-] juergen@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 8 months ago

Yes, he has been saying this. What is lacking is a plan to get there. Against the opposition of the current Israeli government.

[-] S_204@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

How does the American president develop a plan when one side is refusing to even say if the hostages are alive and acknowledge the existence of the other party?

It's so weird that people act like Hamas/Palestinians aren't required to be a part of the process..... when they're the ones who have turned down the deals Egypt and Qatar have brokered.

[-] OppaGundamStyle@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

Hamas is part of the process, they have attended the negotiations.

Fact is Israel is the one who keeps refusing to participate.

[-] S_204@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Israel won't negotiate until they get a list of names of living hostages. That's what's being negotiated, Hamas won't provide it. Blaming Israel because Hamas won't come to the table in any reasonable way is ridiculous.

The Qatar's have threatened to boot Hamas if they don't start negotiating in good faith is the news coming out lately. Blaming Israel for not negotiating over nothing is just stupid.

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

He says a lot of things. He's supporting Netanyahu's genocide by selling him weapons and backing him up at the UN.

His support for a 2 state solution consists of words.

[-] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 8 months ago

The two state solution here seems to be a border with Israel on one side and Egypt on the other.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

This is just willful ignorance at this point, the administration has been saying consistently since at least a month after October 7th, that a two state solution was the only answer to permanently solve the crisis.

[-] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 8 months ago

Contrast what is being said with what is happening. Gazans are being pushed hard against that Egypt border. They are being starved and killed. Where does this end if US watches it continue?

[-] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

And yet they will do nothing to make it happen, just like every administration before them. At what point will you care that it's just lip service?

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

For as good as the SOTU address was, I agree that that one line where he used the term "illegal" came off very wrong when I heard it. I thought it was very out of character for him to use the same language that Republicans use to dehumanize people. I'm glad he at least recognizes that it was wrong.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Ugh, the liberal handwringing over this term is how we make more Republicans. Is that term all that significant in contrast with what the policies will be? No.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

This article and, from the sounds of it, Biden's interview from yesterday both sound like a great refute to trump's putting down / making fun of Biden for "apologizing" for referring to the man as "an illegal".

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Correct. I'm pretty sure that "illegal" is just the short form of "illegal alien". And is that the accepted legal term for a foreign national who is in the US illegally, right?

Honestly, all of this language policing just turns the average person right off. I mean, I suppose it wouldn't be necessary if the Republicans weren't constantly sneering at people, but still. It is better to reclaim terms the Republicans abuse rather than try to language-police hundreds of millions of people. It is very, very off-putting.

[-] heavy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

I mean, I get it, we should hold the president to higher standards and be more inclusive overall. All I'm saying is don't forget that Biden, much like all of us, are products of our environment, and that includes our time. At the end of the day he has been far more cognizant and considerate of the diversity in America than his predacesors and many others currently in government. Look no further than that house inquiry to TikTok and how that representative didn't know the difference between China and Singapore.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

President Joe Biden in a wide-ranging interview with MSNBC on Saturday defended his direct criticism of the Supreme Court for its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and said that he regrets having referred to an undocumented immigrant as an “illegal.”

In the statement, a campaign spokesperson responded to news about the passage of a fetal personhood bill in the Iowa state House that could have negative implications for patients seeking in vitro fertilization treatments.

Trump’s record speaks for itself: his Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett refused to say if she would oppose criminalizing IVF,” senior campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said in the statement.

Biden said Saturday that in his speech to Congress, he was attempting to highlight the differences between rhetoric offered by himself and former President Donald Trump about the border, pledging not to “treat any of these people with disrespect.”

The president added, “I don’t share [Trump’s] view at all,” saying that immigrants “built the country, [are] the reason our economy is growing,” but still, “we have to control the border and more orderly flow.”

Still, Biden was firm that Israel “cannot have 30,000 more Palestinians dead as a consequence of going after [Hamas],” likely citing figures showing that more than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.

The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024

320 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers

5501 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News