Swalwell on Biden age: ‘I’ll take the guy who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts’
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.
“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.
“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”
Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.
You know what, Brandon is too old. But I’m voting for him anyway because I’ll be damned if I ever vote (passively or actively) for a filthy republican traitor cunt.
I would agree, but I kinda got forced to vote for a Republican Warden last election. The previous guy (Dem) and his administration had just overseen the worst case of prisoner deaths in a US jail, and the person the Dems ran to replace him was his deputy warden of the same administration.
The rest of my ticket was solid blue, or green.
Edit: I did look into the republican guy. He at least didn't have huge scandals, just some small acts of assholery
I get it. It's like voting for LDPR becase it is FPTP(municipal elections) and other "choice" is fucking United Russia.
We are lucky they're both old. For a moment a couple years ago I was afraid DeSantis or Haley might actually be the nominee.
He's old, and as a leader he leaves a lot to be desired.
Having said that, he has a pretty good team. He has a lot of competent people in his cabinet, and they've achieved some pretty good things. I wish he'd run more on the strength of his team, rather than himself.
Trump can never run on the strength of his team because his team are incompetent sycophants. The only thing that matters to him is loyalty, so he'll reward loyalty with cabinet positions. He can't even name a cabinet because he's so fickle that a rumour will come that someone said something bad and he'll throw one of his cabinet members under the bus.
Trump just has three criteria. Attractiveness, fealty, or bribery. I. No particular order unless female, the only attractiveness seems to matter.
Rfk jr
Useful idiot
The comments by septics on Biden's age reek of ageism.
His age is irrelevant. Can he do the fucking job?
Yes?
Then vote for him.
The poor bastard is destroying his retirement, health and twilight years to stop the US falling to fascism and all you can do is whine about his age?
I don’t think it’s particularly ageist to say that octogenarians should generally be avoided for a 4 year commitment to leadership roles. It’s no more ageist than barring 16 year olds from the job imo.
That said, in a battle between risky to lose competence midway and blatantly incompetent now the former always wins
Agreed. That being said it sucks to be stuck choosing between two ppl who won't live long enough to see the ramifications of their decisions and policies.
I don't see how that matters. Do you think Clinton, Bush or Obama made better choices because they got to live to see the outcomes materialize? I don't think so which is why I don't think it matters.
You want a president who makes decisions that benefit the people not a president who makes decision s that benefit them (or a group of elites). In that sense it doesn't matter if Biden won't see the results of his decisions, as long as he makes decisions that benefit the people. When it comes to Trump we can now be pretty certain he will make decisions that benefit him.
Exactly this. One could even argue that Biden being older makes him harder to be influenced by exterior factors such as bribes and whatnot. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Trump isn't exactly a spring chicken either. He now has a half a billion dollars in judgements that he owes in addition to being within 4 years of Biden's age. The issue is the double standard and blatant disregard for the fact that he has numerous conflicts of interest that should disqualify Trump
Oh I fully agree and this is absolutely being used to try to give another too old person the same position. Especially considering trump is both already senile and most importantly a fucking fascist who has attempted to overthrow the government after losing an election
Dark Brandon’s last act will be to bring about the first female US president. Based.
I think it is different, 16 year olds have no experience, limited knowledge of the world, and under developed pre frontal lobes. You want experienced leaders with wisdom, much more than inexperienced leaders with a lack of wisdom, they aren't equivalent
Yes, it's obviously a different scenario. The risks are different. But, along with wisdom, you want presidents to be alive.
When Biden took office in 2020, he was 78. The government's actuarial tables say that there was basically a 50/50 chance he'd make it 8 years.
Having survived 4 years, if he's elected again he'll be 82. The actuarial tables say he'll probably still be alive at the end of his term, but he might not make it to the next set of midterms.
Now, Biden is in good health. With his health and the great medical care he gets, he'll probably do better than the actuarial tables say. I'd say the odds are good he'll outlive Trump, even if he's an older man. But, it seems reckless to put a guy into office when there's a very decent chance he'll be dead before the end of his term.
Then there's the matter of his mental sharpness. There are strong signs it's fading. President is mostly a job about delegation, but still, you need to make some decisions, and at least understand what it is you're delegating. Trump, again, is probably as bad or worse, but it doesn't seem good to trust a guy with clearly fading mental abilities to a stressful job that benefits from a sharp mind.
If we all trusted his VP to step in and run things well if there were a problem, that would be one thing, but her approval ratings are even worse than his. Sometimes that happens when a president doesn't want the VP to steal the spotlight. But, in this case you'd think both Biden and Harris would benefit from everybody thinking that she's doing a lot of work, doing it extremely well, and could easily step in as president.
Also, I'm not convinced there are strong signs his mental acuity is degrading. Everything people point out are things Biden had been doing for decades, or since birth. The amount of times I've seen people say look, he is cognitively impaired because he can't get his words out! The guy has had a stutter his whole life, he mixes up some facts here and they're, he's been doing that forever. Memory and cognitive specialists don't seem to think he has some growing problem (see On the Media show this week).. So what are these strong signs, except for the media publishing no led than 45 articles about this, with no facts to justify them?
I think it's clear that he's not as sharp as he was 30 or 40 years ago. But, he was always someone who made a lot of gaffes. But, I think it's not dementia, just a typical lack of sharpness that comes from getting old.
Not that I disagree with you, but what do you base that on? The cognitive experts I've heard on the radio don't seem to agree and they have specialty training.
They don't agree that there's any difference between him 30-40 years ago and how he is now?
I base it on what he was like 30-40 years ago and what he's like now.
Look at him in this video:
https://youtu.be/zTrObD_lnfQ?t=35
Or in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_v00iGJCLY
Compare that to a modern Biden speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia2sy7z1Cqs
I don't think it's dementia or anything, he's just old. I don't know of any person his age who is as sharp as they were 40 years ago.
I don't think septics is the right word but I am also high
His age is the main reason that he can't do the job particularly well.
He can't do the job. He's a terrible candidate and he's not mentally fit. His only qualification is that he's not openly fascist. Definitely vote for the not fascist, but that won't stop fascism in the long run.
Being forced to choose between senile and psychotic is fucking bullshit, and I'm sick of being told to just suck it up.
To be fair, Trump is also senile.
Yeah, I mean, beyond senile. He doesn't even pass for human, he's indistinguishable from a racist LLM. Fuck he's not even an LLM, he's a Markov model.
But compared to Biden, Trump does enough drugs to make him appear like he's less senile. Also probably even more crazy.
Afghanistan withdrawal alone was a fucking abortion. SO hella dumb, SO rushed, I mean that was done in the worst way possible. We left so much shit behind, we didn't destroy it, we didn't burn it up & just shoot the shit out of the Taliban before we left, we left our people there with no way home, what was it 13 American soldiers died?? It couldn't have been done any worse. And that's on Biden's head, that's on all the people that just went along with it & were like, "Okay, whatever you say President Potato Head".
It's just not enough to say these people shit the bed with Afghanistan. They shit the bed multiple times, rolled around in their filth, slaughtered a goat on the bed, lit the bed on fire, tried to put the fire out by spraying it with gasoline, burning down the whole goddamn house, and shuttling in the Taliban in a full service limo on the American dime to do a Gangnam Style breakdance where the house once stood.
This right here. He didn't have to run again. Right now he needs our support and deserves at least a hardy thanks of appreciation. He came out of retirement to stop trump and the maggats. If I could buy him a beer or a very expensive scotch I would.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/06/an-ominous-poll-democrats-what-it-says-about-biden-alternative/
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/biden-trump-both-underperform-generic-opponents-poll-finds-rcna126098
Biden is putting the country at serious risk of having another Trump term vs if he were to concede to literally any other Democrat.
Voter shaming has never worked as a strategy and has only made people want to be less involved in politics. People need something to vote for, not against.
Also note how both sources strongly lean towards the Democratic Party. Not like I'm citing Fox here.
More evidence of low voter turnout with Biden: https://news.yahoo.com/only-4-registered-voters-show-122000488.html
Biden performs better against Trump than Newsom or Harris. Name another democrat even close to having the name recognition to win the general election.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4470956-biden-trump-harris-newsom-poll/amp/
Anyone that won't automatically loss the mid west swing States due to a required demographic there accurately believing the candidate is supporting a genocide against a population they identify with.
Even in the link you posted, Biden is still down 1 point vs Trump. That's not a risk that I think the country should take.
Also to answer your question, either Jon Stewart or Bernie would kick Trump's ass in a general. Y'know, people who inspire people to get out and vote instead of staying home because "both sides are shit anyway, what's the point?"
Are you thinking we need Bernie to replace the old guy?
No, but I think he'd win in a theoretical scenario. Bernie already said he's not going to be running for president.
Also, there was a reason I put Jon Stewart's name first.
Yeah, like all the old people who actually vote would consider Jon Stewart as a serious candidate. “Oh, but he would bring young people out to vote!” Would he? Do young people even know who Jon Stewart is? And I love me some Jon fucking Stewart. And Bernie is perceived as way too far to the left in this country. And I love me some Bernie.
If your serious candidates are Jon Stewart and Bernie, please GTFO.
I would. In a heartbeat.
Not that you are completely wrong, but don't play so hard into the stereotypes.
He can barely speak or remember his own major life events and colleagues. His team constantly has to step in and correct "what he meant to say" regarding very important international relations.
His age is relevant.
Age-related cognitive decline is real and inescapable. All people over 80 have declining mental abilities, less ability to handle stress, etc. Old age is fundamentally a handicap and to suggest it isn't is a delusion.
Providing the weapons for a genocide is not doing the job.
Ignoring people saying we won't vote for genocide with the strategy of 'Vote Harder!' is stupid and dangerous if you believe the alternative is the end of democracy.
Edit: people here are mad at the people saying 'we won't vote for genocide' but not at the person directly responsible for the mass murder of babies.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
To all those downvoting or responding with "he's all we have", be honest: fucking outright say "I'm willing to have babies slaughtered to prevent Trump." That is a choice you are making. Have the courage of your convictions and say it out loud.
Look at the cost you are paying without flinching.
Actually, it kind of is. America has interests in the middle-east and Israel is key to them. Plus, the rich warmongers who own all our politicians want this. So it doesn't matter who is in the White House, the weapons will flow.
Ignoring people ignorant of the bigger picture is how we keep the entire house from burning down. Trump will literally do everything most Democrats don't want while Biden only does a few. If you're willing to throw away everything over a few issues, then you've failed to be an educated voter.
How many dead and murdered children do I need to walk over to be an educated voter?
You're literally happy justifying genocide.
Who are you voting for that is going to stop the genocide?
cornel west or whoever wins the green party nom
you have just told me that you are not voting in the next election. I can appreciate your morality and idealism, but if you're realistic for even a half second you'd know you're voting against the greater good.
no, I told you who I'm voting for.
yeah, and as much as it sucks that it's true, you're throwing away your vote. I would love to have a replacement to the two party system and first past the pole but that's not the reality in which we currently exist
if Biden wants votes from people who are going to vote for cornel west or Jill Stein, it's not as though he couldn't adopt their policies
That's true, but who does he lose in the process? Who wins when he loses? Is it better to have incremental change than it is to vote for a fascist backslider? I understand the moral dilemma, but you implicitly enter into another by voting third-party. if you "help" Trump win, don't you think he'll also continue the genocide? Who is more likely to pressure an end to the violence?
yeah, we're kind of left with shit choices but one's a polished turd and the other one is a festering diseased pile liable to spread.
only voting for trump helps him win.
a vote for cornel west is a vote against all the other candidates
The mass slaughter of children is not a worthwhile cost to pay for incremental change.
Is it that you don't believe that children under 10 are being intentionally shot in the head by Israeli snipers?
Do you not believe hundreds of children are having limbs amputated without anesthetic after surviving a bombing that orphaned them?
Or does their suffering, that you paid for, just not matter to you?
Neither will stop the genocide because neither is going to win. You may as well pick Mickey Mouse and you'll accomplish the same thing. Not to mention, the presidency is a bit of a distraction here. Biden has bypassed Congress with some weird legal loopholes, but the bulk of support for Israel comes from acts from Congress.
If by some miracle West or the Green wins, how will they stop an aid bill for Israel if 2/3 of Congress votes for it? Combined, Democrats and Republicans who support Israel have the numbers to easily overcome a veto. Unless you've got third party candidates who can win over 1/3 of the seats in both chambers of Congress, it doesn't matter if the president is anti genocide.
If someone truly wants to end the Palestinian genocide, they need to win a lot of Congressional seats. Tell me, what does it say that West and the Greens are much more focused on the presidency than on building up Senate and House candidates? Either they're pathetically naive, or they're just lying to your face and trying to get your money. Considering the Green Party has no issues with Stein dining with hyper capitalists, I believe it's the latter.
>Tell me, what does it say that West and the Greens are much more focused on the presidency than on building up Senate and House candidates?
i think it means they didn't hire you as a political consultant. which is great because i f they did it looks like your advice would be "drop out"
>You may as well pick Mickey Mouse and you’ll accomplish the same thing.
this is election misinformation: a vote for either of them will count for the candidate who received the vote. a vote for mickey mouse will not.
as the chief diplomat, the president actually has the executive power decide if or when the aid ever gets delivered.all congress can do is authorize the spending.
>Neither will stop the genocide because neither is going to win
you can't prove this
>If someone truly wants to end the Palestinian genocide, they need to win a lot of Congressional seats.
i'm sure there are other ways.
> Considering the Green Party has no issues with Stein dining with hyper capitalists, I believe it’s the latter.
i voted for her in 2016, and i'd do it again if i had a time machine. this year, i'm planning to vote cornel, but i could be swayed to vote for stein if she does something rad.
If you weren’t an irrational idealist that is a net detriment to American society you would vote Biden and donate money to STAR and RCV initiatives.
calling me irrational and a detriment to society are personal attacks. they don't make me want to vote for someone whose policies i don't like.
I would call someone who litters an irrational detriment to society. Is that a personal attack? Is it not irrational to pollute your own environment? Is it a benefit to society to litter?
You’re doing the wrong thing and it’s ok for me to tell you it’s wrong and why.
saying that the act is irrational or that **someone** who does it is acting irrationally is one thing, but to directly call someone irrational **is** a personal attack.
it's not a fact. it's an opinion. it's an ad hominem that doesn't change the truth of anything that's been said.
Funny how people aren't mad at the person committing genocide for taking an action that will likely hand the election to the person they think will end democracy.
Instead, they're mad at the people saying they won't vote for genocide.
Tell me, would you be mad at me if I was in Michigan, Palestinian, and had family members murdered in the current genocide?
I'm not, I'm just curious how far your selective moral outrage will go. I want to see how selfish/racist you are.
"Who are you voting for that is going to stop the genocide?"
Which part exactly makes you believe they're morally outraged or mad or whatever else you want to call them? Stop making stuff up if you're out of arguments. Just move to a different thread.
The only selfish one here is you. Since you'd rather vote for someone who has no chance of winning just because it helps you sleep better at night.
So you're the selfish one? Biden has no chance of winning.
Explain to me how he wins the electoral college without Michigan. Explain to me how he wins Michigan without the Muslim vote.
Go on.
I'll wait for you to do the fucking math.
Again changing the subject when you've got no arguments. GG. I'm out. No point wasting my time with trolls.
For everyone else reading this: Only Biden and Trump can win this race. If you vote for anyone else other than Biden, you're screwed. But I'm sure all the reasonable people already know that.
I'm not changing the subject. It's an integral part of the subject.
You're only out because you know you don't have an answer.
You're willingly voting for a genocide enabler because you think he is the only one who can stop Trump.
But the math shows that he is unable to win BECAUSE of the genocide support.
I ask again, but I know you're too much of a coward to answer, How does Biden win without Michigan?
How does Biden win Michigan without support from the Muslim population?
EDIT: disagreeing with you with a sincerely held belief doesn't make me a troll. It just means you've lived in a bubble where people don't disagree with you.
Can you provide numbers to back the assertion that it will be impossible for Biden to win Michigan?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-shows-biden-support-slumping-michigan-muslims-rcna123732
It's not a hard thing to found, in site of your spend some time with the obvious keywords you'll find the actual States. I'm busy IRL for the rest of the day.
The question and answer are irrelevant. Even if he can't win Michigan, he's still the only one with a chance to win. So you either help him win or you let trump win. There's no alternative. It's the truth of the situation, fucked up as it may be.
And just to answer your question anyway. When push comes to shove, Biden is the better choice for everyone that's not a cis white male. That includes Muslim. You really think they'd rather vote for that racist fuck than for Biden? Guess we'll see.
No, they just won't vote.
voting for any candidate who isn't trump is a vote against trump.
Also, I just cannot believe Trump can be both wildly incompetent and the end of democracy at the same time. Do i want him at the helm? Fuck no, those 4 years aged me like 10, the next 4 might kill me.
But will he be the guy who "ends democracy"? Fucking lol. We're all here, weve all experienced the last decade, we have had front row seats to "the end". Its dying with him or without him.
Trump is just a grifter. Hes a symptom, not the cause.
He's saying this like Trump being 77 is somehow young or any different than Biden being 81
Clearly it is because 4 years ago, when Biden was 77 the election didn't revolve around age.
I'm just going to throw it out that I think people are only looking at the first number and don't care about the second one, kinda like in stores 9.99 seems much cheaper than 10.00 despite the actual difference only being a penny. It's not a 77 year old vs an 81 year old, it's 70 year old vs 80 year old. 70 year old is an old man, 80 year old is your demented grandpa.
There were definitely people 4 years ago trying to make the discourse about age but it didn't really take hold.
They did the same crap for Hillary in 2016, proclaiming she was at death's door. For some weird reason, she's still alive despite all this rhetoric from the radicalized right wing and their Russian pals.
You can make the claim for anyone 65 and up truthfully. That's the downside of running old ass candidates.
Absolutely. I think the argument was just as valid as it was 4 years ago, but now for some reason people seem to perceive it a lot more and specifically more with Biden than Trump.
According to actuarial tables it's actually significantly more valid now than it was before. There's something like a 90% chance that Biden experiences cognitive decline in the next 4 years (assuming he lives that long). And that's not surprising since 50% of people over the age of 70 experience cognitive decline in America (and it's higher for males).
Ignoring it last election for both candidates was a mistake. And Biden and Trump should both in theory put out a "I'm fine but if I develop dementia during the next turn this is the plan" plan. For Biden, that will help a lot of people who are on the fence between him and nobody see him as a better candidate and turn out in higher percentages.
Low turnout is the main thing Biden should fear. He will loose a low turnout election.
I believe that's called a running mate, and not too many people seem keen on a President Harris.
My nightmare scenario since he picked her was that he would claim the 2024 nomination as an encombant, then resign after two years. We're going to have to wait until 2036 before we get another primary, since Harris will be eligible for two full terms after finishing out Biden's second. Democratic voters soundly rejected her in 2020, but the establishment will be forcing her on us anyways.
Sure but how long would he try to hold onto power? What level of decline would trigger his resignation? What things is he doing to ensure VP Harris is ready for a takeover etc...
Just showing that he has done the planning necessary is a huge step. Nobody wants another vegetable like Dementia ridden Reagan or Stroked out Woodrow Wilson; whose stroke status led to him botching the WW1 peace process and directly contributed to WW2.. Right now his (Biden's) campaign is pretending that any sort of cognitive decline is a complete impossibly and that's just irresponsible.
What's wrong with Harris?
He's clearly suffering cognitive decline already. It's not the dementia that Republicans would like to claim, but I think he would be in trouble facing a competent Republican opponent.
Honestly I worry it is dementia. Some days he's clearly sharp and other days he barely knows where he is. That's what the early stages look like.
Im just... So tired of this game. If we were even ever old enough to witness the zenith of the Democratic party, it is surely in its waning form.
Don't they all just sound like ad execs? "Make it about X" and we "win"...
Or maybe they sound like your middle manager who brought all the team together for a pizza party on Friday afternoon? You know the speech I'm talking about, the one where "we gotta tighten our belts" and how "we're all in this together" because we're "lucky we even have jobs in this economy"?
They arent even doing the thing we're used to anymore, where they tell comforting lies about future policies they don't plan on implementing.
They don't even pretend to talk about policy. It is clear isn't even on their minds! Now it's all like, "this isn't the time to gripe, we're all in this together."
and
"You're lucky we even have a democracy"
So fucking tired...
Unfortunately, they are kind of right at least in terms of this coming election. The best thing we can do is to try to get the fascists out, then come January 20th, 2025 at 12:01pm, take them all to task and demand that they make good on their promises. Protests, rallies...hell, riots even...just make them understand that they serve at our behest and make them earn their keep. But we have to get through November first.
They told me that last time, and i don't feel like they held up their end of the bargain. I know, i know, republicans. But we just did this. We swallowed and voted joe hoping to move fems left, orbat least get rid of trump, and here he is again. I just don't see how my actions this time will have a different result than last time. In fact I have a sinking feeling in my gut that it won't
Don't be discouraged. Trump and covid was unexpected to me. I see recovery happening since Biden took office. Not solving my problems personally, but overall the country is moving. Trump has a lot of people who think like him. And some think even worse. Those gains the country has made are in the right direction. Those positive changes may be stopped or reversed if people are divided over who to choose. Progress is important and there is a whole system of government involved, voting in primaries is important, also the local and state elections set the stage you live in. Those actions are important. Don't burn yourself out, it is stressful.
That's a lot of saying nothing. The democratic party and Joe Biden are absolutely discouraging. Things have not improved. The us oil production is at an all time high and we are directly supporting genocide. Trump has not been put in jail and it seems like quite the coincidence that his trials will happen throughout the election cycle. Essentially as the DNC directly makes it campaign about stopping Trump.
Its not enough and the DNC is part of the issue.
I wish the Democrat would flaunt his accomplishment more. Lower drug prices, unions being major, infrastructure. These gains are good. The oil thing will isn't something I control. He is an ex president and him in jail will occur. This is a new thing for America. Just compare day in and day out, before and after elections, which party is moving us forward. Which party isn't. Which party has a project 2025. There is a bigger picture, and this election in America will matter globally. Other countries have spoken about it. Again, vote locally. Books bans happen locally. It won't be the first mass murder of people in other countries we see, and it won't be the last. I can't offer you a kind world, but I can offer you kind words. Be best
The problem was the down-ticket candidates. There's only so much a president can do when the legislature is polluted with or outright deadlocked by a bunch of sycophantic fascist toadies. That's why I'm hoping that the RNC does blow its entire budget on Trump so that we can pack the House and Senate with candidates that aren't hell-bent on executing every whim of a bloated, washed up reality TV personality.
Trump makes the DNC a lot of money, why would they give that up? They're either too dumb to understand the danger or they've already got their foreign passports ready on their private jets. One side is useless and the other is stupid Hitler.
The US government has no future. Organize as though fascism is guaranteed, vote to delay it as long as possible so you have more time to organize.
We get through November a lot easier if Democrats could vote for somebody else besides Biden. I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has more than just one person in it.
This is a funny take and yes we should vote for Biden if the alternative is an authoritarian. BUT, Biden still is old as fuck and the DNC is once again pushing a candidate that no one wants. Fuck the DNC and the Democrat institution that forced Hilary down our throats and started this mess in the first place. Biden should not be the candidate and will most likely be dead before the next four years are over. Fuck this
Rich people with medical care tend to live a long time, look at Jimmy Carter.
It's possible but why roll the dice?
Because he's good, Harris is good. The other guy will take a wrecking ball to the nation's institutions to enrich himself at the expense of his enemies.
Did you even read my original post? Who's this "other guy"? The DNC and Biden didn't even give us a choice lol. I clearly said I'm still voting for Biden over Trump but I also feel that I'm being held hostage and forced to vote for a guy who explicitly said he was going to run for 1 term only.
Since you didn't seem to understand, it's ok to support Democrats while also criticizing bad decisions.
Speak for yourself I'm happy to have Biden again.
He's done a fine job, he just told us he was planning on being a 1 term president and I don't think he'll still be alive 4 years from now. It's silly and selfish just long how I appreciate RBG's career but she screwed everyone by needing to stay in power way too long.
The Senate doesn't confirm the next president for life. The VP is sworn into office if he were to die. I'd be happy to have Harris in the office too.
Lol? So all you got from my comment is that you think that I believe the President and a Supreme Court Justice are the same thing? You're being purposely belligerent and I don't know why.
And if you actually believe that Biden dying while in office isn't a problem then I don't know what to tell you. Your inability to see any grey area is a real issue. Dogmatic politics are bad for everyone.
What I got from your post was a false equivalence. I'm really tired of people shitting on a legitimately good choice because they aren't getting exactly what they want. Or are Russian trolls, it's hard to tell the difference these days.
The other guy has already said he wants to be a dictator. I'm hostile to people that will get him elected either through direct support, or trying to kill enthusiasm for the better candidate.
Then you didn't read my post lol. I'm not disputing anything you're saying and I will absolutely be voting for Biden but that doesn't mean we don't deserve better or that I shouldn't be allowed to point that out
Somehow old is the only bad thing you can say about him. I'm not going to say there aren't other people I'd like as president, but I do think this is a dangerous game. We need unity against the other guy. We need solutions, not shitting on the best situated candidate. I'm sure you don't have one.
Why would I have an alternative? An alternative was never offered or considered even though it was promised. At least in 2016 I got to primary for Bernie. Though the DNC didn't really give a shit that people wanted him over Hillary and that's why we're in this mess in the first place.
The polling is astoundingly clear that you are in a vast minority with that opinion. It's hardly a surprise that someone likes him, but he is not the democratic choice.
The democratic choice is the one people vote into office.
The only kind of true choice that exists is informed choice. The establishment of both parties has captured mass media and to a large extent social media. Democracy in this country is a joke.
This is an extreme over-simplification.
Tinidril's post is an oversimplification, so much so as to be misleading. My post I believe would fall into the technically correct bucket.
In an idealized, fictional world where america actually has democracy, sure. We could add frictionless, spherical cows and perfectly rational economic actors to this hypothetical fairyland, too.
Both instances are a huge fucking problem though. The first people who made the USA warned against a two party system.
I agree, but the reality is that it's the system we have right now. We can try to change it. But sitting this election out or voting for a third party will only help Trump get elected. I said in another comment (and got downvoted for it) but I would vote for a ham sandwich over Trump.
The issue is that we're not in this situation accidentally. Every 4 years we say "I know it sucks, but for now we just have to vote out the lesser evil, then we can focus on change" then go 4 more years without making any changes. We'll always just be voting for the lesser of 2 evils, whether for this election or the 2064 election. Everyone with any real say in the government loves how things are working out right now, and has no intention to allow us to truly vote for anyone other than 2 candidates that have been vetted by the oil companies.
Push for ranked choice voting for your state, and if we can get that implemented nationwide then we might be going somewhere.
I absolutely agree with pushing the issue at a local level, however we should probably be aiming for approval or STAR voting:
https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/
RCV is way better than our current system, but even RCV has flaws.
We also need regulation requiring election reform within party primaries, because as of right now it is a clown show.
It's already going to be a hugely heavy lift to get RCV, so no need to complicate the effort by suggesting alternatives to RCV.
Just don't think there's room for that conversation in our political environment today. And yes, I hated saying what I just said, but still.
Arguably, RCV is just as complicated as STAR, and approval is simpler than RCV. And part of the difficulty in the heavy lift to get RCV is that it has some pretty rough flaws, flaws that don't exist within the alternatives.
And the political environment is easing up to the idea of moving towards better voting methods. I'm not saying we should let perfection be the enemy of progress. All I am saying is that if we are going to be making changes, we should at least attempt the better options.
I'll take your word for it, sincerely, as I'm not familiar with STAR, but was speaking more from a social 'selling it' point of view. Simplicity tends to sell better than complexity, and RCV is the one that's known of already.
What we citizens need to do now is get our elected officials to start talking about the pros and cons of STAR versus RCV, etc. So far they've been more than happy to ignore everything except the status quo, unfortunately.
Agreed. And that's why I think approval is such a big improvement over ranked choice.
"Tell us who you approve of, candidate with the most approval wins"
Is a hell of a lot simpler than
"Rank every candidate without ranking multiple as the same level, then we check if any candidate has a 50% majority, if not, the lowest candidate gets booted and the next wave of second choices comes in, repeat until there is 50% majority."
And that's before the peripheral benefits.
Agreed. It's honestly sad.
My city/state has been warming up to these kinds of talks and candidates at least, which gives me a glimmer of hope. But for now it is not enough.
Ranked choice voting is great because it enables votes to go to smaller parties. To get it passed, you'd need to get lawmakers to alter the laws. Those lawmakers are either Republicans or Democrats. Both benefit from first-past-the-post, and neither benefits from ranked choice. Good luck getting ranked choice passed.
>But sitting this election out or voting for a third party will only help Trump get elected.
only a vote for trump helps trupm get elected
Mathematically, the system they set up - the first past the post system - will always devolve into a 2-party contest.
Strategically, it only counts for you to vote for one of the top two choices, and then only sometimes.
Even so, still vote against fascism. Every time.
The two party system is the "vote against" system.
In a multi-party system, you have multiple options you can vote for who are not fascists. Unfortunately, true multi-party systems are rare. Even when there are other parties, there are often two dominant parties and then lots of other small parties who are brought into coalitions.
Sorta. It was actually Washington who warned against a two party system, because one was already forming from everyone else.
It's more like the first people who made the US devolved into this same tribalism, and Washington tried to warn them it was bad.
Damn, those are your choices? You okay america?
It's worse than you think. Point out how we don't actually have two choices and the party front liners come out and say a vote not for their party is in reality a vote for the other party. Then they say, "[blah, blah, blah] vote like us or the world will literally end." I'm not sure if they are serious anymore.
No. But we have to work with what we got.
No 😭😭
No. Send help.
Please help us.
OTOH in some countries choice was poisoned with chemical weapon twice and then killed in prison.
Damn, that's your standard? Russia?
Typical "Our system is perfect because it's not the worst" thinking, the kind that leads you slowly to the end of democracy
I know. It's called говнохранительство(shitkeeping). Our system between first and third worst systems in Europe. Just saying that here there even less choice.
Republican: He has 91 felony charges and in debt for AT LEAST 355 million dollars. Let's make him our president, make this country GREAT AGAIN! 🙏
Around $440MM if you throw in the $83MM he owes in that recent defamation suit
I'm sure being in so much debt wouldn't influence the odds of him being corrupted by foreign interests...
100% odds cannot get any higher, so new debt won't influence that.
HE'S FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
What if we had more choices? Why does our choice have to an old ass man and an old ass man with felonies.
They are all missing the point.
What's a realistic way to get out of a 2-party system?
Keep in mind that any change will require that the party in power enacts it, and they're one of the two parties in the two party system. Also, keep in mind that US elections are "first past the post", so voting for a third party weakens the candidate you otherwise would have considered.
2-party system in reality seems even worse than 1-party. At least single party can't point at each other and say "blame them".
One of the key benefits of a democracy is that they are seen as relatively stable. In the systems that were common before (monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, etc.) there were frequently rebellions or coups. One reason for that is that in a democracy, people feel like they have an option to change the system instead of just violence: voting. But, that's a feeling that they can change the system. It isn't necessarily true.
In a 2 party system where both parties claim to represent different views, people think that voting for the other party will result in the change they want. But, often it doesn't, because that isn't the change that the rich people and corporations want, and their money allows them to keep certain things off limits for both parties.
In a 1 party system, people might realize that if the party doesn't want to make a change, the only way to have the change happen is a coup or a revolution. But, 2 parties and the illusion of choice keeps people voting instead of rioting or rebelling, so the system stays around longer.
How will women ever get the right to vote without the right to vote? If that can be achieved, I think there are ways to ditch FPTP.
Universal suffrage was inevitable. It was only a matter of time until indigenous people, black people, and women, were considered people.
Plus there’s a lot more “what’s in it for me” for politicians with those groups. You’re unlocking a whole new demographic of people who may want to vote for you, and certainly won’t want to vote for someone who is against their suffrage.
Changing the voting system seems like a vital part of a solution.
Term limits may be anorher.
But the flood of money and influemce delivered by Citizens United has overwhelmed most checks and balances.
Despite how you may feel about Andrew Yang and his presidential bid, one of the ideas in his platform was meant to counteract some of it.
He called it Democracy Dollars and it was $300/yr of earmarked money, sepearte from his UBI money, that was provided to every voting citizen to spend on political donations - candidates, committies, etc. at local, state, or federal levels.
This would amount to over $1T of non corporate lobbying to help balance out the foriegn and/or corporare PAC sponsorships.
The trouble is that the people who could enact laws to change the voting system belong to parties that would suffer if the voting system were changed.
States where Referendums are a thing might be a good path forward.
Term limits only work if the limits were applied to big money donors. Otherwise, they just end up putting money even more in control.
Change the voting system. Preferential or many others, pretty much everything beats first past the post
The trouble is that the people who could enact laws to change the voting system belong to parties that would suffer if the voting system were changed.
A good first step would be to pass HR 1 For The People Act and then from there elect members of the party of progressive reform. Even just Independents who caucus alongside the party of reform.
A realistic way to never get out is to elect conservatives who by definition do not want reform, at least 34 or enough to stop any supermajority votes so they can filibuster nonstop for days, but for good measure enough for them to elect a majority leader who never calls things to vote such as Mitch "The Legislature Reaper" McConnell who let countless bills die on the senate floor having never been called to vote.
So, the best way to get third parties is by voting for one of the two main parties?
As long as one of them is committed to electoral reform. But no, if not, you're trying to vote for the least destructive person. Biden is the least destructive person. Best not let Trump have America just because you can't get electoral reform this election cycle.
They'd have to be more committed to electoral reform than to their survival as a party. I don't know of any cases where that has actually happened.
Women's suffrage. Men voted to reduce their own power by giving women the right to vote.
Ok, that was a group that gave up power, but it wasn't a political party that gave up power. IMO it's going to be much harder to get a political party to give up power.
Or Independents who caucus with one of the two main parties to pass majority and supermajority reform, yes. However, in tough races then splitting the votes between progressive candidates is counterproductive.
Now is the best time to make more parties. When one is really weak. The Republicans are ready to fracture. There just needs to be many to replace them. Same with the Dems. Once we have like 6 choices, then it will finally become like most Europeans and for the people. Because there is no other alternative but to be accountable and keep the job.
In many ways, now is the worst time to make other parties because elections are so close. If you elect a 3rd party senator or congressperson, you might tip the balance so your least favourite big party takes control.
But, say you think it is a great time to do it. What's your realistic way to make it happen? The two big parties have control and they don't want other parties.
I'm not saying for this election. I mean it's a good time after this election. It takes time to build up steam for these things.
I also don't care. I just look at how Europe has better options and how they run their elections. I would like to copy it. Because they also have the highest satisfaction as a citizen.
Europe has always had multiple parties. It's possible to go from having multiple parties to functionally having only 2 parties. I don't know of any case where it has gone the other way.
Look, for example, at how many parties were in the running for Germany's first election after WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_West_German_federal_election
The biggest party got just 30% of the vote. The 7th biggest party was still big enough to get 3% of the vote.
Or look at the history of French elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_elections_in_France
Even in the 1700s, there were never fewer than 3 strong parties. Since the 1870s, it's more typical to have at least 6 parties splitting the vote.
You can't just magic that up, it has to start like that. Once it gets down to 2 parties (or one party) those two parties make it so that any vote for a 3rd party is effectively a thrown-away vote.
Ranked choice voting.
Ok, so to get ranked choice voting, you're going to...?
Vote for a member of a political party that claims they'll implement it? In reality, they won't, because ranked choice voting hurts the two main parties and helps small parties.
Violence, coup d'etat, revolution, and civil war. This is the history of the change in human civilization.
You have plenty of choices, none of them are viable other than R vs D because there are 350 million people in the US and they're mostly all going to vote based on established branding of the big 2 parties. Convincing everyone to vote 3rd party in a FPTP electoral system is literally impossible.
most people don't vote
Then we will die till it changes.
What if we lived in a Utopia? What if "What-Ifs" were more productive uses of our time?
Have you ever contacted your representative with these concerns? They accept emails, these days. I once sent my Representative 38 pages split among 3 peer reviewed studies because her stance on immigration and crime conflicted with mine, and she thanked me for sharing my concerns.
I don't see how someone younger is any better just by dint of being young. That's what a VP and a line of succession is for.
This is going to get all the more confusing if/when life extension rears its head.
What kills me about this is that a felon can become president, but isn't even allowed to vote. Like how does THAT make sense??
There's only a handful of states where felons have no ability to vote after they've served their full sentence (including parole).
The big issue is that people in jail can't vote at all in any election despite them being counted towards the population count. (except for I think Vermont allows this? I forget exactly and can't be assed to look it up atm)
Genuine question: has he actually been convicted of any felonies yet?
No, he has not been convicted.
Nah, they keep saying "convicted" in the news when he loses civil trials
Never thought I'd be defending Trump but he's only lost civil trials, not criminal ones. He's not a convicted felons, and there is no guarantee that will happen.
What you prefer: Russia or USA? In Russia felon can't be elected, but can vote, in USA what you said.
That, and there is a succession if Biden becomes incapacitated and/or steps down. Harris takes over; most/all of his cabinet stays. BFD.
We can thank our stars that the "liberal media" does nothing to call out this bothsiderist/horse race BS. Tiny d is a criminal and a fascist bent on being a dictator. The other guy is, OMG, OLD (even though tiny d is nearly as old as him)! I cannot tell which is worse!
When do you think people will learn that "Our candidate is the second worst choice!" is not a good campaign strategy?
They've tried telling people all the accomplishments and good things he's done, but the media and whiners on the internet only focus on the negative.
Biden's like a hunk of old, hard cheese with a little mold on it: you can still stomach it if you cut off (ignore) the bad part. Trump is horse shit in the shape of cheese with lots of orange food coloring.
When the baby bombers eventually die off.
I hate to tell you that us Gen-Xers as well as Millennials and Gen-Zers have more than our fair share of assholes in it. I don't think the Baby Boomers dying off will do as much as you hope they will.
Gen X here. People that were assholes in high school are mostly assholes now.
A few people that I even thought were good in high school became more assholish as they aged.
I've watched people drift away from empathy. It's sad.
how would they learn this? what circumstances could befall them that could overcome "the other side had russian interference"?
They should have learned many lessons when Clinton lost. "The other guy is worse" campaigns don't mobilize voters, they are vulnerable to divisions within parties, and they are vulnerable to similar third party candidates siphoning off votes.
Isn't Trump 77? It's not like he's some young buck. The argument against Biden's age is quite strained when your own candidate is almost just as old.
It's a hard concept to grasp, but the vast majority of people critical of Biden's age don't like Trump either.
It isn't a comparison between 81 and 77 I'm concerned about. They are both too old to run for presidency!
Two candidates pre retirement age would be great about now.
Tell that to all the trumpsters who complain about Biden's age. They don't seem to be particularly concerned about Trump's age.
They can't detect hypocrisy and much less spell it.
Whereas I will take the guy who is 81 over the treasonous rapist wannabe dictator who has 91 felony counts.
In fact, all of that other stuff comes before the felony counts.
Not sure why it doesn't for Swalwell.
Because it was another number. No need to be obtuse.
I can honestly say I have no idea what you're talking about.
The "81 vs 91" thing makes for a snappier soundbite. It doesn't mean that the other things don't matter, just that there was a catchier way to mention the felony counts
I would suggest "I would vote for the guy who's 81 over the rapist treasonous wannabe dictator" would be a better soundbite.
I can't help but assume you don't work in politics and have zero experience with this
That is true. Do you?
I would have thought him being a rapist and wanting to be a dictator would be better reasons to convince people not to vote for him.
Do you think this one sentence was the only opportunity every Democrat had to talk about this?
I think Democrats are not talking about Trump being a rapist very much and not talking about how he wants to be a dictator enough. And instead are going for what they think are pithy soundbites.
"Don't vote for the rapist" seems like a pretty good sell to me.
Perhaps the zeitgeist of a large swath American voting public is opaque and inscrutable to you then. But that's not a bad thing. Sympatico with those views could be far worse.
But you're debating the catchiness of a phrase. There might be nobler fights out there to choose. Is it not enough that the rep in question is speaking out against a wannabe dictator? Or are we going to split into factions concerned with the degree of condemnation and the minutiae of what words he used to condemn him with?
Yes, well, someone thought differently about how they would answer. Certainly there's room for that?
I don't have an issue with what you posted outside of the small chance that it's an unnecessary purity test. I don't think that's your goal but what do I know
There is indeed. Is there also not room for my suggesting a different answer might be better?
Edit: Apparently multiple people think I don't deserve to give my opinion. Should I delete my initial post?
no.
Nobody who votes for Trump is voting in their own best interest, because Trump cannot vote.
Legal woes is a weird way to say criminal actions
I wonder when the ADA will file a lawsuit against the constitution for Ageism. Looks like it's only for old shits. 40yr+?
Is there precedent for president being national born being illegal too?
https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
It’s legal to discriminate if employees are less than 55 years of age. It’s only illegal to discriminate if people are too old. We’re a gerontocracy.
Well done to the press staffer who came up with that line.
Decent homeoteleuton.
Fair point by Swalwell.
I think the frustration comes from the fact that this could have easily been avoided. The primaries didn't have to be a formality.
Obviously Biden is better than Trump but I really think a much younger President would be the best thing for the USA in the near future.
How is someone younger in any substantive way better?
Biden isn’t just old, he’s very old. Have you ever spent much time around an 85 year old? They may not be totally senile, but they are almost all losing language skills by this point. Pretty important skill for someone who speaks on behalf of their country.
On balance, the relative recklessness of actuarial tables VS. Trump is kind of a laughable comparison. Would it be better to have someone more likely to survive, sure, but... what are the options here? Lunatic, or someone who according to some tables has a bigger chance of dying than someone younger? Why is this even a question? If there was some viable 45 year old candidate running against Biden, then maybe it's a point worth making, but that doesn't even exist.
They don't agree that there is any notable or significant cognitive decline and point out that forgetting it mixing basic things is not an indicator of decline. Sure he is older and there is going to be a difference in the pep in his step, but to turn it into a cognitive diagnosis is very different
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.
“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.
Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents.
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” special counsel Robert Hur wrote in the report.
Ezra Klein, a columnist and podcast host for The New York Times, made an argument that Biden should stop running for reelection due to the scrutiny the president is facing over his age and memory Friday on his podcast “The Ezra Klein Show.”
Trump still faces several other legal challenges heading into the 2024 election season, including in the ongoing Georgia probe.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 43%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Choosing between a maggot and a spider, I see.
Swalwell went on to voice support for the Politburo and denied claims of politically motivated show trials.