this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
1209 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3222 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

false equivalence

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

[–] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

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.