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

politics

19120 readers
3377 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 121 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 55 points 9 months ago (73 children)

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?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 148 points 9 months ago (9 children)

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

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think septics is the right word but I am also high

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

His age is irrelevant. Can he do the fucking job?

His age is the main reason that he can't do the job particularly well.

load more comments (70 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He's saying this like Trump being 77 is somehow young or any different than Biden being 81

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 9 months ago (10 children)

There were definitely people 4 years ago trying to make the discourse about age but it didn't really take hold.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 38 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, “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.”

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...

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 11 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Both instances are a huge fucking problem though. The first people who made the USA warned against a two party system.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Push for ranked choice voting for your state, and if we can get that implemented nationwide then we might be going somewhere.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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! 🙏

[–] DrMango@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Around $440MM if you throw in the $83MM he owes in that recent defamation suit

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm sure being in so much debt wouldn't influence the odds of him being corrupted by foreign interests...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 32 points 9 months ago (15 children)

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

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

most likely be dead

Rich people with medical care tend to live a long time, look at Jimmy Carter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] ElCanut@jlai.lu 29 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Damn, those are your choices? You okay america?

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

No. But we have to work with what we got.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago (25 children)

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.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

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!

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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??

[–] Sivat@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

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)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 9 months ago (6 children)

When do you think people will learn that "Our candidate is the second worst choice!" is not a good campaign strategy?

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 23 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

I think the frustration comes from the fact that this could have easily been avoided. The primaries didn't have to be a formality.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] charles@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago (33 children)

Because it was another number. No need to be obtuse.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Legal woes is a weird way to say criminal actions

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 9 points 9 months ago

Nobody who votes for Trump is voting in their own best interest, because Trump cannot vote.

load more comments
view more: next ›