Swalwell on Biden age: ‘I’ll take the guy who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts’
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 c…
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
Sounds like oligopolic autocracy
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.
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.
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.
Term limits only work if the limits were applied to big money donors. Otherwise, they just end up putting money even more in control.
Changing the voting system seems like a vital part of a solution.
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.
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.
Violence, coup d'etat, revolution, and civil war. This is the history of the change in human civilization.
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.
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.
Then we will die till it changes.
most people don't vote
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.