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.

  • naught@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I disagree only because of the system in which you are voting. What you were saying is only true if you would not otherwise or could not otherwise have voted for Joe Biden, who probably aligns with most of your other policy positions.

        I wish that I could vote for Cornel West, but the actual choice you are faced with is Joe Biden or Trump. to vote for anyone else is to, at best, abstain from the election. so maybe West is the absolute moral choice, but which choice begets less suffering in the real world?

        Appreciate your perspective on this

      • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        …Are you downvoting yourself? You know we can see the vote counts, right? Default is everyone gives themselves one upvote when they post anything. You have zero upvotes and one downvote as of right now.

        Anyway, the people who are planning on voting third party aren’t necessarilly taking away votes from other candidates since they would likely just not vote at all if there wasn’t the third party option. Having them come to the ballots at all is still important due to down ballot candidates.

    • Count042@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I believe all of that, and I believe that it must stop.

        It’s really easy to evoke dead children in war zone and get justifiably morally outraged. I personally don’t know which atrocity outweighs another. There are so many millions of people affected by who is elected, and in such complex and minute ways. what about the suffering Houthi children? Syrian? Afghans? what about the suffering of women in America without access to abortion or healthcare? What about the poor without access to healthcare at all? are their slow deaths just less important because they r less acute?

        what happens if the United States shows willingness to impose its (correct and moral) will on its long-standing allies? what effect does that have on foreign policy and other nations that we support? Can Joe Biden switch off the child-genocide button, or is it a lot more complex than that? Can a leader existing in the real world always make a 100% absolute moral choice? do I trust Donald Trump or Joe Biden more with that choice?

        I can appreciate your fervor on this issue but I would ask that you consider refraining calling people genocide-supporters or racists because they have a nuanced view that’s different than your own.

        I could never support Israel and their genocide, but I also can’t support Trump. in my estimation a vote for anyone but Biden is a vote for Trump because of the utterly broken backwards system we use.