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

politics

19240 readers
2586 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 2 years 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
[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

You can make the claim for anyone 65 and up truthfully. That's the downside of running old ass candidates.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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.

I believe that's called a running mate, and not too many people seem keen on a President Harris.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago

What's wrong with Harris?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

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.