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.
Because it was another number. No need to be obtuse.
I can honestly say I have no idea what you’re talking about.
The “81 vs 91” thing makes for a snappier soundbite. It doesn’t mean that the other things don’t matter, just that there was a catchier way to mention the felony counts
I would suggest “I would vote for the guy who’s 81 over the rapist treasonous wannabe dictator” would be a better soundbite.
I can’t help but assume you don’t work in politics and have zero experience with this
That is true. Do you?
I would have thought him being a rapist and wanting to be a dictator would be better reasons to convince people not to vote for him.
Do you think this one sentence was the only opportunity every Democrat had to talk about this?
I think Democrats are not talking about Trump being a rapist very much and not talking about how he wants to be a dictator enough. And instead are going for what they think are pithy soundbites.
“Don’t vote for the rapist” seems like a pretty good sell to me.
Are they talking about the genocide enough or is that one of the topics you’d like to sweep under the rug?
Perhaps the zeitgeist of a large swath American voting public is opaque and inscrutable to you then. But that’s not a bad thing. Sympatico with those views could be far worse.
But you’re debating the catchiness of a phrase. There might be nobler fights out there to choose. Is it not enough that the rep in question is speaking out against a wannabe dictator? Or are we going to split into factions concerned with the degree of condemnation and the minutiae of what words he used to condemn him with?