Like Swalwell, given that most of the 18 announced Democrats have done nothing of substance in their lives, his chances would appear to be better than average.

Not a single, solitary chance in the universe.

Dan

Swalwell has less substance then all the other announced candidates.
Swalwell has returned nothing to this district.

I just fell down and hurt my back laughing so hard. Just wait until the east bay girls start lining up about this guy.

Well, I guess you guys get your wish. I seem to remember him saying something about not registering to run for the House in 2020 if he runs for president. So he's going to be out of your political lives now.

BBBBAAAAHHHHWWWWHHHHAAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!
....please do....please do.

Worst congressman in history. Wants to nuke his constituents!

Ok, who's the joker that gave him the $47 to file?

If you look up the term "empty suit", you're likely to (removed) Eric's photo.

I would have thought that the joke was the fact that there exist Pleasanton elementary school students who are more mature and have longer attention spans and bigger vocabularies than the current President.

Doug, as you are so fond of saying " stay on topic".

@Doug Also

Sorry for throwing cold water on the party. My bad.

I think he's great where he is. I don't think he has the experience to be President. It's much too early for him to run. Kennedy was 43 when he ran and ended up being the youngest President - and came from a deep political background. Sorry, wait a little longer, Eric.

how appropriate for Swallwell to announce on a Comedy Central TV show!

It's hard to watch this guy on TV interviews. He's been a "sock puppet" for Nancy Pelosi ever since he got into office -- Perhaps a Mommy syndrome?. When he gets dumped by the Democratic voters, maybe we'll be rid of him -- he's a joke.

It is sad that the democrats . . . seemingly each and every one of them at this rate . . . think it’s a field day and they all can beat Trump. I like Obama’s reference to a circular firing squad.

Find a few, much fewer, good people to support; put a platform together, and run hard. This looks more like a clown car. Entertaining, but with no substance.

All the negative comments yet he's been YOUR representative since he was a child. Very telling about the community which elected him.

Hah,
That's because no dems will run against him and apparently republicans can't win here anymore or aren't willing be dissected by the media. I hope now that we have this great opportunity (IF Swalwell keeps his promise to not run for both offices) we'll get some quality choices from both parties.

From the moment he was elected to Congress he projected a condescending approach to residents at community meetings as if most of us couldn't possibly understand his real smart intellect. I challenged him with position issues right off the bat. Interesting he's turned out not to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Carrying on the Trump witch hunt he's been crying about for the last two years instead of working too fix immigration loopholes, national security fixes, enhancing the recovered economy by eliminating crippling regulations, corruption in government, real veteran issues instead of constant photo op's doesn't work for my local and national extended family members. Good luck with that presidential run Eric. Nah! Just kidding.

Hooray! Swalwell joins the legion of idiot Democrats running for President. Is he going to pick his "mentor" Tim Sbranti as his running mate? That would be a team of dumb and dumber. Or, he might pick AOC as his running mate, and it would be dumber and dumbest. Do you suppose his "Mama", Queen Pelosi, put him up to it?

Swalwell has been mediocre at everything he has done, including when he attended school in Dublin. That is, until he got to Congress. Now he is pathetic at what he does. Now the gets on news shows and espouses left-wing loon talking points and his dumbness reaches out from the TV and whacks you.

Swallwell, go for it. If you get the nomination, the debates will be the TV events of the decade with President Trump using you for a punching bag. He always has a nickname for his opponent. Swalwell's nickname might be "Elevator Doesn't Reach the Top Eric".

He's a nice guy. He helped us get rid of Stark, because the democratic party certainly wasn't going to help.

But he is at his appropriate pay grade. He's not going any higher, and if a strong democrat candidate wanted to bump him in this district...I think they could do it. He's just not a strong candidate.

Gee, a lot of harsh comments here about Swallwell considering the fact that he got 73% of the votes in his last election. The 27% are very agitated and vocal today.

I am certainly not a Swalwell fan and did not vote for him in the last election. I want to know what he is going to do to unite the country and when he is going to stop chasing his tail around collusion and obstruction. That being said.... he is a much better candidate that Elizabeth, Kamala and Cory Booker. I am sure we are going to see him on MSNBC a lot over the next 12 months if he last that long.

If he gets the nomination, I look forward to watching "Clash of the Egos'.

the only difference between swalwell and pete stark is their age.

Honorable Eric Swalwell:

Please state one item of legislation you have authored, passed in the United States House of Representatives, passed in the United States Senate, was signed into law by the President of the United States, other than the post office name in Dublin California.

Noted: You did not write, but took credit for DNA legislation you signed onto, which was authored by Orrin Hatch, Utah.

So the 15th Congressional District in CA represents the 11th wealthiest district in the COUNTRY. At least according to Widipedia. Is that right? Wealthiest, not necessarily the smartest. Just wondering how he's going to appeal to the general citizenry of the U.S. - by threatening to nuke them if they don't turn in their semi-automatic weapons (as an initial condition, to be followed by more stringent confiscation)? Oh yeah - he was kidding - at least Snopes assumes so, because even they think that's a bit problematic. Sounds like someone who grew up in the 11th wealthiest district. Go big - be bold. A saying that resonates with an ominous tone. Wake up people. Defend our constitution.

What Swalwell said about the government having nuclear weapons made sense and doesn't deserve an apology. His point was that the US government has weapons far more powerful than anything possessed by the citizenry, and citizens are powerless against those weapons. The second amendment is out of obsolete.

That said, I don't get why he thinks he can win a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on a gun control platform especially with such a thin resume.

Eric Swalwell is a total loser and lies 24/7. Tucker Carlson buries this clown on every appearance Swalwell has on his show. The guy lies like a rug. Never came up with one piece of info on collusion with Trump and Russians. I am ashamed he represents me in Congress. He has done nothing for our district in Congress. Plus ,the guy is a complete scumbag. Actually,he is lower than scum! Go back to selling saddles in Peru! I don't know how this person can look at himself in the mirror in the morning,except he has an ego the size of Texas. Big group in the Tri-Valley are going to try to vote him out of office,if he still runs for Congress. President! You got to be kidding me! Trump would mop up this loser!

"The second amendment is out of obsolete."

Yeah...take away a natural right to defend yourself against invaders, both foreign and domestic. That'll solve everything.

The tyrants on the left would LOVE to take away guns, that way an un-armed populace gets turned into slaves.

Everyone should own a gun.

@Halli Burns :”Eric Swalwell is a total loser and lies 24/7. ...... President! You got to be kidding me! Trump would mop up this loser!”

Yeah, anyone who hates lies and liars should vote for an honest guy like Donald Trump.

“Sometimes sarcasm helps us to think more clearly”
- Dilbert

BobB - so the 2nd Amendment is obsolete? I guess that means you think self-protection is obsolete, because only law-abiding citizens would be unarmed - you know that, right? Who is going to protect you, BobB, against those who know you aren't armed? I'm pretty sure Swalwell is not going to, but I bet he's somehow protected by firearms. He just doesn't see the need for the people he represents to be protected, or to be free to make the decisions on how we'll do that.

The 2nd Amendment protects us, not the dingdongs in congress, because it allows us to decide whether we will be armed; but an intruder, or attacker, doesn't know what we've decided. That's called freedom, BobB. Embrace it - it's a great blessing.

"What Swalwell said about the government having nuclear weapons made sense and doesn't deserve an apology. His point was that the US government has weapons far more powerful than anything possessed by the citizenry, and citizens are powerless against those weapons. The second amendment is out of obsolete."


It makes no sense at all that criminals would either care about and/or comply with Swalwell's gun ban/confiscation program. This is just harassment towards those having nothing to do with crime/violence to please the left wing base of his party that believes mass shootings are "caused" by these kinds of firearms. They are not.

In response to what the government should do if citizens did not comply with turning in guns to the government, this genius said:

"...And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes."

So here we have a not-very-bright congressman who, though honest with his opinion, is very clear that he would use the military power of the State to physically enforce his gun-grabbing ploy.

Think about that for a second.

Why would anyone ever want to elect a democrat to any office?

Just no.

Concerning the “nukes” comment, Swalwell was just toying with a gun-nut troll who was using the favorite gun-nut line of “I need guns to overthrow the government if I don’t like it!”. Swalwell was just reminding the gun-nut that modern democracy doesn’t rest on widespread ownership of guns (just ask the citizens of other modern democracies like Canada, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Germany, etc., etc) and, besides, the sorts of weapons that the gun-nuts have are not very effective against the modern military might of a professional army.

Wow such negative comments. At least he has the guts to try and do something about the miserable person in the White House. I don’t think he will get the nomination but you can’t shame him for trying.

Just as Doug says, widespread gun ownership is not important for the protection of freedom. It may have been important historically, such as at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution, but it is not today. Historians will tell you, the second amendment was never about hunting. It was more about protection against tyrannical government.

The second amendment is out of date and needs to go.

We need to take a serious look at what was done in Australia. We could do something like that here. Many guns could be bought by the government. The remaining guns would be restricted by type and quantity, and owners would be registered.

"The second amendment is out of date and needs to go. We need to take a serious look at what was done in Australia. We could do something like that here. Many guns could be bought by the government. The remaining guns would be restricted by type and quantity, and owners would be registered."

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. There are not enough states to overturn/change the Constitution and many state constitutions have their own version of it.

What is out of date/needs to go is the irrational reasoning process that firearms (objects) "cause" violence and the people that deliberately misuse them are bystanders and/or victims that have no control over their behaviors. It sounds good to so called progressives but doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Millions of people own/have permits to carry guns and do absolutely nothing wrong with them. What is your explanation for that? All of them are just "criminals in disguise" and need to be disarmed for "prevention" purposes so certain people can feel better while doing nothing to stop/rationalizing the behaviors of the real criminals doing harm?

@MichaelB : "What is out of date/needs to go is the irrational reasoning process that firearms (objects) "cause" violence...."

Wow, Michael. You sure are giving that Straw Man a good pummeling!

Try again. And this time without deliberately distorting the other side's position.

I don't know how this got over to the 2nd amendment, but you're not getting my guns. And if you want more gun control...then use two hands. And if you really want gun control then lets have more abortion control.

@James Michael: "And if you really want gun control then lets have more abortion control."

I want you to know that I 100% support your choice and control over whether to have or not have an abortion, James. After all, it is your body.

"Wow, Michael. You sure are giving that Straw Man a good pummeling!
Try again. And this time without deliberately distorting the other side's position."

The other side's position is clear. Violence is the "fault" of society/guns/legal firearms ownership. The "solution" is to shut down/restrict the legal process for everyone regardless of their actions/background.

The entire Parkland incident was blamed on "assault weapons" and the need to ban them from those not involved with mass shootings as the "solution" to stop future ones. Same with what happened in New Zealand - even though it already had strict gun control measures. Sandy Hook families are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer for what Adam Lanza did.

I suggest you "try again". Explain why it was "necessary" to force people to turn in their legally owned magazines in this state (before a judge disallowed it),ban gun shows once held at Alameda County Fairgounds, and run all of the legal firearms vendors out of business in Pleasanton back in the late 1990s. All of these were pitched as "prevention" measures by their supporters vs. holding those accountable who had violated existing firearms laws.

@James Michael,

Second amendment is relevant to this thread because gun control is the major issue Swalwell is running on. Abortion is not.

@MichaelB,

That is not my argument.

By the way, New Zealand today passed a ban on semiautomatic firearms. Good for them.

I'm always impressed that guns is the topic that stirs so much passion on these comments.

I totally get that gun ownership is a passion for many, and so they correctly feel threatened by any action to restrict gun ownership. I think the Second Amendment conversation is a red herring here: people are using it as a stand in for the real claim that gun ownership is a moral right.

The problem with debating morals on a comment thread is that people won't hear each other.

The problem with self protection by gun ownership as a moral right is the same as not immunizing as a moral right. Just as the existence of a small but sizable number of unimmunized people put others at risk from infection of a once eradicated disease, the possession of guns by a small but sizable number of people put others at risk from gun violence because every once in a while one of those gun owners goes crazy.

Should one bad apple spoil the bunch? It depends if you are looking at it from a perspective of rights or one of outcomes. If outcomes matter, eradicate guns and gun violence will shrink to its lowest level possible but not be eliminated. Eradicate free speech and revolutions will shrink to its lowest level possible but not be eliminated.

So it is clearly problematic to enact gun control without being extremely clear what the principles behind it are and what the limits will be. That makes it much trickier than, say, mandating vaccinations. But it doesn't make it impossible. It just requires ensuring to gun owners that they will be safe too, as in that their own perception of rights won't be severely impaired.

Mr Swalwell has been 'grooming' himself for this, for a long time.

I for one, hope he fails. I have not voted for him as my congressman, and it is embarrassing to watch him on TV, listen to him on the radio, or read his remarks online or in the papers.

He jumped real early on the Collusion train, and now as Mr. Mueller's report states, there was no collusion with Russia.

THAT is why the Entire Investigation was launched. A Dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign in order to get 'dirt' on Trump) was used as evidence...and all the Dems jumped on it and ran with it as if it contained all true and validated facts. It did not, but that did not stop Mr. Swallwell.

Even after the news that there was NO Collusion, Mr Swallwell has stood by his comments on Chris Matthews show, that The President is "AN AGENT" of Russia. He doubled down on that when asked did he really think he was a Russian Agent. YES, he does.

This guy is stuck. He made this big deal about Collusion (proved false by Mueller) and then proceeds to go so far as to NOW calling the President a Russian Agent.

Don't keep repeating stupid comments already proven false Mr Swallwell. Own up! You gave it your best shot and hoped it would be true. But to know it is NOT TRUE and still harp on it and go even further and add fuel to the fire (a Russian AGENT?)....is just plain ridiculous.



If you feel you must, you should put your 'hope' into the part where Mueller said he did not have enough evidence to show Obstruction...and leaves that to others. Personally I think that will go no where as well.

If he didn't Collude, then what did he obstruct? Because he fired Comey? He is the President and can fire anyone he wants. That guy was out to get Trump day one...and I am glad Barr is looking at what evidence was used to start this whole debacle. The Dem paid for Dossier?

The top FBI leaders wanted "insurance" (ie: Dossier) to get Trump Out. Explain how anyone could argue that was NOT conspiracy by them.

Lots of Trump haters. I am not a fan either, but the Dems need to move on. Show us they can lead and get things done for ALL Americans.

So far - they show me nothing.


PS: Eric, You will never confiscate our guns. May get you some votes from far left, and more TV appearances on CNN and MSNBC, but is a dumb campaign move.

@Ornithology :"He made this big deal about Collusion (proved false by Mueller) ..."

Mueller made no statement that collusion was "proven" false. We don't have access to the full report, but here is a quote from the report: "The investigation did not establish that member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".

In other words, Mueller was saying that there is not enough to indict or prosecute. He did NOT say that collusion or attempts at collusion were "proven false". In fact, Trump admitted that his son Trump, Jr., met with Russians in a Trump Tower meeting in an attempt to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from them (and not to the lie to discuss "Russian adoptions" as Trump, Jr, initially claimed.) That's "attempted collusion". It was an attempted secret cooperation with a hostile foreign power. The only reason that this act of attempted collusion wasn't true collusion was that the Russians didn't actually have any dirt on Hillary to offer at the meeting. So, yeah, you can say that Don, Jr., was only guilty of "attempted collusion" rather than real "collusion", just like someone may be guilty of "attempted bank robbery" rather than real "bank robbery".

Oh, and furthermore, six Trump associates have gone to federal prison or are going to federal prison for felonies associated with the Trump campaign. That's the most people associated with any President going to federal prison for felonies for any US President since Nixon. So please pardon us if we don't think that Trump is coming out of all of this smelling like roses as you apparently think he is.

It is not secret:
The CIA spies on its own president.
It is their job.
They spy on everyone.
U S Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy stated as much following the assassination of his brother. He privately disclosed CIA collusion in his brothers assaniation.

He is a waste of time, and has nothing to offer the people....

He is a little bit strange all right, but I wouldn’t say that he’s a “waste of time”. It’s nice to inject some occasional wackiness into a forum in order to keep things from getting too serious.

"six Trump associates have gone to federal prison or are going to federal prison for felonies associated with the Trump campaign."

This is a lie and a demonstrable one at that.

You are so ill-informed I can't even believe I respond. In fact, you remind me of Cholo.

Doug:

This is also a quote from the report:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.




I stand by my comments above and Eric needs to move on.

I love that people will accept a Democrat Trump to replace the current Trump

BobB,

England has had a gun ban for quite a while. The new weapon of choice? Knives. The problem is, knives are almost impossible to use defensively. And you can't really require permits etc. to buy or own a knife.

The result? London's murder rate is now higher than New York City's:
Web Link

@D, yet, even though the homicide rate in London is higher than NYC for the first time, the article states that more people were still killed by guns in NYC than by knives in London! Your article proves nothing about your ludicrous assertion that knives are more difficult to defend oneself from than guns. Also, just because there were increased homicides in London over this snapshot 2 month period (most by knives) if you look at overall gun deaths vs knife homicides of the US vs UK including accidental gun deaths and mass murders over the year or longer it’s not even remotely close. Nice try though!

Yup, cherry-picking of its worst at its worst. Also, by choosing NYC as the particular American city to make comparisons with, "D" is playing on the fact that NYC has an image of being a city with an extremely high murder rate when in fact it doesn't. Cities such as New Orleans LA, Cleveland OH, and Memphis TN have about a 10-times higher murder rate than NYC. Stockton has about about a 5-times higher murder rate than NYC. San Francisco has about a 2-times higher murder rate than NYC. Heck, even Madison WI, Seattle, and Portland have higher murder rates than NYC! So of all these other American cities that "D" could have chosen, why on earth did he/she choose NYC to make a murder rate comparison with?

(That was a rhetorical question - we know why "D" chose NYC.)

List of US Cities by Crime Rate: Web Link
- - - - -

Good to see that he'll finally move on from collusion and obstruction. Let's see how he interfaces with the Russians who are all over the Silicon Valley. Better stay away from that Borst Comrade.

What about our District? Interstate and mass transit improvements, work force housing, and anything else that would help Swalwell ‘s constituents. At least a former Assembly member Kathleen Baker, a Republican, helped to establish a joint powers agreement to secure Tri Valley transportation improvements for our area. I see nothing thus far from our Congressman that helps our District to obtain Federal monies.

Recently elected Hayward city council woman Aisha Wahab has announced that she is running for the congressional seat held by Eric Swalwell.

She has determined that this seat is an open seat by way of swalwell announcement to run for presidnt.

Oh my.

So let me get this straight: London, which has a strict NO GUNS policy, has a higher rate of murder than NYC and there are people are saying that this proves that gun control is needed...for NYC?

LOL!

You people slay me with your logic!

I hope to see some of you today at Dublin High School for Swalwell's campaign rally.

@DKHSK,

London doesn't have a "NO GUNS" policy, but it is more restrictive than New York. Both cities have comparably low murder rates.

How ironic that the Congressman who sympathized more with the illegal immigrant who shot Kate Steinle than he did with the victim and her family is now running a presidential campaign with gun control as his mantra! Wake up 15th district--Swalwell is another hypocritical politician.

"...who sympathized more with the illegal immigrant who shot Kate Steinle than he did with the victim and her family..."

What a ridiculous piece of made up propaganda, Susie. He does not.

"but it is more restrictive than New York. Both cities have comparably low murder rates."

So what are you arguing for?

The point is that it is VASTLY more restrictive in London and in your words "both cities have comparably low murder rates."

You totally and unequivocally show that the absence/reduction of guns does not mean murder rates go down. At least in those two cities.

@DKHSK

We already discussed and debunked this pro-gun argument concerning London vs. NYC murder rates, Dan. Not only are you late to the party, but you also failed to read or understand the previous comments on the subject. I saw your previous comment on this thread from two days ago, but thought that your post was so weak that it wasn't even worth responding to.