This 2020 Democrat made an announcement that took everyone by surprise

The Democrat field for president is growing every single day.

New candidates continue to drop in.

And one 2020 Democrat just made an announcement that took everyone by surprise.

As crowded as the Democrat field for president is, very few are gaining much traction.

And since day one, former Vice President Joe Biden has held a sizable lead.

But he is now threatened by a number of candidates, primarily Kamala Harris, who continue to successfully bash him on his inconsistent record.

This is what is happening at the top of the polling at least.

At the bottom, there is a bunch of nobody candidates who are sitting around hoping for some sort of miracle.

One of them is Eric Swalwell — at least until this week.

The California Congressman made a name for himself with some of the most insane calls for gun control among any of the candidates.

Swalwell wants full-on gun bans, including confiscation.

He has even threatened gun owners who wouldn’t comply with government “buy back” schemes saying “the government has nukes.”

As a result, his campaign’s coffins have been dry from the get go, as he’s been repeatedly slammed by opponents.

And it appears his missteps have doomed his candidacy, considering he just announced he is dropping out of the race.

The Daily Caller reports:

2020 Presidential candidate Eric Swalwell announced he is dropping out of the presidential race Monday at a press conference in California.

The California Rep. began his presidential bid three months ago, and was one of 24 main Democratic candidates. During his campaign, Swalwell struggled to gain traction and his poll numbers have peaked at 1%, East Bay Citizen reported. He is the first major Democratic candidate to drop out of the race.

“Today ends our presidential campaign, but it is the beginning of an opportunity in Congress with a new perspective shaped by the lives that have touched mine and our campaign throughout these last three months,” Swalwell announced Monday. “To bring that promise of America to all Americans.”

This makes Swalwell the first 2020 Democrat candidate to quit.

It isn’t surprising he’s dropping out — just that he did it so early.

Swalwell had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election, and it appears he caught on it quicker than most of the candidates in a similar position.

You may also like...

32 Responses

  1. hayward stewart says:

    You need to carry your sorry ass back to where ever you came from !

  2. Robert Laity says:

    Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President of VP. She , like Obama and McCain,Cruz,Rubio,Jindal,Swarzenegger,AOC, and several others, is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” (Art. 2, USConst)

  3. robert says:

    Really ? Really ? and what happened to your Boy/Girl in the 2016 Elections ? And supposedly it was in the Bag ? You really want Corrupt People to run the Country ? What did you personally get ???

  4. robert says:

    More to Follow ? But then again Come one n All – The Swamp is just Fine ?

  5. robert says:

    Yes Sireee x Better to be Armed than Unarmed ? Guns don’t Kill ? Lately – Suicide Bombers, Cars, Trucks, Vans , Knives, Machetes, Acid and you name it – but Guns Alone don’t Kill except in the hands of Assholes n Mental Cases n Deranged Persons

  6. Bill says:

    I love it, man. Get a grip! .

  7. Vasu Murti says:

    Gun violence IS a sanctity-of-life issue! A gun in one’s home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a criminal assault or homicide, an attempted or completed suicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill or injure in self-defense. (Kellermann, et al, 1998 Journal of Trauma, 42:263-67)

    In the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed, and more than 47 are injured, by a firearm every day. (CDC, NCHS, December 2006)

    The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

    The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992)

    A 1990 law banning the sale of “Saturday Night Special” handguns in Maryland was associated with reduced use of these guns by criminals, and a 9% lower rate of firearm homicides in the state between 1990-1998 than would have been expected had there been no law.

    Policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions are associated with a decreased risk of subsequent convictions. Misdemeanants who had allowed to purchase handguns prior to the passage of a California state law prohibiting such purchases had a rate of criminal offending 29% higher than that among misdemeanants who were denied handgun purchases after the law took effect.

    Every day in the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed and more than 47 are injured by a firearm.

    In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with firearms and 1,554 California children and youth under 21 were hospitalized with nonfatal firerarms injuries.

    One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost half of homes with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.

    68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the gun(s) from their own home or that of a relative. 61% of the attackers used handguns.

    Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire a handgun.

    In 2004, guns were used to kill:

    5 people in New Zealand
    37 in Sweden
    56 in Australia
    73 in England and Wales
    184 in Canada

    and 11,344 in the United States. God bless America.


    Gun control advocate Junling Hu writes:

    “A gun is a consumer product, sold for cash and purchased by individuals. While all other consumer products including teddy bears are subject to strict federal laws, guns are given a free pass. There are no safety regulation on guns thanks to the NRA’s lobbying efforts. Unsafe guns lead to accidents and death of adults and children at home. The ones who suffer are the gun owners.

    “A gun is also a lethal weapon. Falling into the wrong hand, it enables a criminal to kill, a gang member to fight, and a teenager to seek revenge. Guns are deadlier than tobacco, alcohol or gambling combined. While all of these are off limits to youngsters, and although a 20-year-old can be arrested for drinking a beer, he can go scot-free for buying a gun.

    “The debate over gun laws is muffled by the slogan, ‘We need less government regulation.’ It is as if government regulation is always wrong. These people ignore the fact that the government regulates every aspect of our life today. From water to air, to drugs and toys, everything touching us is regulated by law. Without the Clean Air Act, we would be breathing dirty air emissions from power plants; we would be drinking unsafe water. Without government regulation, medicines with fatal side effects would not be pulled off shelves and toys with lead poison would still be on the market. Government regulation affects our housing safety, our food quality, our driving safety (through speed limits and safety belt laws). As we live in a civilized society, the government serves as a mediator and enforcer as no individual can do.

    “The freedom of owning a gun has virtually nothing to do with abiding gun laws. Anyone can own an automobile, but they still need to register and get licenses for their cars. Everyone has the freedom of owning a house, but they still have to watch for zoning regulation and fire safety requirements.

    “Sensible gun laws govern manufacturing standard, product safety, and accessible by minors and criminals. Sensible gun laws govern the safety of our street, our school, and most importantly, the safety of our home.

    “Common sense gun laws such as closing gun show loophole, assault weapon ban, and child-lock are fundamentally needed to be sure guns do not fall into wrong hands. Yet all these basic laws are fought against by the NRA lobby. How far can we go in this extremist view of so-called ‘individual freedom’? The consequence of suffering is demonstrated by deadly shooting every day, in every corner of America. Each day, over 80 people die from gun shooting, from accidents at home, to disputes with one’s neighbor, to random shootings on the street. The deadly consequence of ‘gun freedom’ are the death of a young four-year-old–shot while playing with guns, a 15-year-old while in heat of argument, and a 19-year-old walking out of a nightclub.

    “America does not have to be a society soaked in blood, because the bloody consequences were caused by a powerful gun lobby that stripped away our basic protection from the law. Let’s work to enact sensible gun laws. We ask for sensible regulation on guns, as we ask for regulation on food and drugs. The gun issue is no longer a private matter but a public safety issue. It affects all of us. Let’s pass sensible gun laws now.”


    The logic of gun control can best be understood by considering the analogy of the automobile. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. To drive a car, one must be trained, licensed, and have that license periodically renewed. And a car is designed solely as a means of transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are deliberately designed to kill people. It is not unreasonable to demand their regulation.

    Guns are the second deadliest consumer product (after cars) on the market. By the end of the 1990s, firearms will likely supplant automobiles as the leading cause of product-related deaths throughout the United States. In 1990, American guns claimed an estimated 37,000 lives. There are no federal safety standards for the domestic manufacture of guns. There are no voluntary, industry-wide safety standards for the manufacture of guns.

    Every two minutes, somebody somewhere in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes, somebody dies from a gunshot wound. Each gun injury involving hospitalization costs $33,159. A license to sell a gun costs 83 cents per month.

    A gun rolls off the assembly line in America every 10 seconds. America imports another gun every 11 seconds. There are 246,984 gun dealers in the United States, but only 240 inspectors to keep an eye on them.

    There is a popular myth that handgun ownership makes people safer. In reality, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that a handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner, a family member, or a friend than it is to kill an intruder. Over 75 percent of firearm deaths in a typical year involve handguns. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics Report says that nationally, there were 38,317 firearm deaths in 1992, but fewer than 300 justifiable homicides.

    Another myth is that gun control laws don t make a difference. In reality, strict handgun regulation saves lives. In Washington, DC, a tougher gun law actually reduced homicides by 25 percent through the mid-1980s. Again, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 47 lives were saved in Washington, DC, in a typical year studied, because of that city’s handgun ban.

    Most other industrialized nations have virtual bans on handgun sales. In 1990, handguns were used in the homicides of 13 people in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 22 in Great Britain, and 68 in Canada, compared to 10,567 in the United States.

    Is gun control constitutional? The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Roger Tatarian, professor emeritus of journalism at California State University, Fresno, notes, however, that “things can change over time” with regards to the original intent of the founders.

    The Third Amendment, for example, protects citizens against compulsory quartering of troops in private homes. Technology has also made obsolete the constitutional provision giving Congress the right to declare war. “No president who is warned that a hostile missile is en route…has time nowadays to ask Congress for a declaration of war before responding,” states Tartarian. “He can commit the country to an all-out war simply by pressing a button.”

    Tartarian observes: “The Constitution certainly does not ban private ownership of weapons; that would have been unthinkable for a people still living in an often hostile natural environment and where many depended on hunting for a livelihood. But a tradition of owning arms is one thing and a constitutional guarantee is quite another. They ought not be confused

    According to Tatarian: “The Second Amendment as it now exists evolved from a draft offered by James Madison on June 8, 1789. His intent very clearly was to tie the constitutional right to own arms to service in official militias regulated by state governments.” Madison’s original proposal reads:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    The final version of the amendment which emerged from a House-Senate conference on September 25, 1789, also tied the constitutional right to bear arms to service in a militia, and stated that such militias are to be “well regulated”:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Handgun control is constitutional. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals outside the context of “a well regulated militia.” A handgun control ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals in 1982, which issued the following statement: “We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

    The Supreme Court let the decision stand by refusing to hear the appeal of the handgun lobby. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean anything except “(the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress.”

    This 1876 ruling established that states and localities are not prevented from enacting their own gun control laws–and they remain free to do so to this day. In 1980, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that “these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.”

    Guns should be regulated like other consumer products. Handguns and assault rifles should be banned, and ammunition should be taxed heavily.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  8. Joe the Plumber says:

    All semis need to be taken away, not needed, used in countless mass murders. Japan has less than 10 arms murders a year, and the lack of weapons is almost always a deterrent to murder, and all arms accidents. There are hundreds of millions of weapons in this country, nobody is safer here than in most countries.

  9. James Termini says:

    Well, Eric, those gov’t nukes didn’t seem to help you much. If you had honored the 2nd Amendment, as you are supposed to, then maybe you would still have some honor and integrity left.

  10. Cece says:

    Edie Bukewihge is still running! She can whip every Democrat currently on the ticket. There is a reason the party hasn’t talked about her or mentioned her name. Biden is a nice guy, and I always knew Kamala was a snake. Edie is the ticket that wins.

  11. old man coyote says:

    Swalwell that ends well. They can’t all drop too fast or the impact on the media will be cat-ass-trophic with all that campaign money going elsewhere

  12. n wilson oliver says:

    Some have forgotten the gorilla in the room, in this case, that likely the dumbocrats will turn to, the former first battleax who was bribed 65 million along with her spineless spouse, another sixty five, for “books,” but in truth for their treachery in advancing the agenda of the Alinsky’s and the globalists and deep state.

  13. Douglas says:

    I agree to what you said because the one that does have a chance to win is not in the picture.

  14. glock19fan says:

    They should run Anthony Weiner with Eric Holder as a running mate. Then see how many Dem Sheeple vote the Weiner-Holder ticket.

  15. NORMAN says:

    Great now the domincrats will start falling not far behind

  16. Del says:

    I really like that idea,can’t be any worse than those already running who have no chance to beat President Trump

  17. Keith says:


  18. Carl says:

    Not one of these evil people in the picture is fit to be president. Only the insane will vote for one of them.

  19. T. Bell says:

    Sounds good to me.

  20. Sam R says:

    I think Hillary should run with Jeffrey Epstein as her running mate!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: