this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
128 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22251 readers
377 users here now

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to [email protected].

Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or [email protected].

[email protected] is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

She's 83 fucking years old.

Nitter

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She is 83 years old. Even if she isn't experiencing cognitive decline (which I highly doubt), how much longer do you think that will be the case?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why do you highly doubt it? Because she's 83? I work with people in their 80s daily and they're as sharp as anyone else on my team.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just going to ignore the evidence of Pelosi's cognitive decline that @emizeko provided, are you? Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0dcOgXEr7Q

That was three years ago. Do you think she's somehow improved since then?

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

Don't worry about them, worry about yourself and try to defend what the point you're trying to make instead of deflecting.

In any case, a 10 second clip is your evidence? It's a tall show involving communication between a host and a guest and anything can go wrong. For all we know she wasn't sure if she was on the air or not and was genuinely confused.

When she was majority leader she gave daily press conferences in front of cameras and the media. An out of context YouTube clip is hardly evidence of anything, I'll take the daily pressers where she exhibited extreme prowess as a much more accurate indicator.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don't worry about them, worry about yourself and try to defend what the point you're trying to make instead of deflecting.

Fuck off with this LIB ass patronizing bullshit. I linked the video to you because it supports my point and because it had already been provided to you, yet you chose to pretend you didn't see it when you replied to me. A direct refutation to your argument is not a deflection by any definition. Learn what your debate pervert words mean before you start slinging them around mindlessly.

For all we know she wasn't sure if she was on the air or not

Watch the fucking clip already. At the very beginning you can see and hear her finishing a word, and the host's words are clearly a reply to something she just said ("But to be clear, you're not [so and so]"). If she wasn't sure whether or not she was on the air, then by your own argument that's clear evidence of mental decline.

and was genuinely confused.

On this we can agree, she was definitely confused.

When she was majority leader she gave daily press conferences in front of cameras and the media

And she hadn't been majority leader since January 2019, over a year and a half before this clip. Are you aware of what a decline is or do you need this explained to you?

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

You're cherry picking a 10 second clip to make you point when in reality she was giving daily pressers and spoke eloquently on the issues. You're irrationally angry about this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Go ahead, keep throwing more debate terms at me, you're totally about to win this one. Strawman! Whataboutism! Tu quoque!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've literally been reiterating on my initial comment yet somehow I'm strawmaning using whataboutism? You clearly don't have a grasp of those definitions. I guess I should just use a lot of buzzwords and make no attempt to argue my point like you are...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

That's a masked man fallacy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You're half-right about Pelosi. Rather, that it doesn't really matter whether her cognition has declined or not. Though do not mistake me for supporting her.

The Democratic party is littered with elder statespersons who have surpassed their cognitive prime - now just a pale echo - to really effectively rule and govern the country. To adapt to new politics and policies, or serve as the liberal classes function to ameliorate capitalist market externalities with state intervention and relief. But it's not their aged condition which inhibits these responses - Feinstein demonstrates that their staffers can simply drag them - but a lack of mass movements and popular political vision.

Trump might have been president but Covid happened under control of Congress by the Democrats, and for two years it led, under Democratic leadership, to over a million dead and the only pittance provided by the federal government was 2k USD, student debt + medicaid extensions.

Democrat's fetishization to preserve the status quo of social murder, exploitation, and increasing pressure and financial ruination on working Americans through timid, limited, or absentee action is in fact, not made possible by sycophants like yourself. Rather, it's just a symptom of a society without hope or agency of action.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I work with people in their 80s daily and they're as sharp as anyone else on my team.

lmao the self-own

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

this is only an own in you're ageist.

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

or if you value living in a society where people can retire at a reasonable age but go off lib

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people in my field who still work work aren't working because they have to, they're working because they want to, similar to Nancy Pelosi. People on my team and ones I work with from other firms make well over 500k a year and have had enough money to retire for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah you're leeches.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

good-morning Sunday Morning

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015335/

Why do you highly doubt it?

Cause we are materialists.

Cognitive change as a normal process of aging has been well documented in the scientific literature. Some cognitive abilities, such as vocabulary, are resilient to brain aging and may even improve with age. Other abilities, such as conceptual reasoning, memory, and processing speed, decline gradually over time.

Fuck off with your anti-science agenda.