She’s 83 fucking years old.

Nitter

  • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    She’s old but clearly cognitively with it and extremely effective as a leader. I’m all for people having mini strokes and cognitive impairment issues leaving government but this isn’t the case with Pelosi.

    • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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?

              • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

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

                  • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    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…

                • Zodiark [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  10 months 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.

        • JuneFall [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months 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.