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 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?
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.
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...
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.
Fuck off with this
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.
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.
On this we can agree, she was definitely confused.
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?
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.
Go ahead, keep throwing more debate terms at me, you're totally about to win this one. Strawman! Whataboutism! Tu quoque!
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...
That's a masked man fallacy
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.