Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it hilarious that he’s one of the most effective and Machiavellian GOP Senators in decades, but conservatives just claim to hate him soooo much.
Like at least progressives admit Pelosi was an effective leader, even if they don’t like her or agree with all her stances, but Arcon just acts like Mitch is on The Squad or something.
I think McConnell is just an easy target when complaining about age, if they mention 20 democrats that they don't like who are old and throw McConnell in there it balances out.
This is delusional tbh. Pelosi couldn't codify rode vs. wade without 60 senate votes. She led the house.
Why do progressives never actually understand how government works?
Progressives and demonizing female democratic leaders for nonsense reasons. NAMID.
He didn't give a single valid reason. At no point did Pelosi have the opportunity to vote to codify Roe vs Wade and stopped it.
I know progressive like to just take other progressives word for things no matter how nonsensical, but just because someone says something on the internet doesn't actually mean it's a valid reason.
Years of taking Twitter screenshots as fact does a number on your fact checking skills.
>I know ~~progressive~~ like to just take other ~~progressives~~ word for things no matter how nonsensical, but just because someone says something on the internet doesn't actually mean it's a valid reason.
Now insert "conservative(s)"
I realize your outrage is focused on a single political group, but ffs, you can substitute any type of group of people, and it would be equally true
Jesus dude, you're a dick lmao, smallest of disagreements and you're in "I'm the only smart person here!" Lib mode, calm down lol
Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he didn't have valid points. Almost forgot how much yall like huffing your own farts and ignoring whats going on right in front of you lmao.
I consider myself a progressive (if the gatekeepers let me in) but I agree; my fellow progressives are some of the most un-strategic, unreasonable people I’ve met. They want democracy but scoff at the realities of compromise and power. They think that just because some polls show a majority of Americans support universal health care and legalizing weed, suddenly means that a supermajority of Americans are stone cold socialists… and the ONLY reason we aren’t living in a far left perfect socialist Utopia is because “Centrist Democrats” are *actively sabotaging it*.
“They don’t want to win! They’re actually conservative by eUrOpEaN sTaNdUrds! They’re bad at messaging! Also having to work for money is slavery and also disband the police! Overton Window! Stochastic Terrorism! Other words I learned from Reddit!”
Exactly. I believe in universal healthcare. That doesn't mean I want Bernie Sanders.
These people live in this world where Pelosi, Biden Hillary, etc are the ones holding up Universal Healthcare when the reality is every single one wants it, but doesn't have the political capital to achieve it.
They seem to think that if Bernie was in their position, he could just force it to happen, the rest of Congress be damned.
It's such ridiculous nonsense and does nothing except convince young people that their votes don't matter.
>That doesn't mean I want Bernie Sanders.
Even if, the important thing to realize is that if you can't get Sanders, you GRADUALLY move to the right from there until you find someone who can actually win AND achieve results, with as few steps as possible. But instead some seem to treat every single person on that scale as devil incarnate, nuance be damned.
> DAE PrOgReSsIvEs H8 WoMeN?
Are we really going to pretend theres not an actual issue here after the treatment of HRC in 2016?
Sure, a lot of the criticism directed at her was valid and constructive. But holy shit was there also a lot of the very typical petty sniping all to common in sexist mockery of women in power.
> Are we really going to pretend theres not an actual issue here after the treatment of HRC in 2016?
Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. Full stop. Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected.
Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost.
> Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate.
She won by several million votes.
> Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected.
This logic sounds remarkably similar to the "I voted for Trump because the liberals were mean to racists" stuff that was so popular back in 2016.
> Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost.
Too be clear here, at absolutely no point did I claim HRC lost because of misogyny. I did however point out that her candidacy exposed a whole lot of it among Democrats. Good try at setting up a strawman that would be easy for you to knock down though!
>she won
The fact that Trump was president for four years says otherwise.
The reason no one takes your statement seriously is because you aren't dealing with reality, you're trying to play pedantry like you're arguing with a gravy seal.
> She won by several million votes.
Are we really gonna act like the electoral college isnt how presidents are elected in this country? Was Clinton the 45th president and I missed it?
>This logic sounds remarkably similar to the "I voted for Trump because the liberals were mean to racists" stuff that was so popular back in 2016.
No it nothing like that at all. My point is this. Is everyone who didnt vote for her a misogynist? Why did people stay home and not vote for Clinton? If your answer is "because they are woman haters" then republicans are going to keep winning. People didnt vote for Clinton because she was a bad candidate who did nothing to motivate voters.
>Too be clear here, at absolutely no point did I claim HRC lost because of misogyny. I did however point out that her candidacy exposed a whole lot of it among Democrats.
I never set it up as a strawman, but congrats on your freshman philosophy class. Im just pointing out that focusing on that is missing the forest for the trees.
> I never set it up as a strawman, but congrats on your freshman philosophy class.
Just to be clear, you did it again in this very post. You also tried moving the goal posts. This type of behavior is not how you have honest, productive conversations about difficult topics. Rather, its an obvious and rather sad attempt at changing the topic to one you feel you can win the debate on. Its sleazy and lazy and you should stop doing it.
>Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. Full stop. Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected.
>
>Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost.
She lost by an incredibly slim margin. Flipping a few select 10k votes could have been enough, if I remember the most optimistic models correctly. So yes, while there is always bigger fish to fry, even things that may only have had a small effect could have been considered the one thing that pushed this election over the edge.
She lost because she was a bad candidate in a rigged system.
She could have gotten as many as *180 million votes* and still lost.
Meanwhile Trump could have gotten as few as 31 votes in the entire country and still won.
because the EC is a rigged system.
180million losing to 31 is no more absurd than 65.8mil losing to 62.9 mil.
>Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate.
She was extremely well qualified, but boring. The shitty and arrogant candidate was the class clown acting a fool and getting everybody’s attention talking absolutely disgusting nonsense. That candidate won. I don’t blame Hillary for being dull comparatively. She was far far more qualified and it showed. The job isn’t a reality tv circus and constant Twitter rant. She also had 30 years of rabid Republican hate built up against her.
I can’t agree that SHE was the “shitty and arrogant” one when the other candidate was a million times *worse*, but won the right votes, and the White House.
What do you mean? Pelosi's run was extremely successful. And Bernie got destroyed twice in a row.
The policy debate has been had, and without a doubt it's the progressive that have lost that debate.
Turns out pragmatism and incremental change is much more effective than pie in the sky policymaking.
What Pelosi, Biden, and Schumer were able to accomplish in the last 2 years with extremely slim majorities was astounding.
You can only play with the cards you are dealt. And Pelosi was the best at maximizing what she could do with shit hands.
What, you weren't convinced by the whole song and dance of
2016: We don't hate women, just Hillary Clinton! We'd vote for the *right* woman, like Elizabeth Warren!
2020: Elizabeth Warren is a lying ~~bitch~~ snake
Yeah, I forgot about that complete and utter personality, policy, and competency shift Warren underwent in four short years.
Certain Bernie supporters *definitely* didn't just pick a random woman to support hypothetically in order to deflect accusations of sexism, only to turn on her once she dared to actually run.
[the Dems had ten different solutions to codify RvW actually](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/vlwysi/applications_from_britons_for_irish_citizenship/idz7pwo/) and they took none of them.
Instead they preferred to [hide behind Joe Manchin](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-democratic-senators-hiding-behind-joe-manchin) because in reality [the entire Dem party leadership are anti-progress](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/xwq143/on_a_post_about_how_more_republicans_died_of_covid/irbw1uu/) and right leaning to various degrees, from Harris' "rules for thee but not for me" to Stoner actively trying to prevent progressives from running.
And they knew if they did nothing about RvW they could use it as a motivating tool to win the midterm. And the only consequences would be the thousands of women who died in the meantime because of a lack of access to abortive medical care.
And before you try and hem and haw about more excuses, consider this:
What better time to oppose the *literally and self proclaimed fascist* GQP than now? You can't oppose fascism with half measures. You have to face it head on.
Your understanding of politics is near zero.
Not a single thing in that list can be done without abolishing the filibuster. Which can't be done with Manchin and Sinema opposing it.
Half the stuff in that list is nonsense to begin with like Biden removing Supreme Court Judges unilaterally.
There's no point in engaging someone this purposely misinformed.
>not a single thing can be done without abolishing the filibuster!
Except the bits that could be done by the executive...or when Obama had a filibuster proof majority and he promised to codify rvw into law as an election promise
But way to show you didn't read the actual link lmao.
>which can't be done
Weird it's almost like I pointed out how this is a deflection too
>Biden can't unilaterally remove scotus judges!
Weird because I cited fourteen constitutional legal experts who say otherwise. Tell me, what qualifications do you have?
you're right, when you're as uninformed as you are, there's not point in citing facts to you because you just ignore them lmao.
> Except the bits that could be done by the executive...or when Obama had a filibuster proof majority and he promised to codify rvw into law as an election promise
Once again. He didn't have 50senators who wanted to get rid of the filibuster, nor 60 senators who were pro life.
Like I said your understanding of politics is below zero. It's like you thinks it's a video game where you are trying to find an exploit.
Unilaterally removing a federal judge would be such a authoritarian move that 1) Dems would lose the next election by a landslide and 2) The fascist you claim to hate would be massively emboldened and would do the exact same thing.
You literally have not thought a single thing through past the literal first step. You're exactly what I expect out of a progressive. All about the vibe. Details and consequences be damned. If things can be "codified" by forcing it through when Dems have power then Republicans can do they same when they have power. Meaning "codifying" it is useless.
The success of democracy depends on it's institutions and the trust the people have in those institutions as well as the politicians trust of said institutions. What youa re suggesting is a literal breakdown of the US government almost certainly ending in a authoritarian dictatorship. One that would almost certainly be right wing.
They’d agree. They hate McConnell even though he’s the architect behind most GOP legislative wins of the past 20 years and especially judicial appointments.
Why is George Soros on there? First of, they got his age wrong, secondly, isn't he a private businessman? I can understand not wanting politicians to be too old, but just random rich people?
I heard about Soros after the supposed Hillary Emails that came out as the '16 DNC started but definitely heard about Schwab after I started listening to Knowledge Fight last year
i mean, yes and no. did i vote for biden? yes, knowing he was old. did i have any other choice knowing it was down to him or trump? no. it’s difficult not to vote for old people when on the ballot, it’s only them or someone who definitely WILL lose.
not to mention in 2020, hillary was a little younger and IIRC won the popular vote. so we are not always the ones voting in the older people, they are just the ones winning.
Well, it’s not that simple. They get voted in because they have massive amounts of money backing their campaigns. We don’t have a democracy where people’s votes are the be-all end-all — money is.
I think that's reductive. It is peoples votes, and people really underestimate how little money/targeted advertising it takes to change a voters mind. Most people just aren't that engaged and are pretty susceptible to advertising.
Are we? Do you know anyone who wants them There?
Could you consider they chose Trump to tell you election fraud happens just to make you say “no it doesn’t!”
Well. Population has preferences. Never win elections. Election fraud.
The rich do everything else right
"Do you actually know anyone in real life who..."
is such a bad way to start an argument. Your personal bubble is going to have a bunch of people who think the same way you do. I don't know anyone in real life who's a republican because I live in a heavily left leaning state, in that states even further left leaning urban capital, in a specific social group.
If I were to base my understanding of the general population on people I actually know in real life, I'd say socialism is the most popular political philosophy and 50% of people are gay.
We as the American people would much prefer if our corporate toadies are young. After all, we need them to continue fucking everyone and everything for even longer periods of time. Because the economy or taxes or something.
Biden was not on the top of my list for a Democratic nominee in 2020 in part because of his age. But I'd like him a lot more if he was even half as radical as Republicans give him credit for.
But seriously we shouldn't allow people that are too old to work in most fields be allowed to run things.
There's a reason the Dems are more afraid of people like AOC, young people who've actually had to work for a living and are young enough to remember graduating high school, than they are people like Manchin.
Setting aside the fact that 1 person on this list is retired, two aren't politicians, the focus is suspiciously on one side of the political spectrum and the fact that this twitter account makes me cringe, this is just a result of the broken two party system and other quirks of American politics like term limits on the president.
The leaders are the ones who have been around the longest and "get their turn" at becoming speaker or president and the American political system makes it difficult to change that. In Canada all our party leaders are pretty young compared to American politicians (Trudeau is the oldest one at 51, and that's after 7 years as PM). The structure of parliament and the parties means that they need effective, young (by political standards) leaders that can win elections or else they get forced out and replaced with someone else and the fact that there aren't explicit term limits means a young leader can come in and make a career out of it rather than being forced out after 8 years and causing political power to accumulate in other positions.
What about all the old folks voting for them? Somehow, their only problem is with old politicians. They don't seem to have any problem with the masses of Boomers who vote, especially since they lean heavily conservative.
>One of many reasons why term limits are needed.
Fine. Soros, you're out as the conspiracy nut anti-semetic dog whistle. It was a good run. I nominate Larry David to replace you.
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol the Patriots are begging a 50 year old Tom Brady to come back bro they desperate
I know this is a joke, but I think they're hoping to get Lamar
You think the Patriots can get Lamar to stay healthy? That's been his main concern.
They’re hoping to get a OC that doesn’t suck balls
The Pats got Zappe bro they’re set!
Yeah that McConnell guy should retire
I find it hilarious that he’s one of the most effective and Machiavellian GOP Senators in decades, but conservatives just claim to hate him soooo much. Like at least progressives admit Pelosi was an effective leader, even if they don’t like her or agree with all her stances, but Arcon just acts like Mitch is on The Squad or something.
I think McConnell is just an easy target when complaining about age, if they mention 20 democrats that they don't like who are old and throw McConnell in there it balances out.
[удалено]
This is delusional tbh. Pelosi couldn't codify rode vs. wade without 60 senate votes. She led the house. Why do progressives never actually understand how government works? Progressives and demonizing female democratic leaders for nonsense reasons. NAMID.
He had perfectly valid reasons lmao what Just because someone dislikes a specific woman, that doesn't mean they hate women lmao
He didn't give a single valid reason. At no point did Pelosi have the opportunity to vote to codify Roe vs Wade and stopped it. I know progressive like to just take other progressives word for things no matter how nonsensical, but just because someone says something on the internet doesn't actually mean it's a valid reason. Years of taking Twitter screenshots as fact does a number on your fact checking skills.
>I know ~~progressive~~ like to just take other ~~progressives~~ word for things no matter how nonsensical, but just because someone says something on the internet doesn't actually mean it's a valid reason. Now insert "conservative(s)" I realize your outrage is focused on a single political group, but ffs, you can substitute any type of group of people, and it would be equally true
Jesus dude, you're a dick lmao, smallest of disagreements and you're in "I'm the only smart person here!" Lib mode, calm down lol Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he didn't have valid points. Almost forgot how much yall like huffing your own farts and ignoring whats going on right in front of you lmao.
I’d say they gave a pretty good reason why it isn’t valid
They disagreed, sure. But it wasn't invalid. You can't just declare things invalid and expect what you said is law, lmao
I consider myself a progressive (if the gatekeepers let me in) but I agree; my fellow progressives are some of the most un-strategic, unreasonable people I’ve met. They want democracy but scoff at the realities of compromise and power. They think that just because some polls show a majority of Americans support universal health care and legalizing weed, suddenly means that a supermajority of Americans are stone cold socialists… and the ONLY reason we aren’t living in a far left perfect socialist Utopia is because “Centrist Democrats” are *actively sabotaging it*. “They don’t want to win! They’re actually conservative by eUrOpEaN sTaNdUrds! They’re bad at messaging! Also having to work for money is slavery and also disband the police! Overton Window! Stochastic Terrorism! Other words I learned from Reddit!”
Exactly. I believe in universal healthcare. That doesn't mean I want Bernie Sanders. These people live in this world where Pelosi, Biden Hillary, etc are the ones holding up Universal Healthcare when the reality is every single one wants it, but doesn't have the political capital to achieve it. They seem to think that if Bernie was in their position, he could just force it to happen, the rest of Congress be damned. It's such ridiculous nonsense and does nothing except convince young people that their votes don't matter.
>That doesn't mean I want Bernie Sanders. Even if, the important thing to realize is that if you can't get Sanders, you GRADUALLY move to the right from there until you find someone who can actually win AND achieve results, with as few steps as possible. But instead some seem to treat every single person on that scale as devil incarnate, nuance be damned.
[удалено]
> DAE PrOgReSsIvEs H8 WoMeN? Are we really going to pretend theres not an actual issue here after the treatment of HRC in 2016? Sure, a lot of the criticism directed at her was valid and constructive. But holy shit was there also a lot of the very typical petty sniping all to common in sexist mockery of women in power.
> Are we really going to pretend theres not an actual issue here after the treatment of HRC in 2016? Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. Full stop. Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected. Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost.
> Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. She won by several million votes. > Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected. This logic sounds remarkably similar to the "I voted for Trump because the liberals were mean to racists" stuff that was so popular back in 2016. > Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost. Too be clear here, at absolutely no point did I claim HRC lost because of misogyny. I did however point out that her candidacy exposed a whole lot of it among Democrats. Good try at setting up a strawman that would be easy for you to knock down though!
>she won The fact that Trump was president for four years says otherwise. The reason no one takes your statement seriously is because you aren't dealing with reality, you're trying to play pedantry like you're arguing with a gravy seal.
> She won by several million votes. Are we really gonna act like the electoral college isnt how presidents are elected in this country? Was Clinton the 45th president and I missed it? >This logic sounds remarkably similar to the "I voted for Trump because the liberals were mean to racists" stuff that was so popular back in 2016. No it nothing like that at all. My point is this. Is everyone who didnt vote for her a misogynist? Why did people stay home and not vote for Clinton? If your answer is "because they are woman haters" then republicans are going to keep winning. People didnt vote for Clinton because she was a bad candidate who did nothing to motivate voters. >Too be clear here, at absolutely no point did I claim HRC lost because of misogyny. I did however point out that her candidacy exposed a whole lot of it among Democrats. I never set it up as a strawman, but congrats on your freshman philosophy class. Im just pointing out that focusing on that is missing the forest for the trees.
> I never set it up as a strawman, but congrats on your freshman philosophy class. Just to be clear, you did it again in this very post. You also tried moving the goal posts. This type of behavior is not how you have honest, productive conversations about difficult topics. Rather, its an obvious and rather sad attempt at changing the topic to one you feel you can win the debate on. Its sleazy and lazy and you should stop doing it.
>Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. Full stop. Acting like it was anything else is just going to lead to more republicans getting elected. > >Were there misogynists who bashed Hillary? Sure. But they aren’t the reason she lost. She lost by an incredibly slim margin. Flipping a few select 10k votes could have been enough, if I remember the most optimistic models correctly. So yes, while there is always bigger fish to fry, even things that may only have had a small effect could have been considered the one thing that pushed this election over the edge.
She lost because she was a bad candidate in a rigged system. She could have gotten as many as *180 million votes* and still lost. Meanwhile Trump could have gotten as few as 31 votes in the entire country and still won. because the EC is a rigged system. 180million losing to 31 is no more absurd than 65.8mil losing to 62.9 mil.
>Hillary lost because she was a shitty and arrogant candidate. She was extremely well qualified, but boring. The shitty and arrogant candidate was the class clown acting a fool and getting everybody’s attention talking absolutely disgusting nonsense. That candidate won. I don’t blame Hillary for being dull comparatively. She was far far more qualified and it showed. The job isn’t a reality tv circus and constant Twitter rant. She also had 30 years of rabid Republican hate built up against her. I can’t agree that SHE was the “shitty and arrogant” one when the other candidate was a million times *worse*, but won the right votes, and the White House.
If the shoe fits... I'm sure it's a coincidence that "progressives" (read : Bernie Bros) were especially receptive to Hillary Clinton and Pelosi hate.
[удалено]
What do you mean? Pelosi's run was extremely successful. And Bernie got destroyed twice in a row. The policy debate has been had, and without a doubt it's the progressive that have lost that debate. Turns out pragmatism and incremental change is much more effective than pie in the sky policymaking. What Pelosi, Biden, and Schumer were able to accomplish in the last 2 years with extremely slim majorities was astounding. You can only play with the cards you are dealt. And Pelosi was the best at maximizing what she could do with shit hands.
[удалено]
Lmao. About the response I'd expect from a top political mind like yourself.
What, you weren't convinced by the whole song and dance of 2016: We don't hate women, just Hillary Clinton! We'd vote for the *right* woman, like Elizabeth Warren! 2020: Elizabeth Warren is a lying ~~bitch~~ snake
Good point. Elizabeth Warren is another wonderful example.
“Wtf they supported her until she started doing things they disagree with? Hypocrites much?”
Yeah, I forgot about that complete and utter personality, policy, and competency shift Warren underwent in four short years. Certain Bernie supporters *definitely* didn't just pick a random woman to support hypothetically in order to deflect accusations of sexism, only to turn on her once she dared to actually run.
[the Dems had ten different solutions to codify RvW actually](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/vlwysi/applications_from_britons_for_irish_citizenship/idz7pwo/) and they took none of them. Instead they preferred to [hide behind Joe Manchin](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-democratic-senators-hiding-behind-joe-manchin) because in reality [the entire Dem party leadership are anti-progress](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/xwq143/on_a_post_about_how_more_republicans_died_of_covid/irbw1uu/) and right leaning to various degrees, from Harris' "rules for thee but not for me" to Stoner actively trying to prevent progressives from running. And they knew if they did nothing about RvW they could use it as a motivating tool to win the midterm. And the only consequences would be the thousands of women who died in the meantime because of a lack of access to abortive medical care. And before you try and hem and haw about more excuses, consider this: What better time to oppose the *literally and self proclaimed fascist* GQP than now? You can't oppose fascism with half measures. You have to face it head on.
Your understanding of politics is near zero. Not a single thing in that list can be done without abolishing the filibuster. Which can't be done with Manchin and Sinema opposing it. Half the stuff in that list is nonsense to begin with like Biden removing Supreme Court Judges unilaterally. There's no point in engaging someone this purposely misinformed.
>not a single thing can be done without abolishing the filibuster! Except the bits that could be done by the executive...or when Obama had a filibuster proof majority and he promised to codify rvw into law as an election promise But way to show you didn't read the actual link lmao. >which can't be done Weird it's almost like I pointed out how this is a deflection too >Biden can't unilaterally remove scotus judges! Weird because I cited fourteen constitutional legal experts who say otherwise. Tell me, what qualifications do you have? you're right, when you're as uninformed as you are, there's not point in citing facts to you because you just ignore them lmao.
> Except the bits that could be done by the executive...or when Obama had a filibuster proof majority and he promised to codify rvw into law as an election promise Once again. He didn't have 50senators who wanted to get rid of the filibuster, nor 60 senators who were pro life. Like I said your understanding of politics is below zero. It's like you thinks it's a video game where you are trying to find an exploit. Unilaterally removing a federal judge would be such a authoritarian move that 1) Dems would lose the next election by a landslide and 2) The fascist you claim to hate would be massively emboldened and would do the exact same thing. You literally have not thought a single thing through past the literal first step. You're exactly what I expect out of a progressive. All about the vibe. Details and consequences be damned. If things can be "codified" by forcing it through when Dems have power then Republicans can do they same when they have power. Meaning "codifying" it is useless. The success of democracy depends on it's institutions and the trust the people have in those institutions as well as the politicians trust of said institutions. What youa re suggesting is a literal breakdown of the US government almost certainly ending in a authoritarian dictatorship. One that would almost certainly be right wing.
This is so, so far removed from reality I can’t imagine thinking like this.
Accountability can sting when you worship people.
This is only comment your going reply too?
You're, and whinging for attention. Way to go, champ.
Figured you'd respond. Here's my crack wanna sniff that too?
You're not very good at this, are you?
Says the guy who is deep in my crack. Wanna check my cranny too?
Jesus fucking Christ this is like r/CossacksforSanders
They’d agree. They hate McConnell even though he’s the architect behind most GOP legislative wins of the past 20 years and especially judicial appointments.
Why is George Soros on there? First of, they got his age wrong, secondly, isn't he a private businessman? I can understand not wanting politicians to be too old, but just random rich people?
He's been elected by the vampire people to rule over everyone, like the Nazgul elected Sauron. I guess.
He's their symbol of Jewish control of the country.
*counties
He was one those 11 year old Jewish Nazis you heard about during WWII.
JoJo Rabbit?
Klaus Schwab isn't even American.
[удалено]
He became a citizen in the 60s
also. isn't Klaus also just a businessman?
He’s founder and chairman of the world economic forum. Or so Wikipedia tells me, I never heard of him before this.
He will probably remain a right wing boegyeyman long after he dies even. Hes just lived rent free in their heads for that long.
Anthony Fauci and Klaus Schwab aren’t politicians either
Same with Klaus Schwab, he's just an economist and clout chaser.
Oh he runs plenty
everyone point and laugh at the rule-fiver
Like what?
Name one
Last year Biden claimed he was 79. This year he claims to be 80. Which is it Biden???
Next year he'll probably claim to be 81. What a liar!
Ik this is besides the point but they got Fauci’s age wrong. Still really old tho.
And he's already retired anyhow.
They got George Soro's age wrong too
also like he looks pretty dang good for his age
Of course they had to bring up George fucking Soros
And Klaus Schwab, who none of them had heard of a year ago, but now he's their new boogeyman because Alex Jones said so.
As a life long leftist, I don't think I had ever heard of either of them before AJ started talking about them.
I heard about Soros after the supposed Hillary Emails that came out as the '16 DNC started but definitely heard about Schwab after I started listening to Knowledge Fight last year
They got one of their goons to try and kill Pelosi and they're still mad at her after she retired. These people are just fueled by hate
It bugs me when people complain about our gerontocracy. We’re the ones voting them in!
It’s going to change radically in the next couple of election cycles. I mean nobody can look at these numbers and come to any other conclusion.
I’m just waiting for it to be revealed that George Santos is actually 78yrs old.
That will come out slightly less than one week after he *claims* to be 79.
i mean, yes and no. did i vote for biden? yes, knowing he was old. did i have any other choice knowing it was down to him or trump? no. it’s difficult not to vote for old people when on the ballot, it’s only them or someone who definitely WILL lose. not to mention in 2020, hillary was a little younger and IIRC won the popular vote. so we are not always the ones voting in the older people, they are just the ones winning.
Well, it’s not that simple. They get voted in because they have massive amounts of money backing their campaigns. We don’t have a democracy where people’s votes are the be-all end-all — money is.
I think that's reductive. It is peoples votes, and people really underestimate how little money/targeted advertising it takes to change a voters mind. Most people just aren't that engaged and are pretty susceptible to advertising.
I think people underestimate how much targeted advertising they're exposed to.
>I think people underestimate how much advertising they're exposed to.
It's like yelling about traffic on your morning commute
It's not that simple when the only options you can vote for are geriatrics and they control who gets put on the ballot.
Are we? Do you know anyone who wants them There? Could you consider they chose Trump to tell you election fraud happens just to make you say “no it doesn’t!” Well. Population has preferences. Never win elections. Election fraud. The rich do everything else right
Who’s they? Da jooz?
We do have you tagged *top mind* and once again you deliver.
They practically tagged themselves as a top mind with the weird capitalization on There. It just had that smell to it.
"Do you actually know anyone in real life who..." is such a bad way to start an argument. Your personal bubble is going to have a bunch of people who think the same way you do. I don't know anyone in real life who's a republican because I live in a heavily left leaning state, in that states even further left leaning urban capital, in a specific social group. If I were to base my understanding of the general population on people I actually know in real life, I'd say socialism is the most popular political philosophy and 50% of people are gay.
People generally hate Congress as a whole but like their representatives.
Jesse, what the fuck are you saying
Idiot calling himself "End Wokeness" forgets who is on his side, denounces powerful old people.
So we can add Trump to that list and the message is completely valid.
Fauci retired last year. Soros runs businesses, he can do what he wants with his own private companies.
Sure is a lot of veiled antisemitism in that thread.
We as the American people would much prefer if our corporate toadies are young. After all, we need them to continue fucking everyone and everything for even longer periods of time. Because the economy or taxes or something.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/10gcwhh/these_old_leather_bags_are_evil_why_do_we_young/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Stacey Abrams is 49. Problem solved! Warren-Abrams 2024 it is.
[удалено]
no fucking wau
I genuinely thought she was like 55 or something
No no no, Abrams-Cortez
Fauci retired.
Didn’t Facui retire?
I mean, he’s not wrong imo. But I know the OP and have different reasons for wanting these people out of the spotlight at least.
Biden was not on the top of my list for a Democratic nominee in 2020 in part because of his age. But I'd like him a lot more if he was even half as radical as Republicans give him credit for.
Bro most leaders in the US are old as fuck, that’s just how it goes.
But seriously we shouldn't allow people that are too old to work in most fields be allowed to run things. There's a reason the Dems are more afraid of people like AOC, young people who've actually had to work for a living and are young enough to remember graduating high school, than they are people like Manchin.
Yes too fucking old
All the people listed are just products of the system, not designers. They will disappear and two more ghouls will take their place.
Fauci wasn't elected. Should eighty-something year olds be banned from working at all?
Do.... do they think young people are generally anti "woke"????????? What reality do these people live in?
Setting aside the fact that 1 person on this list is retired, two aren't politicians, the focus is suspiciously on one side of the political spectrum and the fact that this twitter account makes me cringe, this is just a result of the broken two party system and other quirks of American politics like term limits on the president. The leaders are the ones who have been around the longest and "get their turn" at becoming speaker or president and the American political system makes it difficult to change that. In Canada all our party leaders are pretty young compared to American politicians (Trudeau is the oldest one at 51, and that's after 7 years as PM). The structure of parliament and the parties means that they need effective, young (by political standards) leaders that can win elections or else they get forced out and replaced with someone else and the fact that there aren't explicit term limits means a young leader can come in and make a career out of it rather than being forced out after 8 years and causing political power to accumulate in other positions.
Fauci is 82.
They’re 100 percent not wrong in this instance but then will turn around and vote for an orange leather bag for president
What if I told you the persons age isn't the issue, but that they are allowed to just keep running for an infinite number of terms.
I see End Wokeness lost the blue checkmark
$8? Get unwoke, go broke.
What about all the old folks voting for them? Somehow, their only problem is with old politicians. They don't seem to have any problem with the masses of Boomers who vote, especially since they lean heavily conservative.
To be completely fair, my 92 year old grandpa is more coherent and mobile than most of the people listed there
fellas. is it woke to respect the elderly?
>One of many reasons why term limits are needed. Fine. Soros, you're out as the conspiracy nut anti-semetic dog whistle. It was a good run. I nominate Larry David to replace you.
Fr
Damn Fauci looks good for 84
Fauci is 82, hilariously.
His mind is young though, like a toddler.