this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
848 points (99.1% liked)

politics

21458 readers
4957 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

What I was implying- was that it must have meant that the age limit should be set for ONLY democratic representatives, yes?

Yes. Considering how democrats have spent the past few decades fighting progressives and not republicans, the democratic party is run by inflexible old centrists whose only concern is enriching themselves. The party should implement an age limit. If republicans want to be run by idiotic old fossils, let them. It's to their detriment, as it has been to democrats' detriment. If anyone can be elected as an independent despite being old, more power to them.

But I’m sure you’ll change everything I’ve said here to mean something entirely different.

I'm sure you'll conveniently misunderstand this comment as well.

[–] Rhoeri -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

But Bernie is exempt right? Because he’s your guy? It’s always great when you people call yourselves out.

We’re done here.

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Why would democrats be able to impose rules on someone outside of their party?

You have no problem with all the ancient democrats, right? Because they're your guys?

[–] Rhoeri -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'm glad that hearing about how your party is run by dusty old mummies with no credibility bores you. It means you hear it a lot, and you need to.

[–] Rhoeri -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Naah, it’s not that. It’s that your argument bores me. Because it’s always the same thing- you build your straw man by editing everyone’s words to mean something they’re not at all saying, and then arrogantly pretend to have the upper hand whilst only achieving to prove the point of whoever you’re debating with. Frankly…

It’s getting old.

And If this conversation served any purpose, it was to show to anyone who happens to make it this far, that not only are your views on the subject very hypocritical, but that you’re also completely oblivious to it even when it is pointed out to you in plain sight.

To summarize:

According to you- age limits need to be placed on everyone but those that align with your ideology.

According to me- that’s some dangerous gatekeeping that is very reminiscent of someone else that is currently very popular today.

And having had the opportunity to interact with you here on several occasions, this seems to be a trend for you. Seemingly- the rules should apply only to others, but never you.

Again, this is very familiar behavior. I just can’t put my finger on who it reminds me of.

Now, go on and have your gotcha moment and bring up that I had said “we’re done here” in your obsessive need to have the last word. My experience with you has shown that there’s no possible outcome in which a conversation with you can end otherwise. And do be sure to accuse me of stalking you if I ever happen to respond to any comment you make within the next few days or so.