Many of us watched the debate of John Fetterman (D) and Republican Mehmet Oz (R) last night and it was at times very difficult to watch. Fetterman is clearly still experiencing serious problems in cognitive processing and communication after his stroke five months ago. However, when some raised disconnected or incomprehensible responses, commentators like MSNBC’s Liz Plank objected to such criticisms as discriminatory “ableism.” The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that these questions only reflect our “discomfort” with disabilities.
I felt an enormous amount of sympathy in watching Fetterman struggle last night. This is terribly difficult for any stroke victim and I give him credit for soldiering on with his campaign. However, Plank and others suggest that recognizing a serious question over the incapacity of a politician is now considered discriminatory and hateful.
There have been allegations that Democratic operatives hid the extent of the stroke from voters, which occurred shortly before Fetterman was given the Democratic nomination. Since then, Fetterman has been closely protected from reporters seeking to ask him questions. Not only was the extent of the damage not revealed before the nomination, but this debate did not occur, according to the Wall Street Journal, until after roughly half of the mail-in ballots were submitted.
Before the debate, NBC reporter Dasha Burns was attacked for merely noting that Fetterman did not appear to be able to process questions or comments before one of his relatively rare interviews.
Fetterman’s wife demanded an apology as others piled on Burns as an “ableist.” Gisele Fetterman told the Independent “I would love to see an apology towards the disability community from her and from her network for the damage they have caused.”
From the outset, it was clear that Fetterman has continuing residual damage from the stroke when he started by telling the audience “Hi goodnight.”
There were also glaring contradictions on his record, including a strikingly false statement on his opposition to fracking. Fetterman repeatedly opposed fracking in prior years but categorically denied that past opposition in the debate:
This debate was all the more important due to the fact that Fetterman will not agree to anything more than a single one-hour debate with closed captioning technology. He has also limited any ability of reporters or voters to ask him questions at events. The voters have a legitimate interest in seeing how their senator will response to issues and opposing views.
Politico reporter Natalie Allison stated the obvious that “the ability to process conversation in real time and respond is a lingering challenge, and that was absolutely a real issue tonight for Fetterman.”
Yet, Plank denounced critics as engaging in discriminatory “ableism.”
Such charges are common on college campuses where the term is defined as “the privileging of ability and results in the oppression of disabled people based upon real or perceived impairments. It ‘others’ disabilities, chronic illnesses, and neurological or mental illness.”
The question, however, is whether a senatorial candidate’s difficulty processing or communicating is discriminatory. It is clear that a senator can use closed captioning in hearings to understand questions. The same is true for communicating with staff in the office or some other forums.
Two U.S. senators recently suffered strokes.Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico suffered a stroke and required physical therapy in his recovery. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois returned to the Senate a year after suffering a stroke. Staff stated in a 2015 article in the Atlantic that the stroke caused continuing difficulties for Kirk who lost his 2016 bid for reelection.
I agree that a diminishment of speaking abilities from a stroke victim should not be treated as a de facto barrier to public service. This issue has come up in EEOC cases dealing with the exception for Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) under federal law. These cases may offer some insight into the balancing of interests.
The EEOC defines a “qualified individual with a disability” as “a person with a disability who meets all of a position’s legitimate job requirements and can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.”
The EEOC posts a letter on this issue as instructive:
“[T]here is no BFOQ defense in the ADA. Accordingly, an employer may not defend a disability-based employment action by asserting that the absence of disability is a BFOQ. An employer, however, may assert other defenses under the ADA. For example, an employer may defend the use of a qualification standard that screens out an individual on the basis of disability by showing that the standard is job related and consistent with business necessity. In that respect, the employer must show that the standard is an accurate measure of the individual’s ability to perform the essential functions of the position at issue. An employer may justify a safety-based standard by showing the existence of a direct threat, i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be reduced or eliminated through reasonable accommodation.”
A stroke is a disability and there should be reasonable accommodations in the workplace. In most cases, such reasonable accommodations can and should be made.
Yet, according to Plank and some others, pundits and voters who question the ability of Fetterman to be effective as a senator are engaging in ableism. I do not agree as a general matter. The ability to process information and to communicate are clearly essential functions in representing a state in Congress. The problem is that we do not know the extent of the damage from this stroke and whether reasonable accommodations in the workplace are possible.
There was an EEOC settlement in 2013 with an employee who was thought to have suffered a stroke due to facial paralysis. The facial appearance was due to Bell’s Palsy. The EEOC lawyer stated:
“The ADA requires that all employees be given equal opportunity to do their jobs regardless of an actual or perceived disability, and employers should not make decisions based on perceptions about someone’s supposed impairment. This case should remind all employers that the ADA requires employers to make an individualized assessment about an applicant or employee’s ability to do the job instead of acting out of speculative fears or biases.”
The EEOC has also sued on behalf of a truck driver who was not accommodated after a minor stroke.
There is also the difference presented by this issue being part of a political debate on the overall fitness of a candidate to serve in Congress. This is obviously not an ADA-covered matter on the campaign trail. Communicative and cognitive ability are core criteria for voters. An analogous comparison can be drawn to cognitive questions raised about former president Ronald Reagan or President Joe Biden due to their advanced years. Is that “ageism” and also deemed discriminatory?
At a minimum, last night’s debate should make the disclosure of Fetterman’s medical records an imperative for the media. The question is whether this is just a speech problem as opposed to a more serious comprehension or mental processing issue.
Giving spawn of the creature from the black lagoon anything above a cretin status is painful however I managed to follow his answer to the raising the minimum wage. Of course I’ve Asperger syndrome. But I believe if you looked a
Printed version of his answer and added spaces at his hesitation’s and since (all) political question and answer is like the scene in Bull Durham where Costner quizzes Robin’s on reporters questions. Ie; formula Bull. If u fill in the formula answer parts when he hesitates his answers cogent. The lie about fracking is normal barefaced political tactic. It speaks more to the Fake News not not only pointing out the misstatement and showing multiple videos of what the politician said previously and not stopping until it is an admitted lie or a cogent explanation.
That’s strange. Democrats had no qualms questioning Donald Trump’s capacity throughout his presidency. He took a cognitive test and publicly released the results when Democrats said he had dementia. Joe Biden angrily refused to do the same. He had his personal physician release his medical records, when Democrats claimed he had heart problems.
As per usual, Democrats do not not want to be subjected to the same standards, nor to provide the same proof of capacity that they demanded from Trump.
The usual double standard.
Having sympathy for Fetterman’s medical problems is a separate issue from questioning his capacity to serve. Most people do feel concerned for Fetterman’s health as a human being. I hope he heals, and regains full function. My grandfather had a severe stroke. He did fully recover, but it was a very long, difficult road.
The question is whether Fetterman is currently experiencing any medical issues which would interfere with his ability to serve. Some physical handicaps would not hinder a public servant. The auditory processing issue could be considered akin to deafness, which could easily be compensated for with closed captioning. There are plenty of politicians who use hearing aids. Dan Crenshaw serves in the House after having lost an eye serving in the military. The problem is that the stroke appears to have affected his mental capacity. He struggles to form coherent sentences, answer questions, explain his position, or even understand questions when given in writing. If I recall correctly, the stroke was caused by Atrial Fibrillation, exacerbated by his failure to follow the recommended exercise and mediation protocol. He has refused to provide his medical records, which are relevant to his ability to serve. He clearly suffers the effects of having a stroke, but expects voters to ignore these symptoms and take his word for it that he’s fine.
It’s not the time for him to run. He should have dropped out of the race, and allowed someone else to run. Perhaps he thought he’d bounce back. Now here we are, with yet another mentally struggling Democrat politician. This puts Democrat voters in a difficult position.
It also sharply delineates the very different standard for Republicans and Democrats. For 4 years, we heard Democrats declare that Trump had dementia, heart problems, or various mental disorders. He couldn’t be trusted with the nuclear codes, etc. Trump provided the results of his cognitive test and physical. Joe Biden zones out, forgets who has died, or who is in a wheelchair, can’t find his way off a stage, reads Teleprompter directions verbatim, and otherwise shows clear signs of cognitive decline. People voicing this concerns are called ageist. Joe Biden refused to take a cognitive test and release it publicly. The media runs cover for him. Fetterman has a stroke, and heart problems, and actually shows the cognitive issues that Democrats accused Trump of having. Yet the NYT publishes glowing articles on his brain’s ability to heal, and how far he’s come. People voicing concerns are called ableist.
All of this is just a means to deflect criticism from the Democrat Party. If this was a Republican, the exact same people crying “ableist” would be howling that he was incapacitated, and demanding his medical records.
Of course a Senator has to be mentally competent. Of course he or she has to be able to formulate a cogent response on the spot. Is this a question?
“Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not on our side.” Halifax
To the people of Pennsylvania: Why would anyone who cared about Fetterman not allow him to rest and get well before taking on the demanding job of Senator? We all should expect our elected officials to be of clear mind to tackle the big problems ahead for our Nation.
After listening to the fracking answers on Tuesday, what are you to believe? Worse yet, is that his power handlers now bully people when questioning Fetterman’s mental clarity. The public would be remiss not to question!
Good Luck PA! This is worse than going to Vegas!
“Why would anyone who cared about Fetterman not allow him to rest and get well before taking on the demanding job of Senator”
Because she (his wife) wants the job and this is the easiest way to get it. Run him into the ground and then appoint her…at least that is apparently what she’s being told, lol. Sick people, all of them
So basically his md Chen from literally China says who is cut to serve!
Come on man….we have age 35 for a reason! Are you saying our founders were bigots? Not….well next year my son’s…..oh wait daughters computer program identifies with 35 yo can it run for office!.? He is not qualified to run for office e….based on many things….but we entertain him. Which should be exploitation. Bottom line would by serious state legislature make him senator? If they still appointed senators. No. Nor do Senate rules allow him to be senator..the only person in all this who says he can serve….is Dr Chen …..a Chinese doctor. Seriously?
If that’s the case I have one last thing to say as a major: lajes86 545499a!
This is one of the reasons I would not be a politician. Medical records are private, and no law or expectation should derive from the belief that assuaging the general public with the release of them is the prudent thing to do. Releasing medical records in their entirety is what the crowd seems to want. Doing so may reveal matters that are personal and private and totally unrelated to the ability to function in that job. If the entire medical record is not released, who is going to screen the record for disabling conditions? That matter is up to the voters based on how well the candidate is able to articulate his positions and nothing else.
The glaring problem ….is that constitututionally….there is an age limit to become senator. Is our constitution arbitrary and capricious? What is this at the founding based off? At the founding? gained wisdom! ??? loyalty??? What? seriously why if a retard….only needs to age to 35….he’s constitutionally ready? Who’d of think it! To serve? Hogwash! That’s what we are dealing with! A sorry to say It a body that’s over 35 but a body that’s retarded by a stroke!…at the founding era. ?…It also used to be senators were sent up by state legislatures….so they only had to convince that many 100 people! plus the Senate rules. (Is that the plan Senate rebuffs him gets state fill in??)
None of which at the founding would have found him capable of serving. Computer or not! He is not qualified to serve. And the state legislature would recall him and replace him! It shou!d be no different now…..And laws about ‘disability’s don’t matter. It’s constitution….literally first! And he has no more constitution than a retard fo!losollowing commands of a robot. Whoever said he was fit for to service needs tar and feathers! Post haste! And see where their medical license originated! AMerica? Or Latin america!
Fettermen is interviewing for a job as a public servant with the electorate.
The electorate is free to demand whatever they want – HIPPA not ADA, not the CRA apply to candidates running for election.
Ms. Fetterman can rant all she wants about abelism – those voters that are concerned about Fetterman’s ability to do the job, must be reassured or he risks losing their votes.
We never should have tried to make private discrimination illegal.
We can not make discrimination on the part of voters illegal.
Regardless, there is no entitlement to become a US Senator.
You want the job – persuade the voters.
And refuse their demands at your peril.
Personally I do not want Fettermans medical records – he was never qualified.
Further it was stupid for him to continue after his stroke.
He needs to focus on survival and recovery.
The long term survival rate after strokes is not high.
China-Linked Internet Trolls Try Fueling Divisions in U.S. Midterms, Researchers Say
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-linked-internet-trolls-try-fueling-divisions-in-u-s-midterms-researchers-say-11666777403
When Hillary lost her second presidential run, (first time to a white-black “community organizer”, second time to a carnival barker), she blamed Russian trolls aiding Trump. So by extension, Chinese trolls are now aiding Democrats since they’re the ones coddling the CCP. amirite?
OTOH, Americans are so effective in fueling division and hating each other, (see the comments on this blog), that the Chinese trolls need not lift a chopstick. Maybe they could launch a benign virus that targets overweight and obese Americans to foment fear? oh wait
The 🇨🇳 are coming!!
Estovir: “The 🇨🇳 are coming!!”
Ev’ry body to get from street!! (Alan Arkin)
(:
I can’t believe we’re actually having this discussion, but then again we have cognitively impaired president, so I guess now that’s an acceptable condition. This is not a disability. It’s a condition. A sickness. God help us.
It does not matter what it is.
You can force private employers to hire people regardless of their ability to perform a job.
You can not sue voters for discriminating against an incapable candidate.
Voters judge rightly or sometimes wrongly each candidate on their merits and liabilities.
They are not going to follow the dictats of our so called experts.
While Fetterman was an abysmal choice BEFORE his stroke.
He is not capable after. He should have withdrawn after the stroke.
Democrats would have had the oportunity to lose on the merits rather than
because they are running someone clearly unable to do the job.
1. Two weeks ago, NBC’s Dana Burns conducted an interview with Fetterman and shared her experiences: “Without closed captaining, Fetterman was unable properly process the conversation. Myself, my producer, and our crew did find that small talk before that captioning was difficult because of the auditory processing issues I mentioned,” As she was thrashed, she ows an appology.
2. As it was talked about “health issues” extensively, I don’t see the need to go into further details: 1.2 Million who don’t care will vote for him & the other camp is well informed. Independently, as, Senator Feinstein always casts her vote within party lines, Fetterman would do the same. There are enough handler who take good care of the Senator.
3. For me, the only surprise: Left leaning Philadelphia Inquirer’s opinion staff gave its opinion on last night’s Senate debate winner and they picked Fetterman.
[1] https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/inq2/john-fetterman-dr-mehmet-oz-debate-winner-20221025.html
I believe her name is “Dasha Burns.”
If idiots are allowed to vote, idiots will run the country
…into the ground.
If America allows dependents and parasites to vote, America will end up with a government that serves dependents and parasites.
The injured Constitution cannot survive one man, one vote democrazy.
________________________________________________________
AS WILL NOT INJURE THE CONSTITUTION
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
____________________________________________________________
Understanding that every executive act from 1860 – 1865 was illicit and unconstitutional, beginning with fully constitutional secession and fully unconstitutional martial law, and that the Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to overturn Roe, it must now act by 150 years to overturn all unconstitutional, improperly ratified and injurious amendments through Judicial Review.
The point is actually moot, as everything the dependents and parasites vote for is unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute right to private property.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the Supreme Court, which has facilitated Karl Marx and diminished the American Founders.
Just as abortion must be legislated by States, voters must be entitled by States.
Never was America conceived or established as a one man, one vote democracy.
Democracy began as a restricted-vote republic in Greece and was perpetuated by Rome and the United States as restricted-vote republics.
Ben Franklin told you that the Founders gave America a republic which, by definition, restricts and entitles voters.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 4,
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
__________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“ENTITLED TO VOTE”
Merriam-Webster
republic noun
re·pub·lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
\
Definition of republic
1 b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Let’s see how many boxes on Fox’s little to-do list of assignments today’s little Turley piece checked: attack a Democrat in a tight race. Check. Attack MSNBC. Check. Ignore Dr. Oz’s refusal to answer questions and his comment that a woman’s right tho choose should depend on local politicians. Check. Pretend that somehow not being fluent in answering questions in a debate 5 months after a stroke and against a vacuous television personality chosen by an election cheater because he is a toadie and syncophant and will do as he is told is somehow relevant to being a quality Senator for the citizens of Pennsylvania. Check. More red meat for the disciples–check. Ignore the fact that Oz has been declared to be nothing but an attention-seeking quack by reputable medical experts: check.
I don’t even read the details of Turley’s tripe any more because it’s truly not worth my time, so there’s probably more there to criticize.
Gigi, in what nations in the world do you find centralized control and no right of the peoples representatives to determine what is right for the people of their state? You are advocating that we should be like the other nations of the world that control everything through the central government. Somehow you see no danger in complete control by the government. I have a suggestion. Go to each state and convince the people of each state to accept your position instead of calling for a Biden takeover of their right to govern themselves. Your post tells us exactly what kind of government you are wishing for. Gee Oz wants the people of his state to have a say but you don’t. You say look how telling his local control statement was and I say look how telling your desire for centralized government control is. It’s in the Constitution.
TiT,
The Dems are so anti-Constitution, they cannot see it for themselves.
Yet another reason why we need to vote them out at the mid-terms.
They are the real threat to America.
What “people’ have any “right” to impose their belief that life begins at conception upon a woman who does not share this belief? Why should a woman who is raped or the victim of incest be forced to carry and give birth to her attacker’s child because some Bible thumper thinks they have the right to an opinion that supercedes her right to decide her own destiny? And, BTW, the Bible does NOT address when life occurs, other than referencing “quickening”, which would be consistent with the holding of Roe. Biden is not seeking to “take over” anything–the majority of Americans support the Roe v. Wade framework which Democrats are seeking to codify. Republicans are liars–they claim that the issue should be decided by states, but now, they’re pushing for a total ban. Dr. (quack) Oz refused to answer the question about whether he would vote for Lindsey Graham’s bill, but we all know he’s just a dumb toadie who will do as he is told, so his silence speaks volumes.. The majority of Americans did NOT vote for the election cheater who appointed 3 of the radical conservatives who overturned Roe after lying about their position on the subject during their confirmation process. Alito also lied. They all did this to get the power to overturn Roe. You don’t know much about the Constitution, including the rights of freedom and privacy, which Roe was based upon.Your alt-right media also don’t discuss the fact that the SCOTUS has NEVER BEFORE taken away a right found to be protected by the Constitution’s provisions of freedom and privacy. Dobbs was just the beginning if Republicans take control. Democracy is on the ballot next month.
Why do you have the right to impose your beleif that because a child has not been born you can murder it ?
Two can play the stupid loaded spin game.
Why should a woman have to ?….
I do not know, ask God, or Gaia.
I did not make nature as it has been for 300K years.
Regardless, birth control exists, morning after pills exist, nearly all of the country still permits abortions in the first 15 weeks.
No republican legislator forced your egg to join with some sperm to form a new life.
That is how nature works. It is billions of years old.
Nor republican is taking from you something that nature actually gave you.
@John,
I suggest you learn more about biology and fetal development.
You and others are acting under the false belief that every fetus will mature and grow into a viable infant.
That is hardly the case.
You can do research on gross fetal malformation.
I realize its a technical issue … so I’ll make it simple for you.
Your belief is based on your religious beliefs.
My belief is based on the science.
The issue is now in the hands of each state.
Vote the issue as you see fit.
Personally I’m more worried about the other stuff than abortions.
I suggest that you learn more about logic and fallacy as you beat that straw man to death.
You are correct no all fertilized eggs turn into babies 9 months later – So what ? What bearing has that on anything ?
Not all babies turn into adults, not all adults live to be 80.
This is a stupid argument on your part.
Do you know that it is still murder to kill someone who is terminally ill ?
Does the morality of an act change with the probability of survival ?
There are a wide variety of defects and disabilities that effect infants that reduce their odds of surviving to adulthood to near nil
Are we free to kill infants who likely will not live another 20 years ?
“I suggest you learn more about biology and fetal development.”
On what basis do you claim I am not aware of biology of fetal development ?
Your logic failures are conversely self evident.
“You and others are acting under the false belief that every fetus will mature and grow into a viable infant.
That is hardly the case.
You can do research on gross fetal malformation.”
What bearing has that on this issue ?
Morality and legality are not probabalitic ?
You are guilty of Murder if you shoot and kill something WHILE they are in the midst of a fatal heart attack.
If you do not want to be accused of being a NAZI – do not make arguments that come from Dr. Mengele.
“I realize its a technical issue … so I’ll make it simple for you.
Your belief is based on your religious beliefs.”
And pray tell what are my religious beleifs ?
“My belief is based on the science.”
Obviously Not – Science is what can be proven.
If something is a question of belief it is not science.
“The issue is now in the hands of each state.
Vote the issue as you see fit.
Personally I’m more worried about the other stuff than abortions.”
Something we absolutely agree with.
Just to be clear – because you are CLEARLY an idiot,
Roe was wrongly decided – there is no right to an abortion.
That should be trivial to understand.
But Dobb’s was wrongly decided – there IS a right to control of your own body.
That does not lead to a right to abortion.
But it does lead to the right to have a pregancy removed from your body.
Just as you can have cancer removed, or you can renege on your offer to give someone else one of your kidney’s right up until you are put under.
There is no right to kill a fetus,
But innumerable rights SOMETIMES have consequences.
The correct decision in Dobb’s would have been:
No state can prohibit a woman from having a pregnancy removed from her body at any time right up to birth.
But the state is free to require that removal be done such that the pregnancy is most likely to survive – so long as doing so does not significantly increase risk to the life of the mother.
I would further note that all your flatulence about the survival rate of fertilized eggs is to a very large extent irrelevant.
The failure rate of fertilized eggs decreases exponentially with time – and please lets not get into some ignorant DB debate over exponentially vs arithmetically – It is irrelevant.
For some more “science” for you – Gutmacher (an arm of PP) data long ago demonstrated that all state restrictions on abortion do is make women decide sooner. Abortion restrictions do not result in a significant increase in births.
They result in better use of birth control, higher use of morning after pills. Early abortions if abortions are legal.
Regardles, it is incredibly unwise to presume that you know what other people do not know.
It just makes you look foolish.
Especially when you are both wrong and making an obviously logically fallacious argument.
gigi, You seem to have come on the scene just as Natasha disappeared, are you her sister or cousin? you write and insult the same.
“Ignore the fact that Oz has been declared to be nothing but an attention-seeking quack by reputable medical experts:”
Lol. Yeah, because that is the kind of assessment that ‘reputable medical experts’ make.
We get it, you like abortion and treating minorities as pets you must nurture for their own good. You believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that big gubmint can make people better off and, now, that war is good.
We get it. We know what you are told to think, and we know that people with your ability will comply.
So, by all means, don’t read things that conflict with what you’re told to think, we wouldn’t want you to surprise us or maybe even yourself.
Grrrrrll power!!!! used to be cool, now it has morphed into Cloooooowwwwwnn power! So sad.
Because you left wing nuts are not capable of citing what someone says – rather than your spin, the following is Oz’s ACTUAL response to abortion questions.
“I am not going to support federal federal rules that block the ability of states to do what they wish to do”
Abortion in PA remains as it has been pre Dobb’s
Chose your state senators according to your values on that issue – if that matters to you.
PA is of course Ground Zero for Gosnell – the most heinous abortion Hollocaust in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
Incorrect. From the transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/pennsylvania-u-s-senate-debate-between-mehmet-oz-and-john-fetterman-transcript
“There should not be involvement from the federal government in how states decide their abortion decisions. As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, LOCAL POLITICAL LEADERS letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves. Contrast that with my opponent, John Fetterman, who on this debate stage said that he would demand federally mandated rules for all states they’d have to follow that would allow abortion at 38 weeks on the delivery table, and he would force it to be subsidized by taxpayers across the country no matter what their personal beliefs are. That’s radical. That’s extreme. That is out of touch with what the average voter in Pennsylvania believes is appropriate.” (emphasis mine).
So, yes, Oz thinks that local political leaders should decide this issue. What does that even mean? Should my wife, her OBGYN, and a local school board member all weigh in on my wife’s right to terminate a pregnancy?
It means that restrictions on abortion can occur only with the agreement of your governor, a majority in your state senate, and a majority in your state house.
Throughout the country that is how laws are made.
Schoolboard members can not make laws.
A state senator is not a local politician…. It is a state-level politician. It’s in the friggin name, man.
In virtually all states the power to make laws rests with the state legislature – not “local government”
Local BTW is a relative term
A local conveyance can be the elevator in your building.
Local grown produce could be down the street, in the same county, in the same state or in the same region of the country.
In the context of the federal government local is all government that is not federal.
Again, this is just not true. Local government is absolutely distinct from state government. Check your town’s municode if you think local government doesn’t enact laws or ordinances.
I am very familiar with my Town’s municipal code.
The authority of my city all comes from the state.
Nowhere in the US constitution or State constitutions is there any local lawmaking authority.
To the limited extent that local taxing authority or very limited local regulatory authority exists – it is State authority that has been legislatively granted to some lessor body.
It is possible that a few state constitutions have different provisions – but mine does not, and I am not aware of others that do.
Specifically since you are writing about Abortion – there is no authority delegated or otherwise outside of the state to impose criminal sanctions.
There is little question here – Fetterman should have dropped out of the race when he had the Stroke. Democrats could have picked another candidate. It is inarguable that he is more than a little impaired, incapable of doing the job, and highly unlikely to improve any more than he has so far.
Life happens, get over it. There are 100 things that had they not happened would have prevented the dementia patient from occupying the Whitehouse. Starting with Covid.
Most of us angry about 2020 accept those things that are just out of control of humans – like Covid,
What we do not accept is the lawless changes to our elections many of which we are STILL stuck with.
We do not like billionaires moving in and taking over local government election offices and running them as democratic GOTV efforts.
We do not like massive illegal ballot harvesting.
We do not like counting new ballots for days after the election until your candidate wins.
We do not like the press failing to do their job- favoring one candidate and party.
We know the press is biased – it has been all my life, but 2020 was far over the top.
We do not like SM companies engaging in political censorship to favor one candidate or one party.
We do not like it when the institutions in the country become agents for a single party.
These are things we expect from Russia or Banana republics.
Who knows what would have happened had carpet bagger Oz faced off against Never worked a day in his Life Fetterman.
But that did not happen. Fetterman had a stroke – I am sorry for him.
That his party and Family are still pushing him through this speaks very badly for them.
If Oz is an attention seeker – he will fit right in – as would Fetterman.
@Gigi.
Uhm Oz is right.
He’s running for Senator. The issue concerning abortion is a State’s Right issue.
So its not his call and he can keep his personal opinion to himself.
-G
They convened a panel on MSNBC. Obama’s campaign manager said that Fetterman lost the battle but he won the war. There has only been one battle in this war and Fetterman lost it according to a very prominent Democratic spokesman. Are you dizzy yet from the spin? Hold on to your cookies the ride has just begun.
Seems to me, the Dems are in a panic at how well, or not well, their candidates are doing.
Fetterman.
Hobbs.
Abrams.
Now, how they spin the post-mid-terms results will be interesting.
And how many of us read their spin and say, “Really? Traditional Dems, Independents, all said ‘No!’ to wokeism!”
That is where the Dems failed.
Hochul
Whitmer,
Kelley
Barnes
Hassan
Warnock
Ryan
Evers
Kotek
Sisolak
Here’s a direct quote from Fetterman. “I am not pro-fracking and have stated that if we did things right in this state, we wouldn’t have fracking. The industry is a stain on our state and natural resources.” 90,000 jobs are related to fossil fuel in Pennsylvania. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/USEER%202022%20-%20Pennsylvania.pdf. These 90,000 workers have families that are effected by the production of fossil fuels in their state. It’s no wonder that Fetterman changed the tune he was dancing to. Just think for a moment how he will be voting with Joe Biden if he gets to Washington. He will be Joe’s big dancing bear on a leash.
This debate was all the more important due to the fact that Fetterman will not agree to anything more than a single one-hour debate with closed captioning technology. He has also limited any ability of reporters or voters to ask him questions at events.
The upcoming election is about evil vs good. Glad to see Justice Alito has a handle on the forces of evil engulfing America, and refuses to be quiet. Bravo for Justice Alito.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on leak of Dobbs opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade: “It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody. It was a shock…The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.
His stroke — which I hope is “cured” and does not re-occur — is irrelevant
— He opposes drilling for American energy
— He favors killing babies even after they have left the vaginal canal
— He opposes reforming Medicare Part A and SS, both of which will drastically reduce benefits in from three to seven years if nothing is done
— He favors wasting billions (and eventually American lives) in the Russian Civil War
— He opposes the police
— He favors going after people he dislikes with a shot gun (forgetting the color issue)
It does not matter that he could no understand my words if read to him
As a moderate, I finally came on this blog to (largely) agree with Professor Turley for once, and then I read something like this…
“Russian Civil War” You do know that Ukraine is an independent country, yes? And that a “civil war” is a war used between citizens of the same country. So, how could it possibly be a civil war?
Fetterman favors killing “babies even after they have left the vaginal canal.” Where has he said this? I keep seeing statements like these but rarely any links to quotes or policy proposals that back it up. I have no issue with folks who are pro-life, but unless you have evidence of him saying something like this (or supporting a policy), then please don’t spread false information.
As a moderate I have a rule against replying to people afraid of using their own names but
— Ukraine is a country like Texas is a country. That is, it is really just frontier land (that’s what the word means) that has been passed back and forth for centuries between the real countries involved. It and Belarus and a few others were only “created” 100 years ago by Soviet Russian leaders Lenin and Stalin out of the fallen Czar’s empire in order to unsuccessfully gain additional seats in the League of Nations and later to successfully gain them in the United Nations (after snookering a dying FDR–FDR should have done the same thing with Texas in the formation of the UN). Early in the Christian Era, the area east of the Dnipro and including most of Belarus and Moscow was called Rus. Most of the rest of what is now called Ukraine and Belarus was part of Poland and Lithuania, which controlled all of it during the mid Christian Era. Then the Czars took over around 1750s. After it was created by the Soviets 100 years ago, they forced out some Poles who lived in the western provinces and Tatars who lived in Crimea (which was never part of the pre-Soviet-Union Ukraine province) and populated it with “northern” Russians (after starving to death most of the Poles who wouldn’t move west). It was then taken over by the Germans and then reacquired by Soviets who kept adding land to it taken from Poland and other Soviet satelites after WWII. This war is all about some Russians fighting with some other Russians (with a few Poles who haven’t left yet after 400 years involved) over land they have lived on for centuries. Most so-called Ukrainians speak Russian with an accent (unless they speak pidgin Polish) the same way most Texans speak English with an accent (and the others speak Spanish)
— And unrestricted total right to abortion even after birth is the official position of the Democratic Party (see HR 3755 in the current Congress and Democratic Party platforms of the last 50 years). Fetterman said he embraced that position many time including during the debate that is the subject of this post)
Why does history start in the 1750s? Why not go back to the 9th century when Kiev was ruled by the Norse princes Askold and Dir? It certainly wasn’t a Russian territory back then.
There’s no objective reason to arbitrarily choose that time period as the starting point. Which is why this is irrelevant. Ukraine is a sovereign nation recognized by even Russia itself. Any attack on a sovereign nation by another sovereign nation is, by definition, not a civil war.
Your “reading” of HR3755 is incorrect as well. The bill only prohibits abortion restrictions after viability if there is a risk to the life or health of the mother. 2 issues: 1, after birth, there is no “abortion.” 2, after birth there is no risk to the mothers health or life, which would be protected by ending the now birthed childs life. Again, more factually incorrect propaganda man.
1. If you are addressing this to me, Nameless, my review did not start in 1750. What do you think the “early in the Christian Era” refers to?
2. I don’t think you’ve kept up on the abortion debate if you do not understand that “risk to the health” of the “person who is pregnant” is a blank check. ( I don’t think you’ll find the word “mother” in HR3755 anywhere.)
“Early in the Christian Era” has no date, which is why you failed to provide one. Does it mean more than 1200 years after Christ? Because “Kyivan Rus” existed until the mid-13th century, with its capital not in Russia, but in Kyiv, one of the largest by population on Earth. I am guessing the Russian propaganda sites you read fail to recount who was actually in control.
Does Kyiv has a better claim to invading Moscow then vice versa?
Oh and your Texas analogy makes no sense. It was owned by Mexico before independence. And in 1750 (your magical year that starts all of history), it was owned by Spain. So would a Spanish attack on Texas be a “civil” war?
Anonymous——–Don’t feel like you have to stay…..
I never thought I would get to write these words: “Remember the Alamo?” Of course the establishment of the short lived Republic of Texas was a Civil War (although I’m not sure whether the Spanish attacked them first or they attacked Spain)
Dennis…..Look up Juan Seguin, one of our greatest heroes….and of course, Sam Houston.
Umm.. Dennis. Spain was neither an attacker or a country that was attacked. They not involved in the Texas Revolution. Mexico, was. Different. Countries. Not. a. Civil. War,
Thanks for proving why I have a rule against replying to any of the dozens of Nameless cowards on this comments page. You must be a different Nameless coward that the one that wrote above:
“Mexico was owned by Spain. So would a Spanish attack on Texas be a “civil” war?”
Whether Texas revolted from Spain or Mexico is kind of irrelevant. It was still a Civil War,
I would only feel “sympathy” for Fetterman if he were the LtGov of PA and found himself in this condition following a stroke – and was straightforward with the voters of PA, some of whom voted for him, about his medical condition and rehab. I feel no “sympathy” for a politician who continues to run for another elected office; regularly displays ongoing serious cognitive issues of hearing/listening, speaking and thinking; refuses to provide complete medical/rehab information to PA voters (some of whom only care that he is a D); plays the role of victim of “discrimination” while name-calling anyone who rightly questions his physical and mental abilities; refused all but a single “debate” in an important Senatorial election while hiding from meaningful public appearances; etc.etc. – a former 56 year resident of PA
It should be noted, to begin with, that Donald Trump’s transcripts were often completely unintelligible. Add to that Fetterman having the equivalent of a hearing impediment while Oz has a soft spot in his heart for facism…
It’s not altogether unfunny that Oz showed up to take advantage of his verbal skills against a stroke victim, yet he effectively ended up saying he believes Mastriano should get up into women’s vaginas.
you’re into women now? when did that happen? You more likely are into Doug Mastriano given he is an alpha male and you’re a zeta she-male
Stop flirting with me. I’m never going to date you.
Snorkraptor, you say that Oz has a soft spot for fascism. Please provide a link were Oz has encouraged fascism. When no worthwhile argument is available the default by the ANTIFA crowd is always fascism. Please inform us of your source for your accusation. Short of your evidence we must assume you to be but a crank.
Fascists can’t admit to being fascists. Second rule of Fight Club. They use coded language such as AMERICA FIRST.
You crank.
Snorkraptor, again I ask you to provide a link where Oz has said anything supporting Fascism. You have responded by your belief in some secret code used by the Fascist. Next you will be telling us that they use children’s blood to bake their bread. Instead of providing one statement by Oz supporting your claim you just bring forth a conspiracy code theory from some far corner in your brain. Go ahead dig deeper. Ewww don’t you know they got them there secret code words. Can’t you see it!! Can’t you see it!!
Watch the debate from last night with Oz’s statement that local officials should be involved with decisions on whether a woman chooses to get anabortion. In case you need the stick figure version, and clearly you do, this type of arrangement is wildly symptomatic of a fascist type arrangement. Hence my statement that Oz has a soft spot in his heart for it.
Rubbish. It removed the decision from 9 judges and placed it into the hands of the people. The Roe decision was terribly flawed, recognized by many including RBG. Your lack of ability to see through the fog demonstrates that you are the fascist you talk about.
When every state with trigger laws puts an up or down initiative on the ballot then you won’t be talking out of your butt. Until then you’ll just be a clueless one shocked by what happened in Kansas…
Abortion and states rights is a red herring. A failed way leftover from 50 plus years ago.
If you do not like your states abortion laws – change them.
I honestly do not care about Kansas. The people of Kansas chose.
That is their right.
Oz’s answer was the people of PA are free to choose too.
Also fine with me.
Agreed. R’s have federal abortion ban on tap with no input from the residents of any state though. Exposing the red herring of states rights re abortion rights.
Republican Senators were elected by the people in Republicans states.
I am opposed to Federal Abortion law.
But Graham’s proposed bill is not an abortion ban but pretty much what Democrats claim they want – the status quo prior to Dobb’s. It allows abortions up to 15weeks and gradually limits them after.
One of the things we are seeing post Dobb’s is that outside of the left and right fringes – nobody cares.
Women have plenty of options to control reproduction.
BTW, Dobb’s is not about “states rights”, it is about delegating issues that do not involve the constitution or rights to the legislature rather than the judiciary.
I do not believe that Congress should take up abortion.
SCOTUS should have found a right to control of your own body in the 9th amendment.
That produces results similar to Casey, but based on a meaningful right rather than a fake one.
So I assume you fundamentally disagree with Lindsay Graham then?
In what sense ?
Honestly I mostly do not care. Except that those on the left have completely whigged out and are making as is typical poorly thought out and illogical arguments – I really do not care.
I beleive Dobbs was wrongly decided – there is no right to an abortion – there is a right to control of your own body.
The result is similar but not identical to Casey – except that it is morally, constitutionally more sound and consistent with centuries of common law.
I likely would oppose ANY federal legislation on the issue – because the only Federal issue is whether a right exists – and that is an issue for the courts. If Republicans or Democrats with to propose a constitutional amendment – my suggestion would be an amendment that asserts an enumerated right to control of your own body, that is in their domain.
But congress is not going to listen to me and there are far more stupid things they could do and have done than pass laws – left or right, regarding abortion.
I am not going to go picket Sen. Grahams house if he introduces a bill to federally ban abortion after 15weeks.
Nor will I do so if Sen. Warren introduces a bill to make abortion legal to the moment of birth.
I do not think this is a consequential issue no matter how it is decided.
The options available to women today are sufficient that an outright ban on abortions would be near meaningless.
Even if such legislation tried to make morning after pills illegal – you can get anything on the internet
More people circumventing government restrictions on the internet is a good thing.
“. Abortion and states rights is a red herring.”
Snark is a lover of one man rule who prefers a majority of 9 to rule, rather than let the people decide. Will he next decry that our democracy is dying?
Snorkraptor, so allowing the people of the state (local) control of what goes on in their state is a fascist idea. The fascists had total centralized control of their nation. Now you want total centralized control in our nation. What fascist have in common is a belief in centralized control in all matters. This is what you are advocating for concerning abortion. The idea of states rights has no place in your assessment of our form of government. So you want centralized control just like the real fascist of the past. Maybe you should take a walk down History lane. Once again I request just one proof from anyone concerning Oz and fascism. You can’t provide any source that bolsters your thinking so you have to twist states rights into fascism. Source other than whats in your head please!
Tit has a good point. Snorkraptor sounds fascist with the typical fascist desire of central control.
“Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. “ stated by RBG an icon of the left.”
Can Snorkraptor tell us where RBG went wrong?
You do realize that fascism and centralized control are not synonymous right?
You always have had problems defining different political entities and you still haven’t learned.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader
Time to stop being a troll and learn.
Your post would be more credible if you could cite the specific words that Oz purportedly spoke.
Given that most of the US, and nearly all of the world accepts that abortion after 20 weeks is illegal.
Are you saying most of the world – including all the EU – all those allegedly socialist european countries are fascist ?
Fascists can not admit to being fascists – so they call others fascists.
The DO not use coded language, they make no bones about “Everything in government, nothing outside government, nothing against government”
It is trivial to identify fascists – the further left you are the more fascist you are. They are LITERALLY the same thing.
Mussolini was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. Both were fully open that Fascism is a form of socialism.
This is just simply incorrect.
Fascism is not “literally” the same thing as socialism. National socialism (aka Nazism) is a form of fascism. Although it has “socialism” in it’s name, Nazism is not socialism.
Please educate yourself:
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Who has substantive control over production?
Socialism: The state
Nazism: The state
Capitalism: The individual
Where is the individual a means to an end?
Socialism
Nazism
That is not true with capitalism
How do the different types of governments manage shortages?
Socialism: wage and price control
Nazism: wage and price control
Capitalism: Increase of prices
Did socialism disappear with the arrival of the Nazi state?
No. Price and wage controls were imposed even in the mature Nazi state.
ATS and his cohorts are unable to provide solid reasoning when they conclude. Instead, they search for answers. Nothing in the Britannica editor’s history and training shows he was adequately trained in political science. ATS and his cohorts look for any agreement whether substantive or not and post it as proof rather than trying to prove their case with data and knowledge. I am shocked at this particular Britannica article.
Socialism negates capitalism, but in the end, one has to consider what definition one is using to define socialism. The left intentionally distorts definitions to make sense out of their gobbledegook. (Note how they stole the term liberal from classical liberal. They would have been more accurate to use the word illiberal.)
With all the definitional confusion and different elements in Marxist theory there is room to debate the exact meanings, but are different from the meanings produced by the likes of ATS. I look at socialism economically, the control of wages and prices extinguishing capitalism. Add to that extreme nationalism, and we get national socialism.
The rest of Marxism is a fool’s errand as well. Even Marx had to leave it to Engles to finish what he started. The world moved on and proved much of what he said wrong. In the end, the top-down solution of all socialist ideas doesn’t work. The bottom-up solution of free markets does.
I linked to an encyclopedia because this is grade-school level political science… “National Socialism” was a marketing campaign that Hitler exploited, after which he subsequently purged any elements of socialism.
Ask yourself, is a traditional monarchy or empire, a “socialist” system? Answer each of your cherry-picked questions, and the answers would be the same. Genghis Khan and Medieval England were not socialist states.
You linked to that article because it served your purpose and not for any other reason. It was an inadequate article written by one who is not knowledgeable in political science. I explained the definitional confusion, but your ideas and that article oppose an intellectual discussion of socialism and Nazism.
I provided some simple questions to demonstrate that, on an economic level, Nazism and socialism reside in close quarters. Different socialist or fascist nations have differences in their policies. The basic structure, however, can be seen from one country to the next. If you wish to pursue this discussion on an intellectual basis, then you have to provide the definitions that permit you to comment as you do.
Without question, the Nazi Party and the Communists had differences and would purge the other if they had the chance, which is what the Nazis did to gain control.
The socialists of the Marxist variety would play down ownership, while the Nazis might play it up. However, in both, there were wage and price controls in an attempt to negate capitalism. Ownership rights seem to exist more with Nazism, but only if serving the central desires of the Nazi Party. Though ownership in socialism is supposedly by the people, we don’t see it. Central control dominates both systems.
The top-down solutions of any brand of socialism don’t work. The bottom-up solution of free markets does.
“Ask yourself, is a traditional monarchy or empire, a “socialist” system? “
Refer to the individual points I made in my first reply on this subject. Look at the relationships and the stark differences. Add your own if you wish, but limit what you add to the significant features of your claims. Different political systems will have some of the same features but understand, you are looking historically at where other systems existed. As an example, think of mercantilism. There was private ownership, and in that manner, they were capitalists. The King was a monarch or a dictator with ultimate control, but that did not create a socialist kingdom.
What is disturbing in the way you think is that your process is so thin and devoid of significant understanding. You want to find the easy way out. That is one reason you picked your article, which you designate “grade-school level political science,” but it wasn’t even grade-level. It was inadequate and taught the wrong things.
Go ahead and make the case that socialism and nazism are different. I can easily do that. I don’t because I believe those arguments are neither as good nor clear as the ones I propose.
“Nazism is not socialism.”
Dear Copy and Paste Maniac:
Per usual, you have a smattering of knowledge, and a wealth of ignorance.
The Nazis used whatever totalitarian ideology that rationalized their lust for power, including: socialism, fascism, statism, collectivism, mysticism, racism.
I largely agree with you, which is why it is not socialism! If it used whatever ideology it wanted to maintain control of the state, then how can it be categorized as a form of socialism?
“This is just simply incorrect.
Fascism is not “literally” the same thing as socialism. National socialism (aka Nazism) is a form of fascism. Although it has “socialism” in it’s name, Nazism is not socialism.
Please educate yourself:”
I have you have not. You seem to think that modern scholars most of them socialists attempting to whitewash the fact that Facism is a form of socialism somehow trumps not only what actual fascists said but what they DID.
Regardless, fascism is not some concoction of modern left wing nut scholars.
It is what its leaders said it was and what in power they did.
It is socialism.
Mussolini’s definition of socialism “Everything inside the state,. Nothing outside the state. nothing against the state”
Please distinguish that from
“Marx and Engels’ ideas laid the groundwork for the theory and practice of communism, which advocates for a classless system in which all property and wealth are communally (rather than privately) owned.
Socialism predates communism by several decades. Socialism is based on the idea of public ownership of the means of production, but individuals may still own property. Rather than arising out of a class revolution, socialist reform takes place within the existing social and political structures, whether they’re democratic, technocratic, oligarchic, or totalitarian.”
There is no difference.
The Socialist Economics of Italian Fascism
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html
“When the war is over, in the world’s social revolution that will be followed by a more equitable distribution of the earth’s riches, due account must be kept of the sacrifices and of the discipline maintained by the Italian workers. The Fascist revolution will make another decisive step to shorten social distances.”
Mussolini’s speech in Rome, Italy, February 23, 1941. Published in the New York Times, February 24, 1941.
“For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. I adapted socialisticamente to reality. As the evolution of society belied many of the prophecies of Marx, the true socialism folded from possible to probable. ”
Mussolini 1945 shortly before his death.
Here is the NAZI 25 point political platform
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party
I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity.
Hitler’s “Barbarossa” Proclamation, (June 22, 1941)
“We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…”
Hitler
Instead, it will increasingly strive to realize, in the service of the national interest everywhere, a true Volksgemeinschaft as the highest ideal. All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.
Hitler 1943
“It should be noted, to begin with, that Donald Trump’s transcripts were often completely unintelligible.”
This means something ? Trump has a record of accomplishment in both public and private life.
” Add to that Fetterman having the equivalent of a hearing impediment”
Fetterman has not held an actual job in his life – why would anyone beleive he has any understanding of anything ?
I am sorry that he had a stroke. I am not even the tiniest bit sorry that he will likely lose.
Before the stroke he was not fit to be a senator. Now the left can pretend his disability is the excuse.
Fetterman has much more than a hearing impediment – even when he understands questions he speaks like a toddler.
He is seriously impaired. If he has not recovered by now, he will not likely.
Lots of people have strokes. A significant portion of those die within 3 years. Most people only partly recover.
The odds are better if you are younger.
“while Oz has a soft spot in his heart for facism…”
You think everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist.
Fascism:Everything in government, nothing outside government, nothing against government – Benito Mussolini
Does not sound like any republican I know, sounds like most democrats I know.
“It’s not altogether unfunny that Oz showed up to take advantage of his verbal skills against a stroke victim”
The Senate is not a safe space. We try hard not to elect incompetents, and morons.
Regardless, I expect every candidate right and left in a political contest to make use of every advantage they have.
The left claims we do not have a meritocracy – and then tries to destroy every instance where we might.
“yet he effectively ended up saying he believes Mastriano should get up into women’s vaginas.”
Mastriano is not looking to get up into women’s vagina’s. He is seeking to reduce the opportunity for women to remove babies from their uterus and kill them.
Regardless. Mastriano is not running for Senate Oz, is. I would note that PA Gov. Casey – a democrat – for whom the history Abortion case Planned Parenthood V. Casey was names shared the same views as Mastriano. He was PA’s governor, and the world did not come to an end.
Conversely one of the worst Abortion hollocausts – Gosnell – occured in Philadelphia a few miles from a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Disagreed with your speculations. And speculations always drive your rhetoric.
What part of my post was speculation ?
Trump accomplished a great deal as president.
You may not like those accomplishiments.
Others do. Some of us support some, and not others.
Wapo just did an article about how the re-election of Trump in 2024 would “Destroy democracy”
The article listed all the things Wapo expected Trump to do as president to “Destroy Democracy”.
There was nothing on the list that does not scream to be accomplished and that half the country would not expect from ANY president.
Fetterman has NOT held a meaningful job in his entire life.
He has not had to do anything that actually involves creating jobs. He has not worked as a ditch digger or run a business.
All he has done is hold positions in government.
We need far less career Bureaucrats and far more people who have actually had to do productive things in their lives.
In the debate Fetterman flipped on Fracking. I am not going to fault him on changing positions.
The real fault is that it took a russian war for him to realize the stupidity of his prior position.
What we need are the people who actually understand what works and what does not BEFORE a crisis.
We need the people who get decisions right ahead of time so that the crisis never comes.
I can not prove that if Trump was president Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
But we KNOW that if Trump was president:
US energy policy would not be choked and that as a result the Saudi’s and Russians would have far less leverage.
That the US would be better able to provide for EU energy needs in the event of a conflict.
That the AFghan withdraw would not have been nearly so chaotic and the US would not have looked so weak.
That the US – Trump would have stiffled talk of Ukraine joining the EU.
That the US – Trump would not have been engaged in dick measuring contests with Putin.
All these and much else would have radically reduced the likelyhood of Putin invading Ukraine.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics would KNOW that inflation would be MUCH lower.
Democrats dumped an additional 5T into an already rising economy.
Inflation is always and everywhere monetary.
These are MAJOR changes – not just for the US but globally.
The Russian War and inflation combined with economic problems caused by Covid are driving a very likely global recession.
One that is likely to be severe world wide over the next couple of years atleast.
It is near certain we were going to have recession. But the scale of the problem is far greater because of US policy errors.
This administrations anti-franking idiocy being one of those many mistakes.
Food prices are rising – that is painful in the US – in the rest of the world that triggers actual insurrections, wars,
John Fetterman gets credit for AFTER THE FACT grasping that opposition to Fracking is a mistake.
Of course he is LYING about always supporting it.
But most importantly – he was unable to see the obvious BEFORE bad policies created a crisis.
Biden – or more accurately the children running the whitehouse, is even worse.
They are unable to learn from their own mistakes.
You’ve never tried to read a debate transcript in your life, nor have you shown the ability to determine what is intelligible.
The rest of your baseless screed is simply the rantings of one feeling that the team they mindlessly root for is losing.
Actually the first debate transcript I read was in 1980.
Here I go again being a mean person if I write bad things about Fetterman. The following link proves that I and CNN are mean people. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-fracking-support-kfile
via Posobiec…
BARIS: If Fetterman and Shapiro win in PA, Shapiro will appoint his successor immediately because Fetterman will never serve.
BARIS: Fetterman’s wife is on the top of the shortlist to replace him, everyone on the list is extremely radical.
Why wasn’t he asked about this — I see it everywhere that Biden talked about replacing him with his wife. Is this an off limits question? I would think that the citizens would like to know what his plans are for representing PA.
“My first act after being sworn in will be to resign. My wife will then be appointed.” Does that sit well with anyone?
If Fetterman loses the Democrats will say that the election was stolen because of his disability. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s.
Then how do they explain biden’s win?
Duh, that’s why Biden won. Biden’s disability and how (Obama,maybe , Elias,probably, Hilary,hilarious ……somebody) used it and COVID,it allowed them to hide. Plus after years of selfless sacrifice Hunter experiments on his own body trying to find a cure for dementia. All the drugs, sex, and other disciplines led him know the correct combinations of sex drugs and rock and roll for Joe Biden to fake normal while having his mind blown away. Hunter deserves a medal for his sacrifices not jail
Fetterman is a man who once stated very plainly that he was against fracking. He did so in order to be accepted by the Democratic machine in Pennsylvania. Now that he has found his previous position unpopular with the citizens of his state he has changed where he stands. His saying that he never was against fracking when he was should be a disqualifier in a state dependent on the production of oil. The spin is to say you are a mean person if you question not just his cognitive ability but any thing he has said in the past. He was obviously coached to repeat the same answer to the question without addressing his previous position. Consequently you are called a mean person if you call into question his integrity. Kudos to the moderator who held his feet to the fire. His walk across the hot coals ended in a painful result.