Originally posted by: Boilerman
Democrats are now putting retards up for office. Biden, and now Fetterman. And the low information voting habits of Democrats don't surprise me a bit.
That's a cruel and stupid thing to say. I now honestly hope that you have a stroke and won't be able to talk, only drool. Let's see who calls you a "retard" then.
Insider Advantage now has fetterman trailing by 3, their polls had been showing him up
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I strongly disagree that his disability--assuming it's permanent and yes, doesn't get significantly worse--would make him unable to do his job. Maybe in 1880, yes. But nowadays, how much of an elected official's communication with his constituents consists of face-to-face talking? How much of his job involves direct verbal communication?
I realize that Trumpers and their ilk might say that Fetterman's unfit, since pretty much the only thing the Orange Turd ever did was to climb up on various stages and bloviate and pontificate (and crap out nonsense by the cubic yard). In their minds, anyone who can't gin them up that way isn't worth having. But no one should vote for Ozball, even if he was running against Pol Pot.
I'd like to see him win for another reason: to prove that disabled people can hold positions of great responsibility and that a given disability is just that--as in, it doesn't "spread' to other parts of the body or other functioning or anything like that. That's why Tom's strident little missives about Biden's and Fetterman's speech impairments pisses me off so very, very much.
If one thinks about what the grand majority of politicians daily work situation involves (negotiating with various entities, endless meetings with lobbyists and fundraisers, commitee appointments, photo - op press conferences, guest appearances on TV news channels, on and on ad nauseum..). one has to surmize that they do a ton of talking. They perform their assorted mouthfests while supposedly representing the people back home. The job largely entails talking / communicating on a very routine basis. I don't think Fetterman's condition lines up very well with those daily tasks.
And Dr. Oz wants to leave reproductive decisions up to Mayor Quimby. For me, it's not a tough choice.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
If one thinks about what the grand majority of politicians daily work situation involves (negotiating with various entities, endless meetings with lobbyists and fundraisers, commitee appointments, photo - op press conferences, guest appearances on TV news channels, on and on ad nauseum..). one has to surmize that they do a ton of talking. They perform their assorted mouthfests while supposedly representing the people back home. The job largely entails talking / communicating on a very routine basis. I don't think Fetterman's condition lines up very well with those daily tasks.
Of course not. But there's plenty of technology available that he can employ to make himself understood.
Are you really saying that a 100% functional wackaddodle asshole scumbag Dr. Oz would make a better senator than a speech-impaired Fetterman?
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
And Dr. Oz wants to leave reproductive decisions up to Mayor Quimby. For me, it's not a tough choice.
Well, yes...as far as that goes, it would be better to elect a potted plant than Ozball.
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
And Dr. Oz wants to leave reproductive decisions up to Mayor Quimby. For me, it's not a tough choice.
That's cool..vote your conscience. That's your business.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Of course not. But there's plenty of technology available that he can employ to make himself understood.
Are you really saying that a 100% functional wackaddodle asshole scumbag Dr. Oz would make a better senator than a speech-impaired Fetterman?
Yes, based on policy stance alone...you bet. You knew my answer to that as you were asking it. So, you shouldn't be disillusioned with my answer ( and if you are, we'll both easily survive that). That doesn't mean I don't give a damn about Fetterman's speech disability ... I've already addressed that. It's moot anyway, because I don't reside in PA and won't be casting a vote there..so my active support ( or lack thereof) is completely hypothetical and peripheral. Once again as always, we've revolved/ devolved back to the cumulative issue stances; I'm conservative as you well know..and you aren't. Big deal. We both vote where regionally applicable ( I assume you will, anyway), we'll watch as they tally these assorted election processes nationwide, and accept the outcome/s. There are alternative election outcome responses, but not many of them represent good choices for rational people.
You assign insultive labels to conservative candidates automatically and preemptively simply based on stances you don't agree with. Yet, you've likely never met them, or even know if they brush their teeth regularly or how they hang their toilet paper on a roller. I have no problem with your disagreement with them on policy positions ( and you know that by now..or should). But when you offer that a given conservative candidate is a "100% functional wackadoodle asshole scumbag", it really does reduce you and your perceived / delivered effect. You're capable of and have much better options on 'how you say it' methods, imo. Such responses are still 100% within the confines of free speech, so simply carry on if you must. We'll just continue to disagree and move on to the next disagreeable issue. Big deal..it's not Armageddon.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
Yes, based on policy stance alone...you bet. You knew my answer to that as you were asking it. So, you shouldn't be disillusioned with my answer ( and if you are, we'll both easily survive that). That doesn't mean I don't give a damn about Fetterman's speech disability ... I've already addressed that. It's moot anyway, because I don't reside in PA and won't be casting a vote there..so my active support ( or lack thereof) is completely hypothetical and peripheral. Once again as always, we've revolved/ devolved back to the cumulative issue stances; I'm conservative as you well know..and you aren't. Big deal. We both vote where regionally applicable ( I assume you will, anyway), we'll watch as they tally these assorted election processes nationwide, and accept the outcome/s. There are alternative election outcome responses, but not many of them represent good choices for rational people.
You assign insultive labels to conservative candidates automatically and preemptively simply based on stances you don't agree with. Yet, you've likely never met them, or even know if they brush their teeth regularly or how they hang their toilet paper on a roller. I have no problem with your disagreement with them on policy positions ( and you know that by now..or should). But when you offer that a given conservative candidate is a "100% functional wackadoodle asshole scumbag", it really does reduce you and your perceived / delivered effect. You're capable of and have much better options on 'how you say it' methods, imo. Such responses are still 100% within the confines of free speech, so simply carry on if you must. We'll just continue to disagree and move on to the next disagreeable issue. Big deal..it's not Armageddon.
My loathing for and opposition to so many of the current crop of RepubliQ candidates isn't because of their lunacy. It's because of their advocacy for so many "policies" that are antidemocratic and all too often, simply evil. I'm frankly surprised that you don't see that. As a good person--which I believe you are--you should be utterly disgusted by many of the things your gang has done and wants to do.
This has nothing to do with Trumphole BTW. I realize that most of the RepubliQ hate his guts, but they felt they had no choice but to support or at least not openly oppose him. They were sucked in, like with some malevolent gravitational vortex. I would have been cheered if more than the actual one in twenty had made themselves apostates. But the RepubliQ have shown themselves to crave power above all else, ethics be damned
That's why you should repudiate them, despite your ideological agreement. They've done evil things and have been very clear about their intentions to do more.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
That's cool..vote your conscience. That's your business.
That you will let Mayor Quimby decide if a woman can end her deadly ectopic pregnancy is not cool. You'll put that woman at risk because electing Quimby may get you the tax rates and economic policy you want. And she may die. And young girls may be forced to give birth to their rapist's babies.
But don't let that keep you up at night.
