Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Probably a good decision to have this interview.  He's agree to a debate on 10/25 and he needs to start setting expectations around his speech and the need for closed-captioning.  This shouldn't matter.  But neither should race, gender, sexual orientation and a host of other shit that does affect voting. 

He’s having trouble holding conversations. I think it’s fair to be concerned about his health. He needs to find a way out of that debate asap.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Poe It Up said:

He’s having trouble holding conversations. I think it’s fair to be concerned about his health. He needs to find a way out of that debate asap.

Would you vote against someone for being deaf? 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

No, but getting lost in simple conversations? Absolutely. 

Where are you pulling that characterization from? 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

In the link. 

I think you are getting lost in simple conversations.  

Quote

She went on to say that he “still has some problems, some challenges with speech” and that in small talk before the interview, when the closed captioning was not yet up and running, “it did seem that he had a hard time understanding our conversations.”

Quote

“We had a monitor set up so that he could read my questions because he still has lingering auditory processing issues as a result of the stroke which means he has a hard time understanding what he’s hearing,” Burns explained on Tuesday. “Now once he reads the question, he’s able to understand.”

 

Tell me how this different than someone with hearing issues? 

Edited by Tuco
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Dumb question - is the assumption that this issue is rehabilitated by the time he would be in the senate, or is there an accommodation that can be made for him to read what is being said?

I'd say yes to the second and partially to the first. 

Edit: Honestly, the Senate might be a better place if there was less talking and more reading. 

Edited by Tuco
Posted

Another example of radical republicans and their hypocrisy.  They have an issue with Fetterman and are silent on Herschel. 

Typical.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
25 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I think you are getting lost in simple conversations.  

 

Tell me how this different than someone with hearing issues? 

I grew up with girl that was deaf and through lip reading and sign language, she never lost track of conversations. This is something very different.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted (edited)

It's fair for voters to question whether someone can handle the duties of being a senator, including health issues.  Suffering from the after effects of a stroke is different from being deaf. In terms of someone being deaf their entire life and no other health issues being present.

If Fetterman is in bad shape, he should definitely cancel the debate. It will look bad BUT thats better than not being able to answer questions. (if that is the problem.)

EDIT 2: It's also fine to have accommodations for a health issue for a candidate. It's not like the Texas debates had a standing podium for Abbott, or that Beto didn't agree to sit.

 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, Poe It Up said:

I grew up with girl that was deaf and through lip reading and sign language, she never lost track of conversations. This is something very different.

1.  Bullshit.  Most people don't sign and lip readers get lost when there are multiple people speaking or when people turn their heads.  I am sure your friend could follow conversations, but that is not the same as saying she never got lost in conversations.  Do you think she could read the lips of a Senator 100 feet away who was looking at his notes? 

2. So, your position is that you would only vote for a deaf person who could read lips? 

 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Another example of radical republicans and their hypocrisy.  They have an issue with Fetterman and are silent on Herschel. 

Typical.

They probably view people with disabilities in the same light as folks who are lgbtq. The GOP is only good for you if you’re in the top 10%, and white. Nobody else should vote gop. They don’t have your best interests at heart.

Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's fair for voters to question whether someone can handle the duties of being a senator, including health issues.  Suffering from the after effects of a stroke is different from being deaf. In terms of someone being deaf their entire life and no other health issues being present.

What specifically about Fetterman's condition is worse?  There isn't a uniformed condition for people recovering from strokes. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

1.  Bullshit.  Most people don't sign and lip readers get lost when there are multiple people speaking or when people turn their heads.  I am sure your friend could follow conversations, but that is not the same as saying she never got lost in conversations.  Do you think she could read the lips of a Senator 100 feet away who was looking at his notes? 

2. So, your position is that you would only vote for a deaf person who could read lips? 

 

This is a discussion where the interviewer is a few feet away. It would be hard enough to just be deaf. But when you throw in his speech and processing issues, it’s fair to wonder. I really don’t think that’s controversial, actually. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
On 10/10/2022 at 8:10 PM, Gil Bang said:

Kill shot
 

 

If JD Vance was a real hillbilly he woulda whooped out a buck knife right then and commenced to carvin. Full maniacal honor-killin, consequences be damned.

But he cain't. Cuz he ain't.

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

Also getting 3 more polls today: Wisconsin (Marquette University), PA (Traflolgar) and OH (Traflolger)

Marquette is a big one. Hoping Barnes is close.

MAGA polling logic :


MAGAs: OH polls are D-biased and show a tie, so the republican is winning.

Also MAGA: NV polls are R-biased and show a tie...so the republican is winning.

Posted

Fetterman can put it all to rest when they debate.  Though that is going to happen after voting already started.

Posted

Modern debates don't require the ability to track and respond to statements/questions anyway.  The only thing that matters is how quickly I can get into my talking points.

Posted
This is a discussion where the interviewer is a few feet away. It would be hard enough to just be deaf. But when you throw in his speech and processing issues, it’s fair to wonder. I really don’t think that’s controversial, actually. 

You seemed to concede my first point and ignored my second.
Would you vote against someone for being deaf if they couldn’t read lips?
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's fair for voters to question whether someone can handle the duties of being a senator, including health issues.  Suffering from the after effects of a stroke is different from being deaf. In terms of someone being deaf their entire life and no other health issues being present.

If Fetterman is in bad shape, he should definitely cancel the debate. It will look bad BUT thats better than not being able to answer questions. (if that is the problem.)

EDIT 2: It's also fine to have accommodations for a health issue for a candidate. It's not like the Texas debates had a standing podium for Abbott, or that Beto didn't agree to sit.

 

I just saw the interview with Fetterman and I didn't think he looked or spoke that bad.  It’s also funny that you mention “handle the duties of being a senator” because I look at Herschel Walker and see someone not capable of being a senator or honestly any important position in society.  I would say the same for Tuberville not being qualified or Marjorie Taylor Greene being qualified.  I am not saying those Republicans aren’t qualified because I disagree with their policy views but because they are fucking idiots and in some cases certifiably insane.   

Posted
Dissembling and half baked (maybe even 10% baked) arguments have been the province of one party lately.  Let’s not make it two. 

You sound like a 90s Democrat talking about gay marriage.
Posted
1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

Yeah, otherwise you totally would vote for him, though.

#teamdeadpuppies

Of course I wouldn’t vote for him. My only point was his health is a major issue for voters. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous. 

1 hour ago, Tuco said:


You seemed to concede my first point and ignored my second.
Would you vote against someone for being deaf if they couldn’t read lips?

As long as they found a way to communicate effectively, I have no issues with it. But we’re discussing something far more serious. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Marquette has Johnson up 6 now. Wisconsin is officially a huge problem 

With less than a month to go before the midterms, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson has opened a 6-point lead over Democratic challenger Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, according to Wednesday's Marquette University Law School Poll.

Johnson led Barnes by 52% to 46% among likely Wisconsin voters.

In the race for governor, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers held a 47% to 46% lead over Republican challenger Tim Michels, among likely voters. The governor numbers were in the survey's margin of error.

In the September poll, Johnson held a 1-point lead over Barnes among likely voters while Evers had a 3-point edge over Michels.

Marquette's August survey, conducted just after the primaries, showed Barnes with a 7-point advantage over Johnson among registered voters while Evers had a 4-point lead over Michels.

The survey of 801 registered Wisconsin voters, including 652 likely voters, was conducted Oct. 3-9. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 4.3% and for the sample of likely voters was plus or minus 4.8%.

The sample was 30% Republican, 29% Democratic and 40% independent.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/10/12/marquette-poll-shows-latest-in-wisconsin-governor-u-s-senate-races/10477147002/
 

dang The independents seem leaning for Johnson 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Gengs1 said:

dang The independents seem leaning for Johnson 

 

Barnes has gotten hammered by Johnson and the NRSC on negative ads.  I can see why.

He has the money, he has to figure out how to use it for the next 4 weeks. 

Wisconsin is the one spot where the LV screen seems to favor the GOP, so Marquette definitely has what they think are going to be likely voters, and it favors the GOP.  See below:

Absolutely certain to vote: Johnson 52, Barnes 46; Evers 47, Michels 46
Less certain to vote: Barnes 51, Johnson 31; Evers 45, Michels 26

Turnout game.

Posted
As long as they found a way to communicate effectively, I have no issues with it. But we’re discussing something far more serious. 

What are you basing that on? Did he say crazy shit in the interview? Did he forget stuff? Is he leading his campaign poorly? I think you have a concept what a stroke victim is and are unwilling to consider that not all stroke victims are the same. What was discussed in the interview is that processing audible language has its disconnects and jumbles the pronunciation of words. You have no evidence to the contrary. He has found a way to communicate effectively. It’s not how a completely normal person communicates, but it is still effective.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Of course I wouldn’t vote for him. My only point was his health is a major issue for voters. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous. 

What are your thoughts on Herschel Walker?  Him being legitimately crazy is a major issue for voters.  Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous.

Posted
2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Another example of radical republicans and their hypocrisy.  They have an issue with Fetterman and are silent on Herschel. 

Typical.

They are both an embarrassment and would be beneath the institution for either Walker or Fetterman to be Senators.  That should not be a controversial statement

Posted
28 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Of course I wouldn’t vote for him. My only point was his health is a major issue for voters. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous. 

As long as they found a way to communicate effectively, I have no issues with it. But we’re discussing something far more serious. 


You're advocating the electing of a dog killer.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

They are both an embarrassment and would be beneath the institution for either Walker or Fetterman to be Senators.  That should not be a controversial statement

The institution that has Cruz, Hawley, McConnell, and Feinstein within its ranks?

Posted
24 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

They are both an embarrassment and would be beneath the institution for either Walker or Fetterman to be Senators.  That should not be a controversial statement

I can only imagine what you think of Tommy Turberville…

Posted
4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

The institution that has Cruz, Hawley, McConnell, and Feinstein within its ranks?

You forgot Grassley. Who is running for re-election at 89 so he can die in office and have his grandson appointed.  Also GOP Mark Kirk served for like 4 years until he lost re-election after a stroke. He took an entire year off to recover and left Illinois with 1 working Senator. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I can only imagine what you think of Tommy Turberville…

Conflicting emotions there. On one hand he’s a piece of shit from Alabama, on the other he was smart enough to get out of Lubbock and never look back fucking their team up for a few years
Posted
37 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What are your thoughts on Herschel Walker?  Him being legitimately crazy is a major issue for voters.  Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous.

Of course, he’s a terrible candidate. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Of course, he’s a terrible candidate. 

But if you lived in Georgia, would you vote for him?  Be honest.

35 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


You're advocating the electing of a dog killer.

Torturer and killer.  

Posted
11 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

But if you lived in Georgia, would you vote for him?  Be honest.

Torturer and killer.  

In reading what Warnock’s ex-wife is saying, I’m not sure there’s a good guy in this race. I’d abstain. 

 

  • Fuck You 1


×
×
  • Create New...