People weigh in on Fetterman's health, Dr. Oz's abortion answer

[Gunny]

"The ability to process conversation in real time and respond is a lingering challenge, and that was absolutely a real issue tonight for Fetterman," Politico reporter Natalie Allison tweeted.
Saw this one coming. I was just beginning to understand what had happened to me 5 months after I had a stroke. I still have trouble with real-time debates.

Other side of the coin, the usual Dem suspects went on the attack over Oz's abortion response which I had no problem with and was better than I expected.

I'm glad I don't vote in PA. :)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-senate-debate-people-weigh-fettermans-health-dr-ozs-abortion-answer

[Black Diamond]

Saw this one coming. I was just beginning to understand what had happened to me 5 months after I had a stroke. I still have trouble with real-time debates.

Other side of the coin, the usual Dem suspects went on the attack over Oz's abortion response which I had no problem with and was better than I expected.

I'm glad I don't vote in PA. :)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-senate-debate-people-weigh-fettermans-health-dr-ozs-abortion-answer

I had heard oz isn't all that pro life.

[SassyLady]

I had heard oz isn't all that pro life.

He's not. But as a senator he won't be able to make an unilateral decision to change the law. He's not the best GOP candidate but he's better than Fetterman on everything else.

[Kathianne]

He's not. But as a senator he won't be able to make an unilateral decision to change the law. He's not the best GOP candidate but he's better than Fetterman on everything else.

the question is 'why?' The GOP has really deep bench, why all these whackos? The best that can be said about them, 'They are better than the D,' like most would even consider outside of partisanship.

[SassyLady]

the question is 'why?' The GOP has really deep bench, why all these whackos? The best that can be said about them, 'They are better than the D,' like most would even consider outside of partisanship.
I have no idea why Dr. Oz. He's not a populist. I also don't think he's going to toe the GOP party line.

[fj1200]

the question is 'why?'

Very much so. One wonders...

[SassyLady]

I think the deep bench is why. People are tired of the "good old boy" system of politics. I know I am. And McConnell is showing us why by endorsing candidates like Murkowski ..... the current bench doesn't want to lose their power.

[Gunny]

the question is 'why?' The GOP has really deep bench, why all these whackos? The best that can be said about them, 'They are better than the D,' like most would even consider outside of partisanship.Good question.

[Gunny]

I think the deep bench is why. People are tired of the "good old boy" system of politics. I know I am. And McConnell is showing us why by endorsing candidates like Murkowski ..... the current bench doesn't want to lose their power.I can buy that. At the same time, less qualified than the good ol boys is saying what and accomplishing what?

Putting some rube in to lose his/her seat after one term doesn't strike me as the right answer. Different isn't always right nor better.

[Black Diamond]

14207

[Kathianne]

I can buy that. At the same time, less qualified than the good ol boys is saying what and accomplishing what?

Putting some rube in to lose his/her seat after one term doesn't strike me as the right answer. Different isn't always right nor better.
"They fight!" "They are not DEEP STATE." Whatever. Qualified? Who needs qualified?

[Gunny]

"They fight!" "They are not DEEP STATE." Whatever. Qualified? Who needs qualified?Complicated :)

No one can say they have been more vocal about the bureaucracy (Deep State) than I. I'm all for getting rid of it. It's right up there on my list with Whirled Peas. Ideals are great. Don't have a lot to do with reality.

Piece meal throwing "Not-Deep State" motormouths is going to do nothing good for the right. In fact, seems to me it plays to the left's/bureaucracy's constantly keeping us divided and/or in chaos. So long as they can maintain division and chaos among the people, they don't have to face a united front. A united front of the people being one of the few things that could bring them down. Simple strategy and tactic.

Lesson not learned: Trump is the poster boy, picture perfect example of trying to take on the bureaucracy half-assed/piecemeal/unprepared/not knowing what the Hell you're dealing with. He's being beaten down from every conceivable angle. It's taking longer because he can afford it. Not going to change the end.

They're taking him apart in public, for all to see, and don't give a rat's ass what we think about their transparent hypocrisy and lies and otherwise making a mockery of the Constitution and justice. The one's for it don't care, and the ones against aren't learning their lesson, yet. THIS is what happens when you f*ck with the US government machine.

What I don't see? A united, Republican front with a list of bullet points to accomplish if they get control. But then, that would be like having a plan, wouldn't it?

A fragmented Republican party in control is little better than Dems being in control with 2 holdouts.

[fj1200]

I think the deep bench is why. People are tired of the "good old boy" system of politics. I know I am. And McConnell is showing us why by endorsing candidates like Murkowski ..... the current bench doesn't want to lose their power.

Or maybe, and stay with me here, he thinks Murkowski is a better choice. And there's a reason for a deep bench, they have likely won competitve races, know what they believe and why, they didn't stumble into the race because they stumbled onto someone's good side, etc.

[Gunny]

Or maybe, and stay with me here, he thinks Murkowski is a better choice. And there's a reason for a deep bench, they have likely won competitve races, know what they believe and why, they didn't stumble into the race because they stumbled onto someone's good side, etc.
A fair point, given it is assuming McConnell's POV/reasoning. I can see him believing Milketoast Dem Murkowski a better choice. Proving one is bipartisan above all else appears to appeal to them both.

I've also noticed he's all for anyone in opposition to a Trump choice.

Back to Kathianne's point: This is not supposed to be a popularity contest. Qualified to hold the position works for me. How many TV celebrities are the Republicans running now? Not to leave out a former all-pro football player :poke:

[fj1200]

A fair point, given it is assuming McConnell's POV/reasoning. I can see him believing Milketoast Dem Murkowski a better choice. Proving one is bipartisan above all else appears to appeal to them both.

I've also noticed he's all for anyone in opposition to a Trump choice.

Back to Kathianne's point: This is not supposed to be a popularity contest. Qualified to hold the position works for me. How many TV celebrities are the Republicans running now? Not to leave out a former all-pro football player :poke:

Completely agree on the bold. It's almost turning into a celebrity position, on both sides. Astronauts, football players, football coaches, TV doctors, etc. It's a sad day. Repeal the 17th.

[Kathianne]

Completely agree on the bold. It's almost turning into a celebrity position, on both sides. Astronauts, football players, football coaches, TV doctors, etc. It's a sad day. Repeal the 17th.

Hey! They FIGHT! They are TRUMP ENDORSED! They're not D'S! Nothing more required.

[fj1200]

Hey! They FIGHT! They are TRUMP ENDORSED! They're not D'S! Nothing more required.

Tangentially related. Saw a 10 second clip with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, AR governor's race, where an older guy in a wheelchair I think told her that "trump will be watching her..." Some people just outsource their thinking from one establishment to the next.

[SassyLady]

"They fight!" "They are not DEEP STATE." Whatever. Qualified? Who needs qualified?
Was Reagan qualified?

[Gunny]

Was Reagan qualified?Ronald Reagan was the former Governor of California for 2 terms. He was infinitely more qualified than Carter in leadership and decisiveness alone.

Even dead he's still more qualified than any of the current Chickenshit vs Chicken crowd.

[SassyLady]

Ronald Reagan was the former Governor of California for 2 terms. He was infinitely more qualified than Carter in leadership and decisiveness alone.

Even dead he's still more qualified than any of the current Chickenshit vs Chicken crowd.
Was he qualifed before becoming a governor ... I should have been more specific. Sometimes good people are elected without being a career politician or being a part of the political royalty in America. I would like to see more regular people elected.

And my favorite wish is for term limits if nothing else.

[Gunny]

Was he qualifed before becoming a governor ... I should have been more specific. Sometimes good people are elected without being a career politician or being a part of the political royalty in America. I would like to see more regular people elected.

And my favorite wish is for term limits if nothing else. I agree there is a compelling argument "for" term limits. I just don't believe it is strong enough to over come the downside.

Downside to term limits: inconsistent government. Look at the inconsistent BS we get with turnover without term limits. I'm not seeing an increase in turnover tempo helping anything.

As a sort of aside: I'm all for limiting them so they don't get to retire on our dime. Want more "regular" people? Take away the incentives that appeal to career bureaucrats. Still, it wouldn't address the chaotic, rapid turnover. Keeps coming back to that, IMO.

I agree that "service" itself does not alone qualify anyone for anything. I've had this argument many times in the past in regard to military service. Same basic rule applies.

However, proven leadership, behavior -- all the whatnot essentials -- definitely gives an ignorant public a glance at what they might generally expect to see. In general, public/media celebrities aren't celebrities because of any leadership and/or abilities to work in government.

And yep, Donald Trump is a poster child, perfect example. In his world and time he was successful. Success made him the boss which does not alone make a good leader. I do not consider him a good leader from a military POV. The fact he can get a bunch of desperate people to follow his promises now does not make him a good leader. People's desperation and his money put him at the top.

At the same time, he cannot get past his own arrogance that success has clouded his mind with. Unfortunately, he isn't and wasn't successful as a politician. That's not what brung him to the dance. A leader who puts his bruised ego ahead of the mission and his people is poor at best, and in my line of work will get people killed.

I have seen the most unlikely people take charge and get shit done. I've also seen ring knockers with every advantage and training blow the simplest tasks right out their backsides because they just didn't have what it takes.

In the case of Fetterman, he is nothing more than an over-glorified carny pitch man long on talk with no real substance. IMO, almost ANY candidate with a track record of accomplishing anything in politics should be able to steamroll the idiot. Instead, Mr TV celeb is struggling.

[Abbey Marie]

How embarrassing for Oz if he loses to the virtually unintelligible, parents’ couch denizen until 40 “Lurch” known as Fetterman.

[Gunny]

How embarrassing for Oz if he loses to the virtually unintelligible, parents’ couch denizen until 40 “Lurch” known as Fetterman.IMO, Oz is embarrassing enough in his own right. I can only imagine all the eyeballs rolling into the backs of voters' heads in PA at what they have to choose from.

As I understand it, PA as a State, in general, is in a bad way and what do they get? Two 1920's vaudeville slapstick comedians to choose from. I take that back. I can follow a Laurel n Hardy silent better than I can either of these two :rolleyes: