OZ Fetterman Debate (Newtown, Republic, Penn: buy, minimum wage, bill)

[ebbe]

At a minimum, people deserve someone who is fit for the office and can do the job.

[PamelaIamela]

Originally Posted by Duderino

You've got a very narrow understanding of articulation. Articulation does not just depend on speech or verbal debate, as I'm sure you're aware. If a Senator were to suddenly lose their voice, do they lose the capacity to serve in their position?
I'm sure many would have told Helen Keller she would never learn to write, with that mentality.

The fact of the matter is aphasia is not an intellectual disability, despite what you've implied. This is where the nuance between speech and thought gets completely lost.

Sometimes it's not easy to determine whether the impediment is in the thought process or the speech process, but an impediment it surely is.

If MY senator had such a handicap I would not view him or her as fit to serve.

And Helen Keller has nothing to do with it .. she did not ever run for public office.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Thank you for admitting this. On Facebook I had one friend say anyone undecided heading into the debate was a moron. I had to admit I was a "moron", then, because I didn't like to be told "If you don't vote for Fetterman you hate women" or "Oz isn't even from PA". I want to know why people support Fetterman for WHO HE IS---not for what party he represents. I'm a moderate Democrat, much to the chagrin of my Facebook friends who love to foam at the mouth whenever I suggest I might vote for a Republican.

I think Oz won handily last night. I also caught Oz up in a few lies. Then again I also caught Fetterman up in lies (especially the denial of being anti-fracking as recently as 2018), but whenever you bring that up you are told you are being insensitive to his aphasia. I really want to vote for Shapiro AND Oz, but I have had too many female liberal friends threaten to cut ties with me if I vote for Oz, so I am being bullied into voting for Fetterman. If these Fetterman fools had listened to me and voted for Conor Lamb in the primary this would be a non-issue as Lamb would trounce Oz.

Oz may have “won handily,” but he in no way performed impressively. He routinely ignored the time clock (which the moderators should have cracked down on much more firmly), knowing that Fetterman could not do the same in his condition.

From what I know about stroke recovery patients, I don’t believe that Fetterman’s slow verbal processing speed correlates with a cognitive impairment that would prevent him from making sound and reasoned decisions as a U.S. Senator.

I certainly won’t pretend that Fetterman’s condition is ideal, and I won’t call anyone a moron for going into the debate undecided or being concerned with Fetterman’s performance, but (and without trying to bully or intimidate you into accepting my viewpoint), I don’t see how Oz is a viable alternative for anyone who was otherwise in broad agreement with Fetterman’s campaign platform. Still, unless Fetterman has a trump card or two in reserve—no pun intended (which his campaign hopefully does, given that last night’s performance was not a huge shock)—I don’t have high hopes of him prevailing on November 8th.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by PamelaIamela

Sometimes it's not easy to determine whether the impediment is in the thought process or the speech process, but an impediment it surely is.

If MY senator had such a handicap I would not view him or her as fit to serve.

And Helen Keller has nothing to do with it .. she did not ever run for public office.

You're missing my point. So you're saying that Helen Keller would have never been fit to be Senator because she couldn't speak or hear?

At what point do you get to decide who is "fit" and who is not? Where do you draw the line?

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Duderino

At what point do you get to decide who is "fit" and who is not? Where do you draw the line?

Oh, please. This is an election. Everyone gets to decide. That's the whole point.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

I certainly won’t pretend that Fetterman’s condition is ideal, and I won’t call anyone a moron for going into the debate undecided or being concerned with Fetterman’s performance, but (and without trying to bully or intimidate you into accepting my viewpoint), I don’t see how Oz is a viable alternative for anyone who was otherwise in broad agreement with Fetterman’s campaign platform.

My thoughts exactly. Folks also need to remember that 5 months out from a stroke, Fetterman has indeed improved.

I do certainly understand the hesitation for some voters to support a candidate with aphasia. However, it needs to be based on fact. It's not an intellectual disability.

Was it a good look for him to go into fast-paced debate, particularly against an admittedly better-than-average orator like Oz? Absolutely not; it was a huge risk for his campaign to agree to this format, and they had to have considered that. It was honestly a "Catch 22" for them; if he bowed out of the debate, the vitriol against him would have been just as strong.

That said, Fetterman will continue to improve his speech over time; it is not permanent. Character, on the other hand, is something you cannot change. The lack of which is Oz's Achilles' Heel.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

Oh, please. This is an election. Everyone gets to decide. That's the whole point.

Um, okay. Maybe that's why I asked the poster personally where he/she draws the line? How do you define "fitness?" It's a pretty simple question, is it not?

[NewtownBucks]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

Oz may have “won handily,” but he in no way performed impressively. He routinely ignored the time clock (which the moderators should have cracked down on much more firmly), knowing that Fetterman could not do the same in his condition.

From what I know about stroke recovery patients, I don’t believe that Fetterman’s slow verbal processing speed correlates with a cognitive impairment that would prevent him from making sound and reasoned decisions as a U.S. Senator.

I certainly won’t pretend that Fetterman’s condition is ideal, and I won’t call anyone a moron for going into the debate undecided or being concerned with Fetterman’s performance, but (and without trying to bully or intimidate you into accepting my viewpoint), I don’t see how Oz is a viable alternative for anyone who was otherwise in broad agreement with Fetterman’s campaign platform. Still, unless Fetterman has a trump card or two in reserve—no pun intended (which his campaign hopefully does, given that last night’s performance was not a huge shock)—I don’t have high hopes of him prevailing on November 8th.

I'm not in broad agreement with any party platform.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Um, okay. Maybe that's why I asked the poster personally where he/she draws the line? How do you define "fitness?" It's a pretty simple question, is it not?

We are not in a hypothetical situation. John Fetterman, not Helen Keller, is running for U.S. Senate. If a voter draws the line at whatever they perceive Fetterman's issues to be, then that's their right.

It's also a voter's right to come away from the debate saying Oz is too polished, his accent is too New Jersey, or whatever else they think.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

We are not in a hypothetical situation. John Fetterman, not Helen Keller, is running for U.S. Senate. If a voter draws the line at whatever they perceive Fetterman's issues to be, then that's their right.

It's also a voter's right to come away from the debate saying Oz is too polished, his accent is too New Jersey, or whatever else they think.

Look, I'm not saying anything contrary to what you're arguing. I never said people "don't have the right" to make personal decisions about "fitness." Obviously people make voting decisions based on a whole spectrum of factors and opinions.

What I am saying is that if we're going to have a conversation about "fitness," it should at least be honest and factual about what are truly limits to someone serving as US Senator, and what can be reasonably accommodated as a disability.

People can certainly reasonably disagree about the extent to which accommodation of any disability is "reasonable," but that doesn't make it any less of an important conversation to have so that we're drawing individual conclusions with the same set of facts.