Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gentlestuncle t1_iw062oq wrote

Now that the election is over, I think people can admit that no one was impressed by Fetterman in the debate. I see the election as an indictment of Dr. Oz and the GOP way more than I do an endorsement of Fetterman. I think if you could have shown the debate to primary voters the day before the election, people would have overwhelmingly chosen Lamb instead of Fetterman. Maybe he’ll get better, but the performance definitely wasn’t confidence inspiring.

46

future_shoes t1_iw0emf4 wrote

If true I think it would be out of fear of Fetterman losing versus deciding Lamb would be a better congressman. Or fear from people misunderstanding his medical condition after the stroke. Fetterman has a temporary disability from medical emergency. No one legitimate in the media or GOP has said that he has been effected cognitively. Even if Fetterman needs to use aids to effectively communicate the rest of his life it wouldn't impact his ability to function as a Senator.

42

gentlestuncle t1_iw0f8fq wrote

As a citizen of PA, Fetterman definitely has not proven to me that he’s totally fine. He could release the medical records around his stroke any day and clear up all doubt, but he hasn’t done that. And the fact that he hasn’t done that certainly suggests that his doctors think something other than he’s totally fine. If his doctors were writing “John Fetterman is 100% of the man he was before the stroke,” don’t you think he would have been kicking in doors at the Post Gazette to get it published?

He COULD be fine, but he could also not be fine. And as the public servant, it’s on him to prove it.

Edit: it’s wild that this has turned into a downvote party. He 100% has not proven he’s fine. There is no chance whatsoever people would accept the same evidence if it was Donald Trump, and rightfully so. He’s a public servant, he already won the election, I don’t get why people would stan unnecessarily for this guy.

−47

capchaos t1_iw0wcsp wrote

What's with people wanting to see other people's medical records? His doctor released a statement saying he has no work restrictions. The same doctor who fills out his medical records. If you don't believe the doctor's statement, you're not going to believe his medical record either. His medical record is none of your fucking business.

EDIT: Since I can't reply to u/Willow-girl ...

> This doesn't mean he is able to do the job

Actually it does. You don't want it to so you can keep screeching about medical records. Are you a physician who is capable of determining his abilities by looking at his medical records?

EDIT 2: Still can't comment to u/Willow-girl ...

I don't think YOU understand what "work restrictions" are. In your example, you're talking about a physical job. Being a senator is not a physical job. It's an administrative job that requires thinking. Work restrictions would mean he can't do that. The good doctor says he can. I'll ask again, what is the difference in validity between a letter and a medical record and what qualifications do you have to evaluate a medical record? And for the record, you had no problem with trump who wouldn't release his medical records and he clearly has severe cognitive issues.

"I was OK with Trump up until the election-denier BS." - You

13

Willow-girl t1_iw4ifyy wrote

I don't think you understand what "work restrictions" are.

Work restrictions specify things you should not be doing because they pose a danger to your health. For instance, if you've had a recent back injury, a doctor may give you a work restriction like, "No lifting over 10 lbs." in order to protect you from re-aggravating it. "No work restrictions" in Fetterman's case simply means that performing the job of senator is not likely to pose a danger to his health.

−1

Willow-girl t1_iw2klt1 wrote

> His doctor released a statement saying he has no work restrictions.

This doesn't mean he is able to do the job; it only means the job is not likely to hurt him.

−7

gentlestuncle t1_iw10wrg wrote

The only people being asked are the people asking to serve in the Senate. I don’t normally ask that people for the their tax records, but we fairly ask that if our politicians. I’m not even saying he needs to release his whole medical record; if he has some sort of disparaging historical detail, that obviously doesn’t matter. He would only need to release the records specifically related to his stroke and diagnosis. But releasing a letter is a deliberate evasion.

−11

capchaos t1_iw2b9fy wrote

So a letter can be false but a medical record can't be? From the same doctor? Do you hear yourself?

2

kickerofelves86 t1_iw0roxf wrote

Lamb's "we have to work with the Republicans" crap just doesn't fly anymore.

32

highlandparkpitt t1_iw0uzf1 wrote

Let's face it 15 years ago Lamb would've been a republican. That's far more of a critique of the current republicans than it should be

16

delco_trash t1_iw0y9ng wrote

I imagine lamb shoving his third steak into his mouth at a fancy restaurant washing it down with expensive wine and you ask if you can have a bread roll.

The button on his shirt busts off and he burps loudly in your face while telling you, 'Sorry kid, but we just don't have the resources for that right."

He then eats a live child in one bite while rubbing his bloated belly.

You walk outside and see Fetterman working as a garbage man who sees you bummed out and offers you a hit from his blunt.

That's how I viewed this race, and yes I'll take the blunt over whatever the hell the elitist first option is.

8

pAul2437 t1_iw7mzsc wrote

Fetterman literally had a fine dining restaurant in his basement

0

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_iw0wy74 wrote

So you’re not voting for Biden if he runs again considering he has said the same?

−12

kickerofelves86 t1_iw0yb9x wrote

No I would have voted for lamb in the general I just think that message stinks

8

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_iw0z31c wrote

So all the things in the past that have been accomplished in a bipartisan manner you disagree with?:

You are a hard leftist I’m guessing? No room for anything except total government authority as long as it’s from the left?

−9

[deleted] t1_iw10dx0 wrote

[deleted]

9

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_iw148st wrote

Would have voted for Lamb because he has a (D) beside his name.

You people would rather have stalemate in Congress, stalemate that would have prevented the Americans with Disabilities Act from being passed,

You people would rather have something like CHIP not passed.

The Gang of 14 made sure that SCOTUS picks had votes from each side, until Dems "Nuked" the deal in 2013. It was good while it lasted.

2010 Obama tax deal. Would have not happened unless Obama had agreed to work with Repubs. If he had not only the upper class would have continued to see tax cuts instead of the middle class that Obama wanted as well.

​

But go ahead, downvote me because you people are so fucking partisan that you would rather see nothing get done instead of something.

−5

WhyHulud t1_iw2mias wrote

>So all the things in the past that have been accomplished in a bipartisan manner you disagree with?:

What a dishonest and asinine way to frame the discussion.

2

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_iw37etq wrote

Hardly.

If someone claims that working across the aisle is something they hate to hear a candidate talk about then they must be against any form of bipartisanship.

It's called blatant partisanship with a dash of hypocrisy sprinkled on top.

0

WhyHulud t1_iw3grx1 wrote

>If someone claims that working across the aisle is something they hate to hear a candidate talk about then they must be against any form of bipartisanship.

I agree that that's probably the case. But that's not what was said. He said he hates the message.

And honestly, fuck your argument. The GOP has bargained in bad faith for the last 30 years, making concessions when they had to and then backing out of their side of deals for later. You want it both ways, the left compromises and you thumb your nose at them. You're going to find it much harder to do that with the changes in the voting blocks.

2