Split Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

[Metaphor]

Of course you are implying that Fetterman’s language processing deficit (assuming he really has one) will impair his ability to function as a senator! You have been saying and implying this again and again.

No. I directly claimed the following:

Being able to process and understand the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

I said nothing about how long it would take or if Fetterman could recover
I did not make a judgment about how much accommodations could mitigate the effect
I did not say Fetterman would be unable to function as a Senator or should not have been voted in.

 

[Metaphor]

It's a figure of speech, laughing dog.
If Veronica eats greasy fish and chips each night for dinner, and her frenemy Savannah says 'you'll eat anything, you have no standards', Savannah is not making a claim that Veronica would eat human waste or shattered glass. I'm sorry you don't know how figures of speech work--at least, you don't seem to know when I use them.

You really have no standards - you will say anything to justify your wrongness.

It's always a pleasure, laughing dog.

 

[Rhea]

This started because blastula made a claim that Fetterman's speech processing deficits were 'irrelevant' to the job.

…. Because…

The accommodations will enable him to do the job despite the processing deficits.

Just as if he were deaf and needed accomodations to get speeches rendered into print. Or if he were arranging accommodations for ADHD or stuttering. Or if he arranged accommodations to enter a chamber with stairs despite needing a wheelchair.

The current (likely temporary, already improving) processing deficits are irrelevant to the job that starts two months from now because the accommodations will enable his full participation for the duration of the time the deficit even exists.

This was perfectly clear in the original statement of it.

It was not 'perfectly clear'.

If blastula had instead written 'his speech processing deficits can and will be fully mitigated via accommodations when he is Senator', then that would have been 'perfectly clear'.

But blastula didn't write that. He just said the disability was irrelevant. And here we are.

I bet Fetterman could have figured it out in fewer than 178 posts and four days.

 

[Metaphor]

However, I don't seem to be the only person with this problem and so I think that perhaps you might consider that your meaning is not conveyed as well as you believe it is and stop taking offense when someone misunderstands or misinterprets you.

It certainly seems to me that the people who 'misunderstand' my posts all have the same ideological basis. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

Your earlier assertion in this thread (paraphrasing here) that you might infer from ld's post that Americans have no standards for which they determine what makes an effective Senator seems, at first reading to be meant with no sarcasm or irony.

In fact, the comment isn't about Americans at all. It's a dig at laughing dog.

I would have taken it at face value as well. If that, however, is not how you intended it to be interpreted, you could correct the impression LD had of your typed words and simply say; Sorry, I meant that in an ironical or in a sarcastic or whatever fits way. It would help people learn to understand when you type words how you intend for them to be taken. Here, you are saying that it was just a figure of speech. There are other instances when you refuse to accept that some other poster is merely employing a figure of speech---which sort of implies that you do not employ figures of speech.

When have I 'refused' to accept a figure of speech simply because it was a figure of speech?

Nothing I've written here is intended as any kind of attack on you or your writing style. I'm just hoping to find a way so that what you type is understood in the way you intended by everyone who reads it. Just as I hope people understand what I write in the way I intend them to understand it. And for those times when things are not understood as the writer intended, that different interpretations or meanings or implications are pointed out as an addition to the discussion and not as a discussion of the merits of one person's writing style vs another. I like to be understood and I am assuming everyone also wants to be understood as well.

What would help considerably is if people actually acknowledged when I correct their misperceptions, even if the misperceptions arose because of an alleged deficit in my communication.

 

[Metaphor]

This started because blastula made a claim that Fetterman's speech processing deficits were 'irrelevant' to the job.

…. Because…

The accommodations will enable him to do the job despite the processing deficits.

Just as if he were deaf and needed accomodations to get speeches rendered into print. Or if he were arranging accommodations for ADHD or stuttering. Or if he arranged accommodations to enter a chamber with stairs despite needing a wheelchair.

The current (likely temporary, already improving) processing deficits are irrelevant to the job that starts two months from now because the accommodations will enable his full participation for the duration of the time the deficit even exists.

This was perfectly clear in the original statement of it.

It was not 'perfectly clear'.

If blastula had instead written 'his speech processing deficits can and will be fully mitigated via accommodations when he is Senator', then that would have been 'perfectly clear'.

But blastula didn't write that. He just said the disability was irrelevant. And here we are.

I bet Fetterman could have figured it out in fewer than 178 posts and four days.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

 

[laughing dog]

To be extremely fair, it is exceedingly difficult to discern tone over the internet. There is no body language, no tone of voice to guide is in determining whether someone is joking or being arch or sarcastic or mean or whatever.

The other thing is that with some posters, I personally have a fair amount of trouble determining whether they wish to be taken at face value or whether there's a bit of a tone or twist to the actual words. For instance, I could never tell when TomSawyer was joking and sometimes I have a lot of trouble with bilby as well. I absolutely take this as MY fault/failing.

With regards to YOUR posts, I think that I often either misunderstand what exactly you are getting at or you are not doing a good job of conveying what you are getting at. However, I don't seem to be the only person with this problem and so I think that perhaps you might consider that your meaning is not conveyed as well as you believe it is and stop taking offense when someone misunderstands or misinterprets you.

Your earlier assertion in this thread (paraphrasing here) that you might infer from ld's post that Americans have no standards for which they determine what makes an effective Senator seems, at first reading to be meant with no sarcasm or irony. I would have taken it at face value as well. If that, however, is not how you intended it to be interpreted, you could correct the impression LD had of your typed words and simply say; Sorry, I meant that in an ironical or in a sarcastic or whatever fits way. It would help people learn to understand when you type words how you intend for them to be taken. Here, you are saying that it was just a figure of speech. There are other instances when you refuse to accept that some other poster is merely employing a figure of speech---which sort of implies that you do not employ figures of speech.

Nothing I've written here is intended as any kind of attack on you or your writing style. I'm just hoping to find a way so that what you type is understood in the way you intended by everyone who reads it. Just as I hope people understand what I write in the way I intend them to understand it. And for those times when things are not understood as the writer intended, that different interpretations or meanings or implications are pointed out as an addition to the discussion and not as a discussion of the merits of one person's writing style vs another. I like to be understood and I am assuming everyone also wants to be understood as well.

Metaphor wrote what he wrote. As usual, whenever someone interprets his words as they are written, Metaphor alleges that the problem is with the reader. Whenever Metaphor misinterprets someone else's words, the problem is always that the problem is with the writer.

 

[laughing dog]

This started because blastula made a claim that Fetterman's speech processing deficits were 'irrelevant' to the job.

…. Because…

The accommodations will enable him to do the job despite the processing deficits.

Just as if he were deaf and needed accomodations to get speeches rendered into print. Or if he were arranging accommodations for ADHD or stuttering. Or if he arranged accommodations to enter a chamber with stairs despite needing a wheelchair.

The current (likely temporary, already improving) processing deficits are irrelevant to the job that starts two months from now because the accommodations will enable his full participation for the duration of the time the deficit even exists.

This was perfectly clear in the original statement of it.

It was not 'perfectly clear'.

If blastula had instead written 'his speech processing deficits can and will be fully mitigated via accommodations when he is Senator', then that would have been 'perfectly clear'.

But blastula didn't write that. He just said the disability was irrelevant. And here we are.

I bet Fetterman could have figured it out in fewer than 178 posts and four days.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Anyone's irony meter working after that?

 

[Metaphor]

One of the interesting things about this election is how the media, polilticians and other poobahs kept blathering about how unpopular Joe Biden was, how his unpopularity was even unprecedented for a president at this stage in his first term. It turns out that all of this was BS. Systematic polling of this sort has been kept for the last 13 presidents before Biden, dating to Harry Truman. It turns out that Biden’s approval rating is equivalent to, or even better than, fully seven of those 13 presidents, and not far below an eighth. It’s even about the same as the popularity of the the GOP’s sainted Ronny Ray Gun at a similar stage in his presidency. See here.

What?

@Elixir @Toni @Copernicus did any one of you bother to verify pood's claim?

It's so shockingly wrong it beggars belief.

Today (with the limitation that I can't see a way to make the movements on the web page finer so as to get right to the edge of the approval tracking and might be slightly off), the approval ratings (day 661 of a Presidency are as follows)

Biden 41.5%
Trump 41.8% (higher than Biden)
Obama 44.6% (higher than Biden)
W. Bush 62.6% (higher than Biden)
Clinton 43.8% (higher than Biden)
H.W. Bush 52.7% (higher than Biden)
Reagan 43.0% (higher than Biden)
Carter 49.0% (higher than Biden)

Yes, higher than Biden in the case of Trump, Obama, Clinton and Reagan by minuscule tenths of a percent,

Incorrect. Only Trump is higher by 'tenths of a percent'. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan were higher by 1.5 to 2 percentage points or more.

which as any pollster will tell you is easily within the margin of error. As noted, Biden is higher in one case, beating Harry Truman.

I don't know when you measured that, but on day 661, Truman was 47.3%.

However, I don't think going back to the first half of the twentieth century makes much sense as a comparison anyway.

So there is nothihg ”shockingly wrong” about what I

It was shockingly wrong and grossly misleading. Your wording "the same or higher" would apply only to Trump and Truman. And your grouping of all the other presidents as 'the same' so that you could rely on the Truman single data point and add 'or higher' is misleading.

Moreover, I said that Biden was equivalent to, or higher than, SEVEN of the previous thirteen presidents, not ALL of them.

Your measure for 'equivalent to' is arbitrary, and your inclusion of 'or higher' misleads. In fact, a better way to phrase it would be "around or lower than every president at that point in time, with the exception of Truman".

IOW, his popularity for this stage in his presidency is roughly the average. Since I said that SIX of the presidents had better approval ratings, your throwing in the two Bushes is just dishonest.

...what? I made a list of every President's ratings to show your numbers could not be right, and you accuse me of being dishonest?

I never claimed Biden had higher ratings than them at this stage of their presidencies. So what exactly is your problem here? Is it a cognitive defict that inhibits you from reading and comprehending properly?

pood, I honestly though you were looking at disapproval ratings and had simply gotten mixed up looking at the graphs.

I can now see you intended the deception.

Intended deception? On the latest measured day, to take one example, Reagan’s approval was 43.0 to Biden’s 41.5. That was day 661. I presume that is today. On day 637, however, just 24 days earlier, Biden is AHEAD OF Reagan. You can find the same dynamics going on with Clinton, Carter and Trump, to say nothing of Truman. This substantiates, not rebuts my point. All of these minuscule differences are within standard polling margins of error, which are typically around 3 percentage points, which means that on day 661, Biden mignt even be more popular than Reagan on the same day. Your imputing deception to me is itself dishonest, a deception that can only deceive stupid people who do not understand how polls work. My point is fully correct: Biden’s ratings are equivalent to, or better than, seven of the last 13 presidents at this stage of his presidency, which puts him in the norm.

Your phrasing is misleading and deceptive for all the reasons I've already pointed out.

 

[Rhea]

This was perfectly clear in the original statement of it.

It was not 'perfectly clear'.

I bet Fetterman could have figured it out in fewer than 178 posts and four days.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Tryng to decide if this is irony, sarcasm or ignorance.

Fetterman is surrounded by Republicans….

 

[Copernicus]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

I didn't say it, and your inference is incorrect. You can stop promulgating your false inference as I am now telling you quite directly and unambiguously I did not say it and don't believe it.

That is exactly what you appear to have been saying, even if you did not use the exact words I used to say it. Otherwise, what is all the fuss you are making about his speech impairment about? You clearly do believe that it ought to have affected people's judgement over whether those language problems would seriously impair his ability to function as a senator. Everyone else here seems to have understood your posts in the same way that I have. Could it be that you have some kind of language impairment and don't understand how your words are being interpreted by others? You aren't going to logic chop your way out of the rhetorical hole you've dug yourself into.

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

We seem to be in violent agreement that the ability to process language is an important ability for a senator to have. How many times do I have to keep agreeing with you before you graciously accept it? Moreover, I have agreed with you that Fetterman performed very poorly in the debate because of his linguistic impairments. I've said that repeatedly. Do I have to keep repeating it?

What we have been arguing over is (to quote you directly): "whether or not I [Metaphor] am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time." In fact, I disagree with you that his current linguistic impairment has as much of an impact as you've claimed that it has. He is fully capable of processing language and expressing himself to others. However, that capability does deteriorate when he is under pressure of the sort he sometimes experiences in interviews and did experience during the debate. That kind of deterioration is fully consistent with the fact that he is recovering from a recent stroke. In his current state, he would still make an effective senator--perhaps far more effective than many of the much older senators and politicians that he will have to interact with.

 

[laughing dog]

Your phrasing is misleading and deceptive for all the reasons I've already pointed out.

Fetterman would have got it.

 

[Metaphor]

This was perfectly clear in the original statement of it.

It was not 'perfectly clear'.

I bet Fetterman could have figured it out in fewer than 178 posts and four days.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Tryng to decide if this is irony, sarcasm or ignorance.

Fetterman is surrounded by Republicans….

Rhea, it is none of the things in your false trichotomy.

Fetterman's team does not consist of Republicans, and if it does, he has seriously misstepped. Fetterman is surrounded by supporters. He isn't even in the Senate yet, as you pointed out.

 

[Metaphor]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

I didn't say it, and your inference is incorrect. You can stop promulgating your false inference as I am now telling you quite directly and unambiguously I did not say it and don't believe it.

That is exactly what you appear to have been saying, even if you did not use the exact words I used to say it.

I didn't use any words to say it.

Otherwise, what is all the fuss you are making about his speech impairment about?

Correcting blastula's ridiculous assertion.

You clearly do believe that it ought to have affected people's judgement over whether those language problems would seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

No. I did not say that and don't believe it.

Everyone else here seems to have understood your posts in the same way that I have.

Then their prejudices and proclivity to jump to conclusions are seemingly similar.

Could it be that you have some kind of language impairment and don't understand how your words are being interpreted by others? You aren't going to logic chop your way out of the rhetorical hole you've dug yourself into.

I seriously doubt that I do. If I did, a number of professionals have made serious errors of judgment in evaluating my ability over the decades, starting with the teachers that placed me in the gifted classes in year 7, and being awarded first in English in years 10 and 12.

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

We seem to be in violent agreement that the ability to process language is an important ability for a senator to have. How many times do I have to keep agreeing with you before you graciously accept it?

Once would do.

Moreover, I have agreed with you that Fetterman performed very poorly in the debate because of his linguistic impairments. I've said that repeatedly. Do I have to keep repeating it?

I am asking you to stop attributing to me positions I did not assert.

What we have been arguing over is (to quote you directly): "whether or not I [Metaphor] am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time." In fact, I disagree with you that his current linguistic impairment has as much of an impact as you've claimed that it has.

Where have I made a claim about the level of impact in two months time?

He is fully capable of processing language and expressing himself to others. However, that capability does deteriorate when he is under pressure of the sort he sometimes experiences in interviews and did experience during the debate. That kind of deterioration is fully consistent with the fact that he is recovering from a recent stroke. In his current state, he would still make an effective senator--perhaps far more effective than many of the much older senators and politicians that he will have to interact with.

I have not seen evidence of this "full capability", or we are judging the evidence we have seen differently.

But that doesn't mean I made claims I didn't make.

 

[ZiprHead]

His doctors also said he will get better over time.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Really? I find it much likelier that you will be delighted if this Democrat's condition worsens; this will allow you to argue something-something about American politics. And this is especially likely after this thread where you have vociferously espoused a case fort "cognitive" disability.

I know the contents of my mind better than you know the contents of my mind.

But apparently you know the contents of Fetterman's mind better than him and his doctors.

 

[pood]

Of course, it could be the case that Metaphor is espistemologically privileged in reading and intrepeting polls and we can disregard the well-tested science behind polling in favor of his blathering.

 

[Rhea]

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Tryng to decide if this is irony, sarcasm or ignorance.

Fetterman is surrounded by Republicans….

Rhea, it is none of the things in your false trichotomy.

Fetterman's team does not consist of Republicans, and if it does, he has seriously misstepped. Fetterman is surrounded by supporters. He isn't even in the Senate yet, as you pointed out.

My dear boy, do you honestly think that Fetterman could grow up in West Reading PA and not be surrounded by Republicans? Do you honestly think he could campaign from end to end of rural Pennsylvania and not be surrounded by Republicans? Metaphor, people fly Confederate flags here.

 

[Copernicus]

...

Otherwise, what is all the fuss you are making about his speech impairment about?

Correcting blastula's ridiculous assertion.

But he said that Fetterman's speech problems were irrelevant to his potential job performance, and I believe that he made a correct observation. You disagreed with him, which triggered this whole discussion about whether his speech problems were actually irrelevant to his potential job performance as a senator. Now you seem to be saying that you weren't making any claims in that regard and that everyone is making stuff up about what you said, but that is not the impression you have given over the past few pages. The problem, as I see it, is that you have exaggerated the impact of his stroke-related aphasia on his ability to communicate with colleagues and the public, but he is fully capable of doing that even now, as we've seen in his public appearances since the debate. There is every reason to believe that his linguistic performance will improve, so why do you think blastula's assertion was ridiculous?

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

I have not simply dismissed it or downplayed it! I have pointed out to you that high stress exacerbates symptoms, and that this is commonly known. I have also supplied sources to back up my point. The only thing being simply dismissed here is your complete dismissal of just about everything I've said to validate blastula's assertion.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

There you go again! Fetterman has the ability to process language, yet you imply here that he does not. The linguistic impairment that he has experienced since the stroke will have little or no impact on his ability to understand others and express complex ideas to others, because he can do that right now. His speaking problems are the equivalent of having a speech impediment such as a stutter or a lisp. He may need people to explain some things to him again that he has missed, but he is perfectly capable of getting clarification when he needs it. It would be better if he articulated words better than he can now and understood speech more easily than he can now, but he is still able to process language in a way that is sufficient to do his job. According to his doctors, the linguistic problems will largely go away over time.

He is fully capable of processing language and expressing himself to others. However, that capability does deteriorate when he is under pressure of the sort he sometimes experiences in interviews and did experience during the debate. That kind of deterioration is fully consistent with the fact that he is recovering from a recent stroke. In his current state, he would still make an effective senator--perhaps far more effective than many of the much older senators and politicians that he will have to interact with.

I have not seen evidence of this "full capability", or we are judging the evidence we have seen differently.

Then I suggest that you go online and listen to his victory speech. That is not the speech of someone who has an "inability to process language"

Just in case you need it, there is a video of his speech embedded in this article:

John Fetterman May Have Quoted ‘Always Sunny In Philadelphia’ In Victory Speech

 

[Metaphor]

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Tryng to decide if this is irony, sarcasm or ignorance.

Fetterman is surrounded by Republicans….

Rhea, it is none of the things in your false trichotomy.

Fetterman's team does not consist of Republicans, and if it does, he has seriously misstepped. Fetterman is surrounded by supporters. He isn't even in the Senate yet, as you pointed out.

My dear boy, do you honestly think that Fetterman could grow up in West Reading PA and not be surrounded by Republicans?

I think his team is not Republicans.

Do you honestly think he could campaign from end to end of rural Pennsylvania and not be surrounded by Republicans? Metaphor, people fly Confederate flags here.

Rhea, I do not normally number you in the people who refuse to get the point.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I do not normally number you in the people who refuse to get the point.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

I get your point. I’m refuting it.

You think Fetterman interacts only with his “team.” You think he lives in a bubble and never has to face Republican questioning. And that means that he does not face as difficult an interrogation as you do here in this thread.

And I am saying that you have no idea at all what life is like here. In rural Pennsylvania you cannot POSSIBLY hold a campaign event that does not include Republicans. You cannot possibly walk down the street and avoid a question from a Republican. You cannot shake hands in a crowd and fail to interact with a Republican.

From Time:

Here’s how John Fetterman won the all-important Pennsylvania Senate seat for Democrats: he knew Pennsylvania.

This is the Fetterman formula: a down-to-earth vibe, plus outreach to rural areas, plus pro-labor Democratic politics with some progressive accents (like supporting elimination of the filibuster.)

I have walked down my street in the center of town and stopped my congressperson to speak directly to them. We are not on the same side, he did not like my opinion. But he could not avoid it.


I joked that it would take Fetterman less time to get the point than it took you. You replied,

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

I see that now you are considering us “your team” as contrasted to Fetterman’s “team” and how your team is against you while Fetterman’s is for him.

So if you’re counting us as “your team” for the purpose of tring to refute my joke, then you need to count all the people who argue with Fetterman as being “his team” also.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

I admit that I am charmed by being part of your circle. That your family is here, that I’m one of your friends, the equivalent of working on your campaign, indeed, to be numbered alongside your personal physician! It warms the cockles of my heart.

 

[Swammerdami]

This is precisely why talking to you is a waste of time. Of COURSE you IMPLIED that there was a significant popularity difference between Reagan’s 43.0 and Biden’s 41.5, which is preicsley why you characterized me as grossly dishonest for my characterization of Biden’s popularity relative to other presidents. Now you are backtracking, while having the gall to accuse me of Gish Galloping! You do this crap all the time. On every subject you slide around like a weasel in a pan of oil, your fatuous lucubrations on John Fetterman an exemplar of your behavior.

Thank you, pood. I learned a new word today.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

Tryng to decide if this is irony, sarcasm or ignorance.

Fetterman is surrounded by Republicans….

Rhea, it is none of the things in your false trichotomy.

Fetterman's team does not consist of Republicans, and if it does, he has seriously misstepped. Fetterman is surrounded by supporters. He isn't even in the Senate yet, as you pointed out.

My dear boy, do you honestly think that Fetterman could grow up in West Reading PA and not be surrounded by Republicans?

I think his team is not Republicans.

Do you honestly think he could campaign from end to end of rural Pennsylvania and not be surrounded by Republicans? Metaphor, people fly Confederate flags here.

Rhea, I do not normally number you in the people who refuse to get the point.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

For those keeping score at home, and who, like myself, lost track of the antecedent of "Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?" . . .
That question — shown above as the inner-most quote in a long nest of quotes — originated as the rejoinder to another long nested series of quotes. In that lucubration it was Mr. Metaphor himself who was complaining about being surrounded by his fellow Infidels!