I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
I get that. It's just not a new political strategy and certainly not one that republicans really objected to previously.
Probably because they skip debates themselves, particularly incumbents that need to defend their records.
Quote
With two months left of the 2022 campaign season, a majority of Republican candidates are continuing to skirt away from not only talking to local and national media outlets about their policy issues, but their own constituents, leaving voters with little information on their policy positions.
I think because of his recent stroke, he might not be fully recovered as a quick speaker and thinker. So I agree that a debate might backfire.
I do think debates are important, but frankly even if I didn't have stroke issues I probably still wouldn't debate him. He's totally unqualified and not worth the effort.
However, just because this debate was canceled doesn't mean a debate isn't going to happen. In my opinion it should.
If his opponent is "totally unqualified", he should look forward to and have no trouble winning a debate.
If he can't due to his stroke, that is a issue that needs to be made apparent to the voters.
Don't you think someone running for U S Senate should make the effort, whoever his opponent is?
The names of hundreds of U.S. law enforcement officers, elected officials and military members appear on the leaked membership rolls of a far-right extremist group that’s accused of playing a key role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, according to a report released Wednesday.
Quote
“Even for those who claimed to have left the organization when it began to employ more aggressive tactics in 2014, it is important to remember that the Oath Keepers have espoused extremism since their founding, and this fact was not enough to deter these individuals from signing up,” the report says.
More than 3,000 Texans — including a North Texas constable and dozens of other elected officials, law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces and first responders — have been members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right extremist group that played a prominent role in the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, according to an analysis of leaked membership rolls.
Quote
The ADL’s report analyzed where the members lived and worked and found that Texas had more people listed in the Oath Keepers’ membership rolls than any other state. Texas is the country’s second-most populous state.
Quote
Texas also had the most people who were either elected officials, law enforcement officers, military members or first responders, the report found. Of the Texas signups, 33 were law enforcement officers, 10 were members of the military, eight were elected officials and seven were first responders. No federal officials were listed in the membership documents.
Well this is certainly interesting news today, isn't it? Is it a problem when members of our law enforcement and military don't really care for our firm of government?
If his opponent is "totally unqualified", he should look forward to and have no trouble winning a debate.
If he can't due to his stroke, that is a issue that needs to be made apparent to the voters.
Don't you think someone running for U S Senate should make the effort, whoever his opponent is?
I think he should make the effort to speak to voters directly, via rallies or doorbelling. What does he, or the voters, have to gain by appearing with a reality TV star debating inane questions such the rising price of crudite or who won the last presidential election?
If his opponent is "totally unqualified", he should look forward to and have no trouble winning a debate.
If he can't due to his stroke, that is a issue that needs to be made apparent to the voters.
Don't you think someone running for U S Senate should make the effort, whoever his opponent is?
To answer your last question, you only need to re-read the post from me that your are quoting where I said: However, just because this debate was canceled doesn't mean a debate isn't going to happen. In my opinion it should. And just prior to that "I do think debates are important...."
I do think he's not qualified to be a US Senator and perhaps I should have said "if it were me I'd be tempted to blow him off and not debate him". I wasn't advocating for there to be no debate.
As far as I know, the stroke was no secret to the public as to why he was not debating Oz. I read it earlier today as the reason he said no.
Also with all the bruhaha he stated today: “We’re absolutely going to debate Dr. Oz, and that was really always our intent to do that,” Fetterman told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. “It was just simply only ever been about addressing some of the lingering issues of the stroke, the auditory processing, and we’re going to be able to work that out."
Oz, understandably will be critical saying he stumbles and mumbles through speeches and questioning his health.
It's interesting what we focus on. As far as I know Senator Rubio here in Florida hasn't debated his Democrat opponent. Perhaps they haven't challenged each other?
...Fetterman’s campaign said he will participate in a televised debate in mid- to late October. The campaign gave no other details, including why he would agree to just one debate. Oz’s campaign immediately dubbed it a “secret debate,” with no details on when or where....
...It was not immediately clear what accommodations Fetterman would be looking for in his debate appearance, but has used closed-captioning in video interviews with reporters.
Throwing my support to Fetterman over Jersey transplant OZ.... will watch with interest as usual during election debates.
Companies don't have to cover HIV prevention it violates religious freedom. The overwhelming majority of people on PREP are gay men acting responsibly. Nearly 1/4th of new HIV cases are in heterosexuals.
Quote
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a provision of the Affordable Care Act that mandates free coverage of certain drugs that prevent HIV infections violates the religious beliefs of a Christian-owned company.
To answer your last question, you only need to re-read the post from me that your are quoting where I said: However, just because this debate was canceled doesn't mean a debate isn't going to happen. In my opinion it should. And just prior to that "I do think debates are important...."
I do think he's not qualified to be a US Senator and perhaps I should have said "if it were me I'd be tempted to blow him off and not debate him". I wasn't advocating for there to be no debate.
As far as I know, the stroke was no secret to the public as to why he was not debating Oz. I read it earlier today as the reason he said no.
Also with all the bruhaha he stated today: “We’re absolutely going to debate Dr. Oz, and that was really always our intent to do that,” Fetterman told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. “It was just simply only ever been about addressing some of the lingering issues of the stroke, the auditory processing, and we’re going to be able to work that out."
Oz, understandably will be critical saying he stumbles and mumbles through speeches and questioning his health.
It's interesting what we focus on. As far as I know Senator Rubio here in Florida hasn't debated his Democrat opponent. Perhaps they haven't challenged each other?
You did say you thought the debate(s) should happen. I mistakenly mischaractorized your position.
I do believe that if he isn't going to debate because Oz is unqualified, as others here have stated is the reason, he should have the guts to say that.
You did say you thought the debate(s) should happen. I mistakenly mischaractorized your position.
I do believe that if he isn't going to debate because Oz is unqualified, as others here have stated is the reason, he should have the guts to say that.
That isn't what he is saying, however.
Agree, that would be my position and not his: why debate with someone that isn't a politician and is running on celebrity. But that's me. Other people think he's qualified and like Trump will shake up the establishment.
My guess, and it's only a guess is that he has deficits he wants more therapy for, and doesn't want to be attacked for them by Oz, whom is a vibrant healthy man. The average person doesn't understand that people with speech, mobility or hearing deficits from a stroke still might be mentally sharp and competent.
But I do agree with you that if his stroke is indeed prohibitive of him doing the job, the public should be able to see it. I think the questions that reporters and right wing press are asking "are you physically fit to serve so soon after a stroke" is a good one. Not all strokes are the same, and will power, mindset and determination are half the battle in recovery. We'll see.
I think he should make the effort to speak to voters directly, via rallies or doorbelling. What does he, or the voters, have to gain by appearing with a reality TV star debating inane questions such the rising price of crudite or who won the last presidential election?
I would disagree that Oz is nothing but a reality TV star or that he is unqualified. Congress is full of people from various backgrounds. The left is enamoured with many who are lacking in political, professional, and life experience. AOC comes to mind.
And, isn't that one purpose of a debate? To let the voter determine who is and isn't qualified?
To say Fetterman has nothing to gain is ludicrous and a loser's mentality. In one poll, he's only up 48 to 44%. What he has to gain is what any other candidate would have to gain by letting the voter compare and contrast his ideas, beliefs, personality, etc to the other candidate in a debate. And, it would also be his chance to shut down the notion that his cognitive abilities aren't up to what is required to be a US Senator.
Saying he has nothing to gain is simply a positive spin on the feeling that he has too much to lose.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,267 Posts
Probably because they skip debates themselves, particularly incumbents that need to defend their records.
https://ncpolicywatch.com/2022/09/02/candidates-mostly-republican-skip-debates-bar-press-during-midterm-campaigns/