It's just the typical approach of creating a conspiracy out of nothing. Some in here argue that "auditory processing" issues should disqualify him from being elected. That's utter nonsense, like saying someone who is deaf wouldn't be able to do the job.
Someone made the point that the reporter's comments about him struggling to make small talk would be like a reporter interviewing Texas Gov. Greg Abbot (who's in a wheelchair) and saying, "He struggled to walk."
I get that his auditory/language issues
might suggest that he has diminished mental capacity. But there's no evidence that's the case, and that what he is experiencing is very common to stroke survivors. I would think a journalist's job should be to explain that to her audience, not further the misimpression
I backed out of this discussion because it is pretty obvious that as a person pretty close to the situation sharing information, it doesn't matter because a few people responding are ignoring everything except the confirmation bias they can dig to try to dismiss reality. But reality stands on its own case. The science behind a stroke is known. Yet people keep replying saying "well, maybe small talk meant this or let's talk about how the mean reporter was mean for actually committing an act of journalism, etc." These are all speculative excuses. Look at the reported facts here.
The language issues don't
suggest diminished mental capacity; it is the clinical result OF THE DAMAGE. By definition, you stroke and you lose blue to one of many possible various regions of the brain and the result IS damage to that area. Sometimes you recover completely, sometimes you have permanent DAMAGE and it never comes back.
In Fetterman's case, he sustained, at least (we don't know all because he won't release the medical records which SHOULD be a flag to anyone being an honest broker), damage related to auditory/language reception AND expression. In the medical world, that is not "got some wax in my ear for a minute". That is always...always...always a diagnostic indicator that the brain is either permanently or temporarily IMPAIRED and not capable of functioning normally. So, yes, there is abso;lutely "evidence" in this case. People are just dismissing it.
I agree with you and others that have said this may be temporary. But, it might NOT. And that's the thing. People are dogmatically rushing to assume this outcome without even entertaining the other and if you try to say otherwise, you attack the reporter. That is totally unfair and irresponsible.
It is beyond logic how, if anyone was being honest wit themselves and not just picking a political side, they wouldn't be looking at this guy and saying "yeah, we are gonna need some medical clarification on this one" because this isn't just "he needs that for close captioning. That is not it at all and I have read that 3-4 times in this thread. DO your research. That is NOT it at all. It has been covered locally on this several times, this device is medical adaptive equipment. It is programmed to arrange the words so he can comprehend. It has been reported directly from the reporters that it is not just he can't hear it, it is he "
has a hard time understanding what he's hearing...he still has some problems, some challenges with speech...
he had a hard time understanding our conversations."
I get it. Some of you guys don't care what the truth is. You care if you can get a democrat in office and if you can attack the other candidate, a few reporters, etc, in the process and smear them a little bit in the process, all the better. So it's no surprise you react to FBG posters sharing info in the same way. But in the end, the info was shared. You were given the chance to understand and act responsibly with it.
