Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Dr. Oz Rips Trust Fund Guy Fetterman: He Wouldn’t Have Had A Stroke If He’d Eaten A Vegetable In His Life – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

Dr. Oz Rips Trust Fund Guy Fetterman: He Wouldn’t Have Had A Stroke If He’d Eaten A Vegetable In His Life

#Rips #Trust #Fund #Guy #Fetterman #Wouldnt #Stroke #Hed #Eaten #Vegetable #Life

As if the Pennsylvania Senate race isn’t rough enough, things took a dark turn and escalated into the “battle of the veggie trays.”

Republican candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz made an ill-advised campaign video where he took a trip to the grocery store to highlight rising food prices. Trouble is, Oz apparently didn’t know what store he was in, and described a veggie tray by the haughty French term “crudité.”

Not a good look, to say the least. 

After Oz’s far-left Democrat opponent John Fetterman ripped Oz for being out of touch, the fireworks really got going.

Rachel Tripp, Oz’s senior communications adviser, went in for the ultimate zinger, saying, “If John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life, then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke and wouldn’t be in the position of having to lie about it constantly.”

Here is the original Oz video:

RELATED: Four Years Behind, Washington DC Metro Extension Gets Another $250M, Totaling $6 Billion 

The Latest In The Back And Forth

Here’s what Fetterman said about the crudité gaffe:

The whole back and forth started when Fetterman tried to paint Oz as a carpetbagger from New Jersey who cannot identify with Pennsylvania voters – particularly by noting that Dr. Oz owns 10 properties. (Yes, 10.)

Fetterman took to Twitter and said, “I’ve never spoken to a PA resident who doesn’t know how many houses they have … let alone be off by 8.” Oz claimed only two houses at an event prior to Fetterman’s tweet.

Oz’s response was epic. “You lived off your parents until you were almost 50. Regular people don’t mooch off their parents when they’re 50. Get off the couch John!” 

Which turned into:

Advertisement

And so here we are!

RELATED: Biden Setting Up Student Loan ‘Forgiveness’ For Well-Off Borrowers, After Pelosi Said He Has No Such Power

Who Is Really ‘Out Of Touch?’

When it comes to calling someone out for being “out of touch,” Oz may have the bulk of the ammo, which is the funniest part of this whole story. A recent New York Post report related the story of John Fetterman.

He appears to be the guy hanging out in Starbucks all day long with the expensive parent-bought Mac computer with Che Guevara stickers on it blathering on about “revolution,” just minus the man-bun.

As the Post relates the story, Fetterman grew up in the well-to-do suburb of York, Pennsylvania. His father is a prominent businessman and the founder/owner of Kling Insurance. He has lived off his parents’ wealth literally all of his life, getting a $54,000 salary to support himself, his wife and three kids. Not bad “work” if you can get it.

His parents continued to support him even after he was elected mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, a part-time job that paid $150 a year. That support lasted until age 49, when he was elected Lieutenant Governor. Even the house he and his family live in, a loft worth $70,000, was purchased from his sister at the bargain basement price of $1.

RELATED: Senate Dems Want $21B For COVID-19, Other Viruses

A Socialist Who Wants Other Peoples’ Money

John Fetterman is a true man of the people. He has grand ideas, but he needs other peoples’ money to do it. The Bernie Sanders-supporter wants a $15 minimum wage, great for the people the business in question can keep on and afford to pay, not so much for those the business can’t afford and have to let go.

He supports socialized medicine. No word on whether he has asked anyone fresh in from Cuba or Venezuela how that is working out in those countries. He probably thinks “they just aren’t doing it right.”

Throw in support of legalization of marijuana, heroin needle exchanges and safe injection sites in a state where crime has spiked in its largest city, Philadelphia.

Perhaps the voters of Pennsylvania should see to it that John Fetterman gets his first real job somewhere else.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Advertisement

Politics

Exclusive: Democrats go to war with Iowa and New Hampshire over 2024 – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Democrats go to war with Iowa and New Hampshire over 2024

#Democrats #war #Iowa #Hampshire

For a half-century, the presidential nominating calendar has been regular and predictable. But, on Friday, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC decided to blow up the 2024 primary process.

The committee approved a new primary schedule that ended Iowa’s status as an early state and calls into question New Hampshire’s place on the calendar.

The calendar was proposed by President Joe Biden earlier this week and greatly diminishes, if not ends, the longstanding places of Iowa and New Hampshire in Democratic nominating contests. Both were states where Biden did poorly in 2020. In a letter proposing the change in the calendar, though, Biden emphasized the need to ensure voters of color had a bigger role in the nominating process.

The new schedule puts South Carolina first on Saturday, February 3, 2024, a move that came as a surprise to top Democrats in the Palmetto State. The draft calendar then has New Hampshire and Nevada three days later on February 6, followed by Georgia on February 13 and Michigan on February 27. The full Democratic National Committee will almost certainly ratify this calendar early next year.

This means that the Democratic nominating contest will begin with South Carolina, the only state where Tom Steyer in 2020 and Al Sharpton in 2004 have finished in the top three in a presidential primary. However, it’s likely to set off a chaotic scramble over which state goes first.

National political parties don’t determine when states hold their nominating contests. That’s the subject of state law. However, national parties are fully within their rights to sanction states that don’t follow their rules for how to hold nominating contests, or throw out the results altogether.

In advance of rolling out this new schedule, the Democratic Party already added more teeth to its ability to crack down on states that buck the DNC to hold nominating contests earlier in the primary. Recent rules changes give the party more latitude to crack down on candidates who campaign in states that hold unsanctioned contests.

In setting the calendar, the resolution passed Friday also requires state elected officials to pledge to abide by DNC rules, otherwise they lose their position as an early state. In Georgia, it requires Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state, to certify that he will hold the state’s presidential primary on February 13. This would either require Georgia to hold two entirely separate presidential primaries or for the Peach State to jump the line in the Republican nominating process. A spokesperson for Raffensperger did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But Georgia is a sideshow in this. The real targets are Iowa and New Hampshire, which have been the first two states in Democratic presidential primaries for generations and have perennially been the target of resentment as a result. Removing Iowa from the calendar accomplishes that cleanly. The state has been an obvious target since its fiasco in reporting results during the 2020 caucuses, which were in part the result of rules changes imposed on the Hawkeye State by the national Democratic Party. Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa, told Vox, “We’re disappointed and believe the calendar passed ignores a vast swath of the US. There is no pre-window state in the Central or Mountain time zones. “

Advertisement

In the Republican presidential primary, Iowa is maintaining its traditional role as the first nominating contest and there is no reason that state Democrats couldn’t ignore the DNC and go at the same time. The entire national media will already be camped out in the state and any contest will receive significant coverage even if the caucuses would amount to no more than a glorified beauty contest.

The new rules also implicitly target New Hampshire and set up a conflict where the state legally cannot abide by the DNC’s rules. Under state law, New Hampshire’s primary must go first in the nation, seven days before any other state. (Iowa does not conflict with this because a caucus is deemed sufficiently different from a primary.)

The DNC resolution going into effect would require New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu and Jason Osborne, the state’s GOP House majority leader, not only to agree to repeal the state’s first-in-the-nation primary law but also to change state election law to allow more widespread early voting. In a statement, Sununu said, “This was Joe Biden’s decision, and once again, he blew it. … The good news is that our primary will still be first and the nation will not be held to a substandard process dictated by Joe Biden and the Democrat Party.” Osborne simply sarcastically told Vox, “Yes, I have a letter for the DNC. Looking forward to sending it.”

Joe Sweeney, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and a state representative there, told Vox, “I would say it’s likelier President Biden comes back to New Hampshire to campaign again after all this than any New Hampshire Republican caving to DNC bullying regarding our FITN law … New Hampshire won’t be bullied by DC and certainly not by the DNC Rules Committee or the president.”

Ray Buckley, the longtime chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, succinctly told reporters, “We’ll have first in the nation, and whatever sanctions they have, so be it.”

This sets up a spiraling conflict over the calendar and opens up the possibility for other states to go rogue and move up. There is precedent for this. In advance of the 2008 presidential primary, the final calendar wasn’t set until December 2007, and even then there was conflict over Michigan and Florida going rogue and holding primaries in defiance of the DNC, which was not resolved until May 31, 2008, at the very end of the primary process.

But this is a year in which conflict over the calendar has comparatively few consequences. If, as expected, Biden runs for reelection, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge for the nomination. This means that any conflict over the calendar will happen during an election that is likely to be a fait accompli.

But what it does mean is that there is a precedent set in advance of 2028, which will be a wide-open field, to minimize the role of Iowa and New Hampshire. It will open the door for new fights, over exactly what states come first, that will happen with potential candidates posturing for the calendar to help them.

For all the criticisms of Iowa and New Hampshire as too white or too rural or too unrepresentative of the Democratic Party, their place on the calendar at least provided certainty and an electorate that, for better or worse, was accustomed to vetting presidential candidates. That’s not the case moving forward. The next competitive Democratic presidential primary will happen without any preset calendar or clear rules of the road.

In the meantime, the Republican presidential calendar is set and a host of candidates will show up in Iowa and New Hampshire as usual in advance of 2024, while the national Democratic Party might go to war with the state parties in both states.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: The Midterms Were a Hollow Victory for Democrats – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

The Midterms Were a Hollow Victory for Democrats

#Midterms #Hollow #Victory #Democrats


But amidst all the liberal revelry lies an uncomfortable, little-reported fact: Democrats lost the House popular vote by three points.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: After Macron Complains About U.S. Climate Policy, Biden Rushes To Appease the EU – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

After Macron Complains About U.S. Climate Policy, Biden Rushes To Appease the EU

#Macron #Complains #Climate #Policy #Biden #Rushes #Appease

It appears that when the rest of the world says “jump” to Joe Biden, his response is “how high?”

After French President Emmanuel Macron ripped U.S. energy policy on Wednesday, saying that the Inflation Reduction Act could have dire consequences for the French and other European economies, Biden appeared to carry on with business as usual with his America Last policy.

Biden immediately went into appeasement mode, saying the U.S. and the European Union could “work out” any differences caused by the Biden administration’s, what Macron called “super aggressive,” climate policies.

At issue are government subsidies for green tech and energy. 

Macron and Biden appeared at a joint press conference where Biden stated, “We’re going to continue to create manufacturing jobs in America but not at the expense of Europe. We can work out some of the differences that exist, I’m confident.”

Macron agreed saying, “Everything that is absolutely decisive, because as a matter of fact, we share the same vision and the same willingness.”

RELATED: Flashback: Kanye Performs at DNC Fundraiser, Obama Jokes About Him Becoming House Speaker

European Concerns

At the heart of European concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act is that if components for electric cars and other green technology is manufactured in the U.S. and gets subsidies from the federal government, European manufacturers will suffer economic consequences. 

With Europe already struggling with high fuel costs due to the war in Ukraine (though not France, which derives 70% of its power from nuclear energy,) Macron has taken the lead to call on the EU to come up with its own green subsidies program.

According to Politico, of course the Biden administration is all in to help other nations while it heaps close to $400 billion in new taxes on Americans.

RELATED: Americans Are Fed Up With Woke Military Leadership: Poll Shows Less Than 50% Now Trust

Earlier Biden-Macron Spat

This is not the first time that Joe Biden has been in hot water with his French counterpart.

Back in October, while attending a Democrat fundraiser, Biden stated that the U.S. could be looking at for the first time in decades “the direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going.” His comments were in reference to the war in Ukraine.

The nuclear annihilation comments did not sit well with Macron. He responded by saying, “We must speak with prudence when commenting on such matters. I have always refused to engage in political fiction, and especially … when speaking of nuclear weapons,” he added. “On this issue, we must be very careful.”

Macron also said that he wanted “to be respected as a good friend,” but that Inflation Reduction Act policy would “perhaps fix your issue but you will increase my problem.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Advertisement


Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.