James Woods just tweeted a video of MSNBC's Katy Tur speculating about John Fetterman perhaps one day running for President. She says it makes sense, maybe, based on how well Fetterman was able to reach out to voters in deep red Pennsylvania, which certainly helped clinch his Senate win.
So how did James Woods respond to this idea? By being ableist–stating that if Fetterman were President, "We would need interpreters like the UN employs." He's being offensive in many ways at once. He's (1) implying that Fetterman can't be understood (which isn't true); (2) implying that having or needing interpreters is a bad thing (it's not); and (3) implying that nobody who would need an interpreter would ever be fit to be President (which is incredibly ableist and terribly offensive). Do better, James Woods!