Toggle sidebar

Poll: is Trump suffering from dementia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taleweaver
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 9,406
  • Replies Replies 109
  • Likes Likes 1
  • Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions. Saying NO to fascists/nazis - if you are one of those, you are not welcome here

Is Trump's age getting to him?

  • Not at all: there's a perfectly good explanation for all of his behavior

    Votes: 10 10.4%

  • Probably not. I think he's just more distracted nowadays

    Votes: 7 7.3%

  • Unsure: I don't claim I know better than his doctors

    Votes: 5 5.2%

  • I see signs, but could be mistaken

    Votes: 4 4.2%

  • Yes. He's deteriorating and should be removed

    Votes: 30 31.3%

  • Absolutely; he's been demented for years now

    Votes: 40 41.7%
  • Total voters
    96
BigOnYa said:
He is definitely Looney:
Click to expand...

If Simpsons or South park hadn't predicted this, they weren't doing their job properly. But knowing Trump, he'll manage to double down on this as well...and get his staff to pretend this wasn't a blunder somehow.

Anyway: I came accross this, and had to share:

I'm not a fan of Jeffrey Sachs, but in this video, I honestly can't disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titan_tim and BigOnYa
Taleweaver said:
If Simpsons or South park hadn't predicted this, they weren't doing their job properly. But knowing Trump, he'll manage to double down on this as well...and get his staff to pretend this wasn't a blunder somehow.

Anyway: I came accross this, and had to share:

I'm not a fan of Jeffrey Sachs, but in this video, I honestly can't disagree.
Click to expand...

I saw this video yesterday, and when I started watching it again now, I couldn't stop. He puts everything out so simply.

I hope he's removed before he does more damage to the system, but it may be too late for that at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taleweaver
Part of the problem is that there's this lie or over exaggeration that's hard to kill, namely:

"As a doctor, you can't diagnose someone you've not directly seen as a patient".

Granted, this phrase looks pretty plausible. With video editing and the complete lack of true objectivity in the media, it's doable to make anyone look worse than they really are. In fact, it's how some people even to this day manage to have a positive view of Donald Trump (it's for most of us impossible to just check Donald Trump's daily lives, so we have to depend on media. If all media does is either suck up to him or criticize him, it's effectively null and void).

Heck...I admit I even believed this phrase, and to a large degree I still do. The thing is: with enough media, it actually IS possible to make a diagnose. And it never was different, as the phrase was a sort of truce agreement once a physicist used a quick "diagnose" to ruin a candidate (sorry: I forgot the details). But if a psychologist mentions that he has more footage of Donald Trump than of all his patients combined, wouldn't it be...at least very weird that he couldn't make a diagnose that way?

And...the reports aren't new. There's the book "a stable genius" (sarcastically named after his own self-description) that laid out his psyche in unflattering terms. And a report signed by dozens if not hundreds of medical experts that gave warnings (but that was a much tougher read)...from somewhere mid first term. The general consensus then was that he was incapable of being president. The books from reporters outlined a...somewhat similar view from another perspective: the white house staff from his first term shielded Trump from his own most malevolent decisions, talked him down, quietly refused to carry out orders and/or weaponized his forgetfulness.
The difference between the first and second term isn't Trump (well...I think his condition got worse, but that aside), but the staff. There's less if any filter, and far more from his tweets tend to become actions (his first term Iceland debacle was just viewed as an excuse to get out of a meeting. Now we're sending fucking army troops to the damn place because some drilling company acts as if they've got permits they don't have).
 
  • Like
Reactions: titan_tim
Taleweaver said:
Part of the problem is that there's this lie or over exaggeration that's hard to kill, namely:

"As a doctor, you can't diagnose someone you've not directly seen as a patient".

Granted, this phrase looks pretty plausible. With video editing and the complete lack of true objectivity in the media, it's doable to make anyone look worse than they really are. In fact, it's how some people even to this day manage to have a positive view of Donald Trump (it's for most of us impossible to just check Donald Trump's daily lives, so we have to depend on media. If all media does is either suck up to him or criticize him, it's effectively null and void).

Heck...I admit I even believed this phrase, and to a large degree I still do. The thing is: with enough media, it actually IS possible to make a diagnose. And it never was different, as the phrase was a sort of truce agreement once a physicist used a quick "diagnose" to ruin a candidate (sorry: I forgot the details). But if a psychologist mentions that he has more footage of Donald Trump than of all his patients combined, wouldn't it be...at least very weird that he couldn't make a diagnose that way?

And...the reports aren't new. There's the book "a stable genius" (sarcastically named after his own self-description) that laid out his psyche in unflattering terms. And a report signed by dozens if not hundreds of medical experts that gave warnings (but that was a much tougher read)...from somewhere mid first term. The general consensus then was that he was incapable of being president. The books from reporters outlined a...somewhat similar view from another perspective: the white house staff from his first term shielded Trump from his own most malevolent decisions, talked him down, quietly refused to carry out orders and/or weaponized his forgetfulness.
The difference between the first and second term isn't Trump (well...I think his condition got worse, but that aside), but the staff. There's less if any filter, and far more from his tweets tend to become actions (his first term Iceland debacle was just viewed as an excuse to get out of a meeting. Now we're sending fucking army troops to the damn place because some drilling company acts as if they've got permits they don't have).
Click to expand...
That is part of the reason the first term wasn't as bad (but still bad). At that time, his staff told him no. So now, Trump got rid of those people and replaced them with yes men. Particularly from Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titan_tim, Exnor and BigOnYa
Taleweaver said:
Part of the problem is that there's this lie or over exaggeration that's hard to kill, namely:

"As a doctor, you can't diagnose someone you've not directly seen as a patient".

Granted, this phrase looks pretty plausible. With video editing and the complete lack of true objectivity in the media, it's doable to make anyone look worse than they really are. In fact, it's how some people even to this day manage to have a positive view of Donald Trump (it's for most of us impossible to just check Donald Trump's daily lives, so we have to depend on media. If all media does is either suck up to him or criticize him, it's effectively null and void).

Heck...I admit I even believed this phrase, and to a large degree I still do. The thing is: with enough media, it actually IS possible to make a diagnose. And it never was different, as the phrase was a sort of truce agreement once a physicist used a quick "diagnose" to ruin a candidate (sorry: I forgot the details). But if a psychologist mentions that he has more footage of Donald Trump than of all his patients combined, wouldn't it be...at least very weird that he couldn't make a diagnose that way?

And...the reports aren't new. There's the book "a stable genius" (sarcastically named after his own self-description) that laid out his psyche in unflattering terms. And a report signed by dozens if not hundreds of medical experts that gave warnings (but that was a much tougher read)...from somewhere mid first term. The general consensus then was that he was incapable of being president. The books from reporters outlined a...somewhat similar view from another perspective: the white house staff from his first term shielded Trump from his own most malevolent decisions, talked him down, quietly refused to carry out orders and/or weaponized his forgetfulness.
The difference between the first and second term isn't Trump (well...I think his condition got worse, but that aside), but the staff. There's less if any filter, and far more from his tweets tend to become actions (his first term Iceland debacle was just viewed as an excuse to get out of a meeting. Now we're sending fucking army troops to the damn place because some drilling company acts as if they've got permits they don't have).
Click to expand...
Doctors aren't really supposed to make diagnoses on non-patients, but there's a difference between making a formal diagnosis and making an informed professional assessment.

But in Trump's case there are decades of speeches, interviews, rallies, unscripted interactions, written statements, and first-hand accounts from people who worked closely with him. There's more information than most doctors have on their own patients.

So even though there isn't a doctor-patient relationship, which limits certainty, doctors can absolutely make educated, medically informed observations about his cognitive and behavioral functioning.
 
titan_tim said:
Doctors aren't really supposed to make diagnoses on non-patients, but there's a difference between making a formal diagnosis and making an informed professional assessment.

But in Trump's case there are decades of speeches, interviews, rallies, unscripted interactions, written statements, and first-hand accounts from people who worked closely with him. There's more information than most doctors have on their own patients.

So even though there isn't a doctor-patient relationship, which limits certainty, doctors can absolutely make educated, medically informed observations about his cognitive and behavioral functioning.
Click to expand...
As a general rule of thumb, I agree. But
A) he's a public figure that makes decisions that impacts millions of lives (including mine, and I'm a fucking ocean apart). And as his mental health impacts ours, we have the right to know
B) if he boosts constantly about being the most fit, the strongest and so on, we deserve to get a second opinion from whomever quack he paid for his health talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum

Congratulations America! You did it!

South Korea Dog Meat Ban

To all you woke libtards