Is Trump in a Cognitive Decline?
Concerns about Donald Trump's cognitive health have intensified in recent years, with psychologists, political commentators, and even family members pointing to behavioral and linguistic changes that may suggest neurological decline. Here's a breakdown of the key observations and debates:
Signs Raised by Mental Health Experts
- **Unregulated Digression**: Psychologist Dr. Harry Segal noted Trump’s tendency to abruptly switch topics mid-conversation without a coherent narrative, calling it a red flag for cognitive decline.
- **Motor and Gait Issues**: Dr. John Gartner observed Trump’s slowed walking, frequent tripping, and difficulty exiting vehicles, contrasting it with his athleticism in the 1980s.
**Confabulation**: A term highlighted by The Hill, describing Trump’s vivid but false recollections—such as claiming his uncle told him about teaching the Unabomber, despite the timeline making that impossible.
- **Speech Patterns**: Experts have noted a shift toward simpler vocabulary, repetitive phrasing, and disjointed sentence structures—hallmarks of cognitive impairment.
Psychiatric Evaluations and Public Statements
- **Dr. Lance Dodes** (Harvard-affiliated): Called the evidence of dementia “overwhelming,” citing confusion between Barack Obama and Joe Biden as a sign of reality distortion.
- **Dr. Suzanne Lachmann**: Described Trump’s speech as “word salad,” a trait often seen in dementia patients.
- **John Gartner**: Authored a petition arguing Trump shows progressive deterioration in memory, language, and motor skills.
Family Commentary and Skepticism
- **Mary Trump**, his niece and a longtime critic, claimed Trump is “declining rapidly,” citing his rambling speeches and impulsive decisions like proposing nuclear reactors on the Moon.- However, she lacks direct medical access, and her claims are viewed by some as politically motivated.
Official Medical Reports
- Trump’s annual physical reportedly showed “no abnormalities in his mental status,” though critics argue such exams may not detect subtle cognitive decline.
Broader Implications
- Cognitive health in leadership is not just personal—it affects national decision-making, crisis response, and global diplomacy.
- The debate over Trump’s mental fitness echoes similar concerns raised about other aging leaders, including Joe Biden, making cognitive testing a politically charged issue.Just my view--- While critics claim Trump is in cognitive decline, common sense and recent, observable facts suggest otherwise. Just the other day, Trump was seen on the roof of the White House with a construction crew, engaging with workers during the early stages of a renovation project. That’s not the behavior of someone “declining rapidly.” Consider the physical stamina required to simply get up there, let alone interact in real time with a team of professionals on-site. Most people half his age wouldn't take on such a moment.
In addition, Trump maintains an incredibly demanding schedule for someone nearing 80. He holds weekly golf outings, which aren't just leisure activities; they require physical exertion, balance, concentration, and mental clarity. He travels constantly, delivers speeches often well over an hour, and does so without notes or teleprompters. That kind of unscripted public speaking, often off the cuff, simply doesn’t match the “word salad” narrative critics keep pushing.
As for his so-called “digressions,” it’s worth noting that Trump has always had a conversational, improvisational style. He uses humor, repetition, and storytelling to connect with audiences, not to pass a neurology exam. That doesn’t signify cognitive decline; it reflects a communication strategy that resonated with tens of millions of voters. In contrast, many politicians with “perfect sentence structure” can't hold a crowd’s attention for five minutes, let alone galvanize a stadium.
A while back, Trump underwent his most recent annual medical exam in 2025, and the official report stated he is in good overall health, with no signs of cognitive impairment. The exam included assessments of his mental status, memory, and neurological functions, all of which were found to be normal for his age. Notably, for an almost 80-year-old man, Trump reportedly takes only finasteride (Propecia) for hair loss, highlighting his relatively minimal medication regimen and robust health. If there were any significant concerns, they would have been noted publicly.
The so-called experts raising alarms, including Dr. John Gartner and Mary Trump, have never personally evaluated Trump and often have political motives. Their claims are speculative and lack the backing of direct medical evidence.
Meanwhile, critics conveniently overlook that Trump’s own medical evaluations show no abnormalities, while similar scrutiny is rarely applied to other leaders. For instance, President Joe Biden has shown visible signs of forgetfulness and difficulty with speech in public, yet those issues are often dismissed or ignored.
In the end, actions speak louder than speculative “word salads.” Trump’s energy, recall, physical mobility, and public presence are all inconsistent with the portrait of a man in serious decline. You don’t campaign, debate, travel, golf, and captivate crowds while suffering from the type of deterioration being alleged, at least not in reality.
You spent 4 years on here defending a dementia patient... His wife. VP. Etc knew he was brain dead... By the end all people being honest with themselves knew.
That you or several others on here suffering from TDS have the gall to even bring this subject up is laughable.Thank you --- I mean how could one live that down --- Just saying
I hate to say this, but I think you are suffering from cognitive dissonance when it comes to Trump's latest behaviors. You probably already know this, but I am posting this for the benefit of others.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological concept that describes the mental discomfort we feel when we hold two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes—especially when our behavior conflicts with those beliefs.
https://youtu.be/Ci83s7iVYI8?si=L57shJ5eydi7PJ6O
https://www.youtube.com/live/ASP-hD8qwY … LotZaRdgu-I was simply pointing out that, in my view, it would be pretty hard to live down being someone who defended Biden’s cognitive issues. My comment had nothing to do with Trump at all. I responded to the subject. I had no reason to divert to Trump in any respect. My context was clearly on the subject.
Here is the conversation and what I replied to--
"You spent 4 years on here defending a dementia patient... His wife. VP. Etc knew he was brain dead... By the end all people being honest with themselves knew.
That you or several others on here suffering from TDS have the gall to even bring this subject up is laughable." Ken
My reply --- "Thank you --- I mean how could one live that down --- Just saying" Shar
As you can see, Zero about Trump....
I was pointing out that, in my view, it would be pretty hard to live down being someone who defended Biden’s cognitive issues. I’m not sure why you think I’m experiencing cognitive dissonance. Personally, I don’t struggle with that. I’m very straightforward. I call a spade a spade and don’t twist reality to suit a narrative. I don’t need to rationalize, deny, or spin things to feel comfortable with my views, because I base them on what I see clearly in front of me. People who experience cognitive dissonance often try to reduce the discomfort by justifying, denying, or changing one of the conflicting elements. Isn’t that exactly what you just did in your reply?
As for me, I’ve always addressed my comments honestly and directly, based on how I actually feel. I don’t shy away from calling things out when they’re wrong ,whether it’s Trump, Biden, or anyone else. I tend to shine a spotlight on what others try to avoid, and I think that’s exactly what tends to rub some people the wrong way. I’m pretty unique in that respect. I mean, you diverted and made this about me, shifting the focus to a perceived conflict instead of actually addressing my original comment. I get it, though, that might be difficult, especially since you were one of the ones who adamantly defended Biden’s cognitive state.
People who experience cognitive dissonance often try to reduce the discomfort by justifying, denying, or changing one of the conflicting elements. Isn’t that exactly what you just did in your reply, and why you did it? You did not want to, perhaps, face you were one who strongly defended Biden's cognitive state. Nothing can erase that, not comparing Trump's cognitive state or anything else... In my view, I feel as I said in my reply to Ken ---
"I mean how could one live that down". Trump's cognitive abilities are a completely different subject.
I mean, you diverted off subject and made this about me and Trump. Shifting the focus to a perceived conflict instead of actually addressing my original comment. I get it, though, that might be difficult, especially since you were one of the ones who adamantly defended Biden’s cognitive state.
Cognitive dissonance can cause tension in a person who feels uncomfortable with someone else's beliefs. People experiencing cognitive dissonance often try to reduce the discomfort by justifying, denying, or changing one of the conflicting elements. As you did in this incident.
As for me, I’ve always addressed my comments honestly and directly, based on how I actually feel. I don’t shy away from calling things out when I think they’re wrong, whether it’s Trump, Biden, or anyone else. I tend to shine a spotlight on what others try to avoid, and I think that’s exactly what tends to rub some people the wrong way. I’m pretty unique in that respect. I am not trying to score points; I am trying to be comfortable in my own skin.I don't have a problem recognizing that I have cognitive dissonance. It's very common in political arguments. What I do have a problem with is what Trump supporters and you are saying on this forum. You and others believe just because Biden has been in cognitive decline does not give me the right to mention that Trump is also exhibiting symptoms of it as well.
Trump is suffering from confabulation.
It's when you tell stories that are not true, but you as the storyteller absolutely believes them. Here are several examples of Trump doing exactly that. These are not opinions, but are verifiable observations
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/54 … tia-signs/
https://youtu.be/zuJNQy3FrR0?si=ajw3sEIUEAPJIpPS
https://youtu.be/WPoKvSEPKWo?si=wx3z2YtIcuaRxRKLI consider myself a candid realist. While I acknowledge that cognitive dissonance might occasionally surface in my conversations here on HPs.
" What I do have a problem with is what Trump supporters and you are saying on this forum. You and others believe just because Biden has been in cognitive decline does not give me the right to mention that Trump is also exhibiting symptoms of it as well. PP
I want to be clear that I don’t believe I’ve done what you’re suggesting. If you revisit my very first comment, you’ll see I simply shared my perspective on the subject, even though it didn’t align with your thoughts or beliefs. If the thread wasn’t meant to be open for debate, perhaps that could have been stated upfront. Regardless, I made sure to express my view politely and respectfully
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4379087
I’m not sure why you feel I’m trying to limit your freedom of speech in any way.
My initial comment was intended to respectfully share my own thoughts without infringing on yours. I can only assume the issue arises because you may not want to hear the other side of the coin. Consider your opening comment; you shared your thoughts, and subsequent comments offered others’ viewpoints. Isn’t that how political conversations typically unfold?This is what Ken Burgess said about my comment in reference to Trump and his cognitive decline.
You spent 4 years on here defending a dementia patient... His wife. VP. Etc knew he was brain dead... By the end all people being honest with themselves knew.
That you or several others on here suffering from TDS have the gall to even bring this subject up is laughable
Here is your reply to Ken about my comments.
Thank you --- I mean how could one live that down --- Just sayingI said that...
Isn't it ironic...
Let me know when Trump gets to the point where he is pooping his pants on stage and tripping over his own feet as he goes up the stairs... Or is just stumbling on a level floor... then maybe we can get worried...
After all... Biden set the bar so low you'd have to be brain dead or comatose to get under it.https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/1931815786001359322
https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1851799262784290962
Need more??
And what in the actual hell was this??
https://x.com/cturnbull1968/status/1951043323440902181I call that desperation by the left.
Sad desperation.
What a shame.When he walks away from his presser and his shoulder decides to go in the opposite direction....odd anyone would ignore that . Yes, a shame.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1951025775337152776Silly BS... I mean, who buys into clips that are seconds long? I have no respect for this form of mindset. I mean, the sooner no one replies to this kind of post, the sooner we will have more substantial conversations here. I mean, maybe best to let them talk among themselves.
What is this herky jerky??
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1951025775337152776It isn't a "view". The video clearly shows him struggling.
Seeing that reminds me of the the psychological horror film Jacobs Ladder with Tim Robbins. Yup, I know I'm weird
These forums are about convincing the other side that they are wrong as to how they feel about Trump. None of my videos are seconds long. If all the other side has is sarcasm, insults, and self aggrandizing, it becomes apparent that the side that drops out can't handle the truth about Trump.
The real truth only has one side. I'm 86 and will be 87 in a month, God willing. I know I have some cognitive decline because I have CRS, Can't Remember S**t.
Have a great day..I respect your age and life experience, but I’d have to disagree with your take on what a forum is “meant” to be. If the only purpose is to convince the other side they’re wrong, then it’s not really a discussion, it’s a lecture with an audience. A healthy forum should be about exchanging ideas, understanding each other’s reasoning, and examining facts from multiple angles. Sometimes that might change someone’s mind, but often it’s about broadening perspective, not just “winning.”
Also, saying “the real truth only has one side” sounds good in theory, but in politics the truth is rarely that simple, it often depends on how evidence is weighed and interpreted. People can leave a discussion for many reasons besides “not handling the truth,” including tone, time, or just deciding the conversation is going in circles.
In my view, a forum is about offering food for thought, not ruminating endlessly on the same fixed points. If we go into every discussion assuming our side has all the truth and the other side just can’t face it, we’re not debating, we’re preaching. And that’s when forums stop being useful for everyone.For some people they are all about Trump... they have Trump on the brain.
There is a couple for... and plenty against...
And then there are some that are just tired of seeing Trump dropped into every thread regardless of what it is about.
Discussing how AI will impact our futures, the economy, will we be integrated with it and the internet with a Neuralink chip... will we be able to control Tesla robots with them... will the chips control us?
Or discussing the shifting civil/social/religious construction of society in places like France and Sweden where the immigrant population is around 20%+ of the population in such a short period of time, with no insistence on assimilation, that unrest and/or change is sure to follow.
Is China a real threat to supplant America on the global stage... or is it about to collapse in on itself? ...Hard to tell, the 'experts' are predicting both are going to happen, but it can only be one or the other.
The election is over... Trump will have his 3+ years remaining to do what he is going to do... all the venting and ranting really doesn't need to be dropped into every thread.
This isn't two years ago when the choice was between a return to Trump or continuing to self-destruct as a Nation under Biden... your Democrats need to fix your own Party and stop worrying about Trump, there is nothing you can do about him now... you threw everything at him you could, false treason charges, false rape charges, false fraud charges (where the bank said they were happy with the results no less)... tried to have him removed from ballots (a former President... unreal)... tried to assassinate him a couple of times... and have had the media machine working to ruin him for over a decade... none of it worked... get a grip, move on, fix your own Party and stop talking Trump 24/7.Trump's reign of stupidity will be essentially over at the midterm.... Hopefully blue States will also gerrymander Republican representation into oblivion.... You'll have Texas to thank for that.
As the originator of this forum, it is not about Biden and the democratic party. It's about Trump and his declining cognitive ability. Trumpers are always about whatism and Biden when it comes to mentioning anything negative about Trump.
All those things that you said that are false about Trump are actually true. He has made himself untouchable. He is basically a one person government. He and Project 2025 have render congress and the courts as impotent.
If charges are filed against him, his lawyers take it to the appeals courts and it gets hung up indefinitely. It takes literally months are even years to work its way through the court system. He also has immunity from many of the charges you have listed, thanks to SCOTUS.
He has made the majority rule of SCOTUS beholden to him. Therefore, there is nobody above him other than God. The evangelical part of his base have taken care of that. They think he is Mana from heaven because he survived an assassination attempt and he is here to save the world.
The last time I looked, the first amendment gives me the right to criticize Trump just as it gives you the right to criticize me. Just because Biden ended up with mental deficiencies does not preclude my right to point out Trump's cognitive deficiencies as well.The claim that Trump has made himself “untouchable” and functions as a “one-person government” is a gross exaggeration of how American democracy works. While it’s true that Trump and his lawyers have used the courts to delay legal proceedings, this is a common legal strategy and does not mean he is immune or above the law. Cases involving Trump continue to move through the judicial system, and Congress and the courts are still active and independent branches of government; they are not “impotent.”
The idea that the Supreme Court majority is “beholden” to Trump misunderstands the nature of the Court. Although Trump appointed three justices, they serve lifetime terms designed to protect judicial independence. The Court has ruled against Trump’s interests multiple times, including the landmark June 2020 decision blocking the administration’s attempt to end DACA, proving they do not simply follow his wishes. Suggesting there is “nobody above him other than God” is an overstatement that ignores the constitutional limits and rule of law that apply to everyone, including the president.
The claim that Trump’s evangelical base sees him as “Mana from heaven” because he survived an assassination attempt is a fringe narrative and does not reflect the diverse views of his supporters or the American public at large. While many religious voters back Trump for shared values, equating that support to unquestioning worship is inaccurate and dismissive.
You are absolutely right that the First Amendment protects the right to criticize public figures, including Trump. The fact that Joe Biden faces questions about his mental fitness does not negate anyone’s right to raise concerns about Trump’s cognitive abilities. Open, fact-based debate is essential in a democracy. Both are open to scrutiny.
However, this thread was your creation, and you may have hoped that posters would focus solely on your concerns about Trump without making comparisons.
From my experience, though, it seems few respect the original subject of threads here. Honestly, I’ve never started a thread that didn’t quickly turn into a Trump-bashing session. I do my best to respect the topic at hand, as I tried to do here, until the focus shifted away from the original subject.We are no longer a democracy but in name only. Thanks to Project 2025 and Trump. Although his says he knows nothing about it, he and his administration are following it to the letter from his very first day in office..
Here is the link to the Project 2025 Tracker. It shows which projects have already been completed, which are still in work, and which have not been started. Just click on the Start Tracking button and select an agency.
https://www.project2025.observer/enI firmly believe that Trump is not simply following Project 2025 or anyone else’s agenda; he is pursuing his own agenda, one that often diverges from the far-right conservatism outlined in Project 2025. While Project 2025 pushes a very extreme conservative vision for government, Trump’s policies and actions do not fully mirror that ideology. In many ways, Trump charts his own course, blending populism, nationalism, and pragmatism rather than strictly adhering to any pre-set blueprint. Suggesting he is just executing Project 2025 diminishes his role as a leader who has consistently defied establishment norms and party orthodoxies. Democracy is about leaders being held accountable by voters, not about following secret plans. The narrative that Trump is merely a puppet following a radical plan undermines the complexity of political realities and discounts the fact that his support comes from millions who back his vision, distinct from any one faction or document. If anything, the tension between Trump’s agenda and other conservative factions shows the dynamism, not the death, of American democracy.
Trump has pushed some of the most extreme changes we’ve seen in decades, changes that are, ironically, very progressive in their break from the status quo. This was the core of his campaign, and he’s actively working to deliver on those promises. It’s baffling why many liberals can’t seem to grasp this reality. It should be obvious that he won because a large portion of the country wanted real change, more than just the usual politics as usual. Interestingly, in years past, such a desire for major change would have been labeled as liberal. This shows how political labels and expectations have shifted, but the demand for transformation remains strong.Regarding the link you posted. I took a look, but the first claim on the tracker that USAID was specifically mentioned to be cut turned me away.
Upon reviewing the publicly available details of Project 2025, there isn’t a specific, explicit mention of cutting USAID’s budget as a targeted action. While the project broadly did CALL for reducing spending and restructuring various federal agencies, the official documents don’t list USAID budget cuts by name. I don't have time to look at all the claims that this site has posted. I did read a lot of the Project 2025, due to it being so controversial.
Project 2025 calls for major conservative changes like shrinking government, expanding presidential power, cutting regulations, and reorganizing federal agencies, goals that closely mirror what Trump ran on and has been implementing. However, the project wasn’t even developed during his first term, and Trump has championed the same agenda. He shared these beliefs in his private life for many years. So, while his agenda overlaps with Project 2025, in my view, it stems from his own long-held vision rather than the other way around.I love how you can rationalize Trump's negatives and turning them into positives. But here is the true picture of Project 2025
Purpose of Project 2025
Project 2025 is a sweeping conservative initiative led by The Heritage Foundation and backed by over 100 right-leaning organizations. Its goal is to reshape the U.S. federal government in line with traditional conservative values. Here's what it aims to do:
• Centralize Executive Power: It promotes the "unitary executive theory," which would give the president near-total control over the executive branch.
• Restructure Federal Agencies: The plan calls for downsizing or eliminating agencies seen as liberal-leaning or inefficient.
• Enforce Conservative Social Policies: It seeks to roll back reproductive rights, restrict LGBTQ+ protections, and remove terms like “diversity” and “gender equity” from federal regulations.
• Slash Regulations: Particularly those related to climate change, public health, and environmental protection, favoring fossil fuel development and deregulation.
• Overhaul Social Programs: Proposes shifting Medicaid and Medicare responsibilities to states or private entities to reduce federal spending.
• Install Ideological Loyalists: Includes a personnel database and training academy to vet and prepare conservative candidates for federal roles.
How Long Has It Been in the Making?
The current version—“Mandate for Leadership 2025”—is the ninth installment in a series that began in 1981, during the Reagan administration.
This latest edition was launched in preparation for the
2024 presidential election, with the intent to be ready for implementation by a future conservative administration.
Your turn!!!Again my view, and in my view, this is a complicated issue.
I think it’s actually a bit of both. Some of what Trump is doing overlaps with Project 2025, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s following their complete playbook; a lot of these ideas have been part of his own policy vision for many years. But your list does represent changes he has addressed.
Keep in mind, why it might look like Project 2025: The Project 2025 plan is basically a big conservative wish list, smaller federal government, deregulation, stricter immigration enforcement, rolling back progressive social policies. Trump’s moves, like centralizing executive control, trimming certain agencies, and ending DEI programs, match up with those goals, so critics can easily say, “See? He’s implementing Project 2025.”
Why it could just be Trump’s own agenda: He’s been talking about many of these things since his 2016 run, especially deregulation, immigration crackdowns, and downsizing agencies. Past Republican presidents like Reagan and Bush also took similar steps, so these aren’t unique to Project 2025. And Trump himself has said publicly that he’s not “doing” Project 2025, even though he has hired some people who helped write it.
So, bottom line, yes, in my view, there’s overlap. Enough that people can draw connections. But it’s also fair to say these are things he’s wanted to do all along. Project 2025 and Trump’s platform just share a lot of the same DNA, do they not?
"The Court has ruled against Trump’s interests multiple times, including the landmark June 2020 decision blocking the administration’s attempt to end DACA, proving they do not simply follow his wishes."
He doesn't need the courts wishes. He does everything by Emergency Executive Orders, therefore, circumventing congress and the courts.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/all … 52704.htmlI agree that Trump uses executive orders and the courts to push his agenda, but most presidents in recent decades have had to do the same. We have a Congress that, as a rule, doesn’t fully do its job. Trump seems to work around obstacles using any method he can legally get away with, and I feel he must have some pretty sharp constitutionalists advising him on how far he can push the envelope. He’s even invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an obscure law from the 1700s, in his quest to deport illegal migrants.
Trump has already issued 186 Executive Orders, several of which are in the emergency category.
Isn't it congress' job to act as part of the checks and balances as one of the three co-equal branches of the government? With Trump's emergency orders congress, can't do its job because his orders are implemented immediately, thereby circumventing congress. Are they really emergencies or is he creating emergencies when they really don't exist, like trade wars, Los Angeles, and DC?
Stephen Miller is the one who invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The legality of his use of the Act is very questionable.
.Miller’s interpretation stretches the statute beyond its historical use, applying it to a criminal organization rather than a hostile nation.
While the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s authority in this case, the precedent is fragile and may not survive broader legal challenges or future administrations.
The move has reignited concerns about executive overreach, due process violations, and the erosion of judicial checks on national security claims.Just my view
To address your concern about Congress being bypassed, it’s important to remember that emergency orders and executive actions are designed to take effect immediately; that’s true for any president. The intent is to allow the president to act quickly when a situation can’t wait for the lengthy legislative process. Critics argue Trump sometimes stretches the definition of “emergency,” pointing to trade disputes or crime issues in certain cities. From his perspective, however, these are urgent threats that demand immediate attention before Congress can even begin debating. Moving swiftly also forces the courts to rule sooner, rather than letting the matter get bogged down in political gridlock.
This approach isn’t unprecedented. FDR, Truman, Bush, and Obama all bypassed Congress on major issues they framed as emergencies, even when others disagreed about the urgency. What sets Trump apart is his speed and willingness to confront challenges head-on, which can make it feel like he’s “creating” emergencies. Supporters, however, see it as decisive action, using every legal tool available to address pressing problems without letting slow politics stall solutions.
Trump also appears to view lawsuits as part of the process rather than a barrier. By acting first and allowing the courts to weigh in, he can potentially gain legal validation at the highest level, especially in the Supreme Court, which can set lasting precedent. What some critics call “overreach” may, in his strategy, be a way to clarify constitutional authority and push through actions that Congress is too slow or gridlocked to handle.
It’s a fine line, critics see overreach, supporters see decisive leadership making use of the full powers the law provides.Shar,
A conservative therapist has come up with a theory about TDS.
He believes it impacts people the most who need to tear something down to build themselves up. What they say about President Donald Trump doesn't have to be true or make sense. They experience a sense of moral superiority by obsessing over the actions of one president. It is something that enhances their low self esteem. Truth and reality are not important. The only thing that is of importance is the feeling of increased self worth doing such a thing provides them. It gives those with TDS a purpose.
What do you think?
I believe he could be on to something.I see a lot of logic and common sense in what this therapist is saying. I’d also add that Trump is a man who’s bigger than life, in my view, he couldn’t care less about what people say or feel about him, and that just adds to the anger for some folks when they insult him. People with low self-esteem often can’t stand seeing someone who’s thrived and built a successful life, so it gives them a kind of rush to try to tear him down. The problem is that rush doesn’t last, so they have to keep going back for more, which is why the insults never seem to stop, even when they get so ridiculous that it’s hard to take them seriously.
I am keeping Ukraine in my prayers and hoping for a path toward peace.A conservative therapist has come up with a theory about TDS.
He believes it impacts people the most who need to tear something down to build themselves up (That's Trump). What they say about President Donald Trump doesn't have to be true or make sense. (That's Trump) They experience a sense of moral superiority by obsessing over the actions of one president. It is something that enhances their low self esteem. (That's Trump).Truth and reality are not important.(That's Trump). The only thing that is of importance is the feeling of increased self worth doing such a thing provides them. (That's Trump).
What do you think?
I believe he could be on to something.That’s a clever little twist, but it doesn’t really hold up. Trump isn’t out there obsessively tearing down one person just to feel better about himself; he’s dealing with constant attacks, defending himself, and pushing his policies forward. The original quote described people who wake up every day thinking about how to trash Trump, not the other way around. You must see this, even here in this little-used forum.
And honestly, it’s hard to imagine Trump having low self-esteem. The man has spent decades in the public eye, built a business empire, hosted a top-rated TV show, won the presidency against all odds, and continues to pack arenas with tens of thousands of supporters. Someone with low self-esteem wouldn’t survive a week under that kind of scrutiny, much less thrive in it.
I must say, and I think we’ve shared this before, that Trump definitely has some narcissistic tendencies, but low self-esteem would be the exact opposite. Someone with low self-esteem would shy away from the spotlight, avoid taking bold risks, and crumble under criticism, whereas Trump thrives on attention, pushes forward fearlessly, and seems energized by challenges that would intimidate most people.So can it be said that if somebody speaks the Truth about Trump, that is not a sign of TDS?
Why do I state that?
If someone states verifiable truth about Trump (e.g., his felony convictions, his public statements, his administration’s policies):
By definition, that is not delusion or obsession, it’s observation of fact.
Calling it “TDS” would be a misuse of the label — confusing truth-telling with irrational hatred.
In other words:
Fact-based criticism = Not TDS
Irrational, evidence-free obsession = Could be called TDS
You are full of more crap than a Christmas Turkey. You are talking about the wrong person when it comes to increasing their ego. I don't have low self esteem, but I know someone who does. Trump requires constant admiration and when people are not "nice" to him, he seeks revenge.
He has all the symptoms of an extreme narcissist and master con-artist. The difference between so called "TDS" is we can recognize when we are being conned and manipulated by his constant lying and self-aggrandizing.
MAGA buys into all his BS, because they need an authoritarian figure to guide them. He has tapped into all of that from people who think they have been screwed by the left, which is sheer propaganda that he has created to keep the country divided. But you are in luck because he is becoming more authoritarian with his Marshall Laws as each day passes. .
You are correct, you created this thread and made the topic about Trump and his mental faculties... and anyone who wants to debate it with you is free to do so.
If that is what you want to spend your time on, go for it. But if I start a thread on Space Aliens controlling Earth could you refrain from bringing up how its Trump's fault and all the awful things he did recently... that would be appreciated.
I now leave you to further debate all of Trump's many flaws.
Every tyrant has its Achilles Heel, Ken. We will keep searching in earnest for that of Trump and his regime in general. This is by no means over…..
If this was Biden, would you have been concerned?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1951025775337152776Shar,
President Donald Trump has made himself 1,000% more available to the press than biden. He constantly takes questions from the press. He works very hard meeting with world leaders. Recently got a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition to the peace deals between India and Pakistan and the war in Africa.
biden rarely, if ever, took questions from the press. His press conferences were completely scripted. He eve screwed up reading off of a teleprompter.
So, he bends his shoulder when leaving a press conference and they say that proves he is cognitively impaired?
It is just sad desperation and what a pity they obsess on such trivial things.Mike. All true. I’m honestly surprised anyone on the left would even bring up cognitive abilities; it’s laughable. The very people pushing this nonsense are the same ones who defended a man who was clearly confused, had obvious balance issues, and often seemed unsure of where he even was. So when I heard someone comment on Trump’s cognitive abilities, I’ll admit I was shocked. Why would they have the nerve to bring that up, considering how many times they excused Biden’s confused state? You’d think, logically, they’d steer as far away from that topic as possible. LOL.
In my view, Trump is a man who is spry, full of energy, and shows no cognitive problems whatsoever. He works from morning until night, meets with foreign leaders more often than any president I’ve ever seen, and seems to have something to announce almost daily. He’s on TV nearly every day, and on his so-called “days off,” he’s flying to one of his golf courses for a full day of golf. If anything, that slight twitch people talk about was most likely from a bit of shoulder discomfort, something any golfer can relate to. This is a man who isn’t tripping, falling, or stumbling, he’s dancing, speaking for hours, and clearly loving every minute of it.
They have an endless need to obsess, it’s what they do best. After all, it’s not easy being on the losing side. Many of them predicted Trump couldn’t win—both times—and were proven wrong. No wonder they’ve shown such desperation. I predict it’s only going to get worse, not better.
TDS might be incurable, but it’s definitely not as contagious as it used to be. I mean many have thrown in the towel, and realized they don't want to be associated with the Dems kind of crazy.
And who exactly has been doing the responding to such... hmmmmm?
Why bother even checking in on a forum if you aren't going to respond?? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe just stick to forums that echo ones beliefs...
I did respond with those words because that is my honest view. What I find difficult to understand is how someone can now question President Trump’s cognitive abilities when they were so certain that President Biden had no cognitive problems at all. You actively defended Biden’s mental state, insisting there were no issues, yet that perception has proven to be incorrect.
My comment was straightforward and reflected my true feelings without any confusion. I find it a bit inconsistent to defend a president despite clear signs of cognitive difficulties, and then feel confident judging another president’s mental fitness. Since your earlier view on Biden’s cognition turned out to be mistaken, I wonder if it’s fair to be the judge now regarding President Trump.
I think I wanted to make the point, one should not learn from a very obvious mistake. In my view, you have not made a case that could support Trump being cognitively impaired. I have shared with you before, I feel Trump may have some character flaws, off personality traits, or personality disorders. But I have not witnessed any cognitive problems.
He is getting older, but typical healthy aging often brings more patience, emotional stability, and reflection, which don’t always seem to fit Trump’s more impulsive and confrontational style. However, he has traits like strong self-confidence, high energy, persistence, resistance to change, and bluntness. These can also reflect aspects of aging. These show how age influences personality differently in each individual."You actively defended Biden’s mental state, insisting there were no issues, yet that perception has proven to be incorrect.
Proven? By who??
Lol Trump's decline can be written off as quirky personality traits? But those don't exist in anyone else??
Trump speaking on Powell....
"He's a terrible Fed chair. I was surprised he was appointed..."
Dementia? I mean we all know he's a liar...
https://x.com/PettyMakD/status/1945542913414336549Trump openly expressed shock that Biden chose to reappoint Powell. Throughout and after his first term, Trump publicly called Powell one of his biggest mistakes. It was genuinely surprising to him that Biden would bring Powell back. He shared this sentiment repeatedly, both at rallies and in interviews. It seems you’ve accepted media spin without question, spin that falls apart when you consider how often Trump himself has openly stated his surprise over Powell’s reappointment. Do you ever look beyond the surface of media hype?
2019 (various tweets):
“I’m very unhappy with the Fed raising rates. They are making a big mistake.”
“Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again. No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision!”Trump
2019 (various tweets):
“I’m very unhappy with the Fed raising rates. They are making a big mistake.”
“Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again. No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision!” Trump
July 2019 (Rally speech):
“Jerome Powell is the worst Fed Chairman ever. He’s making a big mistake with interest rates.” Trump
October 2021 (at a rally in Iowa):
Trump said:
“I was surprised when Biden kept Powell on. He was one of my biggest mistakes.”
This was widely reported and reflects Trump’s view that Powell’s leadership was a misstep.
July 2022 (interview with Fox News):
Trump stated:
“Powell raised interest rates too fast. It’s one of the reasons the economy is struggling. I thought Biden would replace him, but he didn’t. That shocked me.”
August 2023 (at a campaign event):
Trump criticized Powell’s Fed policies and said:
“Powell has been a disaster for the economy. I made a mistake appointing him, and I’m surprised Biden kept him around to continue the damage.”He didn't say it was a mistake appointing Powell..... He said he was surprised Powell was appointed...
Apparently forgetting, or maybe just lying take your pick, THAT HE APPOINTED THE MAN
Please, we all heard it.
https://x.com/PettyMakD/status/1945542913414336549Or maybe you did not understand the context of the complete conversation. You grabbed a media blurb, and still are unable to understand what was said before and after that one word? I nmean an X --- lol
Don't take the time to share anything that contains an X blurb with me --- I find that insulting.There is no context here....the x "blurb" is Trump making the statement.... It is actual video.
https://x.com/PettyMakD/status/1945542913414336549
He said what he said.
Trump forgets that he appointed him, saying "I'm surprised he was appointed. I was surprised that Biden put him in AND extended him "
Who appointed Powell????? TRUMP
Trump recently proceeded to speak, non-stop and unprompted, for two minutes about windmills, claiming without evidence that they drive whales “loco” ....
Dementia or stupidity?Also....
Trump claimed the US gave $60m “two weeks ago”. He added: “You really at least want to have somebody say thank you. No other country gave anything.
“Nobody acknowledged it, nobody talks about it and it makes you feel a little bad when you do that and you know you have other countries not giving anything, none of the European countries by the way gave – I mean nobody gave but us.”
Trump seemed to not realize or remember that other countries have given money to Gaza...
Dementia? Stupidity? Just lying again?Oh my... For those who continually defend him, make it make sense.
Another example came in mid-July, when Trump claimed his uncle, the late professor John Trump, had taught Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, at MIT.
Trump recalled: “I said: ‘What kind of a student was he, Uncle John? Dr John Trump.’ I said: ‘What kind of a student?’ And then he said: ‘Seriously, good.’ He said: ‘He’d correct – he’d go around correcting everybody.’ But it didn’t work out too well for him.”
The problem is: that cannot possibly be true. First, Trump’s uncle died in 1985, and Kaczynski was only publicly identified as the Unabomber in 1996. Second, Kaczynski did not study at MIT.
‘He has trouble completing a thought’: bizarre public appearances again cast doubt on Trump’s mental acuity | Donald Trump | The Guardian https://share.google/8hC4f6GICNwigFq2PSo would this one be in the category of dementia? Or just lying?
Quite a storyNo, it would be a category of understanding the full context of a conversation. Not just taking one sentence and ignoring all that surrounds it.
Taking a break from commenting on your posts. I feel creepy feeding into whatever you get from a string of rants. ByeWise move. I read a reply from you to Kathleen about the loss of constributors to this forum, and I think that rants like this one you pointed out are one of the reasons. It is funny that if Tulsi had pointed out Trump losing billions of military supplies in Afghanistan or freeing up other billions to Iran that person would hail Tulsi as a genius and an awesome whistleblower.
Yes, it seems that just about anyone willing to badmouth Trump is admired by many on the left. I have no respect for that type and haven’t hidden it. By now, it’s become obvious who engages in these rants. Some call this mindset sad, and I used to agree, but I’ve come to believe it’s less about sadness and more about something being deeply wrong. To spend nearly every waking hour fixated on anything Trump-related… well, what more can one say?
What does one derive from such an obsession?You don’t think that there is not a fundamental problem with a leader that fires a seasoned professional from their job for doing their job merely because the products produced was not what he wanted to see or hear?
That is an observation, not an obsession.Oh my-- I did comment on the issue because I saw it as a problem. I don’t believe it was appropriate to fire this woman without offering a reason, and I felt the decision was unfair. While I acknowledged that a president has the right to hire and fire, in this particular case, given the dynamics surrounding her dismissal, I believe he should have provided a public statement explaining the decision.
It was clear that Trump was openly insinuating that this person was cooking the books.
“I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.” Trump
“She faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala’s chances of Victory… Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.” Trump
I was aware of what he said and shared my displeasure.
I called it like I saw it.
I just wonder how they are going to deal with life when Trump is not around to blame everything on. It really does seem like a syndrome for some of them.
Hi Doc, I agree, for some people, it really has become a reflex to blame Trump for nearly everything, almost like a built-in excuse. It’s going to be interesting to see what narrative they lean on once he’s no longer in the political spotlight. And I imagine their new target will be the next Republican president. I mean, the Democrats have dug themselves into a very deep hole, one surrounded by people looking down and saying, “Can’t believe you took such a muddy path that ended up putting you in that deep hole.
"I’ve come to believe it’s less about sadness and more about something being deeply wrong."
We know exactly what you mean.
JOB NUMBERS ARE IN...AGAIN
In a desperate attempt to convince Americans to ignore the latest bad jobs report, Trump grabs a chart, shows it to the cameras, no idea what it says, no attempt to explain: “But this chart is pretty amazing. Right here. All new numbers”
This is lunacy. This is idiocy...
https://x.com/MAGALieTracker/status/1953564029882183774Trump continues to direct his ire at cities run by Democrats for what he says is an “out of control” crime wave, despite FBI data showing crime down in every category.... He says he could show us charts.
Lol like this?
So he's a liar or just doesn't understand the stats or what??Does he think Alaska is in Russia?
Trump: "It's embarrassing for me to be up here. I'm gonna see Putin. I'm going to Russia on Friday."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1954919560840204467No. Trump is sharp as a tack. That's the worst part.
What is wrong with him?
Trump: "Now our inflation is down to a perfect number. Hardly any at all. Yet our country is taking in tens of billions of dollars -- trillions of dollars actually in tariffs… paid by other countries."
Fact-Check: This is all false.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 5711606173
There is no emergency in Washington DC. There is no emergency that justify his tariffs, or his deportations. There was no emergency in LA. Dictators use phony emergencies to justify otherwise illegal acts. The courts need to do their job and slap this down...
Talking about Low Self-Esteem.
Psychologists often note that people with fragile or low self-esteem compensate by:
* Boasting about wealth, intelligence, or power. That's Trump
* Dismissing critics harshly instead of engaging with substance. That's Trump
* Demanding constant praise and loyalty. Boy, is that Trump
Trump exhibits all of these in extreme form. For example:
* He has repeatedly claimed he is a “very stable genius” and that “nobody knows more about [X] than I do” (military, taxes, technology, etc.).
* He reacts to criticism with insults (“loser,” “lightweight,” “low IQ”), which are often projections of his own anxieties.
2. Testimony from Insiders
* Mary Trump (his niece, a trained clinical psychologist) has written that Trump’s outward bravado is a mask for profound insecurity. She described him as suffering from “malignant narcissism,” rooted in a damaged sense of self-worth from childhood.
* Michael Cohen (Trump’s longtime lawyer/fixer) said Trump constantly needed external validation because he fears being seen as weak or poor.
* Even former aides (like John Bolton and Rex Tillerson) reported he cannot tolerate being told he’s wrong, a classic marker of fragile self-esteem.
3. Obsession With Image
* Trump is notoriously obsessed with crowd size (e.g., the inauguration dispute). Now he wants a Nobel Peace Prize ROFL
* He insists on Time magazine covers, claims false achievements (like winning awards he didn’t), and constantly inflates his net worth.
* The need to control perception rather than reality reflects insecurity: those confident in themselves don’t need such constant external validation.
4. The Psychological Interpretation
Most clinical experts avoid diagnosing from afar, but when the subject presents a danger to others, they have a duty to speak out and many have noted his behaviors are consistent with:
* Narcissistic Personality Disorder traits, which often stem from low or fragile self-esteem.
* The pattern is: fragile self-worth → over-the-top grandiosity → defensive rage when criticized.
Conclusion
While Trump "projects" confidence, his:
* compulsive boasting,
* hypersensitivity to criticism,
* obsession with appearances, and
* testimonies from close family and aides
all strongly suggest fragile or low self-esteem, covered up by narcissistic overcompensation.
SO, a Narcissist who has Low Self-Esteem would NOT shy away from the spotlight, would NOT avoid taking bold risks, and NEVER crumble under criticism.
To me, that is case closed.There are many examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)
Obsession with the negative and ignoring the positive could also be one of them. There could also be ignoring any fact that doesn't support the negative.Mike, exactly. A perfect example is the way both the media and social media reacted to Trump’s recent meeting with Putin. If you actually listened to what was said live afterward, and then again when Trump spoke on Hannity, you’d hear a consistent call for peace and negotiation. He made it clear this is not America’s war to fight, but he’s willing to encourage talks between Putin, Zelensky, and NATO. That’s constructive and hopeful, yet instead of recognizing the effort, many instantly twisted it into a “failure.” That kind of blind negativity, while deliberately ignoring the positives, is the very definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Facts aren’t just being overlooked; they’re being ignored to feed a true sickness.
Mike, it's wiser not to give them words, but to remain silent. Feeding an obsession only makes it worse.This is from Fox News, Hannity's page, when Trump was being interviewed by him. I'm sure you trust Trump's answers, but without anybody to question him further, how do you know he is not just making up the whole story. Especially the parts about Biden and the election being rigged?
You trust what he is saying, I don't without proof that is what actually transpired. Trump doesn't call it lying, he calls it truthful hyperbole. TDS can be thought of as Trump Denial Syndrome. I see Trumpers in denial as to what he is really about.
Here are the key takeaways from Trump’s highly anticipated meeting with the Russian leader as shared with Hannity.
"President Donald Trump was tight-lipped after his high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday but offered some key insight into the meeting to Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview."
1. ‘No deal until there’s a deal’
Trump told Hannity that “as far as I’m concerned, there’s no deal until there’s a deal.” He noted, however, that “we did make a lot of progress.”
2. Putin ‘wants to see it done’
The president noted to Hannity that he believes Putin is not only open to peace but that he “wants to see it done.”
3. Not prepared to share what the sticking point was
Pressed by Hannity to share what the “one big issue you don’t agree on” that kept the leaders from walking away with a ceasefire deal, Trump declined to share. He said, “No, I’d rather not. I guess somebody’s going to go public with it, they’ll figure it out, but no, I don’t want to do that, I want to see if we can get it done.”
4. Up to Zelenskyy and Europeh
After taking such a major step as to physically meet with the Russian president, Trump said it is now “up to [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy to get it done and maybe the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit.”
5. Trump open to trilateral meeting
The president said that he would be open to attending a trilateral meeting with the presidents of Ukraine and Russia, saying, “If they’d like, I’ll be at that meeting. They’re going to set up a meeting now between President Zelenskyy and President Putin and myself, I guess, not that I want to be there, but I want to get it done.”
He added, “I’ll be there.”
6. Meeting a ‘10’
Trump said that he would rate the meeting a 10 out of 10, saying, “I think the meeting was a 10 in the sense that we got along great.”
7. Russia respects America now
Asked what he thought finally brought Putin to the negotiating table, Trump answered, “I don’t want to say anything brought him, he’s a very smart guy, nothing brought him to the table, so to speak.”
“I think he respects our country now, he didn’t respect it under Biden, I can tell you that, he had no respect for it.”
8. No war if Trump was in office
Trump also commented that he “was so happy” that Putin shared his belief during their joint press conference that the Russia-Ukraine war would have never happened had he been in office at the time.
9. Advice to Zelenskyy
Without hesitating, Trump said that his advice to Zelenskyy after Friday’s meeting with Putin would be “make a deal.”
10. 2020 election rigged
Trump shared that Putin told him he believed the 2020 election was rigged because of the widespread mail-in voting, saying, “you can’t have a great democracy with mail-in voting.”
Here is the actual link to prove I didn't make this up.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … -interviewJust my view, I can respect your thoughts, I just came out the other end with a different one. I have made an effort not to read into what was said by either man after the meeting or the Hannity interview. I felt their words were very straightforward. I am not sure there is room to read into anything I heard.
I watched the interview, and I’m not sure where you’re going with your comment. I read points 1–10, and he clearly did cover everything you listed. From my perspective, what he said on Hannity reflected his truth; he didn’t sugarcoat anything. Perhaps you could give an example of what specifically rubbed you the wrong way.
I think he has been extremely straightforward about the war, very clear in his desire to negotiate peace, and firm about not wanting to continue paying for it, saying, as he puts it, ‘It’s not my war.’ My common sense tells me he could have ignored it, like Biden did, avoiding stress and negative press, but instead, he has faced the challenges head-on, taking extraordinary steps despite the backlash.
I’ll admit that some may view Trump’s character negatively, but failing to give credit where it’s due really leaves me scratching my head. If he were going to exaggerate, I would expect it to be something suggesting he was certain he could end the war, but he didn’t. Nothing he shared struck me as unrealistic. He has clearly stated he will continue with negotiations and even has a scheduled meeting with Zelensky on Monday. He is just beginning the process, yet oddly, some seem to expect everything to be resolved in a single meeting.
He has been clear for weeks about his approach: if a deal cannot be made, he will walk away. I was encouraged that the meeting lasted three hours, and the follow-up with Zelensky this Monday seems promising. I have some hope that, if negotiations continue, progress can be made and the killing may stop. I am pulling for peace.
I always enjoy our back and forths.The essence of our differences are, you trust Trump and believe he is telling the truth. I don't trust what he says because he has proven to me and others that he was and is a constant liar, even to the point of him believing his own lies. MAGA doesn't care about that because he has led them to believe that all the woes in the country are created by liberal democrats.
In his first day in office, in his first term, he called the MSM the fake news. When he was questioned about that he said if I do something wrong, I can always say don't trust the fake news. He has used that ploy through out time in and out of office. However he uses Fox and MAGA news outlets to propagate his lies as truths.
In his first term he lied or misinformed over 30,000 documented times. Out of office he lied about the election being rigged when he knew damn well he lost the election. Jan. 6 was a catastrophe that he and his cohorts created as outlaws to try to overturn the results of the election. He brands his opponents with derogatory names. He does it constantly to devalue their worth to his base. He has pardoned all who arrested because of Jan. 6 because they like him.
Accountability is a big factor in my distrust of him. He has been charged with so many crimes, but now he has immunity and is now getting revenge from all those who he thinks have wronged him.
He creates emergencies when there is no need for them including, the LA, DC fiasco, national debt, and trade wars.. I can go into the details of each them, but hopefully you get my point.
I can go on and on about why I don't trust him. I think he is a very complex individual with many factors in play. I have learned he had a terrible childhood. thus, the narcissism. He learned how to use name calling from his dad. He learned how to never admit guilt from Roy Cohn. He learned positive spin from his neighbor Norman Vincent Peale, He learned how to divide and conquer from his military school, and now he has a group of influencers who live in his head rent free, namely: Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, and Susie Wiles. like I said, I could go on and on, but it would turn out to be a book.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Have a great day.I can see you’ve thought a lot about what you penned. For me, I try to look at things through a very common-sense lens, and I’ve learned over time that the media often twists narratives to suit a story. I don’t automatically dismiss criticism of Trump, but I do try to look deeper and find context, because I’ve seen situations where what he said or did was portrayed in a very different light.
When I hear people say “he lied thousands of times,” I take a step back and ask, are we talking about actual lies, or are we counting exaggerations, opinions, or things taken out of context? I think that distinction matters. On the flip side, I also hold all politicians to account, because I don’t believe dishonesty is one-sided in Washington.
As for Jan. 6 and other events, I’ve read testimony that makes me believe there’s more complexity there than the mainstream narrative suggests. I also don’t think every person who supports Trump is blindly following him; we just see different priorities.
Not everyone falls into neat groups, and I think it’s wiser to keep a level head, eyes and ears open, and not buy into something just because it happens to suit my own beliefs or narrative. While I respect that you don’t trust him, I don’t share the same view. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I think it’s fair to say that people like me aren’t ignoring flaws; we’re weighing them against what we see as his strengths and the issues that matter most to the country.Mike, you can't win against the willingly blind.
Only Trump cult members won't understand what you are getting at.
To say something is ‘true for any president’ is a classic way to deflect from really bad behavior as is the case with Trump.
Yes, all presidents have access to emergency powers, but most have treated them as tools for extraordinary circumstances—natural disasters, national security crises—not, as Trump does all the time, as shortcuts around Congress whenever they feel impatient or politically frustrated.
What’s different with Trump is not that he uses the same mechanism as past presidents, but that he almost ALWAYS stretches the very definition of ‘emergency’ to cover routine political disputes, like tariffs or crime in cities. That’s not swift governance—it’s governance by end-run, where speed becomes an excuse to avoid accountability. Courts are then forced into the role of referee, not because the situation is urgent in reality, but because Trump frames it as such for political gain.”democrats did this.
The two things democrats love more than anything is criminals and illegal aliens.
Americans want a government that values its citizens as well as law and order.
democrats can't comprehend this fact.Tell me more about how your group values law and order...
Video shows Department of Justice official urging Jan. 6 rioters to 'kill' cops...
Police bodycam footage introduced at the trial of Jared Wise showed him berating police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, and yelling "kill 'em" as rioters attacked law enforcement.
Less than five years after urging rioters to "kill" police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice..."
https://x.com/mjfree/status/1953556889327087897That is UnFing Believable!!!! Anybody who thinks that is right is unfit to be an American.
Why did your group defund the DC police ???
DC prepares for $1 billion budget cut after House passes bill – NBC4 Washington https://share.google/pb6FOKj6nECFDjlKh
"The federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department has reignited a debate over a $1 billion hole in the city’s coffers, the result of a mistake in a government spending bill passed by Congress in March. Now, with extra policing resources being poured into the city, Democrats are incredulous that the administration has enacted federal emergency powers while not approving the use of money RAISED FROM THE CITY'S TAX BASE .
From MSN ....WHICH IS NOT MSNBC...
DC goes without $1B in public safety funds as Trump’s takeover continues https://share.google/FAkR0v09QCjyiSIh3Doesn't "remaining silent" mean you lost? That you aren't able to use reason and facts to prove your point like those of us on my side do?
"Trump isn’t out there obsessively tearing down one person just to feel better about himself;"
Let me count the ways. Let's start with "She's a nasty woman."I would appreciate it if you quote me; you quote my full thought, not just one sentence. One sentence does not share the context of what I hope to share. I realize this form of quote has, for a better word, become a trend with some. Here is the full statement I shared, where you grabbed a blurb from ----
"That’s a clever little twist, but it doesn’t really hold up. Trump isn’t out there obsessively tearing down one person just to feel better about himself; he’s dealing with constant attacks, defending himself, and pushing his policies forward. The original quote described people who wake up every day thinking about how to trash Trump, not the other way around. You must see this, even here in this little-used forum." Sharlee
As one can see, its context reflects and implies something much more complex than the one sentence you quoted.
You actually used an example that reinforces the point I was trying to make about People Power. Yes, Trump did insult Hillary Clinton, but it was part of a back-and-forth exchange. Could it have been his way of responding to her own nasty remarks? Possibly. Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not, at least not in my view. But can we really look at only one side of the coin and ignore what may have sparked the exchange? I don’t think so, that would be hypocritical. To disregard the insults directed at Trump while criticizing only his response feels very selective, and I believe logic should guide us when forming an argument.
In the example you gave, “she is a nasty woman”, isn’t it reasonable to consider that Trump may have been reacting to the many insults Hillary had already thrown his way? Now, personally, I think he would have been better off ignoring her and letting people form their own judgments. He could have taken the high road, but instead he joined her in the mud. I don’t endorse that kind of exchange, but I also recognize it has become more normalized in today’s political climate. And I’ll admit, as much as I dislike it, I’ve sometimes fallen into that same game myself.
“Basket of deplorables” (2016) – At a fundraiser, Clinton said:
“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”
On Trump himself (2016) – During the campaign she called him:
“A bully… a bigot… someone who traffics in conspiracy theories and who has a temperament unfit to be president.”
On Trump’s supporters (2022 interview) – She said many Republicans had gone to the “extreme” and that Trump voters were supporting “authoritarianism” and “a cult.” Or should we ignore one's remarks over another's? Do two wrongs make a right? Is it hypocrisy to only note one's remarks over another's? Is it not fairer to show both sides of a coin?
On Trump’s base (2023 interview with CNN) – She said:
“Maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members in the Republican Party.”
He has no conscience, no empathy” (2016 rally in Reno)
“Trump is taking hate groups mainstream, and helping a radical fringe take over one of America’s two major political parties. He has no conscience, no empathy, no shame.”
“A convicted rapist’s defender, a liar, and a bully” Hillary Clinton
Trump: "If it's bad, if it's something I don't see a future in — I'm gone, I'll leave. I don't have to do a press conference, I'll just say 'Not going to be a deal, I'm out of here' and I go back to the United States."
My God.... Does he not understand that Alaska is the United States???
Mental decline? Or just stupidity?
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1956484555486945521I missed that sign of cognitive decline - good catch, even though there are SO MANY of them over the last several years.
I seriously doubt anybody is waking up in the morning thinking about how to trash Trump. The simple reason is there is NO NEED TO. On a daily basis Trump provides new fodder for new criticism. That is simply his nature. It is a shame his apologists don't see that.
Here are a bunch of examples of what Trump apologists are willingly and willfully blind to and why people keep pointing out that Trump is a BAD MAN.
"Judge blocks Trump FTC’s ‘retaliation’ against liberal media watchdog" - https://www.wishtv.com/news/politics/ju … -watchdog/
"Judge blocks Trump guidance that threatened DEI programs in schools" - https://www.aol.com/news/judge-blocks-t … CERvJQYOEQ
"Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s broad birth control mandate exemptions" - https://www.aol.com/news/federal-judge- … 59305.html
"Fourth ruling blocks Trump birthright citizenship order nationwide" - https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … r-blocked/
"Judge temporarily blocks Trump's order targeting law firm: 'Shocking abuse of power'" - https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-blockin … =120836536
"White House Backs Off ‘Hostile Takeover’ of D.C. Police Chief Role" - https://time.com/7310140/dc-national-gu … hatgpt.com
ISN'T IT AMAZAING CHILDRN MUST BE PROTECTED FROM TRUMP
"Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody" - https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jud … hatgpt.com
"Judge orders Trump administration to partially restore UCLA research funding" - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/1 … hatgpt.com
When you step back and look at these rulings collectively, it’s striking that so many of them involve protecting fundamental rights, democratic norms, or vulnerable groups. It is difficult to understand how any fair-minded, patriotic American could view all of these actions as appropriate in a democracy.
And yet, when these concerns are raised, critics are too often dismissed with accusations of “TDS” rather than being met with substantive facts or reasoned arguments. That avoidance only underscores the seriousness of the issues at hand.Trump on Bowser: "She's gotta on the ball. I don't want to see phony numbers. DC hit an all time high last year of absolute total crime, and it continued pretty bad, and then we put some strength into it and got the numbers down a little bit ... they're all going out to dinner now."
MAGA, is this true????
Did the district experience an all time high in crime last year ??? PLEASE ADVISE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER
It's odd that maga supports a candidate who lies, has no ethics or morality.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1958898295972978783Federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into whether the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in Washington, D.C., manipulated crime data to make the city appear safer than it actually is. The investigation is being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. It began with Commander Michael Pulliam, who led the 3rd Police District and was placed on administrative leave in mid-May following allegations that he downgraded serious offenses, such as stabbings or carjackings, from violent classifications to lesser ones. Pulliam denies the accusations, and the probe now appears to be expanding to examine whether other police or city officials were involved in similar practices.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that the White House had “reconfigured” crime statistics to support Trump’s messaging, even as the DOJ investigation continues. Meanwhile, Mayor Muriel Bowser and Police Chief Pamela Smith have emphasized their full cooperation with the investigation, stating that the suspected data issues seem confined to a limited number of cases and do not undermine the overall downward trend in crime. The D.C. Police Union, however, has been highly critical, describing the reported major drop in violent crime, 35% in 2024 and an additional 25% through mid-2025, as “preposterous” based on frontline police insights, and insisting that downgrading crime classifications is common practice, which casts doubt on the official figures.
In context, even before this investigation, many residents felt that crime “still felt bad” despite declining statistics, and the ongoing probe has only deepened that disconnect. Whether the official numbers accurately reflect reality or have been skewed, public confidence is clearly shaken. If the investigation finds systemic manipulation, it could fundamentally change how the city’s reported crime trends are interpreted. Even if limited, the existence of the probe raises suspicion and contributes to ongoing public frustration
Guess we once again see an investigation that will provide facts on who is correct in their accusations. No way at this point of trusting the stats until the investigation offers some facts.Did the district experience "an all time high in crime last year"
The answer is no and that Trump is lying yet again."Did the district experience "an all time high in crime last year"
The answer is no and that Trump is lying yet again." Willow
The answer is in my post; I shared my view. Now you have shared yours. Repetitive at all? Not interested in beating a dead horse.The answer is "Trump is a liar but we dont care."
DING DING DING AND WE HAVE THE CORRECT ANSWER.
"No way at this point of trusting the stats until the investigation offers some facts.
My God.... LOL Trump has people questioning their very existence now doesn't he? And I am to disregard the stats but believe in investigation launched by a pathological liar??? Nah."My God.... LOL Trump has people questioning their very existence now doesn't he? And I am to disregard the stats but believe in investigation launched by a pathological liar??? Nah." Willow
Trump has nothing to do with my questioning of what I read and hear in the media. I simply watch, listen, and notice the mistruths they keep pushing out. Honestly, I’m somewhat proud to be part of the group that challenges this misinformation—people who take the time to research when a single sentence is pulled out of context, only to find that the full paragraph tells a very different story than what the producer hoped we’d blindly accept. So, I think I’ll stick with seeking truth and facts, not “if it comes, maybe, or this could be’s,” and otherwise just using common sense.
I in no respect believe Trump is a liar --- save your rhetoric, your labels for someone who cares about such a view.Trump's claims about crime in Washington DC are not true. He is lying. He is a liar who lies incessantly.
expert after expert have stated that these statistics in particular are very reliable.
Maga Folks who post on this forum use statistics from all of these sources regularly.... Guess that'll have to stop until they're all investigated LOL. Hopefully this group will take care not to post statistics anymore."expert after expert have stated that these statistics in particular are very reliable." willow
Who would that be? I have not read any posts where anyone posted expert accounts to verify statistics on DC crime. What experts? Offer permalink.
And the only links you posted regarding this issue were posts at X. I very rarely see anyone but you use X as a source. Anyway, I shared my view and prefer to wait to see what the investigation reveals.Trump’s portrayal of Washington, D.C. right now is highly contested—and whether it qualifies as “lying” depends on which facts you prioritize and how you interpret his framing.
What Trump Is Saying
• He’s declared that violent crime in D.C. is out of control, calling the city a “hellhole” and threatening a complete federal takeover.
• He claims that local officials are publishing “fake crime numbers” to create a false sense of safety.
• He’s deployed 800 National Guard troops, placed the D.C. police under federal control, and appointed an Emergency Police Commissioner.
• Trump insists that since the federal intervention, crime has dropped dramatically, even claiming there were “no murders this week for the first time in memory”.
What the Data Shows
• According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime in D.C. is down 27% in 2025 compared to 2024.
• The Attorney General’s office reported that crime is at a 30-year low, contradicting Trump’s narrative.
• Independent reporting confirms that carjackings, robberies, and overall violent crime dropped in the week following the National Guard deployment—but crime was already trending downward before that.
So, Is He Lying?
It’s more accurate to say Trump is exaggerating and selectively framing the situation:
• He’s ignoring official data that shows long-term crime reduction.
• He’s using short-term drops post-deployment to claim sweeping success.
• His rhetoric—like “bad things will happen” if local officials don’t comply—leans into intimidation rather than collaboration.
Whether that’s a “lie” or a strategic distortion depends on your threshold for political spin. But it’s clear that his narrative clashes with the data and has sparked legal and constitutional challenges from D.C. officials.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrimeHe's lying about the statistics. The man is a liar.
AGAIN... I USE X FOR VIDEO CLIPS NOT SOURCES.
Haven't you posted crime stats from various cities? Blue cities? Compiled by the same sources that compile DC stats?
Even a casual observer of Donald "enemy of the people" Trump during long news conferences can see the signs of obvious mental decline. Well, literally thousands of mental health experts have noticed it to and are not keeping silent about it.
Assessments of Donald Trump’s Mental Stability and Cognitive Health (2025)
Since Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, a number of mental health professionals – both individuals and groups – have weighed in on his mental fitness and possible cognitive decline. Below is a summary of these assessments (with dates, sources, and nature of each) (I deleted the sources to save space and make it look better, but can provide them on request), including peer-reviewed commentaries (where available) (there were none, so I deleted that section to save space), open letters by professionals, and public statements by experts. We also note distinctions made between Trump’s general mental stability (e.g. personality pathology or psychiatric fitness) and signs of cognitive deterioration (e.g. memory, language, executive function issues).
Group Statements and Open Letters by Professionals
October 24, 2024 (Open Letter in NY Times Ad) – Prior to Trump’s 2025 inauguration, but setting the stage: Over 230 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other health professionals signed an open letter declaring Trump “far too mentally unstable to be president.” The letter warned that Trump’s behavior met criteria for “malignant narcissism” – an untreatable severe personality disorder – rendering him “deceitful, destructive, deluded, and dangerous”
. Notably, the experts also flagged “signs of cognitive decline”, citing a “dramatic decrease in verbal fluency, tangential thinking, diminished vocabulary, ... confabulation, phonemic paraphasia, ... [and] deteriorating ... motor functioning (including a wide-based gait)”, and urged a full neurological work-up
. They concluded that if Trump does have an organic cognitive disorder, it “will only get worse over time, grossly degrading his already impaired judgment, impulse control, memory, attention, reality testing, and capacity to process information”
the-independent.com
Late 2024 – Early 2025 (Professional Petition on Dementia) – In parallel, a coalition of health professionals circulated a petition diagnosing Trump with “probable dementia.” By early 2025 it had nearly 3,000 licensed medical professionals’ signatures
. This petition, referenced by experts in 2025 interviews, highlighted Trump’s “shocking decline in verbal fluency” and linguistic inventiveness. As one psychologist noted, forgetting an occasional word can be normal aging, “whereas inventing words or using non-words is not” – Trump has frequently coined nonsensical words (phonemic paraphasias like “mishezz” for “missiles” or “Chrishmus” for “Christmas”), which the petition argues is outside normal limits and indicative of brain dysfunction
. This collective statement essentially asserts that Trump’s cognitive degeneration is unmistakeable and dangerous, although it is an advocacy petition rather than a formal journal article.
One exception is an opinion piece in The National Interest (Sept 2024) by Dr. Stephen N. Xenakis, a retired brigadier general and psychiatrist, who warned that Trump “already shows the signs of cognitive decline” and that his mental acuity would “likely…erode even further” in coming years
Public Statements by Individual Mental Health Experts (2025)
Multiple psychiatrists and psychologists have made public commentary in 2025 regarding Trump’s mental stability and potential cognitive decline. These statements, often in interviews or media op-eds, distinguish between Trump’s long-observed personality pathologies and newly evident cognitive deterioration:
April 1, 2025 – Dr. John Gartner (Psychologist) – In a MindSite News interview, Dr. Gartner (a clinical psychologist who taught at Johns Hopkins and co-founded the “Duty to Warn” group) emphatically stated “there is absolutely no doubt Trump has dementia.” He described an “ongoing deterioration in [Trump’s] memory, thinking, behavior and motor skills” and noted that compared to Trump’s articulate speech in the 1980s, “now he often degenerates into literal incoherence, where no one can tell what he is trying to say.” Gartner observed that Trump “has difficulty even finishing a sentence” and frequently goes off on rambling tangents or confabulatory riffs that make little sense
. He cited telltale symptoms like fragmented speech, nonsensical word substitutions, and a decline from logical, connected thoughts to disorganized rambling. In the same interview, Dr. Gartner also reaffirmed Trump’s “serious mental illness” – specifically malignant narcissism – alongside the dementia, calling Trump “a terrifying choice as president” due to this combination
. Gartner warned that Trump’s cognitive decline has accelerated in the last few years, and he predicted “it’s going to get worse” over the course of his term
. (Notably, Gartner’s Duty to Warn group had earlier identified Trump’s narcissistic personality disorder; in 2025 he emphasizes that organic cognitive decline now compounds Trump’s psychological instability)
April 21, 2025 – Dr. Bandy X. Lee (Forensic Psychiatrist) – Dr. Lee, a former Yale psychiatry professor and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, continued to sound the alarm in 2025. In an interview with MindSite News titled “A Public Health Emergency: The Crusade to Assess Trump’s Mental Fitness for Office,” Lee stated that Trump has deteriorated markedly and that “the level of danger has vastly increased — especially because his symptoms have spread”
. She addressed Trump’s cognitive decline (possible dementia) and his broader psychopathology. Dr. Lee’s World Mental Health Coalition had convened experts (geriatric psychiatrists, neurologists, etc.) who documented Trump’s cognitive problems during the 2024 campaign – including “deterioration in language skills” (simpler vocabulary, incoherent sentences, grammatical errors), memory impairments leading to confabulation, and tangential thinking (erratic topic shifting)
. In the interview, Lee highlighted that while “signs of dementia in him are serious,” the most extreme dangers come from Trump’s underlying mental pathology (his propensity for violence, manipulation and lack of impulse control) which might be less obvious to the public
. “Cognitive problems and the high risk for dementia may be foremost in the public’s mind, since they are obvious, but they are not the most dangerous – precisely because they are obvious,” Lee explained
. She noted that Trump’s cognitive lapses (such as disorganized speech or forgetting facts) are visible to anyone, whereas his malignant narcissism and psychopathic traits pose stealthier threats to democracy and public safety
. Dr. Lee thus drew a clear line between mental unfitness (dangerous personality disorder making him unfit to lead) and cognitive decline (neurodegeneration), arguing both are present. She considers Trump’s condition a “public health emergency” and continues to advocate for formal mental fitness evaluations, despite professional pushback under the Goldwater rule (Her and another 3,500 professionals)
. (Lee’s stance has remained that mental health experts have a duty to warn when a leader’s psychological state poses a danger, even if formal diagnosis is off-limits)
June 2025 – Dr. John Gartner (additional statements) – In late June, Dr. Gartner spoke to the press reacting to Trump’s behavior in office. He observed “classic signs of dementia, which [represent] gross deterioration from [Trump’s] baseline”
. Gartner pointed out that video from the 1980s shows Trump speaking in complex, coherent paragraphs, “and now he really has trouble completing a thought”, a “huge deterioration” in communicative ability
. He also remarked that Trump’s motor skills and gait have worsened (compared to past footage), consistent with neurological decline. Gartner, who has decades of clinical experience, said that if Trump were a patient showing this degree of verbal incoherence, tangential thinking, and repetitive speech, “I would almost certainly refer them for a rigorous neuropsychiatric evaluation to rule out a cognitive illness.”
. He warned that Trump’s decline was rapidly accelerating and even predicted Trump might “fall off the cliff before the end of his term” in terms of cognitive capacity
. In media interviews, Gartner has also underscored that Trump’s narcissistic personality (a longstanding issue) is now exacerbated by possible dementia – a combination he calls uniquely dangerous
August 3, 2025 – Media Analysis quoting Experts – A detailed Guardian analysis in August 2025 noted that Trump’s “frequently bizarre public appearances” and rambling off-topic remarks had “once again raised questions about his mental acuity, experts say”
. The article cited several professionals:
Dr. Harry Segal, a senior psychologist at Cornell University (and co-host of the “Shrinking Trump” podcast), explained that Trump often “digress[es] without thinking – he’ll just switch topics without self-regulation, without having a coherent narrative.” Segal identified Trump’s abrupt topic shifts and lack of filter as signs of impaired executive function
. He also pointed to Trump’s confabulations, where Trump fills in memory gaps with fabricated details. For example, Trump has claimed false memories (like saying his deceased uncle “taught” the Unabomber) and spouted incorrect facts (e.g. about aid to Gaza), which Segal says is characteristic of cognitive decline: “It’s where he takes an idea or something that’s happened and he adds to it things that have not happened.”
Such behavior – creating stories or mixing fantasy into memory – can be an early sign of dementia, according to Segal.
The Guardian piece also referenced Dr. Richard A. Friedman, a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell, who wrote after witnessing Trump’s shaky 2024 debate performance that “any fair-minded mental-health expert would be very worried about Donald Trump’s performance.” Friedman noted that if a patient presented with Trump-like “verbal incoherence, tangential thinking, and repetitive speech,” he “would almost certainly refer them for a rigorous neuropsychiatric evaluation to rule out a cognitive illness.”
theguardian.com
. (Friedman’s commentary was published in The Atlantic in late 2024, but it was cited in 2025 discussions as an expert perspective on Trump’s cognitive fitness)
The same article summarized how Democratic officials had begun openly questioning Trump’s mental fitness by mid-2025, given his increasingly erratic comments. (E.g. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Gov. Gavin Newsom cited Trump’s confusion and bizarre rants as evidence of decline). While these are political voices, their critiques mirrored the concerns of clinicians.
The Guardian noted that Trump’s allies and doctors vehemently deny any decline, but independent experts continue to point to objective behaviors (disorganized speech, memory lapses, etc.) that distinguish Trump’s issues from normal aging
Late August 2025 – “Shrinking Trump” Psychologists on Cognitive Decline – At the end of August, two psychologists – Dr. John Gartner and Dr. Harry Segal – devoted an episode of their “Shrinking Trump” program (a webcast/podcast analyzing Trump’s psyche) to Trump’s worsening cognitive and motor function. They raised alarms that Trump shows signs of a specific neurodegenerative disease, frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Dr. Gartner explained that recently Trump’s “psychomotor performance” has deteriorated noticeably: “we’re seeing a deterioration in his motor performance, which also goes with dementia because with dementia there’s a deterioration of all faculties, all functions”
the-express.com
. While Trump’s public demeanor and language problems have been evident for some time, Gartner said “now his motor ability is beginning to deteriorate”, and it’s getting “worse and worse.”
A striking piece of evidence they discussed was Trump’s gait and balance. Dr. Gartner noted a “dead ringer telltale sign of frontotemporal dementia” – a “wide-based gait, where ... one of your legs swings in a semicircle” – which Trump appears to exhibit
. They showed video of Trump walking with a widened stance and weaving while greeting foreign leaders, observing that “he’s weaving all along the carpet” as his right leg swing causes him to veer sideways
. Dr. Segal commented that Trump’s unsteady, zigzag gait “doesn’t look like someone who’s drunk, but he’s drifting back and forth ... as if he can’t control one of his legs.”
Both psychologists agreed this abnormal gait and balance impairment align with neurological decline (noting that such a walk would “fail” a sobriety test, despite no alcohol involved)
. Furthermore, Dr. Gartner stated he believes Trump may have more than one type of dementia, but the frontotemporal signs – involving behavioral changes and speech – are especially pronounced
. He pointed out that FTD often affects language and impulse control, which could explain Trump’s worsening verbal dysfunction and impulsivity. This public discussion by Gartner and Segal (covered in outlets like the Daily Express and Hindustan Times) underscores that by late 2025 even Trump’s physical coordination issues were being scrutinized as possible evidence of advancing cognitive decline
. It’s worth noting that both Gartner and Segal have been long-time commentators on Trump’s mental health; their latest warnings explicitly tie Trump’s behavioral quirks (e.g. disorganized speeches) to neurological deterioration, not just psychological traits.
Ongoing Distinction – Mental Instability vs. Cognitive Impairment: Across these expert statements, there is a consistent effort to distinguish psychiatric/behavioral unfitness from neurocognitive decline, even as they often overlap. For instance, Dr. Lee emphasized that Trump’s dangerousness (malignant narcissism, propensity for violence) would exist regardless of age, but now it is exacerbated by cognitive weakening
. Likewise, the October 2024 open letter spelled out that Trump’s toxic personality disorder makes him unfit and that an underlying cognitive disorder is likely accelerating his deficiencies
. In short, mental health professionals since 2025 have been careful to note that Trump’s “mental stability” issues (such as impulsivity, grandiosity, lack of empathy – hallmarks of narcissistic and antisocial traits) are being amplified by what appears to be emerging dementia (affecting memory, language, and reasoning). This dual concern is often explicitly stated. Dr. Gartner, for example, said Trump’s cognitive decline “dramatically exacerbates the symptoms of his toxic personality disorder”
. The consensus among these commentators is that Trump’s overall mental fitness is poorer in 2025 than ever before, because age-related cognitive deterioration is compounding his pre-existing psychological pathologies.
Official Medical Assessments vs. Independent Expert Views
April 13, 2025 – White House Physician’s Report: Three months into Trump’s second term, the White House released results of the President’s routine physical exam, including a cognitive screening. Dr. Sean Barbabella, the presidential physician, reported that Trump “exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the commander-in-chief.” He stated that Trump had been assessed for cognitive impairment and the results were normal
. In fact, Trump bragged that he “aced” his cognitive test and was “sharper than ever.” Such official pronouncements echo those during Trump’s first term (when Dr. Ronny Jackson similarly proclaimed Trump “the healthiest president ever” and “mentally sharp”
theguardian.com
). These assurances, however, have not quelled concerns among outside professionals.
Reactions of Experts: Mental health experts have generally treated the White House’s clean bill of health with skepticism. They point out that a brief cognitive screening (like the MoCA test reportedly given) is rudimentary and may not detect early dementia, especially if the patient trains for it. Dr. Segal and Dr. Gartner noted that Trump’s much-touted perfect score on a simple cognitive test is not meaningful – Dr. Gartner quipped that such a test is “easy to ace” and mainly rules out severe impairment, not subtle executive dysfunction
. Moreover, the observable behavior documented by journalists and clinicians tells a different story: despite Dr. Barbabella’s April 2025 report, “people [continue] questioning Trump’s mental acuity” as the year progresses
. By summer 2025, even some of Trump’s political opponents were openly suggesting that he is not cognitively sound, drawing comparisons to the scrutiny faced by the much older President Reagan in his second term or by Joe Biden. For example, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (in a bipartisan governors’ meeting) commented that “Donald Trump is showing all the signs of suffering from dementia”, urging transparency about his mental fitness
Independent experts argue that Trump’s own behavior provides diagnostic clues that no straightforward exam can dismiss. They cite his frequent memory lapses (e.g. forgetting policy details or past statements), disorganized thought patterns, word-finding difficulties, and declining fine motor skills as evidence that something is changing neurologically
. As Dr. Friedman wrote, “If you aren’t comfortable labeling this as dementia, that’s fine. But there is no question that the president ... has an increasingly foggy grasp of past events ... These are facts we can see for ourselves”
In essence, the official medical stance in 2025 is that Trump is mentally fit, whereas a growing chorus of mental health professionals, geriatric specialists, and even some political figures contend that his cognitive decline is real and acceleratingGoldwater Rule
The rule applies to public figures and states: “[i]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement” (see sidebar).
The episode and the subsequent adoption of Section 7.3 appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of most APA members for a repeat performance, leaving psychiatric diagnosis to the media.
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/goldwater-ruleSo what? Does that make their conclusions any less valid? Those same people also have a Duty to Warn when they see somebody they believe to be dangerous as these professional clearly do.
Trump's grasp on reality is quickly eroding and he is lashing out at everyone, everywhere.
* MAGA
* Republicans
* Democrats
* Military Active Duty
* Military Veterans
* Ukraine
He has now made Russia an ally against our former ally - Ukraine by CAVING INTO every demand his mentor and fellow dictator Putin could have ever dreamed of. DISGUSTING!!
Trump is in a death spiral.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/politics … d-analysisIt is disgusting, yeah, sure he brings peace by through the total capitulation of Kyiv. If it were that simple we could have ended all of this 3 years ago. Trump has to be idiot to think that Ukraine is going live with such a concession. Europe has been cut out to the process and are in total disagreement.
There are reasons to question his cognitive state….
Is Trump in Cognitive Decline?
TRUMP - ""They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
FACT: Venezuela is a sovereign country. We don't have claim to their oil, land or sovereignty.
The world is watching this in horror as we attempt to threaten a country over their land and oil."
YOU DECIDE.Perhaps it’s worth reviewing the history of Venezuela. The country nationalized its oil industry starting in the 1970s, a process that expanded under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, shifting control of oil fields from private, often foreign-owned companies to the state-run oil company PDVSA. U.S. firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips previously operated there under contracts and lost billions when the dictators seized their assets. International tribunals have even ruled that Venezuela owes some of these companies compensation, which has largely gone unpaid. Trump’s remarks reflect frustration over these nationalizations, framing them as a loss of U.S. rights, though technically the oil belongs to Venezuela and the issue revolves around contract rights and compensation, not outright ownership.
I decided in the 70s that something needed to be done, but due to a weak US administration, nothing was done. Well, we have a guy now that will hand them a bill of pasted owed.I simply can’t understand why anyone would want to rationalize such an incredibly imperialistic comment by Trump. The only way his remark makes sense is if you actually agree that:
Venezuela’s oil “belongs” to America – not in the narrow legal sense of contract claims by individual companies, but in the way Trump frames it: “we had a lot of oil there… we want it back.” That’s not how sovereignty or international law works. American firms can have contracts and investment claims; the United States does not magically own another country’s resources.
A sovereign nation has no right to control its own resources – your own history lesson admits Venezuela nationalized its oil industry decades ago. You can think that was bad policy, you can support arbitration and compensation, but it’s still their legal right as a sovereign state to kick out foreign companies and restructure their industry. Treating that as “they took our oil” is pure colonial logic.
It’s “rational” for a U.S. president to demand that a sovereign country “give us back” its oil rights and “bring our companies back” as if we’re repossessing property from a disobedient province. At most, private firms have claims for expropriation in international tribunals. That’s a world away from Trump talking like we’re entitled to seize Venezuela’s resources if they don’t pay up.
The history you offered actually underlines my point: what exists are contract and compensation disputes between Venezuela and individual companies, not some grand American title deed to “our oil” under foreign soil. Trump’s language erases Venezuelan sovereignty and dresses up a neo-colonial attitude as if it’s just common sense.
Do you agree with Trump in all those claims or do you think that is Trump being totally irrational again.?
That’s what I’m calling out.
I wanted to introduce a book I just started reading called The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Danger to American Democracy and All Humankind. It is written by Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv.More precisely, she is a world-renowned forensic and social psychiatrist and expert on violence. Dr. Lee trained in medicine and psychiatry at Yale and Harvard Universities, and in divinity at Yale Divinity School. She taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School for 17 years, focusing on violence prevention, prison reform, and public health. As a project group leader for the World Health Organization's Violence Prevention Alliance, she has consulted with governments worldwide on violence mitigation strategies. Dr. Lee is the author of the textbook Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures (2019) and editor of the bestseller The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (2017), which featured contributions from 27 mental health experts warning about threats to societal well-being. She cofounded the Violence Prevention Institute and has been recognized for her interdisciplinary work bridging psychiatry, law, and global health.That is her pedigree and bona fides to discuss the mental state of Donald Trump, which I will describe in future posts.She and thousands of others in her and adjacent mental health fields have studied 40+ years of Trump's actions, writings, and posts. Based on that vast volume of data, they have determined that Trump is profoundly mentally disturbed and a danger to America and the world.While his specific diagnosis remains unstated—since they haven't sat down with him face-to-face for a formal clinical evaluation—they don't need to, because Trump is essentially an open book. Whatever pops into his head tends to come straight out of his mouth or onto social media.She and her colleagues felt duty-bound by their professional ethics to warn society if, in their expert judgment, someone is so profoundly disturbed that they represent a clear and present danger. And it is their professional opinion that Trump poses such a threat.Some might point to the APA's "gag rule," an expansion of what was originally the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits public commentary on figures not personally examined. Well, 1) they are no longer APA members and are not bound by its code, and 2) Dr. Lee argues that the APA has become overly deferential to political pressures, including during the Trump era, and is not acting as an independent arbiter of ethical policy. They also point out that even in doctor - patient relationships, if a psychiatrist or psychologist finds clear evidence that their patient is a danger to themselves or others. they have a duty to warn and break the doctor-patient cone of silence.
What she has to report is scary beyond belief and must be disseminated, which is what I will be doing here.Dr. Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv.More precisely, she is a world-renowned forensic and social psychiatrist and expert on violence. Dr. Lee trained in medicine and psychiatry at Yale and Harvard Universities, and in divinity at Yale Divinity School. She taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School for 17 years, focusing on violence prevention, prison reform, and public health. Short version - she knows what she is talking about better than almost anybody else when it comes to criminal behavior and violence and how they interface with society as a whole.
She does not diagnose Trump, but she does lay bare his severe symptoms of dangerous narcissism and sociopathy. She bases this off her, and others, observation of how Trump acts. Her guideline for determining if a person is exhibiting the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. They are:
1. A grandiose sense of self-importance.
2. A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. A belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or hogh-status people or institutions.
4. A need for excessive admiration
5. A sense of entitlement
6. Interpersonally explosive behavior.
7. A lack of empathy
8. Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him
9. A demonstration of arrogant and haughty behavior or attitudes
Only five of the nine are needed to diagnose a narcissistic personality disorder. But that is not what she is doing since she doesn't have his medical history or has done an in person examination. What she is doing, however, is warning society that he "acts" like he has narcissistic personality disorder. She maintains that she, as a professional in mental health she has a DUTY TO WARN when person in power is an obvious to society. And she is warning us about Donald Trump
I hope nobody who as lived through the last nine years of Trump will seriously question the very obvious fact that Donald Trump exhibits at least eight of those nine traits - in spades. In my opinion, the only one he wouldn't score a 10 out 10 in is #7 - a lack of empathy. He does show a little to his family, but that is about it. If they do, then that is a clear sign of having fallen under Trump's spell as bad as Jim Jones faithful believed in Jones.
It is necessary to keep in mind that early on Dr. Lee warned us that Trump's mental disease would not let him give up power so easily when he lost the 2020 election. Regarding the BIG LIE and the 2021 insurrection she says The inability to accept reality, critical information, key advisors is a feature that indicates mental unfitness, as our capacity evaluation had confirmed..Too bad there is the Goldwater Rule:
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has an ethics guideline—known as the Goldwater Rule—that says psychiatrists must not diagnose any public figure without personally examining them and having their consent.
I believed since Trump has set foot on the political stage, he has suffered from extreme narcissism. Without going into a deep explanation, I believe, he has also created a political administration that are clones of himself. It's only too apparent if anyone has watched one of his cabinet meetings.Actually, Dr. Lee takes the APA (Psychiatric) to task over that. She presents overwhelming evidence that the 1) the APA is beholden to Trump and his gov't funding, 2) the so-called Goldwater Rule is first only a principle but was morphed into a Gag Rule to silence mental health professionals, and 3) the APA violates their own "rule" all the time.
Her, and her fellow mental health professionals, cite other guidance from the APA (she is not a member and neither are the others), the AMA, and other professional organizations that especially in the field of mental health, the practitioners have a Duty to Warn" society if they observe someone in a position of power that is dangerous to society.
That said, the APA has been very effective at covering up Trump's obvious mental defects and his danger to our society, and because of his actions against climate change, humankind.The other side of this coin matters, though. Even Dr. Lee herself has acknowledged the ethical danger of diagnosing individuals one has never examined. The core principle of the Goldwater Rule didn’t come out of thin air, it exists precisely because history showed how easily psychiatry can be weaponized for political purposes.
“Duty to warn” was never intended to justify mass, remote diagnoses of a political opponent based on media appearances. It applies to specific, identifiable threats, not ideological disagreement or policy opposition. Expanding it beyond that risks turning mental health into a political tool rather than a medical discipline.
Claiming the APA is “beholden” to Trump due to funding also ignores reality that the APA has openly criticized him, many members publicly oppose him, and nothing prevented thousands of professionals from speaking out politically as private citizens. What they are restrained from doing,rightly, is issuing clinical judgments without examination.
Once we normalize labeling leaders as mentally defective based on politics, no one is safe from that tactic. That’s not protecting society, that’s eroding ethical standards and undermining trust in mental health professionals altogether.
Disagree with Trump’s policies. Oppose him at the ballot box. Debate climate change, governance, and leadership. But turning psychiatry into a substitute for political argument sets a precedent that should concern everyone, regardless of party.Dr. Lee, and hundreds of other mental health experts, easily rebuts your oversimplified claims.
One, she isn't diagnosing anybody..
Two, she, as an expert, is commenting on what she observes and applies her training and experience with violent criminals and others to reach valid conclusions about what she sees.
Three, with Trump's type of mental illnesses, she makes a great case that interviewing such people in the absence of outside information is worse than useless because it will lead to a wrong diagnosis. Malignant narcissists, such has Trump, lie - and they are expert at it. If you haven't noticed, Trump lies about almost everything and he WILL lie to the therapist.
Four. She clearly explains this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with protecting the nation, as her moral duty dictates, from a clearly dangerous leader.You’re asserting certainty where none exists, and that’s the problem. Saying “hundreds of experts” agree doesn’t substitute for evidence, citations, or ethical grounding; it’s an appeal to authority, not an argument.
Claiming she “isn’t diagnosing anybody” while repeatedly labeling Trump a “malignant narcissist” is wordplay, not honesty. That is a diagnosis by another name, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make it ethical or credible.
“Commenting on observations” is not the same as making clinical judgments. Mental health ethics draw that line deliberately, because observation without examination, history, consent, or collateral verification is precisely how misdiagnosis happens, especially when filtered through political hostility.
Your claim that interviewing such individuals is “worse than useless” directly contradicts foundational psychiatric practice. If professionals can declare examination unnecessary because they assume deception, then psychiatry ceases to be medicine and becomes speculation. That logic could be used to justify labeling any adversary as mentally unfit.
Repeatedly insisting “this has nothing to do with politics” while the subject is a single political figure—and only one political figure- strains credibility. If this standard were applied universally, we’d see the same public warnings issued about leaders across the ideological spectrum. We don’t.
“Duty to warn” does not mean “license to diagnose from afar.” It was designed for imminent, identifiable threats, not for broad claims about danger based on policy disagreements, rhetoric, or media clips. Expanding it this way undermines both civil discourse and the credibility of mental health professionals.
You’re free to oppose Trump fiercely. Many do. But cloaking political opposition in the language of psychiatry, without examination, without evidence, and without ethical restraint, isn’t protecting the nation. It’s lowering the standards of an entire profession.How can you write "You’re asserting certainty where none exists, and that’s the problem." with a straight face when you have literally hundreds, some claim thousands, of the best minds in mental health coming to the same conclusions about Trump?
So you are saying Dr. Lee is dishonest when she puts her expert opinion on the line in five different books and several symposium that she is not "diagnosing" Trump? I don't think I am the one playing word games.
I accept her logic that she, as one of the leading experts in violent mental health problems, has a Duty to Warn the public when a powerful public figure exhibits all the symptoms of a malignant narcissist which represents a clear and present danger to our democracy. It makes no difference if he is ACTUALLY a malignant narcissist. All that matters is he is ACTING like one. And Dr Lee and the hundreds of others are quite capable of making that determination.
You are quite right that "“Duty to warn” does not mean “license to diagnose from afar.”". She makes that point quite clear. She also clearly makes the point that the kind of mental illness Trump has can only be described from afar. Doing it only by one-on-one interview will likely lead to the wrong diagnosis and totally miss what his actions tell us.
She does not talk about "policy" at all, so she doesn't agree or disagree with his policies. Her ONLY concern is does it present a danger to the American society and the world. She and hundreds of other mental health experts conclude that he does.
Also, she doesn't use media clips but she does listen to [u]his[/b] rhetoric because it gives great insight to his character and underlying issues. For example, the fact that she hears him lie about the most inconsequential things, let alone very important ones that affect peoples lives ("Covid will be over shortly") and knows he has lied about things of 40,000 tells her a lot about his malignant narcissism.
Where do you get the idea that, in the non-clinical setting, the threat must be "imminent", although I will argue we are way past imminent. Even in a patient setting, imminent doesn't mean now. It means soon or likely to happen.
The APA has already done the "lowering" part.You’re proving my point rather than refuting it. Repeating that there are “hundreds” or “thousands” of experts who agree is not evidence unless those experts are named, quoted, and their claims independently verifiable. Consensus is not established by assertion, repetition, or belief; it is established by transparent sourcing. Otherwise, it’s an appeal to authority, not an argument.
I am not calling Dr. Lee dishonest. I am saying she is engaging in a semantic workaround that many critics, including psychiatrists who oppose Trump, have openly acknowledged. Saying “I am not diagnosing, I am describing” while listing diagnostic criteria, assigning a diagnostic label (“malignant narcissism”), and asserting danger based on those criteria is, in practice, functionally indistinguishable from diagnosis to the public. That is not wordplay on my part; it’s a basic issue of professional boundaries and public interpretation.
“Duty to warn” is also being misapplied here. In clinical ethics, it arises from a direct treatment relationship, where a clinician has access to privileged information, personal evaluation, and an identifiable threat. Expanding it to justify mass speculation about a political figure based on public speech fundamentally transforms it from a clinical safeguard into a political instrument. Many psychiatrists, again, including those critical of Trump, have warned that this expansion is dangerous precisely because it erodes trust in psychiatry as a neutral medical discipline.
Your claim that Trump’s “kind of mental illness can only be diagnosed from afar” is not supported by mainstream psychiatry. In fact, it directly contradicts the foundational principle that diagnosis requires context, history, collateral records, and direct assessment. Saying that distance produces better diagnosis is not an accepted medical standard; it is a philosophical position, not a clinical one.
As for rhetoric and lying: political dishonesty, exaggeration, or even pathological lying are not sufficient for a psychiatric diagnosis. If they were, a substantial portion of political leadership across history, left and right, would qualify. That’s precisely why psychiatry traditionally avoids retrofitting political behavior into clinical frameworks.
Saying “imminent doesn’t mean now” does not resolve the problem; it highlights it. When imminence becomes elastic and subjective, the standard collapses. At that point, any strongly disliked public figure can be framed as a looming danger, which is exactly what the Goldwater Rule was designed to prevent after psychiatry was abused for political ends in the past.
You are free to believe Dr. Lee’s conclusions. What you cannot do is claim they are settled science, broad professional consensus, or ethically unproblematic, especially when they rely on inference, distance, and rhetorical framing rather than clinical evaluation. That isn’t skepticism on my part; it’s adherence to evidentiary and ethical standards that protect both medicine and the public." including psychiatrists who oppose Trump," - what are their names and pedigrees?
" including psychiatrists who oppose Trump," - what are their names and pedigrees?" ECO
AI ---- Here are real, verifiable examples from mental‑health professionals — including those who have been critical of Trump — who have acknowledged limits on diagnosing him without personal examination or have emphasized professional boundaries like the Goldwater Rule (the ethical guideline that psychiatrists should not diagnose public figures they haven’t examined):
1. American Psychiatric Association officials and leaders have repeatedly emphasized ethics limits. Maria A. Oquendo — then‑president of the APA — wrote that “if psychiatrists were allowed to make diagnoses without seeing a patient, the public could lose confidence in the field and mental health patients could feel stigmatized,” and that “breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.”
ajc
2. The APA’s Goldwater Rule itself has been reiterated by APA leaders such as Dr. Saul Levin, who said publicly that it is “unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement.”
Washington Examiner
3. Even some clinicians involved in Trump critiques have acknowledged this ethical debate. Psychologist John D. Gartner, who has publicly criticized Trump’s behavior and described concerns about his fitness for office, has explained that the Goldwater Rule applies to psychiatrists and that diagnosing someone without a direct exam is controversial and ethically fraught.
Forbes
4. Some psychiatrists who have criticized over‑simplified public speculation — such as those quoted in discussions of the Goldwater Rule — emphasize that psychiatrists aren’t capable of rendering accurate diagnoses without a personal examination, and that doing so risks harm and misinterpretation.
Salon.com
5. Psychiatrist Leon Hoffman, writing about ethics and diagnosis, warned that using psychiatric labels as political tools poses “great danger to our society” and that the Goldwater Rule exists precisely because misapplied psychiatric judgments can be unethical and politically misused.
The Guardian
Taken together, these examples show that even among mental‑health professionals — including those highly critical of Trump — there is acknowledgment that assigning diagnostic labels or evaluating mental health without a personal clinical examination crosses an important ethical boundary. This supports your point that saying “I’m not diagnosing, I’m describing” can be functionally indistinguishable from a diagnosis to the general public and raises real concerns about professional boundaries and interpretation.
Dr. Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D. is a highly respected American psychiatrist and researcher with a distinguished academic and clinical career. She graduated summa cum laude from Tufts University and earned her medical degree from Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons. She completed her psychiatry residency at the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center. She also holds a Ph.D. in psychiatry from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Dr. Saul M. Levin, M.D., M.P.A., FRCP-E, FRCPsych is a well-established psychiatrist and health executive with extensive leadership experience in major medical and psychiatric organizations. He earned his medical degree (M.B.B.Ch.) from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1982, then moved to the United States where he completed his residency in psychiatry at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. He also holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, which reflects additional training in health policy and administration.
Dr. John D. Gartner, Ph.D. is an American clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, author, and activist with decades of experience in mental health. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University and earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, followed by post-doctoral training at Weill Medical College of Cornell University. He taught for 28 years as a part-time assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, where he also supervised and lectured on clinical topics. In his professional practice, he specialized in treating conditions such as borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression, and he has published widely in both scholarly journals and mainstream media. He is also the author of several books, including The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (A Little) Craziness and (A Lot of) Success in America, which was recognized as a notable work in psychology and culture. In 2017, he founded Duty to Warn, an organization of mental-health professionals who argue that public officials’ behavior can pose significant risks — a position that has been the subject of debate within the mental-health community about professional ethics and public commentary.
Dr. Lee--- She earned her Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from Yale University School of Medicine and a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) from Yale Divinity School, combining clinical training with a broader humanistic perspective. She completed her medical internship at Bellevue Hospital Center, served as chief resident during her psychiatry residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, and was a research fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health and Harvard Medical School, reflecting advanced interdisciplinary training in psychiatry and social medicine.
Just does not stand up against the education and experience of those I gave as sources. She seems to qualify for TDS, in my view.It's interesting how Trumpers can believe what Trump is saying when he uses the phrase "Many people say...." and there is no question in their minds to the source. You and they just believe what he is saying. But you go through an entire list of shrinks and their credentials to prove diagnosing Trump's behavior is unethical.
I asked AI if The Goldwater Rule is law. It turns out it is a standard that is held by members of the APA. However, if a non-member of the APA diagnoses him by showing he fits the profile of the DSM-5, It's O.K. Here is an article that I found that I think fits Trump's personality and behavior to a tee. Here is the disclaimer.
Disclaimer: The analysis below is not a clinical diagnosis. It is instead a discussion of publicly observable behaviors and patterns, employing common frameworks from psychology and political leadership studies. As is widely cautioned in professional mental health contexts (diagnosing individuals from afar) particularly public figures is inherently limited. Instead, the following essay presents an interpretation of Donald Trump’s rhetorical style, decision-making, and leadership persona, especially as seen in his 2025 presidential agenda.
https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/global-psy … g-dynamicsHere is where your analysis fails on each point (even if it is AI generated, you offer it as your opinion)
1. This would apply IF WE were talking about diagnosing a patient in a clinical setting. We are not. Therefore it is N/A.
2. The so-called Goldwater Rule is 1) not a rule, 2) applies ONLY to members of the APA, 3) the APA itself and its members often violate it and therefore invalidate it, and 4) has no legal authority. All other major professional medical and mental health organizations say to ignore the guidance. For example, read Trump's Brain and the 25th Amendment(2017) by Dr. Lieberman, former president of the APA where he states, after a detailed discussion about Trump's family life and possible mental illnesses, "“most could readily be ruled out” and that the “most plausible” remaining hypothesis was “incipient dementia (possibly Alzheimer’s, Fronto-Temporal, or less likely, cerebrovascular)”
3. Gartner has been shown to be a publicity-seeking political activist against Trump who took credit for things he didn't deserve and outright lied about some things such as being the author of Lee's first book (she asked him to submit an essay which he did and she published as one of the 27 professionals - this was before she discovered his true nature) or having originated the Duty to Warn conference and was one of the panel of experts saying Lee just helped organize it. In fact, he just attended the conference and gave an impromptu self-congratulating unplanned speech at the end. He IS, what you claim Lee to be and therefore not relevant to this discussion.
4. Yes, 'some' psychiatrists do say that, the vast majority, however, do not!
5. Yes, Hoffman said that and he is right. BUT, what Dr. Lee is warning us about is no more political than her warning NYC about the Son of Sam. Consequently, it has no bearing on this discussion.
Am I correct in assuming you have read none of her books and are doing the same thing you are accusing her of, rendering judgement without getting the proper facts?
Finally, I will reiterate - DEFLECTING to whether her books are ethical or not is way beyond the point. What IS the point is what she, in her and SO MANY OTHERS professional opinions, say regarding Trump's observable actions mark him as unfit to be president and is a credible danger to America and the world.No, I offered only an AI copy and paste. With only one sentence at the bottom, "Just does not stand up against the education and experience of those I gave as sources. She seems to qualify for TDS, in my view." Sharlee
You asked for “pedigrees,” and AI provided them without bias. I stated my view plainly. When the credentials are compared side by side, Dr. Lee falls short in both education and experience.
I understand how to use AI to obtain direct, neutral information rather than narrative-driven answers.
I’m stepping away from this discussion. I’ve made my point, and you’ve made yours.
Frankly, debating President Trump’s supposed mental characteristics, particularly the reflexive claim of “narcissism,” is a shallow distraction. Ambition, confidence, and a forceful leadership style are not pathology, and reducing complex leadership to pop-psych labels says more about the critic than the subject.
I asked AI what shrinks think of Trump's narcissistic behavior. Here is the results I received
.Here’s the clearest, evidence‑based picture of what mental‑health professionals *publicly* say about Donald Trump’s narcissistic traits — grounded in the sources we just pulled up.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Lh … 3MXeGL11bFThat should leave no doubt about his dangerousness. But it is important to note
The issue I have with this article is not that it mentions no experts, it does name a few, but that it still asks the reader to accept sweeping conclusions without adequate sourcing or balance. A handful of named individuals does not equal broad professional consensus, especially when no full study titles, journal references, or direct quotations are provided for many of the strongest claims. Assertions like “peer-reviewed articles note” or “psychological analyses show” require clear, verifiable citations so readers can independently assess the evidence.
There is also a significant methodological problem. The article repeatedly uses diagnostic language (“textbook narcissistic personality,” “malignant narcissism,” “cognitive decline”) while insisting no diagnosis is being made. Even with disclaimers, presenting symptom checklists and theoretical frameworks in this way strongly nudges the audience toward a clinical conclusion. That blurring of analysis and diagnosis is exactly what professional ethical standards warn against, regardless of political views.
In my view, this reflects a broader concern in public discourse today: people are increasingly willing to treat persuasive narratives as established fact without demanding rigorous sourcing, competing viewpoints, or methodological caution. The presence of a few expert names does not eliminate the need for careful verification, context, and intellectual restraint, especially when discussing mental health and public figures.Did you open up and read the citations that were provided?
As to methodology -
The criticism of using diagnostic-like language while disclaiming actual diagnosis is a fair point on its face, but it overlooks the nuanced ethical framework that mental health experts like Bandy Lee and signers of the 2024 open letter have invoked when discussing public figures such as Trump. The Goldwater rule, while important for protecting patient confidentiality and avoiding armchair speculation, applies primarily to formal diagnoses in a clinical context—where a doctor-patient relationship exists.
For public officials, where no such relationship is present, professionals argue there's a "duty to warn" the public about observable behaviors that suggest potential risks, drawing from precedents like the Tarasoff case (adapted to societal threats). Terms like "malignant narcissism" or "cognitive decline" aren't formal diagnoses here; they're analytical descriptors based on publicly available evidence (e.g., speeches, interviews, and actions), similar to how journalists or historians describe patterns without claiming medical authority.
This isn't "blurring" but a deliberate distinction: The experts emphasize they're offering informed opinions on fitness for office, not treating Trump as a patient. The APA itself has clarified that the Goldwater rule doesn't prohibit all commentary on public figures—only unethical remote diagnosing—and many signatories (over 230 in 2024) frame their concerns as civic duty, not violation.
Dismissing this as unethical "nudging" ignores the real-world stakes: If behaviors suggest instability (e.g., erratic decisions or cognitive slips), withholding analysis could endanger public safety more than cautious speculation. Ethical standards evolve, and in an era of high-stakes leadership, transparency about observable red flags—disclaimed as non-diagnostic—serves the public interest without crossing into malpractice.
In addition, shifting the debate to whether it is ethical or not deflects from the REAL issue - Trump's mental health and whether he is a danger to America and the world. The experts can be unethical all they want (they aren't) but that doesn't change the TRUTH of their conclusions.I am very satisfied with Trump at this point. I feel like I’m thriving once again under his leadership. I see him genuinely working to make America a better place in so many ways. I have never witnessed a president so determined to tackle long-term problems that have plagued our nation for years. It’s a phenomenon I have truly never seen before. And I can’t help but wonder, why does he make it all look somewhat easy?
I find it hard to continue the discussion on your post. I’ve shared my view in length, and don’t have anything more to add regarding this subject.You must feel that way to resolve the cognitive dissonance you experience when facts do not fit your views.
"You must feel that way to resolve the cognitive dissonance you experience when facts do not fit your views." ECO
Invoking “cognitive dissonance” isn’t insight; it’s an intellectual dodge. You addressed none of my points and substituted a pop-psych buzzword for an argument, groupthink masquerading as thought. This has become a popular retreat in recent years, and I find it unfortunate; it reflects an unwillingness, or inability, to engage in actual reasoning.
I don’t need your armchair diagnosis to explain why I feel I’m doing better under this administration’s leadership. If you have facts, present them. If all you have is condescension, then you’re not debating, you’re posturing because you have no rebuttal.
Reducing disagreement to a supposed mental flaw says far more about the weakness of your position than it does about mine. I stated how I feel about my life under Trump. That experience is individual, factual to me, and not yours to invalidate.No, it isn't insight, it is simply the truth. Study after study supports it.
"Invoking “cognitive dissonance” isn’t insight; it’s an intellectual dodge. You addressed none of my points and substituted a pop-psych buzzword for an argument, groupthink masquerading as thought. This has become a popular retreat in recent years, and I find it unfortunate; it reflects an unwillingness, or inability, to engage in actual reasoning." - is AI-speak and not true in any case.
I have no doubt it is factual to you, but at the unconscience level, I bet you know better.
I say it that way because it is my sense that you are not a racist, homophobe, misogynist, white supremist-adjacent and all those other Trump characteristics that so many other MAGA-types find honorable.
I DO think you are, as a white person, fearful of being replaced as the majority by "others" (mainly brown) which makes you unconsciously suspectable to Trump's rhetoric. Again, I have a lot of research, much of which I have given you, that supports that conclusion.No, it isn't insight, it is simply the truth. Study after study supports it." ECO
No, this is what you chose to accept as truth; you found a doctor who said what you wanted to hear. I provided in good speed, with three who disagreed with Dr. Lee. I took the time to carefully review their education and experience in their fields. I also looked into Dr. Lee and found information that led me to question her analysis. I have no intention of sharing anything derogatory about Dr. Lee, so don't go there... I don’t insult anyone unless I see a good cause, due to simply because I have access to a keyboard.
"I DO think you are, as a white person, fearful of being replaced as the majority by "others" (mainly brown) which makes you unconsciously suspectable to Trump's rhetoric. Again, I have a lot of research, much of which I have given you, that supports that conclusion." ECO
I am not fearful of being “replaced” by anyone. I feel I have earned my place on this earth through good judgment and by treating those I share it with fairly. I approach each person as an individual, assuming equality until their actions prove otherwise. I do not group people by race or background; that kind of thinking is dangerous and, in my view, one of the greatest problems facing the world today.
It's interesting how you talk about debating about Trump, but when you use the word Invalidate, it is no longer a debate. In addition, they are no longer facts, but your personal opinion, which invalidates the facts as observed by many shrinks who think Trump fits the profile of DSM-5.
You may be doing better under Trump, but that doesn't invalidate their observations about him, nor the term cognitive dissonance. I believe everybody who participates in these political debates suffers from cognitive dissonance, including me.I did not attempt to invalidate anyone, I simply pointed out factuyally their are many who do not agree with the way Dr. Lee appears to diagnose from afar. I am sure many Psychiatrists would agree with her methods. However, there are likely just as many that would not.
I think my post would be clearer if you read the full conversation rather than joining at the very end. ECO shared his views, and I responded with my own. It’s evident that we hold different opinions on the subject. I answered his questions politely and thoughtfully, taking the time to do so.
He then introduced a new line of inquiry by asking me for the pedigree of the sources I cited, which disagreed with Dr. Lee, and I provided them. At that point, I don’t believe there was much more to add to the discussion. I simply noted that many doctors disagree with Dr. Lee, and that there is another side to the issue worth acknowledging.
For some, the other side of the coin concept is hard to conceive. However, I tend to always see there are two sides to a coin.I checked out ChatGPT, it couldn't find any of them that thought Trump fit for the presidency. It did find three who said those hundreds and possibly thousands of mental health professionals shouldn't warn the public of dangerous man at the helm.
So, I'll interested in how many you can find that say Trump is actually fit.Reread my comment regarding the sources I cited. I noted that these particular doctors did not agree with Dr. Lee’s method of diagnosing from a distance. In psychiatry, there is often more than one line of thinking on any subject.
In my view, sitting afar and asserting that Trump exhibits symptoms of a character flaw is unorthodox and unprofessional, especially because he is a person holding a very high office and is constantly in the media. This form of diagnosing rarely acknowledges the other side of the coin or mentions those who dispute this method, yet it is highly visible to the public. Laypeople, including yourself, may naturally assign it more weight than is warranted. Keep in mind, this is my perspective, and it is supported by some psychiatrists, just as your view is supported by others.
I would disagree with you, PeoplePower, I don't think you suffer from bouts cognitive dissonance (CD). CD occurs when your subconscious mind knows a fact to be true - inflation is not zero - but because you are under the influence of the Trump Contagion, your conscience mind forces you to publicly deny what your unconscience mind knows to be true - that inflation is up.
In rational people like you, it is rare when the unconscious mind is that out of sync with the conscience mind.Gosh, now we have you making diagnoses from afar, over keyboard chat. I think People Power is perfectly capable of sharing his thoughts regarding CD. In fact, he’s arguably the best person to do so. Yet you are diagnosing from a distance, which I could do as well, if I didn’t strongly believe that one must be qualified and conduct a true, one-on-one patient evaluation. You’ve really just made my point.
To put cognitive dissonance simply, it is the process that our minds can't hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. If we do, it makes us feel uneasy until one of those thoughts is resolved.
I feel fine knowing that I go through that process. I have a friend who says, "I respect your opinion, but don't try to change mine." Here is what AI says about how Cognitive Dissonance is experienced in the political arena.
How Cognitive Dissonance Operates in Politics
1. Political Identity: When Beliefs Become Self‑Definition
Political identity often becomes a social identity. Once that happens, dissonance isn’t just about facts — it’s about who I am.
How it shows up:
Selective acceptance of information
People accept facts that affirm their group and reject facts that threaten it.
Reframing contradictions
When a politician contradicts themselves, supporters reinterpret the contradiction as strategy, sarcasm, or media distortion.
Moral rationalization
Actions that would be condemned in an opponent are justified in an ally (“the stakes are too high,” “the other side is worse”).
Mechanism:
Political identity creates a psychological cost for admitting inconsistency. The mind resolves dissonance by protecting identity rather than updating beliefs.
2. Leadership Perception: Why Followers Double Down
Leaders become symbolic anchors for group identity. When a leader behaves in ways that conflict with a follower’s values, dissonance spikes.
Common dissonance-reduction patterns:
Attributing flaws to external enemies
“He only did that because the media forced his hand.”
Reinterpreting behavior as strength
Aggression becomes “toughness,” impulsiveness becomes “authenticity.”
Shifting standards
What was once unacceptable becomes acceptable because the leader did it.
Mechanism:
Followers experience dissonance between:
“I am a good, rational person”
“I support this leader”
“This leader did something that seems wrong”
To resolve the tension, the mind adjusts the interpretation of the leader’s behavior, not the support.
3. Policy Debates: Why Facts Don’t Always Move People
Policy debates often trigger dissonance because policies are tied to:
moral values
group identity
economic self‑interest
narratives about fairness, freedom, or threat
How dissonance appears:
Rejecting data that contradicts worldview
People dismiss statistics that challenge their preferred narrative.
Motivated reasoning
Evidence is evaluated based on whether it supports the desired conclusion.
Shifting goalposts
When one argument is disproven, a new one emerges to preserve the original position.
Mechanism:
Policy positions are rarely isolated beliefs. They sit inside a network of identity, values, and group loyalty. Changing one belief threatens the entire network, so the mind resists.
Why Cognitive Dissonance Is Stronger in Politics Than Other Domains
Three forces amplify it:
1. Identity fusion
Politics becomes a proxy for morality, tribe, and self-worth.
2. Social reinforcement
Echo chambers reward consistency with the group and punish deviation.
3. High stakes
People believe political outcomes affect existential issues — safety, rights, national identity — making dissonance feel dangerous.
The Strategic Insight
If you’re analyzing political behavior, cognitive dissonance isn’t a side effect — it’s a core mechanism that shapes:
voter loyalty
media consumption
polarization
reactions to scandals
interpretations of economic conditions
responses to leadership failures
Understanding it lets you map political behavior with far more predictive accuracy.I understand cognitive dissonance and can only share my view. I think it’s important to recognize that there are actually two sides to it. Holding conflicting thoughts can indeed create tension and make us uncomfortable, and in politics, that tension can be amplified by identity, loyalty, or moral values. I’ve seen how people sometimes rationalize or reinterpret facts to reduce that unease.
But it’s not always negative, and our minds can handle opposing ideas. Some of us tolerate dissonance, use it to test our thinking, or even grow from it. Self-awareness, like you mentioned, feeling fine knowing you experience it, actually changes the game; it allows us to notice when we might be rationalizing and step back to weigh evidence more objectively.
Cognitive dissonance can also be a positive force. It can spark reflection, learning, and even empathy, helping us reconcile differences rather than blindly defend our beliefs. So while it can lead to bias or rigid thinking, it can also motivate growth if we approach it consciously. I see it as a tool that can either trap us or help us refine our understanding, depending on how we engage with it.I agree, you are correct from a generalized context. But the context I refer to, and I think Peoplepower does to, are things like this:
Claim: Trump is a pathological liar. The unconscience of almost every person in America who as ever listened to Trump or read an analysis of his statements 'knows' that is true. But, when presented with this directly, the response from MAGA is that either 1) it simply is denied, 2) it is whitewashed by saying "well everybody else lies to" without accepting the fact that he has no peer in lying. or 3) it is just ignored and not responded to at all, which is most often the case.
Another example when it comes to having voted for Trump is spite of the fact that he is a convicted felon and sexual predator. It is a fact that he is both of those things and people's subconscience mind knows that. It is also true extreme few people would want that kind of person leading our nation. But when that is laid bare, the response is one of two things: 1) no response at all because admitting it is too painful or they rationalize it saying it is still in court ignoring the fact that juries came to that conclusion.
It is that kind of self-delusion to which I am referring when talking about Cognitive Dissonance.I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, but this is where I think the argument goes off track, both factually and conceptually.
What you’re describing isn’t uniquely or even cleanly “cognitive dissonance”; it’s your interpretation of motive. You’re assuming that people who disagree with you must secretly “know” you’re right and are therefore engaging in denial or self-delusion. That assumption is doing most of the work here.
Cognitive dissonance requires holding conflicting beliefs simultaneously.
I can assume that some of Trump's voters simply do not accept your premises to begin with, about lying, criminality, or intent, so there is no internal contradiction for them to resolve at all.
In my view, labeling Trump as a “pathological liar” or a “sexual predator” as settled, universally accepted facts is precisely where disagreement begins. People can, and do, distinguish between civil verdicts, criminal convictions, appeals, prosecutorial motives, media framing, and comparative standards applied to other politicians. Disagreeing with your conclusions doesn’t automatically mean denial; it can mean a different weighting of evidence, standards, or trust in institutions. That isn’t cognitive dissonance, it’s epistemic disagreement. At its core, epistemic disagreement is rooted in individuality, how each person weighs evidence and decides what to trust.
The claim that “the subconscious of almost every person knows this is true” is not psychology; it’s rhetoric. It substitutes certainty for persuasion. When you assert insight into other people’s inner mental states, you stop engaging their arguments and start dismissing them. Ironically, that’s the very thing cognitive dissonance theory warns against.
Lastly, many voters are capable of holding trade-offs without pretending they don’t exist. Someone can acknowledge Trump’s flaws, personality, language, and past behavior while prioritizing policy outcomes, institutional skepticism, or opposition to alternatives they view as worse. That’s not self-delusion; that’s moral and political triage. Democracies are full of imperfect choices.
So I agree that cognitive dissonance exists and can distort reasoning. Where I disagree is the idea that disagreement itself proves it. Once we assume bad faith or hidden knowledge in those who disagree, we’re no longer analyzing psychology; we’re closing the door to actual conversation.
I think that’s a fair observation, or take this as my view. Over time, both conservatives and liberals have shifted into something more rigid and reactive than what the older psychological models describe. What we’re seeing now isn’t just different ways of managing cognitive dissonance; it’s a political culture that actively rewards certainty, outrage, and group loyalty on both sides.
Again, my view, for many people today, dissonance isn’t worked through at all; it’s avoided by outsourcing thinking to tribes, slogans, or media ecosystems that pre-resolve conflict for them. Conservatives and liberals alike are encouraged to defend identity rather than examine beliefs. In that environment, admitting doubt or complexity feels like betrayal, not growth.
So while the traditional distinction, conservatives seeking order and liberals tolerating ambiguity, still exists in theory, it’s been overshadowed by what I see as a newer dynamic: ideological hardening. Positions calcify faster, disagreement is moralized, and cognitive dissonance is no longer a private tension but a public threat to belonging.
In that sense, I don’t think the issue is conservative versus liberal anymore. It’s whether someone still values independent thought over emotional alignment, and whether they’re willing to sit with discomfort rather than immediately neutralize it. Time, technology, and incentives have changed the landscape, and not for the better."Cognitive dissonance requires holding conflicting beliefs simultaneously."
That is true, in a sense, but you left out the most important part and that is people are not able to hold those conflicting beliefs without resolving the conflict by taking some action. If the conflict is not resolved, it creates discomfort in some way until an action is taking to resolve the conflict.
Your reply that you just wrote makes you feel better, because you couldn't hold Ecco's ideas in your head at the same time as yours. So, you wrote this narrative to try to maintain consistency with your values and beliefs.
So, now you feel better about yourself. You could have either ignored his reply, which is an action, agreed with him, done research of his sources, or do what you did to take an action to align with your values and beliefs.Let's work on "You’re assuming that people who disagree with you must secretly “know” you’re right "
Convince me how it is possible for informed people to not know that Trump is a pathological liar?
(Def: A pathological liar is a person who compulsively lies, often without any clear reason or benefit, and their lying can lead to significant problems in their relationships and daily life. This behavior is characterized by a persistent pattern of excessive lying that may cause distress and impairment in functioning.) That describes Trump to a 'T'
To me, it is not reasonable that a rational person who is a committed Trump supporter is nevertheless not aware of the well documented ~30,400 lies or gross exaggerations the Washington Post has reported on for the last several years. Even if they only watched Fox News, they would be at least aware of it (and since the source is Fox, believable).
Then that leaves us with the few what I would view as irrational ones who are such cult-like followers (think Jim Jones) that they simply deny any and all negative things said about Trump, even if they see it with their own eyes -- An example of that is if they watched Trump respond to a reporters question about releasing the video of the American drones killing helpless survivors of a previous strike saying "YES". And then see him two days later say that he "Never Said That", they would mark the first video down as "fake news" and only believe the second one.
So, convince me that other than those in the Trump cult, they don't know that I am right on that issue.
Same thing with Trump's crimes and sexual batteries. Unless they are totally insulated from the news, even Fox News, they would be aware that a jury convicted Trump of 34 felonies, that another jury convicted Trump of sexual battery. Please tell me how it is unreasonable that most MAGA that are not in Trump's cult NOT know about that and have it stored in their subconscious?
Consequently, it is not reasonable for you to say that I'm "... assuming that people who disagree with me must secretly “know” I'm right"
To go down that path is simply dodging if you don't provide the logic behind them "not knowing" about the pathological lying and his crimes.
Another true story about Trump's compulsion to lie for no particularly good reason. I heard in an interview with him when he said his father was born in Germany as part of a general discussion on Europe. I also read another report where he said his father was born in New Jersey. Neither are true so why did he lie? Because it is part of his pathological liar personality.I do agree with you about it not being conservative or liberal for I would make the same case about many of Bernie Sander's supporters.
You write "In my view, labeling Trump as a “pathological liar” or a “sexual predator” as settled, universally accepted facts is precisely where disagreement begins." - Maybe you meant felon instead of Pathological Liar, but at least in the sexual battery case, [u[it is settled[/u] because a jury (in this case) or a judge said so. That would also be true for the 34 felonies. It is settled. Will an appellate court overturn it, not very likely since one or two have refused to. To not considered it settled, you have to dismiss that American justice system as useless.
As to the lying. Since it is not a court case, it can't be settled. But the evidence is so overwhelming that there can be no REASONABLE disagreement, just unreasonable one. To disagree is simply not logical.You write "The claim that “the subconscious of almost every person knows this is true” is not psychology; it’s rhetoric. "
That would be true if I were talking about say "Oswald had an accomplice". But when I am talking about Trump's lying or his crimes, it is not rhetoric, it is, for all intense and purpose and with few exceptions, the fact.
Excerpt from Salon article:
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/01/trumps … d-to-fail/
———
Less than a month before he was gunned down in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave a memorable speech — the last major one of his life — at Amherst College. He spoke at length about the role of art in a free society, discussing its functions of challenging the status quo and holding a mirror to the nation’s strengths, as well as its flaws. Importantly, he exhorted artists to always remain true to themselves.
“If art is to nourish the roots of our culture,” he said, “society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.”
Considering these words, it’s obvious why, when Congress debated what kind of monument they would build to honor the slain president, the consensus was that it would be most appropriate to build a living memorial in the form of a world class arts center to honor Kennedy’s ideals. When his successor Lyndon Johnson broke ground on the center in 1964, he did so with the same spade that had been used for the Lincoln Memorial in 1914 and the Jefferson Memorial in 1938. It was considered a sacred task.
For more than 50 years, the Kennedy Center has served as the capital’s premier cultural center — until now. Donald Trump, who has no concept of the meaning of either art or culture, had his flunky board commandeer Kennedy’s memorial by renaming it “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Performing Arts Center.” It’s bizarre that any living president, much less one who is still serving, would want his name on a memorial to a dead man, particularly one who is still revered by many Americans. But Trump is single minded in his desire to mark his territory no matter where his tinkle, to use a famous Nancy Pelosi term, splashes.
But all hasn’t gone according to Trump’s cultural coup. Many artists who have previously been honored to perform at the Kennedy Center, respectful of the former president who so poetically venerated their role in our culture and society, are now refusing to perform there. They don’t wish to sully this artistic institution and its history by participating in its seizure by a man whose ego is so large he insists on branding everything in sight, as if it’s the only way he can be sure he even exists.
The administration is threatening to sue these artists for millions, and no doubt they will try to find ways to intimidate and defund any organizations with whom they might be affiliated. But that won’t stop them. Artists, musicians, writers, film makers and performers of all kinds are rebelling, one of the most profound forms of resistance to a repressive regime.
———
So, boys and girls, I don’t need world renowned psychiatrists to tell me that any man that would desecrate Kennedy’s memory by defacing an important national monument with his own form of graffiti is as “mad as a hatter’. Regardless of endless rightwing spin, this is not normal behavior.
The very nerve of this grifter and usurper keeps me pissed off, as this is one of his more blatant offenses against the American people.I understand why President Kennedy’s words about art resonate so deeply, and I agree that his Amherst speech remains a powerful reflection on the role of art in a free society. Art should challenge, inspire, and remain independent of political coercion. On that principle, I don’t think there is much disagreement.
On a personal level, I do believe the name of the Kennedy Center should remain exactly as it is. It was created as a memorial to President Kennedy, and its name carries historical and symbolic meaning that should not be altered. Holding that view, however, is different from concluding that any proposed change constitutes desecration or evidence of mental instability.
Where I do part ways is in framing recent events as proof of madness or authoritarianism. The Kennedy Center is a federally funded institution governed by a board appointed by presidents of both parties over many decades. Changes in leadership, naming, or governancem whether one agrees with them or not, are political and administrative decisions, not acts of vandalism.
I’m also cautious about attributing motives such as ego, pathology, or malign intent. We can argue that a living president attaching his name to a national memorial is inappropriate, historically tone-deaf, or simply wrong without resorting to psychiatric labels. Those character judgments weaken an otherwise reasonable critique.
As for artists choosing not to perform, that is their right, just as it is the government’s right to reassess funding priorities tied to public institutions. Neither choice automatically amounts to repression. Boycotts are not proof of tyranny, and administrative responses are not, by definition, intimidation.
I believe we do ourselves a disservice when complex disagreements about culture, governance, and symbolism are reduced to absolutes. Passion is understandable, but persuasion requires restraint. If the goal is to honor Kennedy’s ideals, I think those ideals are best defended through thoughtful debate rather than rhetoric that escalates division.“On a personal level, I do believe the name of the Kennedy Center should remain exactly as it is.”
Sharlee,
You yourself acknowledged that the name should stay as it was. It is your gift to always attempt to normalize the absurd actions of this man. So, what did Trump do to skew the “board” and the voting members of it? As described below, there are not reasonable mitigating circumstances or justification for Trump and, I mean, Trumps initiative.
————-
Donald Trump did not create the board itself, as the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees is a long-standing entity established by Congress. However, shortly after taking office in January 2025, he completely overhauled its membership, replacing existing trustees with his own allies.
Here's how the change happened:
Board Overhaul: Trump dismissed many of the sitting board members and appointed his own loyalists in their place.
Bylaw Changes: The board revised its bylaws in May 2025 to specify that only presidentially-appointed trustees could vote or count toward a quorum, effectively excluding the ex officio members from Congress who might have opposed the move.
The Vote: In December 2025, the newly constituted, Trump-appointed board voted "unanimously" to rename the institution the "Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts". Democratic lawmakers on the board reported being muted when they attempted to speak during the vote.
It is important to note that many legal experts and lawmakers argue the name change is illegal because the Kennedy Center was established by an act of Congress as a living memorial to JFK, and any changes to its name or the addition of another memorial require explicit congressional approval. The board installed the new signage anyway, and the issue has since triggered lawsuits and artist cancellations.
———
So, Can you present anything that conflicts with the circumstances explained above? Did Trump get the required congressional approval? NO…
There is a malign intent, Sharlee, why is it just the equivalent of just another day at the beach for you? Trump arranged things in such a way where the creator of such an inappropriate label is his doing, even though right wingers want to hold the appointed board responsible. How credible is that based on how he gutted it as soon as he could get hands upon it? Explaining away a clearly Trump initiative behind administration and political bureaucracy is just an excuse.
If Trump has no issue about doing such a thing, it certainly is the reason that I automatically have a negative assessment of everything he says and does until proven otherwise.
The meaning, historical significance of performing at the KENNEDY Center for the Performing Arts has been tarnished by more than just an insignificant number of those not choosing to perform. What does it take to keep Trump’s soiled hands from our National treasure?
There is nothing complex about it, any sitting president should not desecrate such a memorial to an American hero. It is about acknowledging the truth and not about persuasion. So many use rhetoric to avoid admitting the truth that is right before them, therein is your source of “division”.And THAT, by definition is the mark of an authoritarian. The ONLY reasonable explanation for defacing the memorial with is name is an ego that knows no bounds. And again, by definition, that is evidence of a disturbed mind.
In the example I gave about the Kennedy center debacle, it is about a grievous character flaw in Trump to the extent that would border some sort of narcissistic disorder. Would a “normal” person, especially one holding so high an office behave this way?
I don’t think this is as simple or as settled as you present it, and disagreeing with your conclusions isn’t the same as “normalizing the absurd.”
We should separate what is known, what is alleged, and what is inferred. The Kennedy Center Board is indeed a congressionally established entity, and presidents have long had appointment authority over trustees. Replacing board members, even extensively, may be politically aggressive, but it is not, in itself, unprecedented or illegal. Every administration shapes boards within the authority it is given.
Where the issue becomes legitimately contentious is the name change. You’re correct that many legal scholars argue congressional approval is required to alter or expand the name of a congressionally designated memorial. That question, however, is still a legal dispute, not a resolved fact. Until courts rule, assertions of illegality remain arguments, not conclusions.
What I push back on is the claim of clear, singular malign intent proven beyond debate. Intent is being inferred from outcomes you find offensive, not from a settled legal finding. It’s entirely fair to say Trump acted provocatively or improperly. It’s not factual to state that the matter is already legally or procedurally resolved when it isn’t.
As for the board vote, holding the board “responsible” is not an excuse; it’s an acknowledgment of how governance structures actually function. If Trump overhauled the board within the scope of his appointment authority, responsibility is shared, not magically erased because people dislike the outcome. That distinction matters if we care about process, not just results.
I don’t dismiss our shared concern about the Kennedy Center’s symbolism or the reactions of artists, including those you and I who chose not to perform. Those responses are real and meaningful. But disagreement over whether this rises to the level of “desecration” isn’t a denial of reality; it’s a difference in judgment.
Where I think division truly enters is when disagreement is framed as moral failure or intellectual dishonesty rather than a dispute over interpretation, authority, and limits of presidential power. I don’t see this as “just another day at the beach,” nor do I see it as proof that everything Trump does must automatically be presumed corrupt. Those are both extremes, and neither helps clarify the truth.
I agree with the opening sentiment about Kennedy’s Amherst speech and the importance of art staying independent of political coercion. That’s exactly why I don’t think this can be brushed off as “just administrative.”
1) “Administrative” actions can still be coercive.
When government controls appointments, budgets, venues, grants, and prestige platforms, “leadership changes” aren’t neutral management choices. They can be used to shape what gets funded, staged, celebrated, or chilled. You don’t need broken windows for it to be political pressure.
2) “Both parties have appointed the board” doesn’t settle the question.
Yes, the Kennedy Center is federally connected and presidents appoint members. That describes authority, not legitimacy of purpose. People are criticizing the use of that authority—whether it’s being used to protect artistic independence or to reward loyalty and punish dissent.
3) This isn’t about “desecration” or “mental instability” to many critics.
You can reject psychiatric labels and still argue something is authoritarian in effect. Authoritarian behavior is about how power is used: intimidation, retaliation, loyalty tests, politicizing cultural institutions, and using state leverage to narrow acceptable expression.
4) The “artists can boycott / government can reassess funding” symmetry is false.
Artists choosing not to perform is a private choice with limited reach. The government “reassessing funding priorities” is the state using public money and institutional control. Those aren’t equivalent forces. When the powerful actor changes terms, others aren’t just “choosing”—they’re often responding to pressure.
5) You don’t need mind-reading to discuss motives—outcomes are enough.
We don’t have to claim ego, pathology, or malign intent. The core question is simple:
Does this behavior increase political control over a cultural institution and discourage dissenting or challenging art? If yes, then “it’s just governance” is an evasion.
6) “Restraint” is fine—but not at the price of minimizing the issue.
Thoughtful debate doesn’t require understatement. It requires accuracy: when public institutions are used to reward allies and punish critics, that’s not “vandalism,” but it is a real threat to artistic independence.
So yes: avoid psychiatric language. But no: we don’t have to pretend power plays are harmless just because they’re done through boards, budgets, and official procedures. That’s often exactly how coercion works in a modern democracy.
I keep in mind that beginning in 2028, if he isn't convicted in the Senate before that, we can start the process of erasing him from everything possible.
I am hoping that this would begin in January 2027, after the midterms and new office holders take their seats. Knowing Trump, he will retaliate with the veto pen and whining to the Supreme Court for the right to do as he pleases. But, with the latest ruling from our right wing tribunal regarding troops in American cities, even they recognize the need to rein Trump in. Trump pushes the envelope where for the Supreme Court to be taken seriously, they cannot be seen as merely his lapdog.
I had a conversation with ChatGPT about why Dr. Bandy X. Lee and others in the “Duty to Warn” orbit argue that warning the public is necessary. The key idea (stated more carefully than I usually do) is this:
They’re not trying to win a DSM-label argument. They’re pointing to a behavioral pattern that, in forensic settings, often predicts specific kinds of harm—especially when the person holds enormous power.
First: the observable pattern. These are publicly visible behaviors that have been consistent for years:
* Grandiose self-presentation; constant need for admiration
* Cannot tolerate criticism; lashes out
* Habitual lying/exaggeration
* Uses people instrumentally; discards allies
* Blames others; rarely accepts responsibility
* Vindictive retaliation; seeks to punish opponents
* Inconsistent regard for rules unless they benefit him
* Frequent violent or dehumanizing rhetoric
Individually, these do not present a danger, just rude behavior. But, taken together, you have a volatile personality prone to violence.
Second: the risk translation (where the expertise comes in). Lee’s argument is: when that pattern shows up in high-conflict, high-danger contexts, it tends to produce predictable outcomes. In her public interviews, she emphasizes risks like:
Violence proneness and incitement. She argues she saw violence-proneness early and treats repeated violent rhetoric and rally-style encouragement as a predictor of real-world harm. (BillMoyers.com)
Making violence “contagious” and normal in politics. She argues violence spreads socially and can become normalized as a political tool—raising the baseline risk of political violence. This is borne out with the order of magnitude difference between followers of Trump as opposed to those who aren't (Islamic terrorists aside)
Escalation under stress + “reality slippage.” Under pressure, the pattern can intensify—more conspiratorial thinking, more extreme claims, more dehumanizing scapegoats—creating a feedback loop with followers. (Scientific American)
A leader–follower dynamic that becomes resistant to facts. She argues the bond can become “abusive” in the sense that it mobilizes group identity and grievance, making correction harder and mass behavior easier to trigger. (Scientific American)
Catastrophic-stakes decision risk (including nuclear). She has cited concern about fascination with overwhelming force and attraction to brutal strongmen as part of her “dangerousness” case.
Bottom line: her warning is essentially a risk equation:
repeated incitement + contagion effects + high-power office = elevated risk of real-world harm, not just “unpleasant personality traits.”
She is not diagnosing anyone here. she is describing a pattern and why forensic clinicians argue that, in a leader with immense power, that pattern can be dangerous.
Related Discussions
- 29
What is the difference between liberal and conservative morality?
by Mike Russo 11 months ago
I have been on these forums for years and have observed the difference between conservative morality and liberal morality and now with Trumpism, there is a third morality.Conservatives could care less about Jan.6 while liberals continue to bring it up. Why is that? Because liberals believe what...
- 22
Lies about Biden's health is scandal of epic proportions
by Readmikenow 12 months ago
This could be the worst political scandal of the decade."CNN's Scott Jennings criticized the White House for hiding President Biden's health and age issues from the public in a segment on Thursday. A Wall Street Journal report from Thursday that includes interviews with nearly 50 people,...
- 55
Is it socially illegal for me to truly respect and in a way love Obama, and trul
by Eric Dierker 8 years ago
Is it socially illegal for me to truly respect and in a way love Obama, and truly respect Trump?I have been in some tough scrapes. And I have shaken at least seven leaders(Presidents from foreign countries and our own) Perhaps Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was most memorable as Kissinger was shook my...
- 60
How can we discuss if we all have cognitive dissonance?
by Ben Evans 15 years ago
We all have cognitive dissonance to some degree but why do we immerse ourselves so deeply in our ideologies that we cant listen or cant yield or grow?Lately I have seen a lot of people with such rigid thoughts that it amazes me. I cant say that I don't have conflicting ideas that I dismiss to...
- 31
Trump gets a mental exam
by Dan Harmon 7 years ago
At his own request, Trump received a "cognitive functions" exam. His physician indicates he had no reason to do one and had not intended to do one, but at Trump's request he performed one of the more complex and time consuming cognitive tests.Trump passed with flying colors; Dr....
- 13
9/11 Cognitive Dissonance and the Path to Healing
by Rod Martin Jr 13 years ago
Trauma affects all who witness it. The trauma of 9/11 affected the world, not only emotionally, but economically and politically. Not only did 3000+ people die on that day, but tens of thousands of others have died as a direct result of actions taken by the American government because of 9/11. In...