The questions about Trump’s health are subservient to his badness.
In general, poor mental health may be used, legitimately, as a mitigating factor when considering bad behaviour.
Given that Trump asserts, repeatedly, that his mental health and cognitive capability is fine, we’re justified in asserting that his bad behaviour is inexcusable.
I suppose you can argue that, in the example I linked, Trump’s behaviour isn’t bad. I disagree. He’s arrogant and rude. Demonstrably so
He insults when his ridiculous and deluded assertions are questioned.
So is this intended to demonstrate that Trump, contrary to my argument, is, in fact, suffering from an organic psychiatric condition?
Because, if it is, I have to wonder what the word "bad" is doing there, since it seems to me rather beside the point.
He’s always been bad. He seems to be getting worse. Maybe cognitive decline explains some of this? I don’t know.
But that’s not so important as his malevolence, and his abuse of power. He represents a present danger. He’s a destabilising force in an already unstable world.
Sure. But the original context of my comments was rebutting people who claim that Trump is suffering from an organic psychiatric illness, with the implication being that this will soon become obvious to the general public and thus a matter of political importance. My point was simply that the evidence for that claim is sketchy, at best, and people shouldn't be pinning any hopes on it.
I agree with you and @The Rogue . A speculative focus on Donald Trump’s ill health is understandable but shouldn’t distract from condemnation of his daily badness.
I see that he's threatening to hit Iran 'very hard tonight', and that the US will take Kharg Island 'in the very near future'.
There's a certain déjà vu quality to these bellicose late-night Truth Social ramblings, and one wonders how long Trump can go on with this sort of nonsense. He's stuck in a trap of his own making, and has no idea how to get out of it.
I don't doubt that the US could hit Iran hard once again, but would it achieve anything worthwhile?
I don't doubt that the US could hit Iran hard once again, but would it achieve anything worthwhile?
Given that it's difficult to identify anything worthwhile achieved when the US hit Iran hard three months ago, the answer to that question would seem to be a definite "no".
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
I heard a lot of DC gays bought tickets and are going to enjoy scantily clad sweaty musclemen while making the whole thing fabulous.
I know this has already been debunked, but I would also suspect that a lot of DC gays are extremely conservative Republicans.
Well, among Republicans living in DC, there are probably some who are LGBQT, yes. I'm not sure, though, if that translates into the overall category of LGBQT people in Washington DC containing "a lot of extremely conservative Republicans".
I don't doubt that the US could hit Iran hard once again, but would it achieve anything worthwhile?
Given that it's difficult to identify anything worthwhile achieved when the US hit Iran hard three months ago, the answer to that question would seem to be a definite "no".
Quite.
The whole operation has been a complete waste of lives, resources, and time, except for those who have pocketed loads of $$$ on the strength of it. I daresay Trump is one of them...
It is reported that he has decided not to invade and seize Kharg Island, as he expects a 'great settlement' to be signed this weekend. He is AIUI also holding off further destruction of Iran.
Sighs of relief all round, no doubt - at least until the next time he changes his mind...
It is reported that he has decided not to invade and seize Kharg Island, as he expects a 'great settlement' to be signed this weekend. He is AIUI also holding off further destruction of Iran.
Sighs of relief all round, no doubt - at least until the next time he changes his mind...
You haven't heard much about TACO since this Iran fiasco got going, but I think there is a case to be made that Trump is still in that mode. With an overlay of professed optimism on the peace-front, largely in hope that the oil markets respond positively.
There are reports that tankers are leaving the Strait of Hormuz without being detected, and that they are returning to Gulf ports to re-load once they've transferred their first load to another ship outside the Strait.
This may relieve the oil/petrol situation slightly, I guess.
Does anyone happen to know the legal arguments being put forth against the match at the WH? Prohibition of commercial sponsorships or some such?
Just read something about this in The Guardian. Yes, apparently the challenge is based on some National Park Service rule that such events can only be sponsored by the federal government.
An Obama-appointed federal judge has ruled Trump's White House/UFC team-up can go ahead. Even aside from my aforementioned ironic appreciation of such events, I'm prepared to believe this might be a validly reasoned decision.
Right now, I'm guessing Trump is hoping to connect this event with a perceived end to the current anti-Iran conflict. If it were economically feasible, I'd suggest he announce a forthcoming mail-out of government "rebates" to American consumers, somehow based on the number of points scored by the winning champion(*) of the White House match.
(*) I don't know how points are tabulated in these sports, but if eg. it's a sport where "4" would be a typical ballpark number of points for a player to score(like hockey for example) and the winning player gets a four, the mail-out will be 4 000 dollars for each household.
Does anyone happen to know the legal arguments being put forth against the match at the WH? Prohibition of commercial sponsorships or some such?
Just read something about this in The Guardian. Yes, apparently the challenge is based on some National Park Service rule that such events can only be sponsored by the federal government.
An Obama-appointed federal judge has ruled Trump's White House/UFC team-up can go ahead. Even aside from my aforementioned ironic appreciation of such events, I'm prepared to believe this might be a validly reasoned decision.
Basically, the judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order or an expedited preliminary injunction on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood they had standing, (2) the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm to them if the fight wasn’t enjoined, and (3) the balance of the equities weighed against emergency pretrial relief. The fact that plaintiffs waited until 6 days ago to file their lawsuit did not help their case.
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
Especially since the harm the plaintiffs were alleging boiled down to things like “it spoils the view when I walk by there.”
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
Especially since the harm the plaintiffs were alleging boiled down to things like “it spoils the view when I walk by there.”
Which is NOT a good legal precedent to be setting or endorsing.
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
I'm kinda hoping it goes off as horribly as possible, while falling short of Altamont levels of disaster. But I suspect it will just be a few hours of harmless if tacky entertainment for the already enthralled, and a big nothingburger for everyone else.
Surely this is the kind of thing for which trump will be remembered? There will be no acts of statesmanship to note in his obituaries.
It'll just be remembered that he did a lotta cornball stuff, but no event in particular will be singled out as an iconic memory.
Kinda like how everyone remembers Ronald Reagan as a genial old grampa, but there's no one single moment of him handing out the jelly beans that is widely remembered apart from the rest(*).
(*) Though personally, my fav will always be his anti-drunk driving event with Michael Jackson at the White House.
With your help, Michael, I know we're gonna beat it.
Yes, it is a little hard to see how "irreparable harm" would result from the cage match going on. As Abe Lincoln observed, the world will little note nor long remember.
Still stinks.
If you're looking for a pick-me-up, Gramps, Meidas Media has a four-hour-and-forty minute video on YouTube of Trump's name being removed from the Kennedy Center.
Sorry to disappoint. Fast-forwarded to the end, and the scaffolds are up, but they still hadn't gotten around to taking down the letters. End credits promise "More live coverage" coming up.
Surely this is the kind of thing for which trump will be remembered? There will be no acts of statesmanship to note in his obituaries.
Kinda like how everyone remembers Ronald Reagan as a genial old grampa, but there's no one single moment of him handing out the jelly beans that is widely remembered apart from the rest(*).
Ronald Reagan is remembered by millions inside and outside the USA for the wreckage he left behind, the most notorious being the sacking of air traffic controllers that affects the system to this day. He made no secret of his contempt for the congress and the democratic process and for his belief in 'trickle down economics'. With his cynical handlers he began the systemic rot that paved the way for trump. The 'genial old grandpa' image was no more than a transparent extension of his third rate acting career.
Surely this is the kind of thing for which trump will be remembered? There will be no acts of statesmanship to note in his obituaries.
Kinda like how everyone remembers Ronald Reagan as a genial old grampa, but there's no one single moment of him handing out the jelly beans that is widely remembered apart from the rest(*).
Ronald Reagan is remembered by millions inside and outside the USA for the wreckage he left behind, the most notorious being the sacking of air traffic controllers that affects the system to this day. He made no secret of his contempt for the congress and the democratic process and for his belief in 'trickle down economics'. With his cynical handlers he began the systemic rot that paved the way for trump. The 'genial old grandpa' image was no more than a transparent extension of his third rate acting career.
I didn't mean that people only remember his genial-grampa image, nor that everyone who remembers it approves of his policies, much less are justified in doing so. It was just an example of how, when people recollect a politician's image, they tend to recall the overall persona, not any one particular incident.
And, I agree: Reaganism is the grandmother of MAGA, at least in the cultural realm. I always have a bitter chuckle when "moderate" Republicans say stuff like "Reagan would turn in his grave if he could see what Trump has done to his beloved party."
Please don't insult curmudgeons by classifying Trump as one. I aspire to be a curmudgeon some day.
Curmudgeon being defined more by age and style than by beliefs, I can safely say that I know people who hold to the general GOP/MAGA set of opinions, whom I would describe as curmudgeons.
There's no ironclad connection between the curmudeonly style and any particular ideology, although it's arguably defined partly by a sense that, in one way or another, things have gone downhill since what the curmudgeon remembers as the good old days. But that latter delusion could include a 64-year old late boomer leftist telling some zillenial kids that their political activism is lame-ass permissable dissent compared to what he and his punk buddies were throwin' at Reagan with their slam-dancing anti-nuke fundraisers circa 1982.
Stylistically, I wouldn't call Trump a curmudgeon, because he tries hard, with some degree of practical success, to still project the image of an eternally youthful man of action, whereas most people I'd call curmudgeons seem to be accepting of their slightly antique status, and are rolling with it.
Look at his attitude towards climate change, race, gender identity, sustainable energy. He is like Scrooge in so many areas. He wants to return to the good old 1950s. Bah, Humbug.
Cur=mangy,unkempt, sometimes aggressive dog. Not really Trump.
Not a curmudgen either.
Don’t think he really wants to go back to the 50s: just wants his own way now and forever. All that MAGA stuff is so much hot air, only to whip up support among the disaffected.
Anyway, Trump's name is now off of the Kennedy Center.
For all my devil-may-care irony about stuff like the White House cage-fight, I was actually somewhat disquieted by the name-change at the Kennedy Center, and am glad to see it reversed. I think the difference might be the attempted permanence of the re-naming, whereas I suspect the cage-fight will be a one-off, or at least a tradition that doesn't survive Trump.
That's an insult to ordinary, decent curmudgeons, who may be "habitually grumpy, easily annoyed, and prone to complaining" (per the first definition that came up via Google), but they aren't usually evil, narcissistic scumbags.
Anyway, Trump's name is now off of the Kennedy Center.
Apparently, the legal basis for this was that only congress can change the name of such institutions.
An interesting test of Trump's current popularity would be how many Republicans in congress would be willing to vote to slap his name back on the Center. My guess is most of hardcore MAGA would be, but the cannnier of them would feel more comfortable doing so on the assumption the bill doesn't pass.
That's an insult to ordinary, decent curmudgeons, who may be "habitually grumpy, easily annoyed, and prone to complaining" (per the first definition that came up via Google), but they aren't usually evil, narcissistic scumbags.
It occurs to me that curmudgeonism, properly defined, is not a trait much seen among US presidents, or for that matter, politicians generally. Maybe because it sort of embodies the idea of an entertaining complainer, implicitly recognized as having little power to actually change anything.
Post-Black Tuesday, I think the only POTUS I can think of who comes even remotely close to the archetype is Truman, and even he could probably better be described as just folksy. Reagan had the generational schtick down, but didn't have the requisite griping as part of his standard repertoire.
Comments
Sure. But the original context of my comments was rebutting people who claim that Trump is suffering from an organic psychiatric illness, with the implication being that this will soon become obvious to the general public and thus a matter of political importance. My point was simply that the evidence for that claim is sketchy, at best, and people shouldn't be pinning any hopes on it.
He's not alone in that, of course - Putin, Musk, Netanyahu are all just as malevolent.
I agree with you and @The Rogue . A speculative focus on Donald Trump’s ill health is understandable but shouldn’t distract from condemnation of his daily badness.
There's a certain déjà vu quality to these bellicose late-night Truth Social ramblings, and one wonders how long Trump can go on with this sort of nonsense. He's stuck in a trap of his own making, and has no idea how to get out of it.
I don't doubt that the US could hit Iran hard once again, but would it achieve anything worthwhile?
I know this has already been debunked, but I would also suspect that a lot of DC gays are extremely conservative Republicans.
Well, among Republicans living in DC, there are probably some who are LGBQT, yes. I'm not sure, though, if that translates into the overall category of LGBQT people in Washington DC containing "a lot of extremely conservative Republicans".
Quite.
The whole operation has been a complete waste of lives, resources, and time, except for those who have pocketed loads of $$$ on the strength of it. I daresay Trump is one of them...
This is true when considering a person's moral culpablity for their behavior. It is not true when considering their suitability for a particular role.
Sighs of relief all round, no doubt - at least until the next time he changes his mind...
You haven't heard much about TACO since this Iran fiasco got going, but I think there is a case to be made that Trump is still in that mode. With an overlay of professed optimism on the peace-front, largely in hope that the oil markets respond positively.
This may relieve the oil/petrol situation slightly, I guess.
Trump's assertion that a peace deal is imminent may have brought prices down, too:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jun/12/global-oil-prices-trump-us-iran-deal-brent-crude-strait-of-hormuz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnZY_08vnHc&list=RDEnZY_08vnHc&start_radio=1
Oil markets are just Charlie Brown to Trump's Lucy, aren't they?
Q. What's the difference between Iran and Vietnam?
A. Trump had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
An Obama-appointed federal judge has ruled Trump's White House/UFC team-up can go ahead. Even aside from my aforementioned ironic appreciation of such events, I'm prepared to believe this might be a validly reasoned decision.
Right now, I'm guessing Trump is hoping to connect this event with a perceived end to the current anti-Iran conflict. If it were economically feasible, I'd suggest he announce a forthcoming mail-out of government "rebates" to American consumers, somehow based on the number of points scored by the winning champion(*) of the White House match.
(*) I don't know how points are tabulated in these sports, but if eg. it's a sport where "4" would be a typical ballpark number of points for a player to score(like hockey for example) and the winning player gets a four, the mail-out will be 4 000 dollars for each household.
I would say it was the correct decision.
Still stinks.
Which is NOT a good legal precedent to be setting or endorsing.
I'm kinda hoping it goes off as horribly as possible, while falling short of Altamont levels of disaster. But I suspect it will just be a few hours of harmless if tacky entertainment for the already enthralled, and a big nothingburger for everyone else.
It'll just be remembered that he did a lotta cornball stuff, but no event in particular will be singled out as an iconic memory.
Kinda like how everyone remembers Ronald Reagan as a genial old grampa, but there's no one single moment of him handing out the jelly beans that is widely remembered apart from the rest(*).
(*) Though personally, my fav will always be his anti-drunk driving event with Michael Jackson at the White House.
With your help, Michael, I know we're gonna beat it.
If you're looking for a pick-me-up, Gramps, Meidas Media has a four-hour-and-forty minute video on YouTube of Trump's name being removed from the Kennedy Center.
Ronald Reagan is remembered by millions inside and outside the USA for the wreckage he left behind, the most notorious being the sacking of air traffic controllers that affects the system to this day. He made no secret of his contempt for the congress and the democratic process and for his belief in 'trickle down economics'. With his cynical handlers he began the systemic rot that paved the way for trump. The 'genial old grandpa' image was no more than a transparent extension of his third rate acting career.
I didn't mean that people only remember his genial-grampa image, nor that everyone who remembers it approves of his policies, much less are justified in doing so. It was just an example of how, when people recollect a politician's image, they tend to recall the overall persona, not any one particular incident.
And, I agree: Reaganism is the grandmother of MAGA, at least in the cultural realm. I always have a bitter chuckle when "moderate" Republicans say stuff like "Reagan would turn in his grave if he could see what Trump has done to his beloved party."
I think of Gordon Sinclair.
Not quite. Trump is just a cur.
Please don't insult curmudgeons by classifying Trump as one. I aspire to be a curmudgeon some day.
Curmudgeon being defined more by age and style than by beliefs, I can safely say that I know people who hold to the general GOP/MAGA set of opinions, whom I would describe as curmudgeons.
There's no ironclad connection between the curmudeonly style and any particular ideology, although it's arguably defined partly by a sense that, in one way or another, things have gone downhill since what the curmudgeon remembers as the good old days. But that latter delusion could include a 64-year old late boomer leftist telling some zillenial kids that their political activism is lame-ass permissable dissent compared to what he and his punk buddies were throwin' at Reagan with their slam-dancing anti-nuke fundraisers circa 1982.
Stylistically, I wouldn't call Trump a curmudgeon, because he tries hard, with some degree of practical success, to still project the image of an eternally youthful man of action, whereas most people I'd call curmudgeons seem to be accepting of their slightly antique status, and are rolling with it.
Not a curmudgen either.
Don’t think he really wants to go back to the 50s: just wants his own way now and forever. All that MAGA stuff is so much hot air, only to whip up support among the disaffected.
An unmitigated arsehole.
Which are probably the same as Nick Fuentes, but I wouldn't call Fuentes a curmudgeon.
For all my devil-may-care irony about stuff like the White House cage-fight, I was actually somewhat disquieted by the name-change at the Kennedy Center, and am glad to see it reversed. I think the difference might be the attempted permanence of the re-naming, whereas I suspect the cage-fight will be a one-off, or at least a tradition that doesn't survive Trump.
Okay, one of those has gotta be wrong?
Wikipedia says he was born in 1946.
That's an insult to ordinary, decent curmudgeons, who may be "habitually grumpy, easily annoyed, and prone to complaining" (per the first definition that came up via Google), but they aren't usually evil, narcissistic scumbags.
Apparently, the legal basis for this was that only congress can change the name of such institutions.
An interesting test of Trump's current popularity would be how many Republicans in congress would be willing to vote to slap his name back on the Center. My guess is most of hardcore MAGA would be, but the cannnier of them would feel more comfortable doing so on the assumption the bill doesn't pass.
It occurs to me that curmudgeonism, properly defined, is not a trait much seen among US presidents, or for that matter, politicians generally. Maybe because it sort of embodies the idea of an entertaining complainer, implicitly recognized as having little power to actually change anything.
Post-Black Tuesday, I think the only POTUS I can think of who comes even remotely close to the archetype is Truman, and even he could probably better be described as just folksy. Reagan had the generational schtick down, but didn't have the requisite griping as part of his standard repertoire.