By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Jimmy Kimmel has proposed a televised cognitive test showdown between Donald Trump and Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett after Trump boasted about passing the test and challenged the Democrats’ intelligence. Crockett accepted the challenge, pointing out that Trump’s criticisms often target women of color. Kimmel and Crockett mocked Trump by quizzing her with questions that were similar to those asked in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment that Trump took.
Read the original article here
Jimmy Kimmel Quizzes Rep. Jasmine Crockett With Trump’s Dementia Test
The whole premise, the Jimmy Kimmel segment where Rep. Jasmine Crockett was put through what was essentially a dementia test that Trump had touted as a sign of his own mental acuity, is truly fascinating. It’s a clever move by Kimmel, using the same “test” to evaluate someone who is demonstrably articulate and quick-witted in a completely different context. It immediately highlights the absurdity of Trump’s claims. If you consider that Trump struggled with the same questions, it’s starkly revealing and speaks volumes about the different levels of intellectual engagement at play. It’s like comparing a carefully constructed speech to a series of disjointed pronouncements, and the contrast is impossible to miss.
The idea of a Trump versus Crockett and AOC “Jeopardy!” showdown for charity is an incredibly entertaining thought. Imagine the categories, the potential for witty banter, the sheer intellectual firepower of Crockett and AOC compared to, well, the Avengers of Trump’s vocabulary. The outcome is almost a foregone conclusion, but the entertainment value would be off the charts. It’s easy to picture Trump, flustered and confused, perhaps even claiming the whole thing was rigged. His inability to answer basic questions would become even more glaringly apparent, exposing the shallowness of his intellectual capacity.
The comments about the test and how difficult Trump found it are almost laughable. The fact that he considered repeating four words in order and identifying a tiger a significant achievement speaks volumes about his own perception of his cognitive abilities. And then there’s the issue of the last question, which is basic orientation – day, month, city. It’s a fundamental assessment of awareness that most adults would pass with ease, yet for Trump, it seems to have been a challenge. The whole situation highlights the fragility of his mental state and how out of touch he is with reality.
The discussion about the ‘intelliboner’ is certainly a colorful way of describing the appreciation for intelligence and articulate individuals, especially women. The comment, made in jest or not, underscores the respect for those who are knowledgeable, well-spoken, and empathetic. It contrasts sharply with the image of Trump, who often seems to value bluster and misinformation over genuine insight and thoughtful discourse. In a world full of noise, the ability to engage in intelligent conversation is something to be treasured.
The idea of creating a dementia test app for MAGA family members is undeniably amusing. It’s a dark comedic reflection of the situation, recognizing that many supporters may not fully grasp the implications of Trump’s cognitive decline. While it’s humorous, it also touches upon the worrying trend of enabling rather than addressing obvious issues. The lack of accountability, the unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious, is, in many ways, the real tragedy of this whole saga.
The assertion that Trump would walk away from the test if he was wrong, even with pre-provided answers, feels like an accurate assessment of his character. His ego, his tendency to blame others, and his aversion to admitting fault would undoubtedly lead to a dramatic exit. The prospect of him participating in any kind of intellectual competition, especially one where his limitations would be exposed, is simply unrealistic. He’d find a way to make it all about him.
The fact that the words Trump was recalling may have been the very objects he could see around him at the time of the test is, frankly, chilling. It suggests a disconnect from reality, a lack of comprehension, and an inability to process and retain information. The fact he recently made the same mistake, identifying a camel as a giraffe, reinforces those concerns. This lack of ability to differentiate between objects and situations is alarming when considering the responsibilities of the office.
The sentiment that people are scared by the situation is completely understandable. The idea of someone with such a limited grasp of reality, and an apparent lack of cognitive ability, leading the country is truly terrifying. It’s important to note though that the situation is far from unique. Throughout history, leaders have had flaws and limitations, but the scale and nature of Trump’s issues seem to be different. The level of denial, the willingness to ignore glaring warning signs, is particularly unsettling.
The suggestion that the test would only tell people what they already believe underscores the polarization of the political landscape. No amount of evidence, no matter how clear, seems to be able to sway the committed supporters on either side. Instead of fostering rational discussion, these types of evaluations are used to fuel further division. The irony is that everyone will see the test and take from it what they already believe to be true.
It’s clear that the intelligence and articulation of someone like Rep. Crockett are highly valued. The reference to sapiosexuals emphasizes the appeal of intelligence and wit in a partner. The contrast with Trump, who seems to value loyalty and subservience over intellectual engagement, is sharp. The idea is to find a partner who is both intelligent and compassionate, a far cry from the image Trump projects.
Ultimately, the Jimmy Kimmel segment serves as a microcosm of the political and cultural divide. It exposes the intellectual disparities between Trump and those who challenge him, and it highlights the stark contrast between those who value intellect and those who do not. Whether it has any impact on the public’s perception of Trump remains to be seen, but the segment serves as a very clear illustration of the ongoing narrative of who is capable of leading.