By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom has once again raised concerns about Donald Trump’s mental state, this time by posting an AI-generated response to the question of whether losing a sense of reality is a symptom of dementia. This follows Trump’s repeated false claims about California’s wildfire response. Newsom’s actions come after Trump made similar inaccurate statements about water from the Pacific Northwest. Newsom has previously used AI to question Trump’s mental fitness.
Read the original article here
Newsom Reignites His Theory That Trump, 79, Has Dementia, and the sentiment is pretty clear: it’s not exactly a revelation. A common thread woven through the discussion is the widespread agreement that the signs of cognitive decline are readily apparent to anyone observing Trump’s public appearances and statements. Many participants in the conversation seem to view the term “theory” as a misnomer, suggesting that the evidence is so clear-cut that it transcends mere speculation.
The very phrase “reignites his theory” is met with skepticism. Several commenters point out that the issue has been a topic of public discussion for quite some time, so “reigniting” implies something that had dimmed, which isn’t perceived to be the case. The assertion is that the evidence has been escalating, becoming more obvious with each passing week, making the claim more of a statement of fact than a hypothesis. The general consensus appears to be that Newsom is simply stating what many already see and perceive.
The contrast between the framing of Trump’s situation and similar concerns about President Biden’s cognitive abilities is also highlighted. Some commentators feel that the media has been less willing to scrutinize Trump’s mental state, while others point out that criticism is more readily applied to Biden. The perceived double standard is a recurring theme, with users noting that while criticisms of Biden’s age are often quickly amplified, discussions about Trump’s cognitive state are treated differently, which is something that has many people feeling confused.
A significant point of discussion centers on the comparison of Trump’s current behavior to his earlier public appearances, specifically in the 1990s. The claim is that a noticeable decline has occurred in his vocabulary, grammar, and overall articulation. This observation isn’t just a casual remark; it’s presented as direct evidence of a change, pointing to a stark contrast between a more articulate Trump of the past and the current persona. This points to the idea that there is a definitive difference.
Other perspectives delve into the potential consequences and implications of Trump’s supposed cognitive decline. There’s a concern about whether someone in his condition should hold such a powerful position. The comments reference the 25th Amendment and the concept of mental acuity, questioning whether his current state renders him fit to serve. Some suggest that the situation is no longer just a political matter, but a matter of national security and fitness for duty.
The observation that Trump’s rallies have become “word salad buffets” further underscores the perceived decline. The casual phrase paints a vivid picture of incoherent speech patterns and a departure from the clear communication expected of a leader. This detail is not presented as an isolated incident but as a recurring pattern, indicating a persistent problem rather than an occasional lapse.
Furthermore, some users acknowledge Trump’s history with his father’s diagnosis of Alzheimer’s in 1991 at the age of 86. The suggestion is that there may be a genetic predisposition, and thus the signs of Trump’s cognitive decline are not unexpected. While not everyone agrees with the theory, there is a general consensus that it is, at the very least, a valid observation.
In essence, the collective sentiment conveyed is one of widespread recognition of a problem, combined with frustration at what is perceived as a lack of serious attention to the issue. The tone suggests that Newsom is not so much presenting a new argument as he is simply echoing the observations of a large segment of the population.