By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to Dr. John Gartner, repeated cognitive tests and MRIs administered to Donald Trump suggest his doctors are monitoring the progression of a cognitive decline rather than initially assessing for dementia. Gartner’s assessment is based on the frequency of Trump’s cognitive assessments, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), along with the recent MRI. Trump’s bragging about acing the tests and his lack of knowledge about his recent MRI, combined with the White House’s denial of health issues, reinforces the impression that Trump’s cognitive status is under scrutiny. This monitoring is likely to measure the rate of his mental decline and identify any related strokes.
Read the original article here
Trump’s doctors are monitoring “the progress of his dementia and/or strokes,” psychologist says. It appears that a growing concern is brewing, fueled by observations of Donald Trump’s behavior and the opinions of experts. The core of this concern revolves around the possibility of cognitive decline, potentially manifested through dementia or the effects of strokes, and the implications this has for his ability to lead.
One of the most persistent themes is the perceived evidence of cognitive impairment. The frequency with which he undergoes certain tests, specifically mentioned as the MoCA, is interpreted not as standard health assessments, but as deliberate monitoring. The core argument is that if these tests are being administered multiple times, it suggests an ongoing process of tracking and evaluating the progression of a condition, rather than a one-off screening. This idea naturally triggers questions about his fitness for office and the actions he’s currently taking.
The comments also reflect a deep skepticism towards any public pronouncements from Trump himself. His denials of having dementia are met with cynicism, and there’s a sense that his behavior is almost intentionally revealing. Many seem to interpret his words and actions as signs of cognitive decline, further solidifying the concern that he’s not fit to lead.
The reactions extend beyond mere political disagreement; they touch on fundamental questions of responsibility and accountability. There’s a call for those who are supposedly aware of his condition, including doctors, nurses, and advisors, to come forward. The underlying concern is that if his cognitive abilities are compromised, the consequences could be severe, and that anyone complicit in concealing the truth is equally culpable. The call for accountability touches on the 25th Amendment and the cabinet, with criticism aimed at their failure to act, implying that the severity of the situation warrants serious intervention.
It is easy to find numerous anecdotes supporting the idea of a decline in cognition. These observations, from simple statements like “he kind of gave the game away again, as he often does”, to analyzing his thought processes as demonstrated through quotes, contribute to a sense of unease. There is a sense that he shouldn’t have been president even once, let alone twice, considering the potential cognitive issues. Some are even going as far as to speculate on exit strategies that could be used, focusing on the defense of “health issues” and “political witch hunt” as strategies.
The underlying concern seems to be that if his cognitive abilities are compromised, the consequences could be severe, and that anyone complicit in concealing the truth is equally culpable. The call for accountability extends beyond just individuals; there’s a wider concern about the political structures and institutions that might enable or ignore such a situation. The discussion delves into past associations with figures who had been connected to organized crime. The connection between Trump and his past dealings, especially with Russian entities, are highlighted as potential sources of leverage and the means through which he could evade legal consequences.
The focus on the possibility of Trump’s cognitive decline is further strengthened by the discussion of his past actions and connections. The implication is that if these cognitive issues exist, the potential ramifications for the country and the world are dire. The responses reveal a deep-seated distrust and a belief that the situation is being deliberately obscured.
The discussions about Trump’s condition extend to broader political dynamics, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy. Some point out the contrast between the right’s earlier concerns about Joe Biden’s health and what they see as the right-wing’s reluctance to acknowledge similar issues with Trump. It’s an indictment of the political landscape, suggesting a willingness to weaponize concerns about cognitive decline for political gain while overlooking similar concerns when they apply to their own leaders. Ultimately, the question remains: if his cognitive health is compromised, how will the nation respond?