By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent reports indicate that President Trump has become disengaged from warnings about his declining poll numbers and policy critiques, shifting focus instead to personal interests like golf. During a White House meeting, a conservative pollster, Mark Mitchell, attempted to discuss Trump’s loss of support among his base, but the president redirected the conversation to golf and praised his golfing acquaintances. This shift comes amid consistently poor approval ratings and growing concerns about Trump’s focus, as voters feel he is not prioritizing their economic struggles or delivering on his “America First” promises.
Read the original article here
Trump, 79, Gave Deranged Response to Pollster’s Dire Warnings: It seems like we’re not exactly surprised, are we? The whole scenario feels almost predictable at this point. The core of the matter is this: when faced with warnings about his diminishing support and unfavorable polling numbers, Trump, at the age of 79, reportedly veered off-topic, shifting the conversation to golf. This wasn’t just a casual mention of a favorite pastime; it was a clear deflection, a way to avoid the uncomfortable realities being presented to him.
This behavior, as the narrative goes, came about when Mark Mitchell, a pollster from Rasmussen Reports, a conservative polling firm, informed Trump that he was losing support amongst his own base. Mitchell expressed concerns to Trump, and the response was not what one might call engaged. Instead of delving into the issues, the president reportedly pivoted to discussing his golf buddies, Lindsey Graham and Bret Baier, and bragging about a recent golf fundraiser.
It’s easy to read this and think: is anyone truly surprised? It seems as though a “deranged” response has become the norm. The fact that he didn’t engage with the serious concerns raised by his own pollster, but instead focused on golf and fundraising, speaks volumes. It’s an indication of a disconnect, a lack of interest in the very issues that are potentially hindering his support. It’s almost as if he simply isn’t interested in the details.
Of course, the speculation around Trump’s health, particularly regarding potential cognitive decline, is ever-present. The possibility of dementia or Alzheimer’s, especially considering his family history, adds another layer to this narrative. It certainly adds context to the situation, with all the anecdotal observations and potential medical indicators that have been suggested. One should note that these are speculations, of course, and should be viewed as such.
The reaction, or rather the lack thereof, to warnings from his pollster also underscores a perceived disregard for the very people who form his base. The pollster, Mitchell, highlighted concerns that Trump was failing to “drain the swamp” and that his supporters wanted to see him “smash the oligarchy,” not become part of it. The lack of an engaged response to this issue is quite telling. It calls into question whether he’s genuinely listening to the needs and desires of the people who support him.
It’s hard to ignore the potential age-related aspects of the situation. At 79, the issues of mental acuity and fixed worldviews become prominent, especially in the realm of high-level leadership. While this isn’t necessarily a commentary on any individual, the implications of these issues are certainly significant, particularly when the stakes are so high. The suggestion that younger candidates would offer a fresh perspective is worth considering, given that there is simply too much at stake in the current geo-political climate.
What seems to be consistent throughout this is the apparent lack of concern. When presented with information that should be of utmost importance, the response is golf. It’s a deflection, a sidestepping of reality. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the concerns raised by the pollster were ultimately dismissed.
The broader perception of Trump’s actions often borders on the absurd. There’s a sense that the situation has moved beyond the point of surprise and into the realm of the predictable. The response to the warning, the lack of engagement, is simply seen as par for the course. Many recognize the situation, but the actions continue, which is what is deranged.
Ultimately, the story of Trump’s response to the dire warnings is a case study in deflection. It highlights a seeming unwillingness to engage with critical information, a preference for other topics, and perhaps, a deeper issue that warrants careful consideration.