By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Footage has emerged from a Super Bowl party at Donald Trump’s golf club showing the Bad Bunny halftime show playing on large screens, contradicting public statements. Critics have labeled this a display of hypocrisy, suggesting the outrage over the performance was performative. Trump himself later confirmed he watched Bad Bunny, denouncing the halftime show as “terrible” and an “affront to the Greatness of America” in a lengthy Truth Social post.
Read the original article here
The notion that Donald Trump’s cognitive decline began earlier than publicly acknowledged, as suggested by leaked emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s associates, is not entirely surprising to many observers. Comments from individuals close to Trump, reportedly labeling his mental state as “dementia” as far back as 2017, paint a picture of concern that predates widespread public discussion. This perspective suggests that what many might perceive as a more recent faltering of his mental acuity was, in fact, an ongoing issue recognized by those within his inner circle.
The idea that his friends were making such assessments in 2017, and that the observations extended even earlier, aligns with the experiences of numerous people who felt his unscripted public appearances and remarks indicated a significant mental struggle well before he entered the presidency. Many who followed his rhetoric during his initial campaign for president found his communication style to be rambling and at times incoherent, leading to concerns about his cognitive fitness. Reading transcripts of his speeches and interviews from that period, even without audio, often gave the impression of disjointed thought processes.
For those who have witnessed loved ones grapple with dementia, the public displays of confusion, repetition, and tangential reasoning from Trump were often starkly familiar. This personal connection amplified the perception that his behavior was not simply a matter of an unconventional communication style, but rather a genuine sign of cognitive impairment. The suggestion that these observations were being made by his supposed friends adds a layer of internal acknowledgment to what many outsiders perceived externally.
The commentary also touches upon the possibility that Trump’s staff might have been acutely aware of his cognitive state, potentially even using it to their advantage. The theory posits that his staff could have leveraged his perceived decline to push through agendas, with the understanding that his cognitive issues might later serve as an excuse for his actions or a lack of memory regarding specific events. This perspective casts a shadow of calculated manipulation over his presidency, where his cognitive state, rather than being a hindrance, could have been an exploitable asset.
Furthermore, the discussions highlight a broader pattern where accusations of cognitive decline, when leveled against political opponents, were often dismissed or seen as political attacks. However, when similar observations were made about Trump, even internally, it suggests a persistent underlying issue that transcended partisan divides. The comparison to other elderly presidents who have faced questions about their mental fitness also surfaces, prompting reflection on age limits and mechanisms for addressing cognitive decline in leadership roles.
The observation that conservatives might have normalized Trump’s unique speech patterns, perhaps even reframing them as a distinct style rather than a symptom of decline, is a notable point. This normalization, while potentially shielding him from scrutiny for a time, also raises questions about the public’s willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about a leader’s capabilities. The irony of him potentially using a long-standing diagnosis of dementia as a defense later on is a darkly humorous, albeit concerning, aspect of this narrative.
The leaked emails, if they indeed confirm that Trump’s associates were discussing his “dementia” in 2017, serve as a confirmation for those who have long held these concerns. It suggests that the signs were evident to those in his orbit, and that the public narrative may have lagged behind the private reality. The idea that this information is being strategically released by some to create an “exit ramp” for themselves once his condition becomes undeniable further fuels the notion of a complex, perhaps even cynical, interplay of awareness and management surrounding his cognitive state.
Ultimately, the discussions surrounding these leaked emails suggest that the perceived decline in Donald Trump’s cognitive abilities may not have been a sudden onset but rather a continuous process recognized by many, including those closest to him, much earlier than previously assumed. This ongoing awareness, coupled with the potential for manipulation and normalization, creates a complex picture of leadership and public perception, hinting that the narrative of his cognitive journey might be more deeply rooted and longer-standing than many have realized.