By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While political and financial elites focus on abstract economic indicators, the reality for working Americans is a tangible struggle against rising costs and sudden instability. HuffPost’s journalism is dedicated to reporting on this actual economy, the one that directly affects individuals’ lives. This commitment ensures that coverage remains grounded in the everyday experiences of its readership.
Read the original article here
The notion that “Trump is not well” has resurfaced with a pointed call from a House Democrat to consider the 25th Amendment, triggered by a “crazy” new report and accompanied by a stark warning that action is urgently needed “before something really bad happens on US soil.” This sentiment, echoed by many, suggests a deep-seated concern about the mental and emotional stability of a prominent political figure and the potential ramifications for national security. The repeated observation that this individual is “not normal” has become, for some, an almost tiresome refrain, as if the obvious reality has taken too long to be officially acknowledged and acted upon.
There’s a palpable frustration that while the public may widely perceive this individual’s mental state as deteriorating, the political establishment seems to be lagging in its response. The concern extends beyond mere personal fitness for office, touching upon the broader political landscape and how a significant segment of the population has become so deeply entrenched in their support. This loyalty, often referred to as a “cult,” is seen as a tool that has been exploited for political advantage, allowing for the consolidation of power within a particular party. The complex dynamic now involves a party grappling with how to distance itself from this figure without alienating his devoted followers, a maneuver that some believe is fraught with peril.
The strategic calculations of political parties are often brought into sharp relief when dealing with such divisive figures. For some, the plan appears to be a calculated risk, even a desire for a “bloodbath,” to further solidify their grip on power. The idea of a leader being turned on by their own inner circle, a metaphorical “Judas” moment, is presented as a potential fracturing event for the entire base, leading to significant political losses. This outcome, while perhaps desired by some opponents, is considered highly unlikely given the current political climate.
The phrase “before something really bad happens on US soil” carries a particular weight, perceived by some as an indication of a disconnect from existing crises. The devastating impact of a pandemic, resulting in millions of American lives lost, is offered as a stark example of harm that has already occurred on domestic soil, raising questions about what constitutes a sufficiently dire event to warrant decisive action. The argument is made that the focus on potential future threats abroad or even ongoing domestic issues like those allegedly perpetrated by ICE, might be overshadowing the severity of present-day consequences.
It’s as if a collective delusion or a “hive mind in decline” is at play, where even the most alarming signs are met with a sense of normalcy. The image of a leader relying on simple comforts like soda and candy to manage meltdowns highlights a perceived inability to cope with the demands of leadership. The fact that elected officials are raising alarms about mental unfitness and national security threats, only to have these concerns treated as just another Tuesday, underscores a chilling disconnect between urgent warnings and public or political apathy.
The history of this figure, characterized by decades of public notoriety and controversial media appearances, is presented as an undeniable aspect of their public persona. The suggestion that alternative political candidates might emerge from similar entertainment backgrounds speaks to a perceived erosion of traditional political standards. The recurring talk of the 25th Amendment, a mechanism designed for presidential incapacity, is framed as a long-standing, yet unfulfilled, aspiration for many.
The reality of January 6th is cited as a clear instance of “something really bad” already having happened on US soil, suggesting that the threshold for crisis has arguably been met and surpassed. The idea of initiating a war or the notion that “poor people have it too easy” are presented as glimpses into the concerning ideologies circulating within certain segments of society. The plea for removal and incarceration underscores a belief that the individual is fundamentally unfit and a criminal.
The urgency of the situation is amplified by the observation that the current occupant of the Oval Office is already perceived by some as a “pedophile, convicted felon,” which they consider to be “bad enough.” There’s a fear that this individual might remain in power long enough to instill a permanent sense of fear and control, solidifying the dominance of a particular political ideology. This concern is met with a desire for action rather than continued discussion of the individual’s alleged well-being.
The repeated pronouncements of “Trump’s not well” or “Trump’s Presidency is in tatters” are met with weariness, suggesting that talk needs to translate into tangible action. The focus on the 25th Amendment is questioned, with impeachment being presented as a potentially more achievable congressional route. The implications of foreign policy decisions and their impact on global stability, as well as the ethical considerations of domestic actions, are brought into question.
The question of when the recognition of this individual’s perceived “not well” state began is raised, implying a long-standing issue that is only now prompting serious consideration. The severity of events, whether domestic or international, seems to be a point of contention, with some arguing that “bad stuff has already happened on US soil” and that the focus on future threats is misplaced. The idea that some may actively desire a crisis on US soil to manipulate political outcomes, such as canceling elections, is a particularly alarming accusation.
The discourse surrounding the individual’s actions and their consequences often draws a distinction between what happens “outside the US” and what occurs “inside.” This perceived double standard fuels criticism of those who seem to prioritize certain threats over others. The underlying issue, for many, is not necessarily the novelty of the claims, but the absence of political will to enact meaningful change.
The frustration is palpable with elected officials who are perceived as failing to act, prioritizing personal gain over the country’s well-being. The cycle of distractions and the diversion of attention from significant issues, such as the Epstein files, are also noted. The possibility of engineered crises, such as false flag attacks, is raised as a concern, hinting at a deeper manipulation of political events.
The historical context of attempts to remove this figure, and the subsequent capitulation of political leaders, is recalled. The mechanics of the 25th Amendment, requiring the cooperation of the cabinet, are seen as a significant hurdle. The question of whether invading one’s own country with secret police and causing disappearances and deaths qualifies as “something really bad happening on US soil” highlights a stark disagreement on the severity of existing circumstances.
When “crazy” becomes the norm, deviations from that norm may not be readily apparent. The daily parade of morally and ethically questionable actions, coupled with the ongoing impact on the nation, is likened to a historical period of significant turmoil. The perceived stability of the current administration, despite its alleged flaws, and the fear of further damage being inflicted are central to the ongoing debate. The concern that even if removed, the damage already done and the empowerment of problematic figures will persist, is a significant worry.