On Tuesday, a widely cited psychologist took to YouTube to raise the alarm regarding āmore highly concerning behaviorā from President Donald Trump. According to Dr. John Garrison, Trumpās recent actions suggest āsteep neurological declineā and a dangerously āmanic-like state.ā
Garrison began by playing a clip from a recent Fox News interview, in which Trump declared that the price of oil is āgoing to go down like a rocket.ā According to Garrison, āThere were two neurological issues in this very short clip, both of them verbal. One is that heās having speech planning issues, saying āgoing down like a rocket.ā Obviously, thatās combining phrases. Heās having a hard time organizing his thoughts. And second is an involuntary vocalization.ā Here Garrison replays the clip, noting an abrupt sound Trump makes, explaining, āThe pathways that deal with language are disrupted. We are seeing serious issues with language with President Trump.ā Whatās more, Garrison asserts that such vocalizations are ārelatively new.ā
In the interview, Trump begins talking about the midterm elections, saying, āIām going to campaign like I did for myself and Iām going to hope that people think that Iām on. And if Iām not on, if they donāt go out and vote, if they go out and vote, weāre going to win easily.ā As Garrison notes, āWhat heās saying makes absolutely no sense. He cannot organize his thoughts. He gets confused and he believes what heās saying is coherent. But it truly makes no sense.ā According to Garrison, this struggle with verbal planning can be evidence of underlying āneurological issues.ā
Here Garrison points to Trumpās pupils, which have remained dilated throughout the interview. āTrump is in a very bright room for this interview,ā says Garrison. āYou can see the lights actually reflecting off of his eyes, and what should be happening is that his pupils should be constricting rather than dilating because when thereās too much light in a room, your pupils get smaller, not bigger.ā According to Garrison, āDilated pupils like this can be from a wide variety of reasons, but itās not just something that happens,ā and likely culprits include medication for something like incontinence, Parkinsonās disease, or seizures.
ā¦
And he wont lose a single vote
To be fair, thatās not true at all. Only 30% of the primary electorate are his base, evangelicals mostly, other religious nutjobs, business dickheads, and so forth.
Itās a lack of a seeming alternative that is the problem. But no, donāt listen to me, Iām sure Jeffries and Schumer will right the ship of state! /s
I mean, I donāt disagree Jeffries and olā Chuck are screwing up bigly, but when election day comes - debate has ended yāknow? Itās trump or not.
Last election I was really disappointed with some people who couldnāt face the thought of voting against trump. People who presumably were immediately and lastingly oppresse by his brand of incompetent fascism.
While Iāve always shared that sentiment to some degree, Iāve always known it was doomed to fail without a change in party. Itās become all too obvious that the people that rejected voting all along, were right all along, I hate to say it.
And I say it as someone the encourages people to vote and always votes, against the worse candidates.
But letās not lie to ourselves, unless we get better candidates the non voting people are not entirely wrong. It means nothing in the medium let alone long term, we end in the same place with the controlled opposition in power every other cycle.
I hear you, but the ābetter candidatesā phase was the last year culminating in the recent primaries and there was approximately zero chatter on Lemmy about that. There was 100% more chatter about a certain mayor of a large city where most of us donāt live.
This is either ignorance of the local politics or standard-issue laziness, and it usually manifests as āall politicians are terrible; i refuse to voteā, which we should know by now is support for the fascists currently in power. In fact thatās how we got here to start.
So no, I disagree that the non voting people werenāt entirely wrong - they were entirely wrong, and expecting their favored candidate to magically show up on the ballot without any pre-primary support doesnāt change that totals in Congress make a huge difference as so many items fall along party-line votes.
If they choose to abandon democracy entirely- ok. Then they abandon the notion that change can or should happen. Because thatās how change happens at a national, societal level, right?