Trump Part 2 – Mentally and Physically Impaired

Harper Lee

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

The quote is accurate — not exactly earth‑shattering, but it carries a lot of meaning, and I really do try to think this way as much as I can. It speaks to fairness: is your analysis fair, and is your judgment accurate?

I’m really trying to apply this mindset to Donald Trump, and I’m taking an interesting approach — kind of a devil ’s-advocate angle. This will be Post Two, where I make a counterpoint to Post One.

Examining how Donald Trump acts and makes decisions is somewhat disturbing, and he can’t be just a bad person; there must be more to it. If you look at what people have said over the years, even Bill Maher, as of late, always finds him engaging in fun.

That raises an important question: is this public persona of anger, hostility, and division a sign of something deeper, and who is enabling it — and why? When you compare his behavior today to his first term, the difference is striking. Back then, at the very least, he surrounded himself with more experienced and capable people. He wasn’t exactly following traditional norms, but the individuals he chose — regardless of anyone’s political leanings — were closer to the standard expectations of leadership and provided some level of restraint. The checks and balances were there.

Now, it feels like pure chaos. He’s surrounded himself with a constant stream of people who agree with him unconditionally, removing the informal checks and balances that once existed around him — the same way Congress and the courts are meant to provide checks at the national level. And even those institutions seem to have taken a step back.

So the question becomes: is this truly who he is? Is there a decline happening? If so, it’s worth looking at his upbringing — both nature and nurture — and how he was parented. What behaviors were tolerated? Was he ever disciplined? Understanding that context may help explain how we arrived at this moment.

He is approaching 80 years old, and it’s natural to wonder whether some of what we’re seeing could reflect age‑related challenges. If there is any kind of cognitive decline — whether related to dementia, Alzheimer’s, or another condition — then compassion should be part of the conversation. In that scenario, the people around him would have a responsibility to support him, work closely with medical professionals, and be honest with the public. Anything less would be a disservice to him and to the country. If this were true, then lashing out at him would be unfair and a disservice to him.

Recent moments in the public eye have raised questions for many observers about his cognitive sharpness. People have pointed out instances where he appears tired, even sleeps during meetings, speaks with noticeable slurring, becomes easily irritated, or struggles to communicate clearly. These are the kinds of patterns that, in any high‑stakes leadership role, would typically prompt a thorough, professional evaluation — not as a political attack, but as a matter of basic responsibility.

This isn’t just about one person. It’s about the nation, and in many ways, the world. Leadership decisions affect millions of lives, and they should be grounded in clarity, stability, and sound judgment. When statements become confusing, contradictory, or disconnected from reality — whether about ballrooms, arches, invasions, or declarations of being a “man of peace” — it’s fair for people to pause and ask whether these are truly coherent, well‑considered decisions. He jumps from one area to the next with no plan or goal, then drops it: Greenland, the Panama Canal, and making Canada a state.

Raising these questions isn’t cruelty. It’s care. It’s accountability. And it’s a reminder that leadership at this level demands transparency, honesty, and a willingness to confront difficult truths — for the good of the individual and for everyone who depends on the decisions being made. If this is a cognitive issue, then people are lying and hiding the truth at his expense. I do believe we made a similar issue with Biden.

If we take an honest, clear‑eyed approach and assume there is no cognitive issue at play, then we’re left with a different question: what is it about his personality or public style that leads him to lash out so quickly, sometimes even insulting people simply for asking a question? Most of us couldn’t behave that way without consequences. I know if I tried it, I’d get the stink‑eye immediately — I wasn’t raised that way, and most people wouldn’t tolerate it. So why do some people accept this behavior from him? What does that say about the broader culture?

It leads to another possibility: was Donald Trump coddled, protected, or shielded from consequences earlier in life? Was he indulged, overlooked, or repeatedly excused in ways that shaped how he interacts with the world? If that’s true, then the quote I opened with gains real weight — understanding someone often requires trying to see the world through their eyes.

Even then, the picture is complicated. He has lived a life of extraordinary privilege. Banks have supported him through business failures, people around him have often avoided confronting him directly, and he benefited from advantages that many Americans never had access to.

Throughout his life, there have been moments where others stepped in, smoothed things over, or looked the other way. When that happens repeatedly, it can shape a person’s expectations of how the world should respond to them.

So the question remains: if this isn’t about cognitive decline, and it isn’t about being treated unfairly, then what explains the behavior? Some people argue that it reflects a sense of entitlement or being accustomed to special treatment. Ironically, that may even be part of why he was elected — a reaction against the very idea of entitlement, even as he embodied it. It’s a paradox worth thinking about.

Maybe, from his point of view, he was raised to believe he was exceptional, and now he’s struggling with the reality of being judged on a global stage where he is simply one leader among many. That kind of collision between self‑image and reality can create frustration, anger, or defensiveness.

It’s impossible to know exactly what shaped him, but exploring these possibilities helps us understand the behavior rather than just react to it. And sometimes, understanding is the first step toward clarity — even if the answers are uncomfortable.