.

Trump had a medical checkup on Friday, 11 April 2025, at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center located in Bethesda, Maryland (about 14 km from Washington), and was judged fit for service.

It was reported he even scored 30 out of 30 on a Montreal Cognitive Assessment exam.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a widely used screening tool designed to detect mild cognitive impairment and early signs of dementia. It assesses various cognitive domains, including attention, memory, language, and executive functions. The test consists of 30 questions and takes about 10 minutes to complete. It is particularly effective in identifying individuals at risk for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. It has been validated for use in various clinical settings and is recognized for its sensitivity in detecting cognitive decline.

But Trump's niece, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, describes her uncle’s mental health in quite different terms :

« This is a person who has untreated psychiatric disorders, and any untreated disorder of any kind worsens over time as long as it remains untreated. So, it makes perfect sense that somebody who is as unhealthy as he is who is under the extraordinary amount of stress he's under would have a harder time holding it together cognitively »

Dr. Elisabeth Zoffmann, a forensic psychiatrist and an associate clinical professor of forensic and general psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, indicates that her clinical experience and observance of Trump are congruent with the diagnostic criteria for behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia.

She cautions, however, that her observations, combined with those of other experts, should lead to a thorough assessment by a neuropsychiatrist expert in the diagnosis and management of neurodegenerative disorders.

.

Ya gotta laugh. The WhiteHouse was occupied for four years by a shell of a man who was clearly dementia affected and getting progressively worse. Now that Biden's term is over all sorts of his erstwhile supporters are coming out admitting that he was not with it and most of the time the US presidency was being run by sycophants or family.

Yet at the time, the efforts by the legacy media and TDS crowd to prop up Biden and deny his infirmities were legion. Remember the way the media excoriated the right for publishing video of Biden's failings by denouncing such videos as deep fakes. Right up to the moment the truth could no longer be denied (ie the Biden/Trump debate) anyone who pronounced on Biden's dementia was denounced. And any attempts at diagnosis from afar was decried as unethical.

But now times have changed. Wonder why?

Have you ever heard of the Goldwatee Rule. “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” But TDS means never having to live by the rules.

Trump is as sharp as an 80 yr old can be. A marvel of the attributes of the Big Mac and Diet Pepsi.

mhaze,

There are key differences between Trump and Biden that discredit your comparison.

First, many of Biden’s own supporters openly acknowledged concerns about his age and visible frailty. That conversation was happening - even within Democratic circles. Contrast that with Trump’s base, which refuses to entertain the possibility of cognitive or psychological issues and treats even the suggestion as heresy. That’s not consistency - it’s denial.

Second, the nature of the concerns is completely different. Biden’s gaffes were mostly benign and never suggested a break from reality. Trump, on the other hand, has displayed long-standing patterns of behaviour that raise far more serious red flags: grandiosity, paranoia, pathological lying, erratic speech, obsession with personal loyalty, and a disturbing attraction to authoritarianism. These aren’t slips of the tongue - they're sustained traits with serious implications.

As for the Goldwater Rule: it prohibits formal diagnoses of public figures without direct evaluation. It does not prohibit professionals from raising red flags based on observable behaviour - especially when clearly qualified as non-diagnostic, which is exactly what Dr. Zoffmann did. Meanwhile, many of Trump’s defenders were perfectly comfortable declaring Biden demented based on edited YouTube clips, without a whisper of concern for ethical standards. So if there's a double standard here, it runs the other way.

Finally, let’s not pretend a perfect score on a 10-minute screening tool like the MoCA proves much of anything. It’s designed to catch early dementia - not assess character, emotional regulation, or judgment - areas where Trump’s long public record speaks volumes. Apparently, though, only the early stages of dementia are a concern.

Wonder why?

If your definition of “fit for office” begins and ends with drawing a clock and remembering five words, then sure - he passes. But if we’re concerned with stability, honesty, and leadership temperament, the MoCA tells us nothing. And pretending it does is just a way to avoid confronting what’s been in plain sight for years.

" That conversation was happening - even within Democratic circles. "

If you say so. The fact however is that his problems were being denied right up to the point that they could no longer be denied. Only now do his supporters admit that long before that he had clocked out.

Obviously since Trump says things that people like you disagree with he must be cogitatively impaired. That's the level of 'thought' ( for want of a better word) that goes into this.

mhaze,

You’ve sidestepped the actual argument and mischaracterised the reason I raised concerns about Trump’s cognitive state - despite the fact that I gave you a clear list of troubling, long-standing behaviours. This isn’t about disagreeing with what he says. It’s about how he says it, how often he lies, how erratically he speaks, and how deeply detached from reality he often appears.

These aren’t policy disagreements. They’re red flags.

You also brushed past the actual comparison. The point wasn’t that every Democrat openly criticised Biden - it’s that many did, and more importantly, they could. Biden’s age and fitness were discussed regularly across left-leaning media, and by his own supporters. There was no loyalty test. No silencing of concerns. People could acknowledge limitations and still support him.

That’s not the case with Trump. The moment someone even suggests he may not be mentally or emotionally fit, they’re cast as disloyal or accused of having “TDS.” That’s not reasoned support. That’s reflexive denial.

And finally - yes, the MoCA is a legitimate tool for screening early-stage dementia. But it’s not a measure of character, emotional regulation, or sound judgment. It doesn’t disprove the concerns I raised. At best, it tells us he’s likely not in cognitive decline of the sort the test was designed to detect. But the traits in question - paranoia, impulsivity, grandiosity, detachment from reality - aren’t things the MoCA even tests for.

So again, you haven’t addressed the concerns. You’ve misrepresented them, waved away observable patterns, and then accused others of being unserious - all while refusing to engage with the substance of what was actually said.

"As for the Goldwater Rule:"

That's just wrong. Do you know who Goldwater was? The rule was designed specifically to cover the type of things these people are doing. Now its true that there's nothing to stop them doing it but they are breaking their professional rules of conduct by doing so. If you want to place faith who have so little regard for their profession that they are prepared to ignore clear rules, well that's on you.

" The point wasn’t that every Democrat openly criticised Biden - it’s that many did, and more importantly, they could."

You live in a fantasy world where the past is just what you want it to be. The fact is there was a concerted active effort within the left-leaning media, (ie almost all of it), to hide Biden's cognitive decline from the people....

http://tiny.cc/p0tg001

http://thespectator.com/newsletter/book-deals-hid-biden-decline-bad-press-04-03-2025/

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Sin-President-Cover-Up-Disastrous/dp/B0DTYKCJC9

http://tiny.cc/v0tg001

http://tiny.cc/w0tg001

http://tiny.cc/x0tg001

http://tiny.cc/21tg001

http://tiny.cc/41tg001

( I have a lot more if you want. I'm helping a family member do her thesis on the issue of how easily the media managed to cover over the fact that Biden was not really running things and the implications for democracy).

No one doubts that Trump is in charge. Everyone (well everyone other than you apparently) now knows that Biden was a mere figurehead. Yet before the debate, the Democrat hierarchy thought they could do it again. And if it wasn't for the monumental error of agreeing to the debate, they might have just pulled it off.

I've written before, and probably on these pages, that Trump's decision to agree to the debate might turn out to have been the most brilliant political move so far this century. The conditions the Democrats put on the debate were so one sided that all assumed that Trump would say no and they'd then blame him for cowardice. But he said yes and forced them to ante up. And the rest is history.

mhaze,

You’ve replied with a wall of links and assertions, but once again, you’ve avoided the actual point.

Firstly - yes, I know who Barry Goldwater was and the origin of the rule - it was introduced after Fact magazine surveyed psychiatrists who speculated about his mental fitness without evaluating him. But the rule applies specifically to formal diagnoses, not to raising concerns based on observable behaviour - especially when clearly framed as non-diagnostic. The APA itself has clarified this.

That being said, Dr Zoffmann didn’t offer a diagnosis. She said Trump’s behaviour appears consistent with a known condition and recommended proper assessment. That’s well within ethical boundaries. If she and others were “breaking rules,” which licensing body sanctioned them? (None.)

As for the links claiming the media and the Democrats tried to hide Biden’s condition - you’re sidestepping again. I never claimed it was handled perfectly. I said many of Biden’s supporters, commentators, and voters acknowledged the issue - and they were free to. There was no loyalty test.

That’s the difference with Trump. His defenders don’t just downplay concerns - they treat even raising them as disloyalty. One side allowed space for internal criticism. The other demands total allegiance.

And no, this isn’t about gaffes or policy disagreement - it’s about years of observable traits: pathological lying, paranoia, grandiosity, erratic speech, and obsession with loyalty over competence. A perfect MoCA score doesn’t erase that. It screens for early dementia - not character, judgment, or emotional regulation.

If you want to debate whether Democratic leaders or media outlets tried to hide or downplay Biden’s condition, fine. But none of that explains why even raising concerns about Trump’s fitness is suddenly treated as unethical by his defenders.

And that’s the question you still haven’t answered.

"But none of that explains why even raising concerns about Trump’s fitness is suddenly treated as unethical by his defenders."

Its unethical because its untrue and based on false assertions. But you know all about false assertions, don't you. And its unethical because the same people now piously raising issues about Trump either completely ignored the much greater problems with Biden or actively covered over those issues.

" I never claimed it was handled perfectly. I said many of Biden’s supporters, commentators, and voters acknowledged the issue -"

Backtracking already. A new record. BTW I note that you haven't provided any examples of Democrats acknowledging Biden's dementia.

mhaze,

You’re calling it “unethical” not because it's false - but because it challenges your narrative. That’s the issue.

You claimed Trump’s critics were breaking professional rules. I pointed out they made qualified observations, not diagnoses - and in Dr Zoffmann’s case, she’s Canadian and not subject to the APA’s U.S.-specific Goldwater Rule. You haven’t refuted that.

As for “backtracking,” no. I said from the start that many Biden supporters acknowledged concerns over time - not that all did, or that it was handled flawlessly:

"...many of Biden’s own supporters openly acknowledged concerns about his age and visible frailty."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10589#369780

There was no retreat - it’s the same point, restated clearly. And if I were backtracking, it would be a record by necessity - because I’ve yet to do that in any of our discussions.

//BTW I note that you haven't provided any examples of Democrats acknowledging Biden's dementia.//

You say that like it was deliberate. You should know by now that I always have examples in mind:

-David Axelrod, former Obama advisor, called Biden’s age a serious liability in 2023.
-Dean Phillips, a sitting Democratic congressman, ran against Biden in the primaries because of these concerns.
-The Atlantic, The New Republic, and The New York Times published multiple pieces raising concerns about Biden’s age and stamina between 2022 and 2024.

You’ll find no equivalent space for concern inside the MAGA orbit. That’s the difference: one side allowed the conversation - even reluctantly. The other shuts it down entirely and calls it “unethical” to even ask.

You haven’t shown that any of the concerns about Trump’s behaviour - erratic speech, detachment from reality, pathological lying - are “false assertions.” You’ve simply declared them so.

Calling dissent unethical because you disagree with it isn’t a defence. It’s intellectual cowardice.

"You’re calling it “unethical” not because it's false "

Its unethical because the professional bodies have determined that its not possible to diagnose from afar. Its just people using the letters after their name to push their political barrow.

Your examples about people talking about Biden were all about his age which was of course undeniable. Come back when you find a senior Democrat admitting Biden's dementia and that the was incapable of being president. Oh, and knowing how you twist, I'd point out that the examples need to be from before the debate. There were plenty after the debate. And even more now admitting that the media and the Democrats ran a concerted campaign to hide the dementia from the voting public.

To criticise Trump as is being done is to to openly support a presence for root & incompetence.
No President has ever had to cope with so much character assassination & ridicule etc as this man. That he is even still standing up is a credit & evidence of his resilience & character.
Anyhow, Vance will make a good President ! A many times more competent & sane team than their predecessors & their supporters !

mhaze,

You're demanding evidence for a claim I never made - because it's easier than addressing the one I did.

I never said senior Democrats diagnosed Biden with dementia before the debate. I said many acknowledged concerns about his age and capacity, and that those conversations were allowed to happen within Democratic circles and the media - unlike in MAGA circles, where even raising concerns about Trump is treated as disloyalty.

You’ve now moved the goalposts to finding a Democrat who said the word ‘dementia’ before the debate. That was never the claim. You’re just shifting the bar to dodge the point I made - and supported with examples.

As for the Goldwater Rule: again, you’re misrepresenting it. It bars formal diagnoses from psychiatrists without direct examination - not all public comment or concern. Dr Zoffmann did not offer a diagnosis. She said his behaviour was consistent with a known condition and that further assessment would be appropriate. That’s both cautious and ethical - and again, she’s Canadian. The APA’s rules don’t apply to her.

You also haven’t addressed the fact that countless unqualified commentators “diagnosed” Biden for years, often in much stronger terms - and no one on your side raised ethical concerns about that.

So far, you’ve:

-Rewritten my argument,
-Misrepresented professional standards,
-Moved the goalposts mid-discussion, and
-Still not refuted a single point I raised about Trump’s behaviour.

You're not arguing the facts. You're policing what people are allowed to say about someone you unwaveringly support.

The obsession of some Australians with Donald Trump, when the man is American, elected by Americans, doing what is best for America, is pathetic and old womanish.

Even Andrew Bolt has caught the Anti-Trump disease.

President Trump is not interested in you; he is not even interested in talking to our silly little Prime Minister.

Albanese and Dutton are our problems. Neither of whom can hold a candle to Donald Trump.

The performances of these two clowns during the current election campaign have removed any doubt that Australia's biggest enemies don't live in America or China: they live in Canberra.

“ Australia's biggest enemies don't live in America or China: they live in Canberra”

Congratulations old son, you finally got there.

Don’t vote: Self respect and personal dignity preclude you from participating in the destruction of the Australian way, dead and gone!

See if you disagree with this:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=38-03-034-f&readcode=&readtherest=true#therest

With The school holidays upon us, lets look at young Donald's report card for the first semester.

Economics FAILED
Geography FAILED
History FAILED
Human Relations FAILED
Every Thing Else FAILED

Dear Parent,

Your son Donald is a bully and a brat, the type of child I do not want in my classroom! Donald has no aptitude for learning what so ever, he's a criminal, and should be locked up, not in school. I dread the first day back next term, Donald will be in my class once more, I beg you please, keep the little rat at home! My life depends upon it!

Parent teacher interviews are in the first week back, don't come, don't bring Donald, stay home, my nerves could not stand an extra five minutes with Donald.

Kind Regards
Teacher.

Australia seeks stabilisation with China; China seeks to DEstabilise Australia with its malign intimidatory tactics, and will have the upper hand until Australia pushes back.

China’s aggression and bullying against its neighbours (and Australia) has increased in recent times, and all our “leader” has done is wish it didn’t happen!

China has told the US that it cannot stop them from establishing a sphere of influence in our area; and people who are not aware of this will also be unaware that the US made NO COMMENT at all to the threat. Why would they when Australia just ‘wished China wouldn't bully us’ and left it at that!

One commentator has written that the prospect of a Chinese standing military presence in our region (the Cook Islands are the latest tinpot bit of land available for a base to cave in to the Communists) is ‘haunting’ our defence planners. Really? It certainly doesn't seem to be haunting our “leader” and the bloke posing as defence minister - the one who believes that the desire of Russia to establish an air base 1400kms from Darwin is a lie because one of the BRICS told him so.

China has the Albanese government caught like rabbits in a spotlight; and there is no feeling that a Labor-lite Dutton government would be any different.

Australia is in big trouble. But too many people want to rubbish Donald Trump, the only hope for Australia. Idiots!

Ttbn

What makes you believe China would even need to fire a shot; the place is a Communist rag tag already.
And for a view of the what if, look at the plight Trump has left Israel in. Trump whims it out globally. You’re right on that one.
Trump has nil interest in anything further afield than the US perifery
.
We should in my view, be playing the Chinese game by allowing them in to bump around a few of the US assets.
Once the US Kings of greed feel their assets are threatened, the US will come running.

Nuremberg Dan,

How fortunate for Australia, you are not running foreign policy, and ttbn is not running the country. We should give thanks for such small mercies. Is yellow your colour, is your campaign for the Trumpet Of Patriots up and running? Fat Clive forever.

.

Dear Diver Dan,

.

Thanks for that link to the Touchstone article entitled “America After Christianity”.

I must say I couldn’t disagree more with Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Pope St. John Paul II that Christianity is moribund if not already dead.

Christianity, like all things human, has done some good, some bad, producing, in my opinion, an overall neutral result.

J.D. Davidson, the author of the article, sees the end of Christianity as a regression to a form of paganism. He published a book in 2024 entitled “Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come” – in which he makes a sobering assessment of the threats to the American way of life as religiosity declines.

On the contrary, in my view, Christianity has served its purpose and accomplished its mission. We have received, understood, and integrated the essence of its message. Our laws, lore and culture are largely inspired by those imposed on us by nature, completed by others founded in religious belief or which are simply the fruit of our developing conscience based on purely humanitarian considerations.

A hallmark of such laws and regulations for most of Western civilisation is the Mosaic code, which, according to Christian tradition, is thought to have been compiled about three and a half thousand years ago. Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been the principal promoter, perhaps the founder of Christianity, exercised a determining influence on the religious belief and philosophy of which we still find trace in modern, man-made law, today (known under its technical term of “positive law”), alongside traditional Mosaic law and Noahide code.

Christianity has been assimilated by Western civilisation and has become an integral part of our way of life. It has clearly attained its religious objective – unless, of course, some of its more ardent proponents, such as Archbishop Sheen, Pope St. John Paul II and the article’s author, attribute some additional objective to it – a political objective, perhaps ?

The author’s expressed opposition to the “wall of separation” between religion and politics would seem to indicate this possibility.

.

Banjo Paterson

Glad somebody read the article. I think the significance of the content of it is quite profound.

I’m a believer in the significance of a religious belief system for a healthy society which rests on an assumption that man is dwelling in two different realms, one physical and one metaphysical, that is, in two parts but entwined and inseparable until death, usually described as body and soul.
So a religious belief based on a long tradition of Judo Christian traditions and instructions are the only proven method to me which holds the two together in some continuous fashion.

There is my symbolic validity that holds a course of reason against a Godless world order and its counter arguments, which as the article in my link points out, defends the same symbolism of religion in its argument of support for the key theory, society is a lost cause without its guidance.

Demonstrate to me if you can, any great civilisation that rose to prominence without a universal belief system, which credits a higher power supremacy.
The West is lost for a foothold on the slippery slope of personal interest and greed; morality built on the principles of religion has evaporated, replaced with Secular ethics which is changeable and unanchored and definitely not status quo and believable.

I’ll leave you with that.

DD,

Good article, the basic premise that its only through Christianity that our society can obtain a state of moral justice and equality is debatable. Christianity does not have a great track record on supporting society to achieve a reasonable state of morality and equality, well not as we believe such to be. Were slave owning Christians in the past, any less Christian than those of today doing humanitarian work in the world? They both justify their moral position by their own interpretation of Christian teaching. If what I say is true, then there is something inherently wrong in what forms the basis of Christianity, the Bible. Maybe its time for a new addition Bible 2.0.

BP,

You say; "Christianity, like all things human, has done some good, some bad, producing, in my opinion, an overall neutral result." That is only true if you believe bad is neutralised in some way by good, that good is a counter balance to bad. In my opinion bad is bad, and good is good, they are mutually exclusive, and one can't justify the other.

.

Dear Diver Dan,

I wrote this before reading your last post but will come back to you on that tomorrow (it's bedtime for me now) :
.

Jesus said : « Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's »

Matthew 22:21 - Luke 20:25 - Mark 12:17
.

Paul the Apostle states in Romans 13 that Christians are obliged to obey all earthly authorities, stating that as they were introduced by God, disobedience to them equates to disobedience to God :

« Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God »
.

Thus, politics (“the things that are Caesar's”) and religion (“the things that are God's) are separate realms – “and ner the twain shall meet” !

.

.

Dear Diver Dan,

.

You wrote :

1. « I’m a believer in the significance of a religious belief system for a healthy society which rests on an assumption that man is dwelling in two different realms, one physical and one metaphysical, that is, in two parts … entwined and inseparable … »
.

I understand the god hypothesis was conceived by primeval man as a supernatural explanation of natural phenomena — a concept that successive generations refined and embellished down the ages, with all the frills of modern inspiration and scientific compatibility.

Religion has been a pervasive force in human societies for millions of years. As early as the Palaeolithic era, 3 million years ago, there is evidence of religious practices such as burial rites, cave paintings, and the use of sacred objects. Religion played a central role in the political life of primeval man. In Egypt, the pharaoh was considered a divine ruler, and the state religion was an essential part of daily life. The Mesopotamian civilisations of Babylon and Assyria also had state religions that played a crucial role in maintaining social order.

As Karl Marx later pointed out, "religion is the opium of the masses" maintaining peace and obedience to the rulers.

Civilisation is still very much a work in progress. It will be a long time before we can discard the crutches of religion and wander through life with confidence, unassisted.
.

2. « The West is lost for a foothold on the slippery slope of personal interest and greed; morality built on the principles of religion has evaporated, replaced with Secular ethics, which is changeable and unanchored and definitely not status quo and believable. »
.

Maybe it’s not the norm, Diver Dan, but in my experience, most people who correspond to that description are fervent practising Christians. In fact, they are the only ones I know like that.

The evolution of human conscience is ineluctable. We progressively gain a more precise understanding of our earthly condition, clarifying the obscure, piercing the unknown, and invalidating any previous hypotheses and assumptions rendered obsolete.

.

.

Dear Paul 1405,

.

You wrote :

« BP, … You say; "Christianity, like all things human, has done some good, some bad, producing, in my opinion, an overall neutral result." That is only true if you believe bad is neutralised in some way by good, that good is a counter balance to bad. In my opinion bad is bad, and good is good, they are mutually exclusive, and one can't justify the other. »
.

I am not a chartered accountant, but I did have in mind a financial trading account when I wrote those words, Paul. The “good” being on the credit side (Right), and the “bad” on the debit side (Left), Christianity being the trader.

What I am trying to say is that since Christianity was established 2025 years ago, it has, on several tragic historical occasions, engendered atrocious human costs for society. But it has, nevertheless, largely accomplished its mission of maintaining peace and harmony among the members of society on a vast scale throughout most of those 2025 years.

So how do we evaluate it ?

I say, "Christianity, like all things human, has done some good, some bad, producing, in my opinion, an overall neutral result."

It deserves neither to be admonished nor to be lauded. We probably could have done without it. We could, perhaps, have placed our faith in mankind itself.

After all, we were the ones who invented everything, weren’t we ?

.

Hi BP,

Thank you for the reply, I understand where you are coming from with the "chartered accountant" analogy, which is fine when comparing like to like. I much prefer this;

I am not a cordon bleu chef, if a cake recipe calls for half a pound of arsenic (bad) I can't add half a dozen eggs (good) and then claim my cake is neutral.

I can't agree; "But it (Christianity) has, nevertheless, largely accomplished its mission of maintaining peace and harmony among the members of society on a vast scale" In our times, both WWI and II were fought by men with Christian values, their Christianity didn't prevent the slaughter of millions. There is no evidence that Christianity has been responsible for maintaining peace and harmony among members of society. Maybe it has bred intolerance which has the opposite effect. Are Christians any less violent members of society than say Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc etc, me thinks not.