1. lanir says

    Seems true to me but I don’t like the guy or care what he thinks. His determination to be a danger to everything I care about completely overwhelms any sympathy I have for him as a person suffering health issues.

    The situation isn’t much like having a demented grandpa. You might stage an intervention in the early stages of that to get your grandpa to agree to seek help. But the situation with Trump is more like if your grandpa immediately staged a counter-intervention with as many people as you brought. And every one of them strongly agrees with him that you’re all delusional because he’s just fine.

  2. says

    As someone who has spent a lot of time around dementia patients, his verbal errors sound very familiar. I’d say he’s about at the point where someone with reasonably fast-advancing dementia is in 2-3 years. In another 2 years he’ll be unable to hide it anymore. He’s not really hiding it, though -- his tendency to sound like a parrot on repeat is for exactly the same reasons a parrot sounds like that: it’s looping and making familiar sounds that feel safe.

    They gave him the Montreal panel to measure cognitive decline, which is something that nobody without brain injury would take (I have taken it…) what appears to be going on is that his innate narcissistic tendency to believe the world is what he wants it to be, is tinged with dementia making it impossible for him to tell the difference.

    For what it’s worth, isn’t it absolutely shocking that a politician would confuse his opponents or historical events? That’s how far Trump’s braindamage has been normalized. It’s really shocking -- the guy is clearly unwell -- but the republicans are going to run him again in order to get a chance to sip at that sweet sweet well of power.

  3. John Morales says

    Ah yes, it was you, Tethys. You dutifully bray. You exhibit yourself.

    Actually, it was Sancho Panza.

    “Sancho Panza is a fictional character in the novel Don Quixote written by Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra in 1605. Sancho acts as squire to Don Quixote and provides comments throughout the novel, known as sanchismos, that are a combination of broad humour, ironic Spanish proverbs, and earthy wit. “Panza” in Spanish means “belly”.

    Anyway, it’s just funny that someone mixed the two things up so much that a fictional, satirical character that mocked the sentiments at hand was conflated with a historical, martial figure that became legendary.

    (Poseurs always give themselves away)

    Hey, did you notice how I still say Don Quijote instead of Don Quixote?

    (Mejico instead of Mexico, too)

  4. Tethys says

    Actually, it was Sancho Panza.

    Sí, but my phone corrected it to Poncho, which I find quite amusing given the OP

    However, it is Sancho who addresses Don Quijote as El Cid. I just copy/ pasted the relevant passages.
    I believe there might be an illustration by Salvador Dali for Don Quixote that is titled ‘El Cid’.

    I don’t know what you think that proves, other than that you are still miffed that I called you Don Quixote a week ago.

  5. John Morales says

    Tethys, the relevance eludes you, I get that. Because you didn’t get the point.

    I don’t know what you think that proves

    Wow. From my links, above:

    El Cid: “Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (c. 1043 – 10 July 1099) was a Castilian knight and ruler in medieval Spain. Fighting both with Christian and Muslim armies during his lifetime, he earned the Arabic honorific as-Sayyid (“the Lord” or “the Master”), which would evolve into El Çid (Spanish: [el ˈθið], Old Spanish: [el ˈts̻id]), and the Spanish honorific El Campeador (“the Champion”).
    Díaz de Vivar became well known for his service in the armies of both Christian and Muslim rulers. After his death, El Cid became Spain’s most celebrated national hero and the protagonist of the most significant medieval Spanish epic poem, El Cantar de mio Cid,[1] which presents him as the ideal medieval knight: strong, valiant, loyal, just, and pious. ”

    Don Quijote: “Don Quixote[a][b][c] is a Spanish epic novel by Miguel de Cervantes. It was originally published in two parts, in 1605 and 1615.
    The plot revolves around the adventures of a member of the lowest nobility, a [sic] hidalgo from La Mancha named Alonso Quijano, who reads so many chivalric romances that he loses his mind and decides to become a knight-errant (caballero andante) to revive chivalry and serve his nation, under the name Don Quixote de la Mancha.”

    Two entirely separate concepts, half a millennium apart, one real but one fictional, one risible and one admirable, one martial and the other pathetic, etc. etc.

    It evinces a very superficial (and mistaken) apprehension of both characters, and of their settings.

    (Poseur, you. It is evident)

  6. John Morales says

    [imagine mixing up Falstaff and King Arthur; that would be the analogue to mixing those two up]

  7. John Morales says

    Anyway. Point is, people are pretty simple. Monkey brains and all that.

    So, Trump is not just Trump the person, but Trump the mythic figure. Figurehead.

    Personification of a movement, an attitude.

    And those people are beholders.
    And what’s in their eyes is a mix of fact, fiction, wishful thinking, and hope.

    They see what they imagine is there, not what is there. Like you to me, Tethys.

    Trump is, in their view, a leader. The less cogent he sounds, the more dimensional his chess-playing.
    Nothing new.

    (Have we all forgotten the Q phenomenom?)

    You know, you could have stayed anonymous — the point I was making doesn’t lose potency because you aren’t in the picture.

  8. John Morales says

    To be fair, the Q phenomenon is on the wane; those who would get sucked-in to it have been, those who haven’t won’t (ignoring incoming cohorts), and it’s not really sustainable. Faddish, almost.

    Me, I reckon Trump has culminated already, whether or not he is losing it.

  9. Dr Sarah says

    In response to the next-to-last frame: If Trump were my grandfather, I’d be estranged from my grandfather. I’d have nothing to do with him.

    Agree with the rest of it, though, and that info needs to be out there as much as possible.

  10. John Morales says

    Dr Sarah, I do get your sentiment. But, surely it’s but a facet of the whole.

    If Trump were my grandfather, I’d be estranged from my grandfather. I’d have nothing to do with him.

    Despite what you’ve written, I reckon an upright person might still seek to influence them, the more so their potential for societal harm, and so leverage the familial relationship. You’re, I reckon, an upright person.

    (Some would think of it as a familial obligation; much of olde-timey literature is about that, which used to be a thing)

  11. birgerjohansson says

    Familial obligations inside the Trump family?
    When Fred Trump got dementia, Donald mocked him. After he died, Donald and his sister cooperated to cut the older brother out of the inheritance. This is what got Donald’s niece to hate him.

    When Donald gets obvious dementia, his kids will not visit him in prison. In fact, they may testify against him if it is what it takes for them to stay out of prison.

  12. Silentbob says

    Incidentally, I never understood why Morales acted all offended when he revealed his given name and I used it out of respect to his culture.
    Juan Ramón Morales sounds like a swashbuckling hero to my anglo ears. I wish I had such a cool name. X-D

    You sound like fucking Zorro man.

  13. Rob Grigjanis says

    John @8: Which of Falstaff and Arthur do you think was a real person? Neither were.

  14. anat says

    I thought there was at least some research showing King Arthur was loosely based on a real person? Obviously most of the stories about him were fictional, but the claim was that at least one of the key battles in his alleged career was a true event.

  15. sonofrojblake says

    isn’t it absolutely shocking that a politician would confuse his opponents or historical events?

    I don’t know… I’d say the ones that could be trusted to know history -- even really recent history -- is in the single digits of percent. Most of them come across as thick as pigshit. I mean, there’s the odd outlier who’s actually switched on, but most of them seem to me to be professional schmoozers with not only no real knowledge of current events, but no interest in them either.

  16. Tethys says

    Tethys, the relevance eludes you, I get that. Because you didn’t get the point.

    Whining about being called Don Quixote is your point. I think it’s hilarious that you’ve now decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to be whacked muy maltrecho by a windmill.

    I’m well aware that El Cid is a historical person, and Don Quijote is a novel where Sancho addresses his knight errant as ‘El Cid’. My lord.

  17. John Morales says

    Whining about being called Don Quixote is your point.

    No, my point was you imagined I was tilting at windmills, because I understood the intent of the “joke” and how it doesn’t work without a particular mindset and explained to those who didn’t get it. You still don’t.

    And you made about as inept a reference as one could make — the character is pretty much my opposite.

    And then you mixed up the character with another.

    Now, you imagine I am “whining” — heh.

    Just as you see me as set upon some Quixotic quest, so do MAGAs see Trump, except they approve.

  18. lanir says

    @John Morales #12:

    Familial obligations are kind of a can of worms. The basic issue with them is that they depend on an older view of family where you’re kind of stuck with each other.

    This setup is prone to abuse and as we’ve gotten better means of communicating with each other the sheer scale of that abuse and how frequently it happened prompted the breaking of that mold. Divorce is much easier and more common. This part is another whole can of worms but children can be taken from abusive homes. The family can be broken up because it is sometimes the only way to keep any part of it intact and healthy. Analogies to amputation come to mind.

    With many modern families I think it’s less a question of whether one is upright as it is a question of whether the other party has crossed certain lines. And those lines are not universal (which is again a whole lot of worms). My point isn’t that you’re wrong, it’s that there isn’t one right way to look at this sort of familial obligation.

  19. Tethys says


    Soy Sancho. Why are you so upset at being called Don Quixote that you’ve now hijacked another thread and invented an entire tale of my supposed conflating two Spanish knights?

    Those giant dresses are the windmills and I was just trying to kindly point out that in that thread, you WERE battling imaginary foes. (Among other things)

    Untwist your knickers

  20. John Morales says

    Why are you so upset at being called Don Quixote […]

    What makes you imagine I am upset?

    I am telling you it is very, very inappropriate and very, very silly.

    Trust me on this; I am no idealist, no romantic, I don’t go out to right wrongs, I don’t think much of chivalry, and I don’t misapprehend reality. Nothing like a Don Quijote.

    Basically, it was a very, very stupid characterisation of me.
    It doesn’t work. And I’m pointing that out.

    I don’t tilt at windmills, I don’t even tilt.

    […] that you’ve now hijacked another thread and invented an entire tale of my supposed conflating two Spanish knights?

    I made a reference to clueless people who utterly misapprehend someone’s character and actions, and though I left it anonymous, you just had to jump in.

    Those giant dresses are the windmills

    I’m not the one that has a problem with Catholic priestly garb and imagines they are dresses; you are.
    Again: they are basically Roman garments, and they always were and remain men’s garments.
    So, call the person who imagined that men in dresses should not opine about trangender people Quixotic, and I’ll probably ignore it.

    I was just trying to kindly point out that in that thread, you WERE battling imaginary foes

    Well, I can’t argue with your utterly erroneous perception, but I was addressing the people who imagined male-only priests in traditional vestments are men in dresses. They’re not.

    Nothing imaginary about the claims, nor about my correction.

    No foes, even. Just mildly clueless and jaundiced people making bullshitty and incorrect comments.

    Untwist your knickers


    Tell me more about how my knickers (!) are twisted.

    (Men in knickers! Can’t have an opinion about transgender issues, because knickers are female-coded)

    Again, just as you utterly misperceive me, so do MAGAs misperceive Trump.

    (Obs, in opposite directions, but a misperception is still a misperception)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *