How long does Trump have left?

[whoremembers]

In office?
On earth?

Will he just carry on, an unwell man, until 2028? Or will he call it quits and resign?

Or will he pass before then anyway?

I am no Trump supporter, but he really is 'going out sad'

Edit: context
Its becoming clear that Trump has a kind of dementia. A guy on tiktok claims that at the World Cup Final, he was 'sundowning' by wondering around everywhere.

Him being handled there and in Turkiye, is proof enough for me. Apparently he constantly smells of urine as well, due to his meds.

Indira Gandhi was assassinated at the age of 66. She died in office. Golda Meir served one term as Israel's Prime Minister and left office in her mid 70s. So neither quite as old as Trump, and neither behaved like Trump. Fortunately behaviour like Trump's is pretty rare amongst leaders of wealthy powerful countries.

Is wanting rid of a child murdering, sex offender a left wing thing nowadays @Imaginary86 ? 🤔

While I would shed no tears over his demise, I would much prefer him to be made to face charge for the many felonies he is accused of. However, I have little faith in a country that allows a convicted felon to stand for president, or a justice system that postpones sentencing pending the outcome of an election.

Trump will never see the inside of a courtroom, nevermind jail. He would be declared Medically Unfit to stand trial.

while thank you for your analysis, can i ask what is your sources for your analysis , cia, nsa, dea, dod etc military ? or is it just educated guessing ?

I admit to a very weak stomach. A person in my orbit who was doubly incontinent I just couldn't cope with without gagging and worse.

LadyEleanorRosalindaWhitethorn, all my comments about things he has said come from having watched videos of him saying them. None is hearsay, any more than his reluctance to touch wounded veterans by shaking hands, or his being wildly offensive about "losers" who die in war or are captured and tortured by uncivilised opponents.

I don't think anyone has denied that he has declared war repeatedly on Iran, as well as repeatedly claiming to have destroyed their armed forces and weapons (which mysteriously continue to function in spite of his declarations). His on off on off on off ceasefires are a wonder to behold, and his Memorandums Of Understanding would hold more water if anyone other than him seemed to be taking them as meaning anything in particular.

He is on record as saying that China pays the tariffs he puts on Chinese goods, Canada the ones on Canadian goods, and so on. (As opposed to Americans, who actually pay them. Just another tax.)

For how he is regarded in the US, and in the world in general, I have paid attention to various polls conducted by both Republican and Democrat leaning pollsters over several months. I cba to trawl round finding them for you but I assure you they are there.

As regards loans for groceries, Newsweek is rated as "centrist" by the AllSides Bias Meter, and they were reporting the loans for groceries set-up more than a year ago: https://www.newsweek.com/number-americans-using-loans-groceries-soars-2065706 MSN reported the same phenomenon this month, but they are left-centre leaning.

I don't have to guess about the anti-vax, anti-healthy-people health supremo Trump appointed.

And I fail to see what the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency or Department of Defence has to do with any of what I wrote; perhaps you could explain? (I thought he wanted to rename the DOD The Department of War; has his Fox-puppy Hegseth gone back on that? I missed it.)

You realise that the CIA, NSA, DEA, DOD and military all perform different functions and are currently run by Trump loyalists. Anyone who ingests information released by them without outside fact checking would be very foolish indeed.

While there is some analysis in @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime's reply, there is a lot that is factual and very easy to check.

ah the old yes they are all in cohorts with trump so no one can be trusted, yet somehow mr joe blogs is much more trustworthy

I do hope that now you have read my reply to your post you are aware that my sources were Trump's own words and matters of public record such as his various ministers, not someone blogging about him?

By the way, I have a feeling the word you were looking for was cahoots, not cohorts.

So you don't understand the difference between propaganda and reliable outside reporting and analysis? You believe there's nothing between Trump administration press releases and 'Joe Bloggs'? Could you give a few examples of Joe Bloggs, please?

Your replies would suggest you are neither a consumer of history, US civics or trustworthy media.

It really isn’t the mentality of a sane president to be up all night on social media posting ramblings repeating the same thing. It’s quite obvious something isn’t at all right mentally, never mind physically - I’m on an anti Trump Republican Facebook group as well as occupy democrats - and the anti Trump republicans even all say that his behaviour is not acceptable for a president and is making them a laughing stock and they all hate the obvious corruption going on within the family. Pretty clear to all that he’s being propped up in position to avoid going to prison for the corporate frauds committed in order to make bail before the last elections and how bad that looks on Republicans- who should never have allowed him to be a candidate in the first place

yes but whats the context behind his words whats the bigger picture, its one thing if he says them, but why is he saying them, why alter the programs, whats the reasons the strategies the political thoughts behind them thats what im interested in

joe blogs meaning the public thinking they know trump and his strategies better than trump himself

All this information is readily out there and available but it involves engaging your brain. I don't think anyone on here is going to feed you predigested information like a bird feeding a baby.

The New York Times, The Bulwark, The New Yorker and The Atlantic are good places to start. The work of Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Anne Applebaum, Heather Cox Richardson and Timothy Snyder might also be useful. Propublica and Wired are also very good. Regime Change by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan is informative, as is reporting by David Farenthold. To name a few starting points for you.

and yet who controls those papers, who has ties to trump or anti trump supporters, how bias are the writers themsevles have the editors shaped or added or not added context with all the stories etc ?

personally no one can be trusted to give me a full single analysis so personally i prefer my own analysis anyway

Most of these sources and commentators exhibit a clear left-leaning or anti-Trump bias, often strongly so, particularly in opinion, analysis, and commentary.

Their factual reporting varies in reliability generally high for established outlets like NYT/ProPublica on straight news, but framing, story selection, loaded language, and focus frequently tilt against Trump and conservative positions.

Bias charts from AllSides and Ad Fontes Media which use multi-analyst panels across the spectrum and rate thousands of articles consistently place them on the left.

Well we've now got a Cabinet minister with a fraud conviction, albeit that it's spent by now.

I don't really know how I feel about that. On the one hand I think people should be rehabilitated but on the other if you are in high profile public office you shouldn't have significant convictions (albeit that all that really means is that you weren't caught).

I'd like to think we'd be rid of Trump soon but am not getting my hopes up. Why is the world being trashed by a load of old men?

I can tell when you've cut and pasted because it makes sense and there's punctuation. Yes, well, you know the saying (or maybe not) coined by Stephen Colbert about reality having a well-known liberal bias.

The point is that you can read or listen to these sources and if you have even half a brain, discern what's factual and form your own conclusions based on that. Better, certainly, than relying on White House press releases, which is good advice regarding any administration and even better advice with this one.

You seem to not have been able to form your own analysis, as far as I can tell? If you have, on what have you based it?

This implies Trumps has the slightest idea what he is doing, though, or has what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might think of as strategies. I am not convinced, having paid attention to his maunderings, that he does.

All the garbage about the reflecting pool being vandalised and having an I forget how long he said it was gash ripped in its liner, for example, was clearly off-the-wall at the very least. He initially said it was painted. Ripping a gash in paint would be futile, if it could even be done. And before you ask, Trump repeatedly said it was being painted "American Flag Blue" (which can be seen, now the pool has been drained yet again, to have faded to grey/gray already, less than a month after all the hoofaraw about it being all-new and all-American before the algae started to bloom, which Trump also attributed to vandals) before he started talking about it having a liner. I think he might mean that the paint constitutes a liner, but he dunnarf sound confused. Also paranoid. The paint started to peel off, and anyone who looked at it floating up to the surface was liable to arrest for having caused it to surface; mad.

As for your wondering what the context is in which he says things, again having listened to the actual speeches rather than reading the sanitised transcripts in the media, it is my opinion that he says whatever pops into his head at any given moment, and there is no particular context apart from, "Oh look, a microphone for me to talk into. They gave me one that didn't work once, and as for teleprompts, well, I gave up on those because nobody can make them work, even my uncle who was a Harvard and Yale professor for seventy years couldn't make them work, and he invented lasers and told me I was the most intelligent man he'd ever met"..... (This is itself a great deal more coherent than he often is, but I can't imitate stream-of-semi-consciousness ramblings all that well.)

What is behind HIM is a further question; I think that means who is or are his puppet-master(s). I have a feeling Putin may have been for quite a while, for example, and I am also reasonably sure the people responsible for producing Project 2025 (which Trump asserted he knew nothing about; maybe that was true) may be pulling his strings to get their policies implemented when he notices them.

my own assumptions so far and guesses then i prefer to learn from others have written take it with a pinch of salt then do further research

did you study or read Machiavelli's the prince ? or the book the 48 laws of power ? because im guessing different political strategists have and then they advise trump etc

Which is a non-answer. What's your analysis and how have you formed it?

If you want to discount my suggested sources because they're 'left-leaning' are you implyng your assumptions and guesses are more reliable?

i prefer to learn from others have written
What others?

then do further research
Where?

Too long.

Me too. Its so obvious when pointed out