"Trump And Biden Are Both Suffering From Dementia"?

"Trump And Biden Are Both Suffering From Dementia"??? Does Trump have dementia? Does Joe Biden? Odds are they don't, odds are they're both medicated. Joe likely suffers from a few health issues and gets some help with that, after a long day he isn't on form in an interview. Trump is likely on lots of meds, above and under the table, lower his stress and blood pressure but boost him to stay active enough, a built-in ego problem on a scale that makes Hillary Clinton, Obama and Biden[etc.] look meek. I don't think Biden is really suffering from dementia, we'd need Evidence of that before we even suggest it, and a few video clips don't cut it. Trump's many blunders suggest his narcissism and instability, odds are he is, like many wealthy older gents, on a number of medical drugs to stay on form. I think this explains much about him. I doubt either of them is truly suffering from dementia, but evidence may go the other way in the future. And one could argue that one or both of them show the signs, but you're buying that bullshit from biased sources. So in practice, you're shared faux news based on who you like, which set of politics you respect. And, because this is primarily a matter of social media speculation, I believe that points at the obvious way that social media is a failed social experiment. As many other efforts on social media that are meant to express the will of the people, or the news as it is, or whatever the case may be, tends to be inaccurate at the very least.

Trumpeters Vs. SJWs: a quick thought.

Funny thing, these videos of feminist SJW fails are debates between passionate students in many cases, these students don't represent the centre, nor liberalism, nor centre-conservativism, but rather a political view that is more of a sweeping simplicity. A basic view grounded fundamentally on what they are convinced of at a young age, not a sceptical view as much as a strong but underfed political knowledge. Also, the troubling thing is how they boil down an ideology to what they want or are told as if a sum of an ideology is what they wish to accept, and all beyond their interpreted view is not truly what an ideology contains.

Trumpeters and left-progressives locked in conflicts and permanent apologetics over the ideological differences they enjoy, making the story up as they go, making facts fit, lying outright for their beliefs. And, these sides are supposedly rational while their opposition is irrational, even though they both like to express only their victories in a style of a propagandist. Not that every student or political person is involved, a fraction of society is involved, and fringe media groups, rarely the mainstream, give credence to such beliefs.

I dare say the mountains out of molehills created in such discussions serves little value, to claim it's agendas here or there with a lack of evidence is fair pathetic, to suggest conspiracy theories, to bend the facts, it is a deceptive affair.

The prideful and the professional victim have little to teach you, their roles serve little value, their beliefs are distorted, they fail to operate as honest people when it is inconvenient.

All this said, I dare say there are good people involved, but to be good doesn't mean you must be right, and to be politically fooled doesn't make you somehow a bad person by an automation.

trump fans?

Interventionism and Isolationism?

Interventionism has become a term thrown around for any nation that gets involved in any war, suggesting warmongering, even in cases of smaller conflicts.  Equally, non-interventionism is used by people to suggest that one avoids war in almost every case. 

The terms themselves are styles more than acts, the intervention is by one who intervenes, thus any nation intervening is interventionist, and non-intervention is not doing as much, in the modern political environment such terms are made foggy, since most of us admit there are good and bad reasons for intervention, and in come cases to intervene is a must. 

So in actuality, there are massively pro-war politicians, somewhat pro, somewhat against, and highly against even when we may be best of intervening in a disastrous period for a region, such as a civil war or to cast off a hazardous tyranny, or both.  These options are made overly simple, into a binary system of warmongering vs. peace-loving, or pro-democracy vs. isolationism. 

The trouble is who you listen to, who you accept as an authority, and thus, which biases you then hold on to, is it Fox News, The Young Turks, or another News, or News-like service?