Does Trump Have Senile Dementia?

Does Trump have Senile Dementia? Up to minute 16 of the Garland-Johnson discussion, the topic is Venezuela. I found the discussion to be accurate and informative. I won’t summarize it here; please watch the interview if you have not done so.
At this point, Garland asks Larry what he thinks of Trump’s Davos speech, saying it seemed to him somewhat “deranged”. I said to myself, here we go again – Garland and Johnson are about to attribute Trump’s behavior to senile dementia. They are going to say he was just rambling, and making false statements that he really believed in but the audience knew were patently false. I consider that characterization to be a subjective impression, and it wasn’t mine. Mine was that it was a campaign speech, which is what Trump does best, and as such it was a barn-burner. I would not describe what I saw as “rambling”. My impression was that Trump was not just reading from a teleprompter but was speaking spontaneously. Larry and Garland call it “rambling” because they were already predisposed to believe this. Trump’s immediate audience of Davos muck-a-mucks may have laughed, but Trumps real audience was the American people. He has to win the coming midterms.
Both Venezuela and Greenland are really publicity stunts to distract people from his real foreign policy problems, which lie in West Asia. The popularity of Zionism is plummeting and the Zionist Lobby can’t pump in enough propaganda to save him. We shall see in the coming months whether this is enough to cause a widening break with Netanyahu, Israel and their lobby of Zionist billionaires. Maybe Larry and Garland will turn out to be right about Trump becoming senile, but I can’t say that from my own observation of the speech. One of the fallacies here is that Trump’s speech consists of “statements” that are supposed to be true or false. But as the post-Tractatus Wittgenstein says, the meaning of a word is its use. “Statements” are not necessarily being used to make true or false assertions about reality. If you don’t understand that when you listen to a campaign speech, you are quite naïve, to put it mildly. If you think that Trump “really believed” what he was saying, do YOU believe that when any other politician says anything in a campaign speech, he really believes what he says without further analysis? Then you are displaying the same naivete. This speech was rhetoric, not a series of scientific statements of fact, true or false.
I perked up my ears a bit when Larry suggested that Trump might really believe these factual falsehoods because he has been extensively lied to, which I believe is true. At lease it’s not because he is a senile dementia case like Biden, whom I did find to be suffering from it. It’s so easy to project what one already believes onto one’s observations. I also agree with Larry and Garland about Seymour Hersh. He is getting really old, much older than 80. (I’m 80 years young by the way). I also considered his career in Vietnam war reporting, which I was aware of when it came out, as an oasis of truth in a world of lies. I was quite convinced by his initial report of the bombing of the Nordstream pipelines. But after that, he started writing reports showing his sources actually came from the CIA. I think the CIA told him the truth about the bombings because they were proud of it. I wrote to him about this at the time his reports started coming out. I think Larry and Garland are probably right about Hersh, but this opinion is based on reading his articles, not on watching a video. Again, I won’t summarize what they say here, just say that I concur with it.
At minute 35 of the discussion, they start talking about Ukraine and Iran. Again, I find that analysis to be objective and informative, and I will not summarize it here, just say that I concur with it and recommend my readers to watch it.
I am writing these lines to say what I I find to be questionable about it, which is what they say about Trump based on watching Trump’s speech over the internet.