https://potus.com/presidential-facts/presidents-age-at-death...
This isn't what his doctors have said.
>...In 1989, just a few months after he completed his second term as president, Reagan underwent surgery to drain a subdural hematoma caused by a fall from a horse in Mexico. Such brain injury can increase the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease or perhaps even cause it.
https://hekint.org/2023/11/30/the-medical-history-of-ronald-...
After this Reagan had annual exams for signs of Alzheimers and was diagnosed in 1994.
After the incidents during the campaign I imagine Trump is very paranoid, mostly stays safely indoors and minimizes time in public. I haven't heard anyone say so but I suspected that was one reason he had an indoor inauguration (along with the other reasons people speculated about).
1985 was a full 20°F colder.
I think it is gullible to take this explanation at face value.
Edit: actually, even actuarial tables give a 78 year old a 50% chance of living another 9 years.
If I were one of such doctors, I'd stay the hell away. Apart from the reputational damage of helping someone who advocated for injecting bleach, there is the fact that they just won't get paid. Trump stiffs all his contractors.
I don't think he's going to die in office (which wouldn't help much anyway; if anything, it would mean "instant canonisation" and weeks of TV programs extolling his virtues). I think it's sad that this is where most of the thinking population of the US is: hoping for the old dictator to die, like some African or South American backwater.
And keeping old people limping along for as long as possible is one thing US medical care is great at, so long as they can pay for it. If it takes $1,000,000 per week to keep them alive, as long as the check clears they will move heaven and earth to keep them going, and the president effectively has infinite medical care credit through the state.
I suppose the FBI ends up being a partisan agency, like all other US government agencies.
Regardless, if trust is eroded between countries [1] [2] [3], why would the police of these countries cooperate, and share intel?
[1] Threaten those in NATO paying < 5% of annual budget to defense won't be protected by US (the US pays less).
[2] Threatening a colony of a NATO partner (Greenland, of Denmark).
[3] Threaten all your [now former] friends with tariffs.
FVEY is dead. NATO is dead. And any cooperation between US and NL is also dead. However, CA and AU might increase their cooperation with EU.
>...In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness.
>...The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence.
https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=...
2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look.
3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe.
NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.
Ouch ouch... I have to tell you that you got this backwards. Those tech companies are very happy to hoard billions of dollars from EU citizens. The problem is more that they don't like competition and have utmost disrespect for human rights like privacy. There were lawsuits for the very basic thing of ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior.
The real tragedy US people do not even know anymore what a healthy, competitive economy does entail. US companies do not like to compete, they like to kill competition.
I did not even mention they facilitate illegal stuff, poison society with disinformation and function as a springboard for adversary states. Those slaps on the wrist were a shame. Google, Apple and MS should have had received a ban for 20 years, but the EU has been to late to decouple, and now they find themselves in the grip of tech oligarchs.
(Luckily, some of them are also openly nazi-supporters, otherwise the Afd would miss some keynote speakers).
One example: I was involved in the implementation of Article 15/17 at one of the FAANG companies. Throughout the process, we had many meetings with governmental bodies in the EU and, specifically, with the European CMOs (many of these are government controlled in Europe). It was clear as day that all they wanted from us was to pay up. It was literal extortion and had nothing to do with helping the "creatives" or fair competition or anything else.
An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.
I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
Maybe because no one makes business decisions based on emotions? The situation could be unfair but you might still choose to continue to engage just because it's beneficial for the company for all other reasons. All things considered, they still make money in that region, maybe not as much as they would have made otherwise.
> An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.
I'm telling you what we heard directly from the gov agencies and you're saying that I wasn't in the right meetings? Maybe, but I at least have some first-hand knowledge to share here and not just snarky comments.
> I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
No, I don't understand why and I'm not very interested in continuing this conversation either. You don't seem to have much to add it.
(A FAANG company usually has a lawyer or two. In an extreme case a fine would have been handled as a settlement for a complex series of violations by the company. The FAANG lawyer would understand it if the company still had a case or not. We know that FAANG companies have been in violation of various laws. Maybe FAANG got lucky and got a deal. That is unfair, I think a market access ban for several years is more fair for all people. The EU doesn't have a Trump. What you experienced was most likely competent and educated personnel from its executive branch. But you did not understand what your company did wrong. Hate me now, thank me later for giving a reality check.)