I disagree. Trump has never had any problem criticizing whoever he wants. Hell that’s like 90% of the reason he wins elections. 2016 or 2006 Trump would absolutely criticize the Pope. Remember he basically started his campaign by criticizing a gold star family, which in US politics is more sacrosanct than the Pope
Though if he had done so in 2006 I don’t think he would have done it in a way that makes clear he has no idea who the Pope is. I would never expected him to write an erudite theological take down referencing the fifth lanteran council, but this is the product of a demented brain. FFS even your average Catholic Magat knows the Pope is a religious leader and doesn’t have a foreign policy or deal with secular crime.
I’m sure this is a fact Trump was well aware of and his crime and foreign policy comment was a very subtle dig about that, that stupid ignorant commentators just didn’t understand
The Vatican most certainly does have a foreign policy. And what amount to embassies in many foreign countries. And the equivalent of a Department of State. The Pope has most certainly clearly and publicly criticized trump’s behavior on the international stage. Repeatedly. And IMO quite rightly so.
It is utterly unsurprising that trump would bristle at any head of state with the temerity to criticize him. And therefore to declare that other head of state to have “terrible” policies. The Pope most certainly is a Head of State.
The bit about weak on crime takes slightly more awareness to understand. The “crime” trump’s talking about is being an immigrant. The various Popes for decades have gone on about the obligation of all civilized nations to welcome refugees and immigrants into their better, safer countries. The current Pope is no exception.
But in trump’s eyes, all immigrants are criminals, and the undocumented or refugees are especially criminal. Not wanting those folks rounded up into ICE concentration camps is being weak on crime. The current Pope has spoken out explicitly about the horrors of ICE’s recent behavior. Which pissed trump off mightily. As it was intended to do.
Is trump stupid? Yes of course. Is he increasingly demented on top of everything else wrong or absent between his ears since birth? You bet he is. Is that particular couple of sentences aimed at the Pope any evidence of anything except his boorish personality of longstanding fame? IMO nope.
I have seen a video in the recent past from people in the medical field who note that seniors who are unable to get up from a chair without bracing themselves have a much shorter lifespan. From what I remember, the test for this is that a person must get up from their chair unassisted (as in not using their arms for support) five times in a row in fifteen seconds. Trump would straight up croak if he tried that.
From the article:
One 2012 study even found that a variation of the STS test was a "significant predictor of mortality" of adults aged between 51 to 80. Individuals who scored low on the test were between five to six times more likely to die over a six-year period than those who scored highest.
It’s a natural thing for people to anthropomorphize animals and inanimate objects. So this is somewhat understandable, but it’s important to stay grounded in reality.
The Pope is certainly a Head of State - there are ambassadors to the Holy See after all. And the fact that they are ambassadors to the Holy See ( the governing body of both the Catholic church and the Vatican City State) rather than the Vatican City State ( the physical territory) is important, because that’s why the foreign policy of the Holy See is so different that it’s really not the same thing as other nations’ foreign policy. It should probably have a different name Most nations conduct their foreign policy to benefit their citizens and residents. The Holy See’s foreign policy is focused on Catholics worldwide , not the few residents or citizens of the Vatican City State. It doesn’t try to protect Vatican jobs, or protect the interests of Vatican businesses abroad or improve the Holy See’s standing in the world.
Granted totally. The Pope leads a nation with no borders, found everywhere on Earth. As such the nature of its interests are different than conventional countries. In many ways the Papacy holds itself out as the conscience of all humanity, not merely the Catholic ~20% thereof.
My point of contention was with @griffin1977’s categorical denial that the Pope and the Holy See have any role whatsoever beyond the purely religious speaking only to and for Catholic adherents. Which is a factually inaccurate POV.
It completely accurate to say the Pope is purely religious authority with no say in crime or foreign policy in the way a typical secular head of state decides them (and Trump seems to think he has).
There is a very small region in Rome that has to make some very trivial secular policy decisions like that, and the Pope is nominally the head of state of that region, but that doesn’t mean he makes any of those secular policy decisions. There is a president of the governate who is in practice the one who makes all those decisions (which are as I said completely trivial seeing as Vatican City is so small, and not really comparable to policy decisions for a real country)
And again if you think Trump is even dimly aware of all that, and was alluding to it when he made that statement, then I have a luxury condo in the gaza strip I want to sell you.
And would it make sense for one of those policies to be “AMERICA FIRST!” because Trump is mad that some guy in Italy isn’t putting him at their top of their list. Frankly, he’s probably mad that every country doesn’t have an America First policy but calling out the Vatican, of all places, is…dumb.
That seems to me a very unrealistic standard for just about any American adult over 40. 5 times in 15 seconds? Or perhaps it just requires some kind of definition of “much shorter lifespan.” How much shorter? Shorter than what?
And I don’t see how it says very much at all about Trump. He’s 79 and overweight, he probably has lots of indicators that predict a shorter lifespan, I doubt that how he gets up and down out of a chair is the most cogent.
I’m 69. I just tried it; eight times in 15 seconds without any assist. Easy-peasy. And I was sitting on a squishy, lowish couch, not a firm upright chair.
I’m over 60 now, in the past three years I’ve had 7 “procedures” and six months of chemo, and I’m capable of sitting down and standing up without any assistance whatsoever that quickly.
Part of the problem - not all of it, just part - is that people stop doing certain actions. After my hysterectomy I discovered I was starting to have trouble getting up off the floor. Some people would say “well, guess I’m not sitting on the floor anymore”. Me, I actually added that to my exercise routine. Now I can do that (even if my knees are a bit stiff) repeatedly, which made playing with my grand-nephew a lot easier last fall.
The maneuver isn’t a diagnosis as much as a screening test. If someone can’t get up and down unassisted from a chair that could be an indication of decline. Or maybe they’re like one of the regular customers at my store - no way that guy could get up from his chair unassisted but he has a spinal injury and is paralyzed. One look at his shoulders and arms and you can see that guy exercises, or at least keeps moving enough doing whatever he does when he’s not grocery shopping to maintain pretty good upper body strength. When someone can no longer do that maneuver, or can not longer do it easily, you have to ask what else might be going on.
Yeah, like I said - a month after a hysterectomy I found I could no longer do that. So I started practicing the movement. I can get up and down from the floor with out using my hands again. It’s not as easy as when I was 20 but I can definitely do it again.
I don’t find either test to be unreasonable, even if a lot of people over 50 either struggle with them or can’t do them at all.
