Donald Trump’s recent speeches have taken on a level of incoherence that’s raising new concerns about his mental acuity. As noted by MSNBC columnist Zeeshan Aleem, Trump’s latest address in Potterville, Michigan, exemplifies this unsettling trend, demonstrating a degree of confusion that seems more pronounced than ever.

Aleem cited a recent speech in Potterville, Michigan, where Trump’s usual rambling took on an even more confusing dimension. “The words below were taken verbatim,” Aleem wrote, quoting Trump’s disjointed remarks:

“She destroyed the city of San Francisco, it’s — and I own a big building there — it’s no — I shouldn’t talk about this but that’s OK I don’t give a damn because this is what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world — sell and get the hell out of there, right? But I can’t do that. I don’t care, you know? I lost billions of dollars, billions of dollars. You know, somebody said, ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two, three billion. That’s OK, I don’t care.’ They say, ‘You think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nobody. They always say, I don’t know if you know. Lincoln was horribly treated. Uh, Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson they say was the worst of all, that he was treated worse than any other president. I said, ‘Do that study again, because I think there’s nobody close to Trump.’ I even got shot! And who the hell knows where that came from, right?”

Aleem then attempted to make sense of the speech, noting its disjointed and confusing nature. “This is … impossible to follow,” he concluded.

Aleem observed that Trump’s speeches often contain dense asides that make it difficult for even seasoned political observers to discern his intended message. In this instance, Trump’s comments jumped erratically from discussing Kamala Harris’ policy record to his financial losses in San Francisco, and finally to a dubious claim about his own historical treatment. This erratic speech pattern not only muddles his points but also introduces unsettling elements, such as an unfounded conspiracy theory about being shot.

“Trump’s asides stack atop each other with such density that it’s dizzying for even professional political observers to discern what he’s trying to get at. Why is a presidential candidate leapfrogging from talking about Harris’ policy record to the bath he took on a property he owns to where he ranks on the list of “horribly” treated presidents? His asides themselves are often unintelligible. What is this alleged anecdote about his San Francisco property meant to convey? What does he even mean about how horribly presidents were treated? To cap it all off, Trump casually tossed out an insidious conspiracy theory. He implies we don’t know who shot him, when of course we do,” he continued.

Aleem argued that Trump’s unconventional communication style has long been seen as a hallmark of his political persona. However, with the focus shifting to a younger opponent like Kamala Harris, concerns about Trump’s mental acuity have become more pronounced.

“Trump has been embedded in the public consciousness as a rule-breaker for so long that it can be easily to forget how far he is from fulfilling the basic requirement of a politician to speak clearly.”

“Questions about Biden’s mental acuity were rightly raised in this election cycle,” Aleem wrote. “Questions about Trump’s mental acuity should be raised, too.” He pointed out that Trump’s incoherence in the Potterville speech is just one of many examples raising red flags about his fitness for office.

“It’s genuinely chilling to imagine a less capable, less focused Trump handling another major public health crisis such as Covid. Trump’s seeming decline isn’t his worst quality — but it likely would make many of his vices worse.”

Here’s part of Trump’s speech: