I would be cautious of being overly dramatic and psychoanalyze a political candidate from a few on-screen appearances. A similar tactic was manufactured by the right-leaning media to cast doubt on Clinton’s mental stability by reading too much into a few broadcasted appearances.
In the end, it only serves to enhance your opposition stances as most will see through this charade and conclude you have no actual argument against the person, so you resort to flailing your hands to make a spectacle in order to convince.
If you want to talk about Trump’s character, then speak against his character. indicate where the problems are in a way that your audience can accept and debate. The same thing when you discuss his policies.
Throughout this election cycle, there were way too many false equivalences and invoking the names of the most awful, the most hated, and those that most will agree to have been a blight on humanity. When you do that, people stop listening. People perceive you as a fraud, which is the basis for what is now referred to as “fake news.”
I can go on and describe Clinton or Sanders in similar ways, comparing them to the most hated in history. It doesn’t make it true and doesn’t really address the real issues — if anything, it takes the focus from the issues. Ultimately, this is at least one of the reasons Trump won. No one addressed any of the flaws. Instead, people chose to focus on the nuances and reading too much into the most minute details to make their point.