this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
264 points (97.1% liked)

politics

26576 readers
2047 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 65 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

I rotated the photo so that the runway in the background is aligned with the horizon. Also filled in the resulting gaps to not lose too much of the original photo. Looks like it was tilted on purpose. The rotated image is much less dramatic but also boring. I guess sometimes you don't need AI to manipulate people.

Edit: I don't get why people think it's necessary to resort to stupid little tricks like these. This is just dumb

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Was it to make the Trump side look taller?

[–] Junkers_Klunker@feddit.dk 7 points 1 month ago

Dont come here with reason and facts.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Wow. Look at Trump's high heels. That's like... Insane.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bit does he do it? Like the center of gravity must be shifted via a massive belt that has lead weights towards the butt side. Otherwise how can most of his body be leaning forward like that?

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago

Do this experiment. Click on the image and then zoon into it such that you can scroll left and right. Then scroll to hide each person past the end of your screen. You will see that for everyone, their face and belly disappear the moment their shoes disappear. Except for his most respectful excellence. But I guess that's the trick. Most of the mass is on the shoes. Its only some that's leaning forward.

OK back to other things.

[–] CaptSneeze@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What’s with both of their shoes? Newsom looks like he has no toes and his shoes taper to nothing. Trump looks like he’s wearing construction boots with a heel lift.

[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

Newsoms shoes are in the shadow, so that's not anything. Donald j Trump, the child rapist, has lifts in his shoes to make himself taller, and to hide how much of a fat fuck he is.

[–] Cenzorrll@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I think they might have vertically aligned to Newsom because there isn't a good horizon in this photo, and trump is known to stand at an angle. I would have used the light post out of focus in the back, though.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

like... why is he diagonal

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lifts in the shoes. Why u think he was so worried about getting his shoes in the assassination attempt?

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You mean the staged photo op?

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hey, they had to kill some random trump supporter to make it convincing.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Hey, they had to kill some random trump supporter to make it convincing.

It's not as though he gives a shit about his supporters.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Frontotemporal dementia symptoms

Physical issues

  • May develop a stooped or forward-leaning posture.
  • Reduced trunk flexibility and difficulty maintaining proper alignment are commonly observed.

Behavioral and Personality Changes

  • Increasingly inappropriate social behavior such as rudeness or impulsivity.
  • Loss of empathy and inability to read social signals, often seeming cold or selfish.
  • Poor judgment, loss of inhibition, and impulsive actions, including compulsive behaviors (e.g., tapping, clapping).
  • Loss of drive or motivation, withdrawal from activities, and lack of interest (apathy) that can resemble depression but without sadness.
  • Repetitive or ritualistic behaviors, such as walking the same route or humming.
  • Changes in eating habits, such as overeating, eating sweet foods, or compulsively putting things in the mouth.
  • Decline in personal hygiene and neglect of self-care.

Language and Communication Problems

  • Increasing difficulty using and understanding spoken or written language.
  • Loss of vocabulary, trouble naming objects, and forgetting word meanings.
  • Hesitant or telegraphic speech (using very simple sentences).
  • Getting words out of order or repeating phrases.[nhs]
  • Eventually, some may lose the ability to speak (mutism).

Any of this sound familiar…

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's be fair. He never had any empathy to begin with ...

[–] oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

Born with dementia.

[–] Gnugit@aussie.zone 29 points 1 month ago (6 children)

How does that thing stand leaning forward like that?

[–] Lon3star@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Titanium hamstrings, space shuttle grade

[–] Gnugit@aussie.zone 5 points 1 month ago

It's not the Gavin on the left holding him up.

[–] troy_frizzell@mstdn.social 11 points 1 month ago

@Gnugit @just_another_person

Just like people can get accustomed to walking in high heels, a raging narcissist can get used to standing in the heel lifts that they use to feel tall.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Michael Jackson is his idol.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

"He was good with kids."

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Very strong plastic girdle holding in his enormous hamberder gut

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I looks like everyone behind him is doing the same thing to an extent. Almost as if it made his look less obvious

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Look at the horizon.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago

Are the other two leaning with him to make him look less tipsy? The only straight one in that image is Newsom.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Does this not destroy his argument or betray his own lies.

Either:

A. His assertion is that the FBI under Biden's direction or agents into the crowd to indie violence. This is demonstrably false since Biden did not control the FBI and therefore could not have done this. He could have said agents but he chose to lie that it was the FBI, and in doing so, crippled his own argument.

Or

B: There were agents in the crowds tasked with inciting violence. These agents must have been working under Trumps direction as it was his FBI. Therefore he is telling on himself. This time the lie is under whose orders the agents were acting.

I believe there were no agents there. Just a bunch of sycophants who revere trump so much they would be willing to root in jail for him and that their cause is so righteous that overruling democracy is fine.

[–] SparkyBauer44@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think that every criminal with an 'R' on his chest thinks that they will be pardoned for any and everything.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

So far so good!

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

they would be willing to root in jail for him

For many of them, jailhouse rootin' would be a benefit in and of itself.

[–] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why do we have old fuckers running anything? Clearly, in the past few presidencies now aside from Obama, we've watched old-as-fuck presidents practically decay in office. And they aren't getting better.

Who is next in 2028? Some 92 year old?

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

in the last election, the Democrats ran a woman of multicultural descent of relative youth.

Unfortunately, the “Don’t vote because Israel, something something” was widely amplified and resulted in almost catastrophic damage to the strategic societal goals that the very same people that might be influenced by such a message would hope to achieve.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nyet, these were concerns of many peoples who support the Palestine. They had no support from others despite wild suggestion of the internet commenters. Candidate Harris also was not good supporter of working class against the capitalist owners.

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago

yes, they are valid concerns, but being encouraged to sit it out because the non–fascist party isn’t a perfect mirror of your moral ideals, Is the worst choice.

Who of the viable candidates best represents the working class, Palestine, sustainability – that’s who you choose, otherwise the needle moves opposite of all your goals.

Throwing away your vote because of a checklist of many possible moral ideals Is a behavior pattern that is being propagated to steer moral people away from electoral participation. The results are obvious.

[–] ianonavy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I voted for Kamala Harris and encouraged others to do as well, and even I think it’s naive to blame leftists and pro-Palestine advocates for the Democrats’ loss in 2024. The Democratic establishment campaign was basically just, “We’re not as horrible as the other guy”. That was plainly not enough to excite people to vote. It worked in 2020 at the start of a global pandemic, but it was not going to work again. People stayed home not because they internalized some message from chronically online leftists, but because Democrats failed to give them a reason to take time off work and stand in line.

It’s in the data. Across four battleground states, over 900,000 registered Democratic voters stayed home compared to 2020; Trump only won those states by 500,000. If you look at analyses of the data (Cooperative Election Study, Pew Research Center, Catalist), many of them conclude that it’s because the Democrats failed to provide a real plan to improve the lives of their own voter base, especially in economically disadvantaged, nonwhite communities. It’s not even a question of the plan being too progressive or not enough—there was just no clear plan.

In contrast, look at Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral primary campaign in New York City where they saw the highest voter turnout in history. Early voting more than doubled compared to 2021. His campaign was grounded in actually solving problems for everyday people, especially with regard to affordability, and it worked. Establishment Democrats who are in the pockets of billionaires are so terrified of this that they are pouring their money and endorsements into a guy who resigned in disgrace following sexual harassment allegations, instead of the guy who won the primary. What ever happened to “vote blue, no matter who?”

If the Democrats want to actually win elections, they need to deliver a plan to the American people that shows they can follow through on making life materially better for everyone, not just their billionaire and corporate donors. Otherwise, they just seem like controlled opposition and no one will care to show up at the polls.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

With changes in biotech, who knows? I don't think age is the issue, by the way. Taco could be 35 for all I GAF. I sure hope that one day biotech makes 92 year olds in politics an everyday thing...

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago

We need age limits. No running if you're older than 67

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

The problem is that while trump may not know what he's talking about, his followers will believe him anyway. So it's important to loudly and repeatedly point these things out.

Of course the media should but won't do it, so it's good that Newsom is calling attention to it, but even then he has to be aggressive and sensationalist about it for the media to report what he says. It's a role he has taken on, possibly detrimental to his career (or maybe not--we'll see) but it's a role that someone with influence like his needs to play so I'm glad he's stepping up.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I like this strategy, because in order to try to defend Taco, Taco or one of his dimwit supporters will say that of course Taco knew that, tacitly admitting Taco was lying.

It also reminds everyone that has fallen asleep that Taco was responsible for the terrorism of J6.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Is this the new Smooth Criminal video?

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Isn't there some kind of protocol for when the president is mentally unable to do the job?

load more comments
view more: next ›