This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump looks really under the weather in his UN speech. He's stumbling through his lines, and while he still has a little bit of the Trump flair at times, overall he looks like he's half asleep, without his normal punchiness. He's almost nothing like his normal rally Trump fieriness from just a year or so ago. His ability to connect threads of thought and guide the monologue in a meaningful way is vastly better than Biden from last year, but his physical health seems bad.
I wonder if age is actually catching up to him or if he just didn't get enough sleep or something. If he's actually this worn out on a regular basis, one might ask the question reminiscent of the Biden administration, which is, what's actually going on in the administration?
The mottizen Objectively Rational Classical Liberal cope is always that Trump is going senile and has one foot in the grave - I'm told by reputable posters he's been a couple months from Bidening out for almost a decade. For anyone who remembers the details of Trump's first term and the 2020-24 interregnum, though, it seems pretty clear that Trump is energized whenever he's on the campaign trail ahead of an election, or, sometimes, fighting a very particular fight like the early covid-era daily press conferences, and outside of that he doesn't bring the full stadium rally energy, plays a lot of golf. If previous election cycles are a guide, libs will be perfomatively worried about this for about six months, then right-wingers will be nail-biting worried about him not doing enough for the midterm elections for about six months, then the Trump rally machine will kick in and conservatives will cheer and libs will goldfish.
I mean, an octogenarian being a bit past his prime isn’t the weirdest thing thats ever happened. Statistically he’s going to go senile eventually.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, but as time goes on, the likelihood of it becoming true increases. I don't think he's at the point of cognitive decline just yet, but I think you are right about physical lack of energy and maybe he's starting to slow down mentally as well. He's 79 now, when he hits his 80s I would definitely expect a gradual diminishment.
In the bible it says: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
So every morning I get up and say "The world is going to end today, today is the beginning of the end times." And every hour on the hour I say "Now, it's going to happen now."
Am I saving the world? Maybe. Probably. Of course if the world ever does end, then my experiment still has value, because it will prove God doesn't exist (because if he did I wouldn't have been able to predict the end).
The definition of knowledge is still a tricky thing, but even going by the naive Theaetetus-Gettier definition of “true justified belief”, it can be argued that merely saying “the world is gonna end in an hour!” doesn’t amount to actually believing it, and in any case, there doesn’t seem to be any justification. So if we assume that God uses that definition of knowledge, we can conclude that He would not consider you to “know” that the world is about to end, and there would thus be no contradiction in his ending it.
More options
Context Copy link
I can only admire your steely determination.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, though there's something about Trump that makes me think he'll keep going fairly strong and entirely Trumply until he keels over one day. But he's always had cycles of energy running along with his political life - you can see that every election cycle Trump fans get a little nervous about his energy the first couple rallies until he hits his stride and we have the campaign trail Trump back - so I don't think that trying to gauge Trump's energy or age based off a couple news cycles is particularly useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
link?
I recall Darwin used to bang the drum, and ymeskhout got really into it later (mostly, I believe, after he stopped posting here).
Eventually they'll be right, I suppose. And the probability that it's "this time" increases with every miss. But I don't see any other reason to assume this current time is far more credible than all the previous ones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't keep links to past Motte arguments, but I loosely remember such arguments climaxing around the time of the first Biden-Trump debate. Beforehand it was a deflection to accusations of Biden's mental fitness, and immediately afterwards it was a cope argument. In both contexts, it was an equivocation defense against accusations of Biden's fitness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One reason why I didn't consider voting for Kamala (of many) was that if she were half-way competent she should have taken control of the Biden White House. Either become President herself, or otherwise controlled things. If the Cabinet didn't think she'd make a good president, why should I?
I give Vance to after the Midterms, when he could serve 2.5 Presidential terms legally. If he doesn't take over and Trump keeps deteriorating to the degree we saw Biden, it tells me that he's not actually a leader. That doesn't necessarily mean the 25th Amendment gets invoked right away, but there would be a clear move of the Cabinet deferring to him, him taking more direct actions, etc.
Well, according to the book excerpts, the Biden staffers and administration and Bidens were determined not to let her do anything like that, so they deliberately kept her overshadowed and in the background, or handed her thankless tasks. Plus, the VP is supposed to stand by and just be ceremonial/decorative, not try to muscle in on the presidential turf.
The sniping between her and some ex-Biden staffers is entertaining, but to be fair, no VP really gets a chance to take over unless the President is pretty much incapable, and in Biden's case there was a combination of "we have to cover this up so as not to give Trump and the Republicans any advantage" and Jill etc. were keeping the reins firmly in their own grip, with no intention whatsoever of handing over power to Kamala at all.
Our Constitution and the 25th Amendment is pretty strong evidence against this. They're the president's backup, expected to take over the role if the president becomes incapacitated.
If Harris couldn't take on Jill Biden, then how can she possibly take on Putin? Why didn't we have Jill running for president instead?
No one intends to hand you the reins, a leader TAKES the reins. Like Jill took the reins. Harris could have gotten the Cabinet on her side and just pulled a 25th, nothing Jill could have done. But the Cabinet preferred a zombie Biden and Jill in charge over Harris.
Likewise, if Trump becomes a zombie, I fully expect Vance to take over, otherwise he's not worth backing for 2028.
The VP takes over if the President is incapacitated. Now it has come out that Biden was functionally incapacitated, but nobody wanted to rock that boat. Everyone wanted to keep it hushed up, and that was part of Harris' problem: be the whistleblower and be blamed for sowing division and revealing all the dirty linen, or keep her mouth shut and hope that Joe would stick to the plan and hand over to her?
As for taking on Jill Biden, nobody wanted that fight. And yeah, maybe Jill should run herself 🤣
More options
Context Copy link
That's not what a competent takeover would look like. It would be more like "Weekend At Biden's" for the remainder of the term, and an announcement that he's not going to seek reelection, and is endorsing Kamala from day one.
There's no reason to force someone on your team to go through the humiliation of being declared unfit for office, unless it absolutely cannot be avoided, but the way they handled it was an absolute blunder, preventing anyone from walking away from the situation with their dignity intact.
Yeah, and I hope I was clear in my first comment that I think Vance can do a Weekend at Trump's and that would still show competent leadership. But that's clearly not what Kamala did, she was comfortable getting shut out of the decision tree and then couldn't fight back into a position of leadership.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMHO the Biden admin showed how the 25th Amendment is broken. His cabinet of lazy political hacks enjoyed having no boss. Imagine if you were terrible at your job already, but you knew your boss wasn't going to even check in on you for months, if not years at a time? Also you just gave zero fucks about the organization you were in, and only cared about enriching yourself?
If they 25A'ed Biden, their gravy train would have come to a screeching halt. They might have actually been expected to do things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Didn’t he just go from rally in Arizona to Europe; not surprising he’d be tired
That's the excuse some Democrats keep using. But, his trip to Europe ended more than a week before the debate and he took it off to rest. That is as well rested as someone can be.
More options
Context Copy link
If anything I find Trump supernaturally spry.
He's in his second term of some of the whackiest politics ever to happen to his country in which he almost got assassinated and almost went to prison several times and was almost constantly campaigning for a decade, in his seventies.
I don't know what sort of miracle diet coke based regimen he's on but it's definitely working. A normal person would have checked out a long time ago.
He's not as sharp or quick as he was a decade ago, the decline is plain to see, but I hope to God I'm half as energetic when I reach his age.
Still, can we stop trying to LARP the Soviet downfall so hard that it includes the octogenarian rulers?
Dude made it through COVID better than a lot of people in his weight class, too. Everybody talks about Butler as a timeline-branching point, but the world in which he died to COVID is even stranger.
More options
Context Copy link
I attribute it to not drinking alcohol or smoking. Though it's still a bit abnormal. Still, capable elderly politicians aren't actually super uncommon, with some heavy selection effects. Example: does this guy look 78 to you?
Felix Houphouët-Boigny ran the Ivory Coast for 33 years and was at least 88 when he died (his birth year isn't certain).
Malaysia has Mahathir Mohammed who turned 100 this year, did 2 years as a caretaker PM due to massive corruption in 2018-2020 and is still pretty spry and vocal considering his advanced age even if he's currently weathering corruption charges and being controversial.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mAU8nR4qm7A
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I had this thought a couple of times, he bounces back.
But at age 79, every bounce back will be just a little bit worse than the one before
Welcome to the Gerontocracy baby
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's always like that when he's making prepared statements. He's generally far more energetic when he's running his mouth.
Trump has been absolutely cooked for years, but it's priced in. No amount of rambling word salad, unhinged rants, or basic factual errors will impact people's perception of his faculties. Short of stroking out on camera, no one cares.
It's pretty clear that Trump is living up to his reputation for agreeing with the last person who talked to him. Just today he made a TS post aggressively in support of Ukraine and Europe against Russia, which is yet another flip-flop in that regard. Most likely he had a conversation with some Russia hawk who flattered him while telling him Putin was making him look like a fool, so he's an Atlanticist until the next time he talks to JD Vance. See also: the confusion over the new H1-B fee, with different agencies contradicting each other over what the policy actually is.
My general impression is that Trump doesn't actually care about the details of governing, but he likes it when people kiss his ass, so it's really easy for his subordinates to talk him into doing something. However, he doesn't actually care enough to make sure everyone is in alignment and there isn't enough commonality of interest or values for an alignment to occur naturally.
I would say it's partially accurate - maybe even mostly accurate - to say Trump doesn't care about the details. He's always been a bit that way, praise some underling for their incredible talent enough that they work hard to live up to it, let them carry the weight, and throw 'em under if they fail too badly (in reputation/image, not necessarily talent). The major caveat, though, is that Trump has a few hobby-horse policies and opinions where he has long resisted any and all attempts to convince him otherwise. Sometimes they are silly small things - Trump on multiple occasions has suggested nuking hurricanes to stop them from forming, or exploring buying Greenland - and sometimes they are bigger things, like tariffs or withdrawing troops from foreign postings (I remember reporting about numerous internal arguments about troop numbers in Afghanistan, Syria, etc. over the years). So I think that's important to keep in mind. It's usually not too hard to tell the difference about what he does and doesn't care about, but there are a few edge cases where it's pretty murky.
So here, Trump has a genuine aversion to foreign disrespect. I don't think he cares too much about particular countries, not inherently. He likes Putin because Putin gives him respect. He (partially) turned on Putin because Putin torpedoed some of his peace efforts a little too directly, which makes him look bad. I think that aversion to disrespect and bad impressions needs to be considered as its own thing on top of the desire for flashy stuff and compliments. It reflects Trump's own personal priorities, he's consistent that way: he likes things clean and golden-encrusted, he likes strong TV images and shows of power, he hates weaklings, dirty and run-down places, and has an especial hatred for things that look bad on TV. Anyone displaying traits of power, gold, cleanliness, and TV aptitude he automatically likes.
More to your point though, you're right. Trump as a rule doesn't mind minions fighting over the particulars of any given policy so long as it doesn't blow back onto him personally. He's a bit of a competition-breeds-strength type when it comes to leadership. He can get away with this because on a simple factual level, Trump doesn't care if his policies work. He only cares if he can take credit for them working, or portray them as working. If they actually do work? Neat. Someone is happy. And often his minions are at least mildly competent, which can get results. But they don't need to work. This is not the case for most leaders, but Trump is not most presidents.
This is a remarkable statement, that invites a multiplicity of possible responses. ...The short, and most charitable version, is that you should take this exact frame, freeze it with crystalline perfection in every detail, and then begin swapping other politicians for trump.
...and so on, and on, and on.
...It's not even that I disagree with your description of Trump. What blows my mind is that you think that this attitude is in some way unusual, as opposed to it being totally normal but there's a massive knowledge-production class dumping kilo-man-years daily into presenting the feculent output as solid gold. I submit that the absence of this national-scale turd-polisher is the best improvement we've had in governance in my lifetime.
Most individual teachers(not all, but most) care about their students learning. I’m not saying they’re perfect or it’s the #1 priority or anything but they do care.
More options
Context Copy link
There are probably quite a few in the educational system who care if the system educates the students, though they may be absent in the ranks of the administrators and leadership of the teacher's unions. And I think Bush cared about whether the Iraqi occupation was working (though he didn't seem to care so much about Afghanistan). But I also think Trump cares whether his Ukraine War policy works. That's why he's tried multiple different things.
I'm sure there are many city and state officials who actually care about reducing crime, though I'm not sure the same holds at the national level.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, although turnover among administrators, fetishization of the novel, and lack of patience dooms a lot. It's more a matter of over-ambition and good intentions burying fundamental principles of teaching and learning than apathetic leaders, in my opinion.
I don't understand this question, did you forget a word or I'm missing too much context?
Yes, but crime rate statistics in particular have notorious noob-trap concepts as well as in how the numbers interact with policy, so officials are all over the board. Nationally, I think yes. However, it's a little difficult as a federal politician because you're so far removed from the ground level reality.
Normally yes, since businessmen in both parties are major donors and always complain when things are bad. Those constituencies and influences don't magically go away after election season, you can only temporarily ignore them.
I mean, it's a sliding scale obviously, no denying that. Trump just seems like an anomaly. Like 1 month goes by as president and oh, the economy is the best ever. 1 month goes by with Biden as president, oh no, total disaster, he ruined everything. 1 month goes by as president again and oh, the economy is magically the best ever again. Usually politicians are a little more measured. Like, here is Biden around this time in his term. Skim it. He's talking specific jobs numbers, he's saying things aren't all great yet and some people are still hurting, he says there are a few areas that he wants to do better on. There's spin, but it's not beyond the pale. I'm trying to find something similar for Trump. His official white house website has a "Remarks" section too, but all it has is Youtube videos without transcripts. He's saying stuff like:
Oh! DC is fixed. Magic.
Usually politicians at least wait a few weeks or months to declare a symbolic victory, but no, Trump doesn't just say it, he "declares" it, and right away, bugger the truth. I guess I had a similar discussion last week and maybe it boils down to this:
I typically expect, and think most people expect, presidents to tone down the campaign-trail type tactics while actually in charge. Less hyperbole, more adherence to facts, actual work. A candidate uses big and exaggerated and ambitious language because that's all they have, while an incumbent can, you know, do things and then talk about it. Natural, right? One compelling Trump thesis is he thinks he's found a cheat code where he doesn't even have to finish doing things. He can just start things, talk about what it's intended to do as if it's already done, and expects to reap the same benefits even if nothing actually happens at all like he describes as the policy takes place - or more likely, collapses under its own weight quickly. Say it loud and proud, and you temporarily gaslight people.
He might be right that you can skip the "doing things" part and no one will notice, but I don't think so, and if he is, and everyone starts doing it, then I despair what the next 10 years will look like.
One of the main criticisms Dominic Cummings makes of the British political class is that this was the main way Blair thought about governing, and the only way Cameron and Johnson did. People were talking about the "permanent campaign" as something that started in the Clinton administration, although in Clinton's White House the key political operator was a pollster (Dick Morris) and not a PR/comms person like Alastair Campbell or Malcolm Tucker - something that Cummings calls out as significantly less harmful. Conventional wisdom is that this development was partly driven by the need to generate content for cable news.
In so far as Trump's style is different from earlier versions of the permanent campaign, it is that David Cameron would announce Project Shoebox with grand promises and then both Cameron and the press would ignore what the project actually did, whereas Donald Trump will announce Project Shoebox and then post a fish tale on social media about how Project Shoebox has already made the national foot four sizes larger in only a month.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the insight of EverythingIsFine is that this is Definitely Not How Modern Democracies are supposed to work, not in the idealistic high school sense or even the more pragmatic institutional liberal sense. And even if the underbelly is seedy and corrupt, on the surface people are supposed to pretend that they're meritocratic liberal technocrats above petty corruption and infighting.
Meanwhile, Trump runs his organizations like he's Hitler. Not that he's a Nazi, but that he's making his subordinates compete in a survival-of-the-fittest fashion, people rising and falling in the inner circle to the fickle winds of political power struggle. This is very familiar to classicists: it's a classic balance-of-power strategy of absolute monarchs - and more contemporarily, corporate executives.
Even if he does not have the title of a king, he has the powers of a king, and rules like a king, and that is alarming to liberals.
And I think the point of the counter-argument is "but it is and always has been, and how can you even pretend that it hasn't if you look around you for 5 seconds".
Your point of about technocracy vs. monarchy is valid as far as I can tell, and has been made by righ-wingers themselves - left-wingers prefer distributed communal responsibility wielded by a class of "experts", right wingers prefer when the buck stops somewhere. But it makes absolutely no sense to express that point as "most leaders care if their policies work, unlike Trump". I don't see how these two points are related to each other at all, so whatever argument you're steelmanning, it's not the one EIF made.
I think, broadly, that Trump cares about his policies working as much as the CEO of Ford cares about your car getting you to work or the CEO of Dunkin Donuts cares about the taste of your coffee. If your car explodes, or your coffee is poison, they get involved. But if your car breaks down or one time your coffee tastes bitter, he's not going to get personally bothered about it. And that's fine - that's how the world works - but Western politicians are big on the humility and the empathy. It's not enough to just give lip service: you have to believe it.
A certain valence of care, although I'm not sure what EIF is getting at. Personally I'm on the vibes-aligned part of the political spectrum than the policy-based one - if a leader is directionally correct, they can be trusted on the smaller details - but a lot of people don't think that way and want a big rulebook where the leaders care about the rules, no matter how silly those rules may be. And the liberal democracy handbook has a bunch of big rules that he's ignoring. A lot of liberals believe that rules and policies are more important than outcomes. They're silly, but people are allowed to be silly.
What?!
The strategy for Trump I was "I know politicians are corrupt liars, but how can you support Trump? He's literally Hitler!", now that the Hitler thing has wore off and we have Trump II it seems like we're trying "I'm not saying Trump is literally Hitler, but he's not sincire about being humble and empathetic, unlike all the other politicians"...
Are you serious? I'm not sure what to tell you, if you are. "Paying lip service, and not believing a single word that comes out of your mouth" has been the in the job description of every single western politician, as far human memory reaches.
That's debatable, but irrelevant anyway. It's the literal opposite of the point EIF made.
If you want tk make your own point about why Trump Bad that's fine as far as it goes, but if you're responding under a post about how Trump doesn't care about the outcomes of his policiee (unlike all the other politicians), and a poster expresses utter bafflement at how anyone can reach that conclusion, I think you should address that argument, not keep sthrowing spaghetti at the Trump Bad wall.
I'm not saying that Trump is bad. (In fact, I think he's more good than bad. Not perfect, but no one is.) I feel like I'm catching friendly fire from someone I agree with. I feel a bit indignant, actually, that you think that I am another 'Trump bad' commentator. I demand an apology!
...regardless, it is my observation that American politicians are big on the performative aspects of politics. It's not enough to merely engage in policy-making: one must make the pious noises of Righteous Rule and kneel to the appropriate deities, which necessitates ideological belief in policy making. In our case, the dogmas are the liberal consensus of the post-war period - and, more recently, the progressive elite culture.
I don't think there's a reason to be overtly cynical about their anger when Trump breaks those mores and disowns those beliefs. One can be self-serving and outraged at the same time.
Trump, I think, has no strong ideology, no more than the CEO of Ford has an ideology when it comes to making cars. He has protectionist beliefs and populist instincts but is readily swayable by anyone with the patience. His political product is himself, for better or for worse. So when a subordinate fucks up, his political movement can go 'if only the Tsar knew!' and he can smoothly purge a disobedient follower without fear of ideological contradiction. This process has happened many times before. Elon is a very prominent example, but no one on his cabinet is safe. I suspect he'll go through more advisors before his term is over.
This is very much not what the Biden administration was like, where the cabinet ministers stayed on permanently no matter how terribly they did because they were the ones really in charge. The difference between top-down and bottom-up leadership. On the Democratic side, the president is merely a figurehead executing on the advice of his well-credentialed advisors. On the Republican side, the president is a emperor whose favor his advisors must pursue.
long exhale
Which, to get back to the point, Trump doesn't care about individual policies not working because to him, it is a manner of changing the people responsible. Democrats do care - because the people responsible are all executing the same policy, no matter who they are! There is nothing inherently offensive about EIF's statement here. It is easier to change personnel then it is to change ideologies. Chadface, YES, this is a good thing. QED.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC he and the First Lady just talked to Zelensky and his wife.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People have noticed a few issues with Trump's health - his hands were blue in a recent photo, there was a moment where he was involved in a health scare, there was the fake AI Trump video, pictures of his hands showing signs of medical intervention...
I don't think he's nearly as disabled or checked out as Biden very clearly was, but his health is definitely shaky and I think there's a decent chance he dies in office, though not of foul play.
Biden wasn't yet that far gone in the first year of his term either. Trump still has 3 more years left in his term.
Trump also seems like he wouldn't make a very good absentee president.
Yeah declines happen pretty sharply at this age.
More options
Context Copy link
He's already been spending every fifth day golfing.
To clarify, I think Trump does not have enough trusted people to delegate to that he could be as absent as Biden was, towards the end of his term. Trump is many things in this administration, but "inactive" is not one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m no fan of Trump, but I’d caution against generalizing from one data point. I know he was looking sharp as of a couple months ago.
Any schadenfreude from watching our userbase try to forget two years of anti-Biden rants would probably be outweighed by the potential damage. Trump is erratic enough when he’s healthy. I hope he stays that way through his term.
I absolutely cannot wait for this. You can already see it happening above!
It's not happening, but if it is, it isn't so bad...
More options
Context Copy link
I agree about not generalizing from one data point. I didn't post that to dunk on people, I'm just genuinely surprised by Trump's state in the video. His mind still seems pretty sharp, but on a physical health level, he just seems like he's doing all he can just to stand upright. I used to watch many Trump videos a few years ago, and I haven't watched many Trump videos from the last few months, so maybe I just missed what's been going on with him. To me his physical state is actually surprising, to me it seems like he's aged a lot in the last few months. But like you say, one data point isn't much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link