15
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of December 29
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
Read Jack Smith's full deposition on the decision to indict Trump relating to January 6 and overturning the election results
It's 255 pages, representing an eight hour long deposition, I've only looked at around pages 22-30, which in my opinion gets at the heart of the matter. I'd characterize those parts as, House Republicans asking leading questions to see if the former special counsel would trip up and say the prosecution was politically motivated. Instead, Jack Smith talks about how strong the case evidence was going to be, how there were many witnesses, many of them were Republicans in state government positions, who were reached out to by Trump, and who found what he was trying to do illegal
If anyone read past that and found anything interesting to add, please do
Iowa Democrat Wins State Senate Seat, Fending Off G.O.P. Supermajority (gift)
The seat itself is in Des Moines but
It was still important!
Appeals Court Orders End to Trump’s Command of California National Guard
The SCOTUS ruling re: Chicago's NG really helped here. Maybe this won't just get appealed again given that.
Chicago woman Ana Hernandez, who threw Molotov cocktail, starting fire on neighbor's porch, sentenced in federal hate crime case | abc7chicago.com
She left a note that said
Posting this a bit late, but:
It’s official: Scott Wiener is running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress
...
(Pelosi announced her retirement on November 6.)
Also, AI safety folks like him for pushing two AI safety bills through the state legislature. The first one was vetoed by Newsom. A second, more limited bill, passed.
Trump has bruises on both hands now
I've seen Internet theories it's due to a particular Alzheimer's treatment, that requires infusions through the hands, and would also explain Trump's MRIs he's been getting
There's about 100 other possible medical explanations including the Occam's Razor of "he's old, the president, and unhealthy". They're no doubt testing him as frequently as possible and doing anything and everything whenever something is even slightly out of wack.
This isn't technically new for presidents, its just that they're not supposed to be 80. I dislike all the "theories" because they're just second hand best guesses often based on bare minimum understanding. By this same metric multiple elderly members of my family and friends had Alzheimer's because they too wound up with 2 bruises on their hands and had MRIs.
It's possible, or it could be he's old enough they don't want to keep sticking one hand because you don't heal as well and has something else completely they're either treating or keeping and eye on. This paparazzi diagnosis stuff just icks me out, ESPECIALLY when it's almost always surrounded by so much cherry picking and a total denial of accountability for the 100 times they're wrong.
I mean, if the quote is taken out of context that we know, everything that has been publicly reported on since last year during the elections, then yeah, we can't say the hand bruises alone are evidence of dementia. But... like, he's the president, the most public figure in the world, for the past eleven months, so if we really wanted to ignore all that context, if someone really wanted to defend this person's mental health for some reason...
I'm referring to the half-drooping face, which could be sign of a stroke. I'm referring to the slurring and his increasing mixing up of words in his speech, which goes beyond just the usual Trump lies, it's literally saying words that don't make sense in a sentence
There's been plenty of reporting on how he is showing telltale signs of dementia, for example-
A recent one is from Mary Trump, his niece, talking about how her grandfather, Fred Trump, who is Donald Trump's father, started showing Alzheimer's symptoms in his late 70s, and how Trump is now 79 years old and behaving in many of the same ways. It's tricky, because I'm not sure if Alzheimer's is hereditary, my searches tell me it's not exactly, so this might be a misleading claim from Mary Trump, idk
Anyway, it's more than paparazzi diagnosis, it's finding smoke, means there's fire, and the 25th amendment exists when a president cannot execute their duties. That's why this gets so much reporting, in my opinion. For anyone else, it'd be an invasion of privacy, but mental capability is a foundational question for a sitting president
I'm not defending his mental health. I'm attacking shoddy bullshit professionals grabbing headlines and attention (or getting misquoted by skeezy media outlets).
No its not and thinking otherwise is half the problem. The only diagnosis that matters is one that comes from an actual doctor who's been with the patient and doesn't have every incentive in the world to lie (one way or another, yes I know trump has absolutely bullshit bills of health from his "doctor").
Damn near EVERY professional in the field will tell you as such, and it's gross to me how we've standardized otherwise. Every doctor I've ever known, personally or professionally, will offer an opinion, but ALWAYS cover that with something along the lines of "but this is speculation at best. You cannot diagnose without actually seeing and testing the patient"
This goes double for psychology/psychiatry where there's even more ire in the industry for all the wannabes(and sellouts) on the internet and media claiming self and backseat diagnosis which is again one of the first things they teach you NOT to do.
The articles are much the same.
You can, very accurately, comment about all sorts of unfit and odd behavior on Trump. I've scanned your articles and am pretty certain that at least one is referring to an incident that was obviously not what they claimed, and thus instantly discarded as credible (not that I much trust a few of those sources already), but that's the whole point.
It's very very easy to build a narrative around Trump, especially by cherry picking his worst, or best, moments. It's also very easy (and acceptable) to say that he's unfit, unhealthy, and acting disturbing even comparing all the public data because yes, even if some % is overblown nonsense there are absolutely verifiable acts that would be concerning. Just like with McConnell, Biden, and Hilary(and feinstein and multiple SCOTUS Judges...and on... and on...).
It is WILDLY across the line to claim any sort of diagnosis, and you're in the same camp as Dr. Oz or Phil in my eyes if you do so and I think it's an extremely important distinction to make because it speaks heavily in my eyes to the credibility of everyone involved. Legitimate professionals don't diagnose from the bench. Full stop.
As a (non-diagnosing) MH professional, cosign that you don't armchair dx as a general rule. There are times where we as the random public may have enough information that professionals can put together a slightly more informed opinion but they should always be couching it as "appears" or "based on" or "similar to signs of" etc. But a president who does not honestly release any records is not someone I feel we have all the info on.
I'm mostly over policing other people doing it unless it's particularly harmful. And I don't have the oomph to consider basically anything towards this president to be actually harmful anymore. I was definitely annoyed about Biden's treatment in the press though and on principle, if not in practice I should be consistent. I'm not, but I acknowledge I should be.
However, I don't consider what the previous poster did to be dx from the bench. They were speculating and repeating rumors and sharing articles - even if questionable ones - with professionals making claims. Criticizing the articles is absolutely valid, but I don't think they reached the level you're upset about or what you've described here is not inclusive of what they did even if you're upset about that too. And ultimately a non-professional isn't bound by the professional code of ethics. They can call their whole family narcissists or say the president as dementia. Whether they should or not, is a separate issue from medical/psychological ethics
Just my two pence.
I'm probably overly defensive about it but I also think the "Alzheimer internet theory" being referenced is FULL of people diagnosing from the bench and it's those kinds of "theories" i'd really wish people would stop spreading because they're so closely related to tabloid gossip as to be indistinguishable to me, with similar harm to both subject AND the people trying to advocate for a cause.
It frustrates me not only because supposed professionals in both medicine and journalism profit from it, but because of the shoddy nature by design it just leads to endless conspiracy theory goal post moving.
Trump is too old, unhealthy, and clearly not cognitively all there. I don't care if it's because of a clinical diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer (which are waaay too intermingled by people reporting on this nonsense) or because he's 79 and needs a pile of amphetamines and horse tranquilizer to function without falling asleep or being in pain and is thus high as a kite on any given day. If The Daily Beast got absolute hardcore proof trump didn't have Alzheimers I'm damn sure they wouldn't report it that way. At best it'd likely be "Confirmed Trump must have some OTHER debilitating mental disease? COULD IT BE PRIONS!?!!" or some other such nonsense.
I still think it's important to hold your sources to standards. Commenting on a politicians health IS an important part of understanding if they can do the job, but if you're throwing around "well maybe they have...." it almost immediately shows that you're not willing to stick to facts and instead are delving into the realm of speculation, gossip, and rumor, which is at some point just outright misleading people.
Even if you'd do ANYTHING to get rid of Trump, I don't think things like this help your cause because it's just as easy for information to come out to prove you wrong, and then you wind up looking untrustworthy. According to the Dr. sourced in the first article he's been "declining" since at least 2017. Could he be? Absolutely? Could the Dr just be flat out wrong? Yeah. From my reading the Dr is more commenting that they're probably monitoring him mentally, not actually diagnosing, but that's to be expected of his age and behavior, and could be because of LOTS of things.
Either way every day he doesn't just devolve into a full on Weekend at Bernie's skit it lends more credence to the latter even if that's not correct. The "when there's smoke there's fire" attitude is fine when you look at him and say "whatever is going on, it's not ok", but it crosses a very important line in my eyes the minute you start speculating about things you cannot possibly prove.
I agree it's important to hold our sources to standards, and it's annoying when people don't. And I get your criticism of the sources. However, I think when we're randoms in a forum some speculation isn't out of line either. And discussion of what's being reported is how people can understand the impact of things like tabloid gossip, even if it doesn't "help the cause."
I am just saying in this case I think your frustration about the armchair diagnosis is valid but misdirected. And I also get your frustration about tabloid gossip, personally I just find it very low on my "this is literally false information" radar these days and that's why my reaction is so chill about it. It doesn't seem to have any impact on Trump in any direction as it's been happening for years now and fuck he doesnt go five seconds without saying far worse and when he does it, his targets get death threats.
It's just a priorities thing for me. If you think you're being too defensive that's a you judgement. It's possible I'm far too numb to it all.
Alzheimer's' heritability depends on the type (I think it's early onset that is most heritable) but there does seem to be some familial tendencies.
It's definitely not a certainty either way. Of course I can't find a mini mental with a lion, giraffe, fish and/or hippo on it either so who am I to judge his mental competency.
I think it's obvious that something is going on with him but I'm not confident enough to know what. He's as likely to be getting infusions of adrenochrome care of Peter Thiel as actual medical treatment IMO.