politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think some of them (weirdly) strive to look like they've had plastic surgery. It's like a marking of their status or something.
There's some mixture of an uncanny valley and/or Habsburg jaw effect to the women that surround Trump in particular.
When I heard Kristi Noem had to be rushed to the hospital due to an allergic reaction, my first thought was that it was from some type of cosmetic procedure she was having.
I think it's more likely to be unregulated dysmorphia. Maybe they start with a bit to get the fox news look, but cut by cut wind up like that trying to fix every "flaw" with a procedure.
I really disagree with this. Her nose job, which was initially good, no longer fits her face. Her nose is super straight and it doesn't really flow or move in the same way the lines of her face do. She also has some more asymmetry in her face (that probably can't be changed with plastic surgery because it relates to eye position and bone length) in part due to aging and her nose isn't at the right angle to fit the different planes of her face.
This is probably the effect of aging, not more and more plastic surgery. She probably had 1 nosejob possibly with cheek implants and has occasionally gotten lip fillers and possibly cheek fillers.
So at this point, Laura Loomer would look better with a revision rhinoplasty that made her nose look a bit bigger, more flow-ing, and less straight. The bridge could be at a slightly different angle to fit her face. Her nose would look worse but the overall flow and feeling of her face would be much better. If she has cheekplants, and I'm not sure if she does, she should take those out if she can.
So doing that would be expensive, time-consuming, and hard to do. Revision surgeries are riskier and cost more. They have longer recovery time and much more can go wrong. Additionally, it's hard to made a nose that is "too straight" flow in a more natural way because you sort of would have to intentionally make the nose look a bit worse. She could do it and end up looking worse, even if she tries to be smart about. It would probably also cost a lot, probably many tens of thousands of dollars.
She is a political commentator, there's no indication she's super rich. She probably did the initial surgeries because she thought they would help her in her career and make her more attractive and doing revisions is expensive, has risks, and would require downtime.
I don't agree with her politics, but this is not dysmorphia. My guess is it could be the opposite: she may realize a revision surgery could be beneficial but is concerned about additional costs and risks and so hasn't done anything, instead just accepting things as they are.
That's a fair assessment.
I've only seen the before and afters and I'm a lot more experienced in watching the psychic collapse of people getting more and more cosmetic surgeries than I am with specific procedures, and I'll acknowledge her behavior and the circles she runs in have biased me towards thinking suicide by thousand cuts rather than a few ill advised procedures having unfortunate effects and it not being worth it to try to undo.
If your theory is correct then I'm somewhat sympathetic to that scenario. Especially as its increasingly common for political commentators and figures to have work done.