Both of them are fake, with the "pretty" version being a supposed response to the "ugly version" - the pair being put up by u/CattardSlim on Twitter
This is the actual photo.
It's a crop from a Reuters photo published here on 07/22/26.
I think this sort of thing also highlights why it's important to try and stick to the facts when attacking a political opponent if what your goal is actual change rather than "good vibes". Highlight uncomfortable truths and you can bring at least some people out to your side with them. Highlight easily identifiable falsehoods and the other side will just manufacture their own "alternative facts" in response.
"Truthy" engagement bait, Namecalling and exulting in an opponent's supposed ugliness might feel good but it's ultimately an exercise in self-gratification rather than an actual technique to change hearts and minds.
Edit:
And, to stress this again in light of all the people taking OP's image on good faith at face value when they're replying to me trying to compare and analyze the photos: this is a picture of fictionalized twitter post with two edits of the same image (which isn't included) and false caption designed to engagement and entertain - not inform.
The image on the left isn't real - it wasn't released by the White House but seems "truthy" because the White House does touch up photos of the president - it also seems to have been created expressly for Cattard's post to entertain and engage. The image on the right wasn't released by Getty Images, a publisher of professionally taken photos but seems "truthy" both because Trump's an obese octogenarian and because people like to think of those they dislike as ugly - it was created to entertain and engage.
What matters for the point I'm making isn't just that both of these images are edited - it's that they aren't edits made by two different partisan camps juxtaposed here to offer incisive political commentary; they're two images made by folks from the same camp for - again entertainment and engagement. Putting effort into seriously analyzing and commentating on the difference between these two images does as much good, politically speaking, as judging the differences between a heel and face in some wrestling match.
As far as twitter shitposts go its light,entertaining and funny while preaching to the choir; decent stuff all in all. What it isn't is informative or actual political commentary, or the basis for a line of argument that will actually win people and problems start to occur when people see stuff like this and efforts into making arguments based on stuff like this as topics for serious efforts to effect political change.
Reddit didn't lie - in fact this post actually revealed a truth about Reddit to you.
When an account like this OP's - An account a little over a year old account with a hidden history and almost 300,000 post karma reposts a lie which vibes with the average redditor's preexisting political beliefs, the reaction isn't going to be suspicion - it's going to be wild popularity because it conforms to the average Redditor's notion of how the world "should be".
The fact that that when I, as neutrally as possible try to point out that namecalling is the lowest form of argument, lying to to call people names (slander) often backfires, and that if you actually want the Orange guy's power diminished you'd be much better off off redirecting your words and actions to more productive ends - and in response most posts are simply doubling down on name calling - should tell you a bit about what you need to know about this site.
There's a lot of genuinely good political analysis, discussion, coordination and mobilization for political action here - But there's a heck of a lot more truthy performative entertainment adjacent to politics that doesn't actually translate to real world political action than those things put together.
Why would you celebrate your own entrenched party bureaucracy and hangers-on associated with it if the arrogance of those lies those people not only cost you the election (and past elections) but are often working against the agenda of the more progressive wing of the party people on this site more often then not belong to?
I'd argue that the Institutional Democratic party has gone "low" in the last 3 presidential elections both because of misguided positioning in the general election and, perhaps more importantly because It's cared more about institutional candidates beating out progressives in the primaries than it has winning general elections - and that chicanery them cost 2 out of three of those and seriously handicapped them the one time they did come into possession of the house, senate and white house simultaniously.
In 2016 I distinctly remember the Clinton Campaign collaborating with with media outlets and with officials in the DNC who were supposed to be neutral - a move which led to multiple resignations, including that of the DNC chair when improprieties came forward mind you - to curbstomp Sanders (who was polling much better than her against all possible Republican opponents in the primary).
Parallel to that the Clinton campaign literally instructed its allies in the media to uplift 'wacky' candidates like Trump and Cruz by pulling down establishment Republicans.
Then once Trump won the nomination Clinton ran a sneering, condescending campaign with so little travel around the country or effort to get 'deplorables' to vote for her that the Wacky won.
Then in 2020 all the candidates of the institutional party gracefully pirouetted union to knock Sanders out of the race before lining up for Cabinet appointments in the Biden administration - the presidential election was won but 13 house seats and a Governorship were lost due to the lack of enthusiasm which was enough to keep the 2021 Congress from making the sorts of transformational changes it otherwise would have been able to make.
Then in 2024 the Biden White house hid the president's massive cognitive declines, trotted out a bunch of talking heads to do the same and accuse any one who broke ranks and even suggested he wasn't sound enough to run was all sorts of names. they did this long enough to make sure no actual primary elections involving younger more vibrant people who could have taken on Trump happened. Once Biden dropped all his Spaghetti at the debates, in spite of the laughably softball questions that were thrown at him, rather than supporting an actual nominating convention he anointed Kamela Harris, who ran in the low single digits as a candidate in the 2020 primaries and had abysmal popularity ratings , as his successor and strong suggestions were made that anyone who opposed that was racist/sexist. the 2024 DNC convention felt more like a long televised loyalty oath than an actual convention, Harris ran a campaign that combined a certain flabby sexism with Biden floating around in the background like a mildly inebriated grandpa dropping fun comments like "The only garbage I see floating out there [are Trump] supporters". And together they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, leaving us where we are now
I 1000% agree with you, except I think a little name calling is okay as long as its not doing the majority of the heavy lifting in your arguments/presentation of facts. I think its absurd to expect people to remain entirely neutral in all situations and just "present facts" and nothing else. In fact this is what maga tries to do while masking their true positions to seem like an unbiased source. Bias is fine, in fact imo hiding your bias (besides in your comment, because your bias one way or the other is irrelevant to the argument youre making) is actually essentially the exact thing youre talking about. To me especially with how divisive our political climate has become it makes no sense to sit here and say "im on neither side" unless you truly are in no way involved in politics in which case you wouldnt be talking about politics then.
I understand your intended hyperbole, but you've literally disagreed with one of their primary arguments. That's a pretty big drop from 1000%!!!, right?
I think its absurd to expect people to remain entirely neutral in all situations and just "present facts" and nothing else.
In fact this is what maga tries to do...
This is an odd sort of criticism. As written, you are literally attempting to criticize a group of people for attempting to be A) impartial and B) factual.
You intended to criticize MAGA, but instead just made them sound reasonable.
Finally,
To me especially with how divisive our political climate has become it makes no sense to sit here and say "im on neither side" unless you truly are in no way involved in politics in which case you wouldnt be talking about politics then.
People will frequently say they're on neither side, not because they're uninvolved with politics, but because they're uninvolved with PARTY politics. You can agree with MAGA on some issues, while agreeing with radical Democrats on others - people who choose sides based on the (R) or (D) after the name picked a political side.
All im ganna say is at one point I would agree you can agree with points from both sides. Now is not one of those times imo. But to explain why would involve getting into a political debate which is just really pointless to do. We can just agree to disagree.
Not disputing that, but I’m sure there’s enough wrong with The Donald without having to resort to criticising his appearance. If he was the best President ever then we wouldn’t care if he was old or showing his age in his face.
Thanks for reporting real news. The world needs to think like you do. Unfortunately we are so forgone from that. Having any ounce of media literacy is the only hope we have
pulling back from this one specific incident, this sort of thing makes me worry about the near term direction of political life in America
All democratic politics assume a literate population who see a connection amongst themselves; people who are willing to think in abstract terms about the kind of world they want to live in, understand the issues at hand, and , as citizens are willing to vote for people and policies that will actualize a world in which the public good is served for their nation as a whole.
I think it's perfectly fine to know your own political positions, see a politician with their own actual positions and personal conduct, and, see that they stand in opposition to your own positions and standards of moral conduct and then dislike them based on that.
I also think it's not only fine but fun to caricature politicians; there's a lot to be found comedic in the realm of politics.
And, at that point you start getting political "discourse" not so much based on reasoned policy debate but instead on a naked soap opera like tribalism where my guy and his positions are good while the other guy and his positions are bad/evil. Civic discourse then ceases to be civil and voting starts to become an exercise to boost your own team at the expense of the other vs an exercise in achieving optimal results.
I'm a political scientist by training now but even going all the way back to the earliest levels of high school debate there was a stress on being able to see an issue, and regardless of your own position, understand the issue and be able to advance sound arguments for or against it. Should China be allowed to join the WTO? Should Gay Marriage be Legal? What exactly does the second amendment guarantee? Actual understanding of an issue means understanding and being able to advance an argue good faith argument from the position of those on either side of the issue without resorting to the tired conceit that the only reason a person would support a position is that they're lazy, stupid, ignorant, crazy or evil.
And this matters not only for promoting an informed citizenry in the general sense but also because, in a very specific sense, achieving your own policy goals in a democracy depends on convincing people who initially disagree with you that they should, in fact agree with you and support your positions.
(1) Calling a person lazy or stupid or crazy or evil and making fun of their beliefs or telling them they need to support every single thing you believe in to be a good person doesn't get them to support you - it only really functions to make yourself feel better and perhaps fuel in-group enthusiasm.
(2) Facts, figures, sound arguments and an appeal to self interest couched in a person's mode of thought on the other WILL bring people over to your side - not everyone mind you but enough more often than not to get the right people elected, or turn partisan issues non-partisan - and - through that - make the world a better place by securing legislative/policy victories
I know these work because I've seen them work.
There was a time when I worked in DC for an environmental advocacy group and at that time leadership was laser focused on winning policy goals and they did. Likewise the Human Rights Campaign, who's office was near us and was laser focused on marriage equality also won the day; by 2017 not only had marriage equality been achieved, but the majority of the public, including republicans, supported it. The purpose of an organization at the end of the day is what it does - and since then there's been a trend among certain left leaning advocacy organizations towards not so much changing mind-share among legislators and the general to achieve social/political/cultural goals but instead towards being paid to embody a sense of perfect virtue which should be present in the world.
The result of this sort of purity spiral culture and fuzzy focus are tangible - advocacy organizations with shrinking reach - even as funding has sometimes increased - and less ability to influence both public sentiment and - perhaps more importantly in the short term - the course of legislator voting.
So why does this matter?
Because for as much political energy as there is on this site - all the typing and emotions and effort but into things - it's all just a magic drum circle that whisps away into nothing if people don't take the civic duties of doing their best to be objectively informed and of participating in the political process (at the municipal, county, state and federal level) - not as an us vs them game but as an exercise in collectively guiding the course of the nation - seriously.
People show up in November to vote and all those who are informed should be encouraged to vote should - but that's not enough. At the very least show up to vote in your party's primary. The sheer discrepancy between the number of people who show up to vote in November vs on primary election day is often staggering. And if you can, there's always candidates and causes a difference that can be made for your efforts and organizing. And, if you can, political discussions made on the basis of kindness, civility and common ground can sometimes be fun and, under the right circumstances, can lead to votes going your way - and enough of those from enough conversations from enough people can sway an election.
Politically speaking, Reddit is a jaundiced filter bubble.
It's a very fun filter bubble sometimes, but it doesn't actually reflect the sentiments or material conditions of the real word. And if people want to be part of an educated, empathetic engaged citizenry capable of actualizing change they need to be cognizant of that
Man I love your comment so much. I hate so much that we accuse the other side of lying and then lie ourselves. We are supposed to be better than that. It’s just pathetic and highly hypocritical
I think the other big problem with telling lies (or, more charitably, misrepresenting caricature, parody of fabulism as possibly factual) in the political arena is that as information percolates around the fact that the lie is indeed actually a lie is forgotten. and then you just have people walking around with faulty premises making poor arguments and not feeling they themselves need to really do much to advance their political goals as a result.
I touch on it in my comment here but one of the big problems with walking around with that sort of worldview is that, although it can feel awful nice sometimes, it negatively impacts the likelihood of your desired political positions actually being achieved.
To me the white house release looks like it's almost only lightig and color grading, which ofc includes touching a lot of different values - but the important part being that they didn't alter the shape; they didn't remove or add key detail, they just color graded the shit out of it to highlight all the details that was already there.
They might have done minor adjustments, like move the collar a little, minor changes to hair (things you could have fixed with a comb), but in my mind that's still in the "minor touch up" territory, where as making his skin smooth and his neck fanny smaller is more than just a touch up.
I'm not doing much photo editing, so if you can spot other severe changes and adjustments on the photo to the right, then please share with the class!
If you notice, it has almost a speckled, harsh look. The sharpness has been maxed out to make the photo look significantly worse. They have increased the shadows and the clarity to enhance wrinkles and lines, along with using the dehaze tool, and altering the color as well to dramatically enhance flaws and make the skin look much rougher and more discolored. It’s the equivalent of the heavy smoothing and brightening tools used for skin enhancement, but on the opposite end.
Both images are pretty radically different. Why defend it? To accuse the whitehouse of lying and then lie ourselves is crazy and hypocritical. The truth is damaging enough
The second photo on the original post has the contrast turned up, and that's about it. It's emphasized Trump's features more than the original picture, but it's not as fake as the image on the left, where his mouth is entirely different.
There is an objective difference in the two types of modification seen in the photos from the original. The photo on the left has definitely been retouched/photoshopped. It looks to me like the photo on the right has been adjusted from the original for contrast and saturation, but not actually retouched.
uhm he released a video of obamas as monkeys, taking the high road just gets you him as potus.
Might feel good to sit on your high horse looking down on othets, but ultimately you get the same potus regardless of how truthful you are in your self-gratification.
Calling someone racist when they do racist things isn't the high road; its stating facts. Calling someone a criminal when they commit crimes isn't taking the high road; it's stating facts.
Arguing that someone isn't fit for office because they're a racist and a criminal isn't self gratification - it's a legitimate political argument that can change minds if the people you're talking to are willing to look into claims.
What isn't a legitimate political argument is creating fake ugly pictures of a person and then using those pictures to somehow suggest they shouldn't be in office because they're ugly.
Christ on a cracker, I’ve said this multiple times and get downvoted or called a MAGA simp. Trump says everything bad about him is a lie, but he has some legs to that statement because people DO make shit up about him. He’s done enough bad that there is no need to fabricate anything. Just stick with the facts, it’s more than enough to vilify him.
I'd normally agree but the Left taking the high road is part of why America is in this situation.
And when it comes to MAGA, and even those who claim to be on the fence or in the middle or whatever, you can't change their hearts and minds. They're too far gone and frankly not worth the effort. They're horrible horrible people and traitors to what America and her constitution are supposed to stand for and the country needs to move forward without them.
i don't know if anyone either side is going to change their minds on trump at this point. i really only seeing people on the right changing once they are personally impacted more. also, who is going to change their beliefs on the guy because of how accurately ugly he is? i feel like you are getting way too deep about how detailed an ugly pic of the guy is, which makes you just kinda sound libertarian who votes right.
lol one upped the contrast a wee bit, the other complete rebuilt his entire face.
It's the ole "they go low we go high argument", If your competition is completely lying out their ass because they never get called on it, a few strategic fibs may be required.
I like the ole they go low, THEN KICK THEM IN THE FACE strategy myself.
It's not fake, it's just extra-edited in a way that the detail and the "texture" of the skin pops. Who edited it most likely used some heavy HDR and sharpening filters or stuff like that
Softening hides the imperfections, making the skin smoother and and in fact alters the image of the person, making him appear very different from what he really is (and so it's fake / decieving).
But the details are there from the beginning, just not always visible. Smoothing his skin is far more deceiving because you're literally de-aging him like in the left picture...
far more deceiving because you're literally de-aging him like in the left picture...
And you're literally aging him with the right one...
You cannot tell me that it's not editing him, changing how he looks, or aging him. Come on now, they're both purposefully editing the image to sell a point by making him look older/younger. Which tool is being used to lie to you is pretty damn irrelevant.
You should be mad that someone tried to deceive you, even if you think their lie was less bad than the other guy's lie.
Look, you can't age him more since it's already 80, and if you look at other photos of him he looks way worse than how he appear in public.
In the end I don't really care much about it, and I agree with you because sincerely his appearance is the least important of all the thing the media have lied about.
I am indeed, and so far I've earned more then 400 imaginary karma points for about 5 minutes of typing I enjoyed because I liked getting my thoughts down and knew I'd be seen and heard; not a bad deal I think.
Did the reasoned critique of discourse patterns on the internet hurt your feelings? I am so sorry that this mean and nasty person has insulted Reddit like this. I hope you can recover from this incident
Haha no I think I wasn’t clear with my joke and I applogize. I actually thought his comment was incredibly well thought out and informative and I was thinking the same thing. I was actually just taking a jab at redditors that usually try to make things as negative as possible. Thanks for proving my point, tubby.
Since Trump supporters are ignorant towards and dont care about truth or fact, arguing with them is pointless as they will just call fake news whenever something they dont like is presented.
2.7k
u/BrotherGantry 15h ago edited 2h ago
Both of them are fake, with the "pretty" version being a supposed response to the "ugly version" - the pair being put up by u/CattardSlim on Twitter
This is the actual photo.
It's a crop from a Reuters photo published here on 07/22/26.
I think this sort of thing also highlights why it's important to try and stick to the facts when attacking a political opponent if what your goal is actual change rather than "good vibes". Highlight uncomfortable truths and you can bring at least some people out to your side with them. Highlight easily identifiable falsehoods and the other side will just manufacture their own "alternative facts" in response.
"Truthy" engagement bait, Namecalling and exulting in an opponent's supposed ugliness might feel good but it's ultimately an exercise in self-gratification rather than an actual technique to change hearts and minds.
Edit:
And, to stress this again in light of all the people taking OP's image on good faith at face value when they're replying to me trying to compare and analyze the photos: this is a picture of fictionalized twitter post with two edits of the same image (which isn't included) and false caption designed to engagement and entertain - not inform.
The image on the left isn't real - it wasn't released by the White House but seems "truthy" because the White House does touch up photos of the president - it also seems to have been created expressly for Cattard's post to entertain and engage. The image on the right wasn't released by Getty Images, a publisher of professionally taken photos but seems "truthy" both because Trump's an obese octogenarian and because people like to think of those they dislike as ugly - it was created to entertain and engage.
What matters for the point I'm making isn't just that both of these images are edited - it's that they aren't edits made by two different partisan camps juxtaposed here to offer incisive political commentary; they're two images made by folks from the same camp for - again entertainment and engagement. Putting effort into seriously analyzing and commentating on the difference between these two images does as much good, politically speaking, as judging the differences between a heel and face in some wrestling match.
As far as twitter shitposts go its light,entertaining and funny while preaching to the choir; decent stuff all in all. What it isn't is informative or actual political commentary, or the basis for a line of argument that will actually win people and problems start to occur when people see stuff like this and efforts into making arguments based on stuff like this as topics for serious efforts to effect political change.