Is Vance Louther Boulter really a Trump supporter? MAGA exposes Minnesota shooter friend's major claim
First, the reason for the murder was revealed when police discovered a list of roughly 70 politicians he intended to assassinate. Republicans are now accusing Boelter, who worked for Governor Tim Walz, of being a Democrat supporter. 'No Kings Protest' posters were discovered in his car after he escaped on foot.
The Minnesota shooting suspect's childhood friend David Carlson claimed that Boelter is a Trump supporter and voted for him. His target list mostly had names of liberal and Democratic leaders.
However, MAGA rallied against Carlson after he claimed in a widely shared video that Boelter served Tim Walz but did not like him. The pal added that he also didn't like Jim Biden.
Also Read: Broken windows, shock, tributes: Photos show aftermath of Minnesota shooting as Rep Melissa Hortman, husband killed
According to MAGA, it is impossible to trust someone who couldn't even recall the name of former President Joe Biden to make a declaration about someone's political affiliation.
'He wasn't a Democrat. He didn't like Jim Walz. He didn't like Jim Biden. He listened to InfoWars,' stated Boelter's roommate.
If someone referred to him as a Democrat, the friend said that Boelter would take offense. He was merely helping the community when he served on this board for Governor Walz. He remarked, 'I can't believe a political issue would cause him to do such a thing.'
The friend stated, 'He did not like Jim Walz, he did not like Jim Biden,' alluding to Joe Biden and Tim Walz.
Reacting to Carlson's statement, one Trump supporter wrote: 'Who's Jim Biden?This roommate is totally unreliable, considering Boelter attacked two Democratic lawmakers in separate incidents for supporting Republicans in removing healthcare funding for illegal immigrants.'
'Jim Walz? Lmao,' another stated.
'Such a liar!!! He voted Democrat! Appointed by a Democrat. Wife volunteered for a Democrat. Killed Democrats looking to leave the party!' a third user said.
According to the Brooklyn Park Police Chief, the 43-hour manhunt for Boelter was the 'largest manhunt in the state's history'. At least 200 officers as well as a federal, state, and local partnership were involved in the manhunt.
Boelter was apprehended in a field after he croaked at the arresting cops. No force was used during the arrest, as per reports.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Democrats Try to Halt Silicon Valley's Swing to the Right
Last year's election delivered the biggest blow in decades for the marriage between Democrats and Silicon Valley. Repairing the damage is proving difficult. Adam Kovacevich, the chief executive of the center-left trade group Chamber of Progress, is trying to play marriage counselor. Kovacevich has spent months talking to Democrats, tech workers and former Biden administration officials about what pushed tech executives away from the party and how to mend the relationship. Some executives who reliably give to Democrats feel that party leaders view Silicon Valley as a piggy bank and aren't promoting policies that help the industry. The trend is fueling concerns among Democrats that bleeding support among tech elites like OpenAI's Sam Altman and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen is another obstacle for a party facing its lowest poll numbers in more than three decades. 'I think it's a big problem,' said Kovacevich, a former Google executive. 'It would be an own goal for us to become the anti-innovation party.' About 80% of donations from the communications and electronics sector in the last election cycle went to Democrats, with a similar ratio at big tech companies like Google and Microsoft, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks data on campaign finance. But the alliance soured for some who opposed the Biden administration's focus on regulating areas like cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence and are encouraged by President Trump's policies. OpenAI's Sam Altman recently said he's 'politically homeless' after what he said was a Democratic shift away from policies that support innovation and entrepreneurship. 'The Democrats were the party of innovation and all things new and cutting edge. We definitely took a back seat,' said Brian Brokaw, a Democratic adviser to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and others. Brokaw, who also has tech clients, warned that his party needs to persuade the industry that it is pro-innovation or risk losing a financial lifeline. 'If you don't have the support financially from what was, in recent cycles, a key component of your fundraising base, that is going to put the Democrats at an electoral disadvantage,' he said. Rank-and-file tech workers are mostly expected to continue backing Democrats, but the shift among some key executives is another development worrying party leaders. Altman recently said he was 'politically homeless' after what he said was a Democratic shift away from policies that support innovation and entrepreneurship. Altman once compared Trump to Hitler, but he is now among Trump's favorite executives, embracing the president's policies of cutting red tape and supporting AI. Kovacevich's listening tour is one of several steps Democrats are taking to address the challenge. Earlier this year, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) and Silicon Valley Rep. Sam Liccardo met with donors about repairing the relationship. Liccardo, a former mayor of San Jose, Calif., said Democrats can win back support from smaller tech companies that don't like Trump's tariffs, attacks on immigrants and funding cuts at universities. Liccardo recently helped publish an innovation agenda for a group of House Democrats that gave priority to research funding and high-skilled immigration. 'This is an opportunity for the Democrats to distinguish ourselves if we're willing to embrace the imperative of supporting innovation,' he said. Cooper Teboe, a Silicon Valley-based Democratic adviser, estimates Democrats hemorrhaged support from 30% to 40% of the tech industry during the 2024 election but has earned some back. One challenge is that many tech entrepreneurs are benefiting from Trump's policies of tax cuts and deregulation. 'These guys just want to build things and make money and so does Trump,' said Teboe. He said Democrats can still win back the support they lost—especially if they focus on tariffs and economic uncertainty—but most of the party needs to change its strategy. He is working with Liccardo and Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.), who also represents a big chunk of Silicon Valley and has good relationships with the industry. Both Khanna and Liccardo are some of the House's top fundraisers. Many tech executives or their companies donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund. Several of the top inauguration donors flanked Trump when he was sworn into office for a second time, including Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, Apple CEO Tim Cook and founder Jeff Bezos. 'Some of the same people who were standing up there at Trump's inauguration were talking to people like me in 2017-2018,' said Aaron Goldzimer, a Democratic donor adviser. The mood at an AI summit attended by Trump in late July was jubilant. Executives including Nvidia's Jensen Huang mingled with administration officials and Trump laid out his plan to beat China in the tech race. Trump criticized former President Joe Biden's focus on export restrictions and standards for AI models as overly cautious. 'The greatest threat of all is to forfeit the race and force our partners into rival technology,' he said. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang spoke with Trump administration officials last month at an AI summit. Trump has also embraced cryptocurrencies, putting Democrats in Congress in a bind. Opposing legislation creating the industry's first regulations could be seen as fighting an innovative technology, but supporting it could benefit Trump through his family's ventures. His family has already made at least several hundred million dollars from various crypto ventures. The White House has said there is no conflict of interest. 'I've never seen people more willing to support Republicans and even Trump than right now in Silicon Valley,' said Matt Lira, a Republican who worked on tech issues in the first Trump administration. A crypto funded super-PAC network recently said it held more than $140 million at the end of June, a signal that it plans to target opponents of the industry in next year's midterms like it did in 2024. In the past, it has supported both Democrats and Republicans. Musk highlighted another risk for Democrats of losing ultrarich tech executives when he donated nearly $300 million to Trump and other Republicans ahead of the 2024 election. The relationship between Trump and Musk has since fractured, and Musk has said he is starting a third party. Some tech executives such as Konstantin Richter, CEO of California-based crypto company Blockdaemon, are waiting to see what Musk does because of their unhappiness with both parties. 'They've dug themselves a hole that's very hard to get out of,' Richter said of Democrats. Write to Amrith Ramkumar at and Eliza Collins at Democrats Try to Halt Silicon Valley's Swing to the Right
The Print
6 hours ago
- The Print
Trump is swinging on Russia again. What this means for Europe's security architecture
A more traditional line of US foreign policy, as witnessed during the four years of the Biden presidency, favoured a hawkish policy on Putin's Russia and a more unabashed support for Ukraine. But the advent of Trump's second term and the influence of the MAGA base introduced an insurgent variable that echoes an isolationist streak in American foreign policy, almost militant in extricating the US from foreign wars and assistance. More than three years after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the regional security complex of Europe stands more disrupted than ever in its post-World War 2 history. NATO's legalistic definition of its open-door policy has struck the wall of Moscow's threat perceptions and the geopolitics of the organisation's eastward expansion. The Russia-Ukraine war has clearly exposed major fault lines in US-Europe alignment on dealing with the Russian threat. The upcoming meeting between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin on 15 August in Alaska is perhaps one of the most anticipated. And it will be equally consequential in terms of its impact on not only the future of the US-Russia bilateral relationship and the fate of Ukraine, but also for the great shake-up in transatlantic order. Unlike his first term, when a relatively inexperienced Trump was surrounded by more established voices of the Republican Party, his unchallenged electoral mandate in the second term allowed him to bring together a team of loyalists. Given this, the Trump-Putin bromance should have managed more amiable optics and outcomes. However, the outcomes have been hardly predictable and linear. Almost breaking out of character, Trump turned hawkish on Putin, threatening primary and secondary sanctions, and promising high-end military items for Ukraine. Then came the news of the Alaska meeting, brokered by his envoy Steve Witkoff. Western alliance on cliffhanger In ways that ringside viewers can only surmise and speculate, the US foreign policy decisions are swinging like a pendulum. The effect would obviously cascade on the world order, especially if Trump caves in to Putin's demands. These demands currently include: The recognition of the occupied territories in Ukraine N o NATO membership for Ukraine No stationing of W estern troops on Ukraine's borders Strict limits to Kyiv's armed forces, including deliveries of Western defence equipment The r ecognition of the Russian language in Ukraine, along with the Ukrainian In March 2025, during Putin and Trump's first telephonic conversation, Putin had also demanded that Russia be taken back into the SWIFT system. He also wanted sanctions to be lifted off various sectors, including the agriculture and financial sectors. The news of the Alaska meeting has put Europe, along with Kyiv, on edge. After the NATO summit at The Hague and the European allies' decision to increase their defence spending to 5 per cent in the next decade, NATO managed to show a face of relative unity and bonhomie. However, Trump's decision to meet Putin by sidelining Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the European allies—and his comment on 'swapping of some territories'—has not gone down well with Kyiv or Europe. The Trump administration has shown a history of cutting deals excluding major stakeholders, like the one in Afghanistan with the Taliban in 2020, which excluded the Afghan government itself. Trump's mercurial approach to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine war has turned the tables in how Europe perceives the Russian threat and how it intends to deal with it. The long-term consequences of this will be known only in the time to come. Europe was initially reluctant to take a proactive position against Russia, given its dependence on Russian oil and gas. But things almost took a U-turn after the Oval Office showdown between Trump and Zelenskyy and Trump's transactional approach to Ukraine, including the critical rare earth minerals deal. France and Germany, along with the UK, a strong ally of the US, took a more robust stand in support of Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer offered Zelenskyy a grand welcome in London, and approved a loan of more than £2 billion to be used primarily for weapons production in Ukraine. In anticipation of the Alaska meeting, European leaders have also come out with a joint statement that broadly welcomes Trump's plan but emphasises protecting 'Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests'. It signals an uneven alignment between Washington and its European partners on the top priorities and approach to Moscow. Currently, the dynamics between Europe and Russia have gone so south that mending fences looks like an uphill task, even as the US swings between sanctions and olive branches. With the increase in defence spending by the European countries, there will always be an uneasy peace—if at all it can be achieved between Russia and the West, after the Ukraine war. Three years into the Russia-Ukraine war, the geopolitical grounds have shifted. Earlier, the European countries, including France and Germany, were unwilling to antagonise Russia, while the US was more comfortable keeping it unsettled and insecure. Today, Europe and Russia are at loggerheads, while Washington, as always, continues to dominate and call the shots on transatlantic ties. In the process, the US is sidelining Europe while simultaneously demanding that it do more on regional security. Things are topsy-turvy, to say the least. What comes out of the churn will shape the European security environment and the new world order. Also read: Musk's golden touch is on the line. Tesla needs him to do what he does best — sell a pen Is a post-US Europe in the making? Regardless of the outcome of the Putin-Trump meeting, it is certain that the US president's hyper-transactional approach has made European allies come across as weaker powers at the mercy of a mercurial White House. European leaders telling Trump to consider Ukraine and Europe's vital security interests before ceding to Putin's demands speaks volumes about their growing uneasiness on the transatlantic partnership. So, has Moscow taken the edge over the Western alliance psychologically, territorially, and in pitting Russia as a power to reckon with vis-à-vis a fractured West? Will the Alaska meeting echo recent history? Will it be a repetition of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war? Despite the US-led West's grumbling, no significant protection was given to Georgia, a country that was eager to join NATO. Russia took over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Georgia had to give up on its territories. The four occupied territories, along with Crimea that Putin is demanding from Trump, are almost non-negotiable for Russia, given their strategic location and mineral and industrial resources. Will the meeting end up compromising Ukraine and Europe's security? What will this portend for the European security architecture? Is Europe being remade minus the robust transatlantic alliance that has undergirded the post-World War 2 era? What would it foretell about America's security guarantees not only in Europe, but also in the rest of the world, including the Indo-Pacific region vis-à-vis China? When great powers play great games, do remnants of international law and sovereignty become irrelevant? Is it a simple affirmation of the dictum of realism, 'The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must?' The recent turn of events reminds one of Henry Kissinger's lines: 'It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.' In the final analysis, a lot is on the line in Alaska. Indrani Talukdar is a Fellow and Monish Tourangbam is a Senior Research Consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Sydney Sweeney controversial American Eagle jeans ad has a Republican vs Democrat divide
A new American Eagle jeans ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has sparked a sharp divide among young Americans, according to a recent poll, highlighting how fashion campaigns can become lightning rods in today's culture wars. The outdoor campaign, prominently displayed outside an American Eagle store in New York, features Sweeney in denim with the tagline, 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' The ad has ignited debates over 'wokeness,' beauty standards, and race. Partisan Divide by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Become Fluent in Any Language Talkpal AI Sign Up Undo A Generation Lab poll of 1,289 undergraduate and graduate students conducted from August 7–11, 2025, found clear partisan splits in reactions to the campaign. 64 percent of Democrats said the ad felt out of touch, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. 38 percent of Republicans found the ad authentic, compared with just 10 percent of Democrats. 42 percent of Democrats said the ad made them less likely to buy American Eagle jeans, while 16 percent of Republicans and 28 percent of Independents reported the same. Gender differences The survey also revealed differences in perception between young men and women, as 39 percent of young women, the ad's primary demographic, said they were less likely to purchase the jeans, compared with 21 percent of men. 63 percent of young women felt the ad was out of touch, versus 44 percent of young men. Live Events Despite a heated online debate, only a small fraction of respondents believed the campaign promoted eugenics through its play on 'jeans' and 'genes': 10 percent of women and 8 percent of men said the ad was endorsing genetic superiority. Among political groups, 13 percent of Democrats, 5 percent of Republicans, and 8 percent of Independents agreed with this criticism. American Eagle's stock jumped after Trump publicly praised the ad, demonstrating how controversial campaigns can drive both discussion and investor attention. "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the HOTTEST ad out there," he wrote in a Truth Social post on Monday. "Go get 'em, Sydney!"
