Marjorie Taylor Greene takes shot at Fox News viewers for being too old: ‘They are not the future of America'
Amid her recent rift with the GOP, the Georgia Republican has also struck up a feud with Fox News host Mark Levin. He called her a 'lunatic' during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. 'The Republican Party isn't going the way of Marjorie Taylor Greene or her ilk. No way!' Levin said.
Greene responded to Levin during an interview with Eric Bolling on Real America's Voice News Wednesday, and took a dig at Fox News' audience.
'Mark has never called me or talked to me in person,' Greene said. 'When he goes on Fox News, the network where he hosts his show, and calls me 'crazy' and refers to 'Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ilk,' he's insulting my entire district.'
She continued: "Fox News better start paying attention, but their problem is most of the people that watch Fox News are very much up in age, the Baby Boomer generation, who I love, those are my parents, but that's their biggest audience. That's not the future of America."
Nearly half of older Americans — 47 percent of those 65 and older, and 45 percent aged 50-64 — say they regularly get news from Fox News, according to Pew. That's compared to 32 percent aged 30-49, and 28 percent of those under 30. Older adults are more likely to get their news from watching TV compared to younger adults in general.
Greene, a longtime loyal supporter of President Donald Trump, has publicly disagreed with the president and her own party in recent weeks. She has denounced Israel's war in Gaza, opposed Trump's recent artificial intelligence executive order, and called for the Trump administration to release the Epstein Files.
'I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to the Republican Party as much anymore,' Greene told the Daily Mail last week. 'I don't know which one it is.'
Levin and Greene got into another spat in June over foreign policy. After U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Greene criticized the move, saying she wanted to focus on issues at home rather than abroad.
'I don't know anyone in America who has been the victim of a crime or killed by Iran, but I know many people who have been victims of crime committed by criminal illegal aliens or MURDERED by Cartel and Chinese fentanyl/drugs,' the Congresswoman wrote on X.
Greene added that she still supported Trump while disagreeing with the Iran airstrikes 'and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started.'
Levin responded to her remarks, calling her a 'shameless nitwit ' — and misspelled her name.
'Marjorie Taylor Green, shameless nitwit,' he wrote. 'How incredibly dumb is this Marjorie Taylor Green? She doesn't know anyone in America who has been a victim of crime or killed by Iran? You mean the thousands of Americans, especially military personnel, killed and maimed by the Iranian terrorist regime?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Confusion over the Alaska summit shows Vladimir Putin still calls the shots
In the five months since Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met at the Oval Office in late February, Ukrainian officials have worked hard to repair the damage of that day, which ended with the Ukrainian president being kicked out of the White House. With advice from European allies, Zelenskyy recalibrated his strategy for dealing with the Trump administration, and there was a feeling it was broadly going well. 'We managed to reset communications, to find a new language to work with Trump,' said one senior official in Kyiv a week ago. It has also seemed as if Trump's rhetoric was finally shifting as he termed Russia's bombing of Ukrainian cities 'disgusting' in recent weeks and set Vladimir Putin a deadline of last Friday to stop the war or face the imposition of crippling new sanctions. Then came envoy Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow last Wednesday. Putin appears to have made no major concessions during the three-hour Kremlin meeting, and in return was rewarded not with debilitating sanctions but with an invitation to meet Trump in Alaska. The offer to thrash out a Ukrainian peace deal at a bilateral summit with Trump represents exactly the sort of great-power deal-making Putin has always craved. It will be his first trip to the United States since 2007, with the exception of visits to the UN. Exactly how the Alaska summit will look is still unclear, with a particularly Trumpian kind of confusion and chaos accompanying its announcement. Kyiv, European capitals and even Trump's own staff have been trying to understand what exactly was agreed in the Kremlin. The first announcements from the White House suggested Putin would meet Trump, followed by a three-way meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy. This was swiftly denied by Putin. As he put it, 'we are still far from creating the conditions' for a meeting with Zelenskyy. An aide denied that the Russian side had ever agreed to a three-way meeting. A White House source told the New York Post on Thursday that if Putin did not agree to meet Zelenskyy, the meeting with Trump would not go ahead. But a few hours later, Trump denied that: he was happy to meet Putin anyway. The back-and-forth gave the distinct impression, not for the first time, that in the relationship between Trump and Putin, it is the Russian president who calls the shots. Some administration officials later briefed US media outlets that they may invite Zelenskyy anyway, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said in a Sunday interview he 'hopes and assumes' that Zelenskyy will take part. For now, this does not seem likely. A senior White House official told NBC that Trump was 'open' to a trilateral summit, but was 'focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by president Putin'. As worrying for Kyiv as the planned format of the talks is the apparent Russian deal now on the table. The plan, as it has been reported after filtering through the Trump administration and then to European capitals, is that the Ukrainian army should unilaterally withdraw from the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk it still controls, which would presumably include the fortified military stronghold of Kramatorsk. In exchange, the Kremlin would agree to freeze the lines in other places. 'Ukrainians will not give their land to occupiers,' Zelenskyy said over the weekend, adding that handing over land to Russia would violate the Ukrainian constitution. He said any deal done without Ukraine was destined to be 'stillborn'. Zelenskyy's public posture that Ukraine will never cede land is true up to a point. Kyiv is unlikely to renounce legal claims to its own territory, but the Ukrainian elite and much of Ukrainian society is increasingly ready for a deal that would recognise Russian de facto control, perhaps for a set period of time, in exchange for ending the fighting. The main problem with such a deal has always been what kind of guarantees Ukraine would receive that Russia would not simply use a ceasefire as time to regroup before attacking again. Brief discussions earlier this year about a European peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire were quickly scaled back to a 'reassurance force' stationed far from the frontlines. Ukrainians would therefore have not much to rely on but Putin's word, which they have learned from experience not to trust. Even still, there is a significant camp in the Ukrainian political and military elite who believe that, after more than three years of war, the situation has become so dire that the country is obliged to take such a deal, simply to allow for a pause in the fighting. The problem for Kyiv is the deal Putin apparently pitched to Witkoff is significantly worse than simply freezing the lines. 'As things stand, Ukraine and Europe are on the verge of being confronted with exactly the kind of Faustian deal they feared would emerge back in February,' Sam Greene, a professor at King's College London, wrote on X. Over the past few days, Zelenskyy and his team have been rallying support among European leaders and trying to put together an alternative, European plan. Unfortunately for Kyiv, previous experience suggests Trump is unwilling or unable to exert real pressure on Putin. 'If Putin and Trump reach an agreement directly, Europe will be faced with a fait accompli. Kyiv – even more so,' said Roman Alekhin, a Russian war blogger, on Sunday. It is exactly that prospect Ukraine's leadership will be doing their utmost to prevent in the days before Friday's summit.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Vance says Ukraine peace deal unlikely to satisfy either side
WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President JD Vance said a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely to satisfy either side, and any peace deal will likely leave both Moscow and Kyiv "unhappy." He said the U.S. is aiming for a settlement both countries can accept. "It's not going to make anybody super happy. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians, probably, at the end of the day, are going to be unhappy with it," he said in a Fox News interview that aired Sunday. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Trump said Russia and Ukraine were close to a ceasefire deal that could end the three-and-a-half-year conflict, possibly requiring Ukraine to surrender significant territory. Zelenskiy, however, said Saturday that Ukraine cannot violate its constitution on territorial issues, adding, "Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupiers." In the Fox News interview recorded on Friday, Vance said the United States was working to schedule talks between Putin, Zelenskiy, and Trump, but he did not think it would be productive for Putin to meet with Zelenskiy before speaking with Trump. "We're at a point now where we're trying to figure out, frankly, scheduling and things like that, around when these three leaders could sit down and discuss an end to this conflict," he said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
MTG cashed in on ICE contractor's big win but Trump goes after ‘disgusting degenerate' Nancy Pelosi over stocks
Donald Trump's decision to wade into the debate over a congressional stock-trading ban could end up making things awkward for some of his closest allies in the House and Senate. While stock trades by members of Congress and their families have long been controversial, the sustained push for new restrictions on lawmakers is new. Supported by members of both parties, the effort to push back against an image of corruption and decadence in the chamber is growing in popularity particularly among younger members. But the prospect of making it to the president's desk with legislation that would ban congressional stock trading has now caused Trump to weigh in. The issue was glaring as he went on a late-night rant on Truth Social Saturday night against Democratic former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — after reports about one of his own MAGA faithful, Marjorie Taylor Greene cashing in on a stock deal tied to an ICE contractor. 'Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE iNFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???' he raged in his posting. Pelosi's office hadn't responded publicly as of Sunday morning. Taylor Greene has drawn criticism after she purchased stock in Peter Thiel-owned Palantir in April, three days before the company won an ICE contract. The company's stock has since surged. That's not even the first time this year Greene, who maintains that all of her trades are managed without her input by a financial adviser, has been called out by stock-trading watchdogs for highly-lucrative trading activity. 'After many successful years of running my own business, I ran for Congress to bring that mindset to Washington. Now that I'm proudly serving the people of Northwest Georgia, I have signed a fiduciary agreement to allow my financial advisor to control my investments,' Greene told the fact-checker site Snopes in May. 'All of my investments are reported with full transparency. I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do,' she added. 'I learned about my Palantir trades when I saw it in the media.' The California Democrat Pelosi, once her party's leader in the House of Representatives, is one of a few senior members of the chamber who has come out publicly against restrictions on congressional stock trading. 'We're a free market economy,' Pelosi said in 2021. 'They should be able to participate in that.' But her stance shifted over time and earlier in 2025 she came out in favor of legislation that would restrict such activity. The HONEST Act, a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, advanced through a Senate committee in late July. 'While I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service. The HONEST Act, as amended, rightly applies its stock trading ban not only to Members of Congress, but now to the President and Vice President as well. I strongly support this legislation and look forward to voting for it on the Floor of the House.' Pelosi supports the bill, despite it previously bearing her name: Hawley originally dubbed it the the 'PELOSI Act', a reference to the trading activity primarily conducted by Pelosi's husband Paul. She is one of the wealthier members of Congress; her family controls more than $127m in publicly-traded assets watched by stock-trading analysts. Its advancement drew opposition from Trump, which Hawley characterized in a rare public shot at his own colleagues as the result of Republican senators supposedly having called up the president and lied to him about what was in the bill. 'I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats,' Trump wrote on Truth Social in late July. Hawley responded, telling reporters: 'He said, senators, I don't know who, had called and told him yesterday afternoon that the bill had been changed at the last minute and would force him to sell all of his assets, sell Mar-a-Lago, sell his properties. So, I said, 'Well, that's just false. I mean, it explicitly exempts you and all your assets.'' The senator's response referred to a provision stuck in aimed explicitly at winning Trump over. The ban affects future presidents and vice presidents, but not Trump or his no. 2, JD Vance. It's unclear whether Hawley will succeed in winning over the president, but the ban at least has the potential to make it through both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support. Members of Congress on key committees are often scrutinized for their trading activity as in some cases lawmakers are privy to information that is not yet public or widely known, but could still affect markets. Some members of Congress were caught up in a scandal over such activity in 2020, at the onset of the Covid pandemic, when they triggered selloffs of their own stock shares ahead of a market collapse. One former North Carolina senator, a Republican, sold more than $1 million in stock one week before the market crashed.
