Rising: July 24, 2025
Robby Soave delivers radar on Democrats getting furious over the cancellation of Stephen Colbert's show by CBS.
Tulsi Gabbard says new Russiagate evidence points to Obama | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss DNI Tulsi Gabbard releasing a new set of, 'Russiagate,' documents.
Trump targets 'woke AI' in new EO, aims to fast-track data center construction | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss the Trump administration unveiling strategic plans on artificial intelligence that aims to cut red tape and, 'partisan bias.'
Skydance promises to eliminate DEI, review CBS after merger—Lindsey Granger | RISING
Lindsey Granger delivers monologue on how she thinks Paramount Global's $16 Million settlement with President Trump is, 'strategic,' and not, 'neutral.'
DOJ told Trump his name appeared in Epstein files, WSJ reports | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss a Wall Street Journal report suggesting that the DOJ allegedly told President Trump months ago that his name is among many in the Epstein Files.
Candace Owens sued by French president Macron, wife over claims she is a man | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing conservative commentator Candance Owens for defamation.
Nelk Boys under fire for Netanyahu interview | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger weigh in on podcasters Nelk Boys catching heat for Israeli Prime Minister interview.
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers stating that ABC's show, 'The View,' could be next in the line to be axed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
President Trump's plans to add a massive $200 million ballroom to the White House is angering critics, who see him moving forward with the long-sought project as part of his desire to leave a lasting mark not only on the office of the presidency but the first house as well. The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September. Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space. And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office. Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy. And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary. 'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.' When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.' The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits. The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions. 'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.' Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans. 'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.' Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction. 'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!' The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.' 'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.' The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House. 'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].' There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds. President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted. Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. 'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.' The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom. 'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill. He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.' Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue. 'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.' McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal. 'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.' There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted. 'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?' Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy. 'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
The left is trying to use international ‘lawfare' to shut down Musk and X
Elon Musk had three recent posts on X that are worth noting if you are opposed to censorship and cancellation. The first was two cartoon panels with the question, 'How do you tell who's telling the Truth?' The next panel offered the answer: 'The ones trying to silence other people are the ones lying.' Just prior to that, Musk had reposted a post that reads, 'President Trump's State Department has announced it is coming to the defense of Elon Musk's X after France labeled it an organized crime group and opened a criminal investigation. The State Department's DLR [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor] stated, 'As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X's proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an 'organized crime group.' Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.'' And just prior to that, Musk reposted a post from the conservative activist Mark Kern: 'There is a full on attack on the Internet by the UK and EU, disguised as 'for the children.' The ID requirement is affecting even Discord users and X users. It is full on dystopian as they ramp up police to arrest people for speech.' Below that is a link to a Telegraph article with the headline 'Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media.' Multiple people I have spoken with in the U.S., the U.K. and the EU believe that Musk and his X platform represent the greatest single threat to the far left and its goal of pushing its narratives unchallenged across the globe. One way the left now seems intent on stopping Musk and X is by mimicking the various 'lawfare' schemes rolled out against then-candidate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, which many Trump supporters saw as an unethical attempt to force him out of the race. While that 'lawfare' tactic failed — thanks in large part to Trump taking it head-on, day after day, while exposing it for what it was — activists in Europe and elsewhere believe the strategy can be refined and hardened for use against Musk and X in an attempt to intimidate, censor or silence them. Lest we forget, back in 2023, the European Union opened a probe into X for alleged 'failure to counter illegal content and disinformation.' Ah. The catch-all accusation frequently used by the intelligentsia on the left: 'disinformation.' Recall the draconian COVID-19 dictates from the left enacted to combat 'disinformation'? Here is a January headline from ABC News: 'EU politicians warn against Elon Musk's incursions into European politics.' Of course, Musk might rightfully retort that his 'disinformation' and 'incursions' were not only protected free speech, but simply ways to point out severe double-standards and harmful policies that were having an adverse effect upon the majority of the citizens of those nations. I wrote a piece for this site a year ago titled ' Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?' I highlighted calls for Musk to be arrested for stating his opinions while anticipating that the personal animus directed against him, X and the internet by certain individuals and groups in Europe advocating for censorship and cancellation could grow. It now seems that I was correct. All of which raises an obvious question:Why do so many on the left want to prevent people around the world from gathering as much information as possible on their own, then coming to their own conclusions based on their own research? Do they fear people thinking for themselves? Do they fear their own constituents, customers and neighbors? Open minds open doors. I have always believed it imperative to listen to those I may disagree with. What if I am wrong and they are correct? What if they show me a truth I refused to believe out of ignorance, intolerance or indoctrination? Aren't I the one getting a gift — one I could not receive if their voices were censored or canceled? Alarmingly, many on the left in Europe — as well as in the U.S. — don't seem to share my belief that we need to listen to those we disagree with. Note this April headline from The New York Times: 'E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk's X.' The opening paragraph of the article spells it out: 'European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against Elon Musk's social media platform, X, for breaking a landmark law to combat illicit content and disinformation, said four people with knowledge of the plans.' Once again, the left rolls out 'illicit content and disinformation' against Musk, X and the internet. Of course, millions around the world who are against censorship and cancellation and strongly in favor of free speech might say this is a transparent attempt by some on the left to intimidate and censor a site and voices that expose their continual failures to billions of people around the world. One person's 'disinformation' is another's 'irrefutable truth.' Don't hide behind censorship. Let the people think for themselves.
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines
Only a tiny portion of friendships in the US are between a Democrat and a Republican, an eye-opening new study found. Researchers at Wellesley College looked at 971 adult friend pairs and found that most Americans are not willing to agree to disagree. The study, published July 5 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, analyzed two separate friend samples, one in-person and one online. Advertisement 5 Researchers found that in real-life samples from New York and Boston, only 3% of friendships paired a Democrat and a Republican, a sign of deepening political silos. Jacob Lund – One study surveyed 537 friend pairs in deep-blue cities like New York and Boston, plus three liberal campuses — Wellesley, Amherst and Babson — and found just 3% of friendships crossed party lines. Nearly half of participants were Democrats. Only 7% were Republicans. Advertisement The second group, 434 friend pairs surveyed online, was more politically balanced — and the number of cross-party friendships more than doubled. With 42% Democrats and 31% Republicans, 8% of friendships spanned the aisle, hinting conservatives may be more willing to mix than their liberal peers. Even when friendships did cross the aisle, they scored lower on trust, emotional support and mutual understanding, the study found. 5 The study surveyed more than 970 friend pairs and found that almost all shared similar views on hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and immigration. fizkes – But there was one silver lining: the rare few who crossed party lines regarded the other side with less hostility. Advertisement 'Part of what is destroying our social fabric is that we have set an expectation that to be a good Democrat or Republican, you have to unconditionally hate the other party,' said Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. 'There is evidence that this social pressure to hate makes the state of partisan conflict seem worse than it actually is.' That pressure only grows, he added, when people don't have personal ties to someone on the other side. 'If you don't know a Republican or Democrat, it is easier to assume that they are unpatriotic, evil or immoral,' Westwood told The Post. 'Without a personal connection you can get lost in the nonsense coming from social media, cable news and Washington DC.' 5 Even when friendships crossed political lines, participants rated them as less close and less satisfying compared to ideologically aligned relationships. lesslemon – Advertisement Only about a quarter of friend pairs said they disagreed on major issues like abortion, immigration or gun rights, suggesting most people befriend those who already see eye to eye. And when politics entered the chat, things got even rockier — a quarter of those who disagreed said the conversation damaged the friendship. Some simply obliterate the friendship entirely, a 2024 study found One in five adults have cut off a close relative over politics, and half said the break happened in 2024 leading up to the election, a 2024 survey from The Harris Poll found. 5 Despite the tension, those with politically opposite friends showed more tolerance toward outgroups, suggesting some benefits to bipartisan bonds. be free – Among those still in contact, a third said they felt uncomfortable at a family gathering because of someone's political views, and just as many feared future events could turn ugly. 'It is rewarding to be around people who validate your views of the world and of the moral order, and from mildly stressful to absolutely intolerable to be around people who disagree with beliefs and values that are important to us,' Dr. Peter Ditto, a psychology professor at UC Irvine, told The Post. And it's a vicious cycle. Advertisement 'The more people hear about polarization, hostility and how few Democrats and Republicans are friends, the more they become convinced that they should also keep quiet,' said University of Michigan political communications professor Yanna Krupnikov. 5 In a more balanced national sample, 8% of 434 friend pairs crossed party lines — slightly higher than the 3% found in liberal strongholds. – Ditto warned that as politics becomes more central to people's identities, it's taking a toll on their personal lives. 'I worry as I see more and more evidence that politics is getting personal … that the corrosive political polarization in contemporary U.S. politics is seeping into people's everyday lives in ways that impact their well-being,' he said.
