Does your politics matter on a dating app? Love should be about discovery
While it's been around for a few years, the trend appears to have solidified with the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary ahead of the New York City mayoral election later this year. In Mamdani's story about meeting his wife on a dating app, many see hope of finding their own perfect matches. This practical approach to relationships, with the elimination of an entire area of potential conflict, may seem admirable, especially in these polarised times. But does it offer any room for the spontaneous combustion known as love?
Because no matter how many heartbreaks it might cause, friction is essential if sparks are to fly. And while the good common sense of laying out the terms and conditions of a relationship right at the outset is undeniable, so is the fact that love is a journey of acceptance and discovery. It is neither a contract to be signed, nor a checklist to be filled. As William Faulkner once wrote, love happens 'despite', not 'because'. It unfolds in bits and pieces, in arguments and conversations. This age-old process may lead to a broken heart or two, some unmet expectations and dashed illusions. But when a clash of wills results in a meeting of minds and hearts, it is a price well worth paying.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
AG Bondi urged to testify over claim she told Trump he was in Epstein files
Trump's personal ties to Epstein are well-established and his name is already known to have been included in records related to the wealthy financier, who killed himself in jail in 2019 AP Washington Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing Democratic calls to testify before Congress following a newspaper's revelation that she told President Donald Trump that his name appeared in the files of the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking investigation. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Bondi told Trump his name was among many high-profile figures mentioned in the files, which the Justice Department this month said it would not be releasing despite a clamor from online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and members of Trump's base. Trump's personal ties to Epstein are well-established and his name is already known to have been included in records related to the wealthy financier, who killed himself in jail in 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. Sen Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, responded to the report by calling on Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to bring Bondi and Patel into the Judiciary Committee to testify about this now, Schiff said in a video posted on X. The Justice Department declined to comment on the report but issued a joint statement from Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying that investigators had reviewed the records and nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. As par of our routine briefing, we made the president aware of the findings, the statement said. The mere inclusion of a person's name in Epstein's files does not imply wrongdoing and he was known to have been associated with multiple prominent figures, including Trump. Over the years, thousands of pages of records have been released through lawsuits, Epstein's criminal dockets, public disclosures and Freedom of Information Act requests. They include a 2016 deposition in which an accuser recounted she spent several hours with Epstein at Trump's Atlantic City casino but didn't say if she met Trump and did not accuse him of any wrongdoing. Trump has also said he once thought Epstein was a terrific guy but they later had a falling-out. White House spokesman Steven Cheung on Wednesday said the reports were nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump vs AP: Court lets US president block Associated Press from key spaces; ‘Gulf of America' order dispute widens
US President Donald Trump won a temporary legal victory allowing him to continue restricting media access to certain spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One. A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, has upheld an earlier ruling that enables White House officials to exclude the Associated Press (AP) from the rotating pool of journalists covering the president's day-to-day activities, at least while the broader legal battle continues. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, on Tuesday, declined to overturn a previous decision that permitted the White House to limit AP's participation, as per Bloomberg. The case remains ongoing, but the court's move is seen as a win for Trump and his senior aides, who have long pushed for greater control over which media outlets get access to him. The appeals court, which currently has a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, did not record any dissents from its 11 active judges, signalling an uphill battle for AP in case it choose to escalate the case to the US Supreme Court. That court holds a conservative majority, which may be less inclined to side with the press. 'We are disappointed by today's procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard,' said AP spokesperson Lauren Easton. 'The press and the public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation. We look forward to continuing to produce strong, factual and nonpartisan coverage of the administration.' In contrast, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields welcomed the ruling, sharply criticising the news agency. 'AP's outrageous, self-absorbed actions are an embarrassment to journalism' and that 'the Trump administration is the most accessible and transparent in history.' The AP filed its lawsuit in February after the White House press office began restricting access for its reporters and photographers. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The administration claimed the agency was being excluded because it had refused to adopt President Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America,' a change AP did not reflect in its widely used style guide. In April, a federal district judge in Washington ordered the White House to reinstate the AP's place in the press pool. However, that order was largely blocked in June by a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit, although the AP retained access to the White House's East Room, which is typically open to a broader press group. The AP had requested a full review of the panel's decision by all active judges of the appeals court, but Tuesday's order left the panel's ruling largely intact.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 hours ago
- First Post
Supreme Court green lights Trump's removal of 3 Democrats from consumer safety panel
The US Supreme Court has allowed the removal of 3 Democratic members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, siding with the Trump administration in a dispute over presidential authority. The decision overturns a lower court ruling that had reinstated the Biden-appointed officials. read more Ties between the US and Pakistan have improved under Donald Trump. File Photo/Reuters The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the removal of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), siding with the Trump administration in a dispute over presidential authority. The three officials, appointed by President Biden to serve seven-year terms, were fired by Donald Trump in May. A federal judge had reinstated them, calling the firings unlawful, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision in response to an emergency appeal from the Justice Department. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The administration argued that the CPSC, like other federal agencies, falls under presidential control—giving the president the power to remove commissioners without cause. The court's three liberal justices dissented. The CPSC, created in 1972, is tasked with protecting consumers by issuing recalls and enforcing product safety rules. By law, the five-member panel must be bipartisan, with no more than three commissioners from the president's party. The ruling reflects broader legal tensions over the extent of presidential power. In June, a Biden-appointed judge, Matthew Maddox, had ruled that the CPSC's structure offered some independence from the executive branch, unlike agencies where firings had been upheld. The case could eventually lead to a challenge of the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling, which held that presidents cannot fire members of independent agencies without cause. That decision has long frustrated conservatives, who argue federal agencies should answer directly to the president. Attorneys for the ousted commissioners warned that allowing such removals could undermine the agency's independence and its ability to function free from political pressure.
