logo
#

Latest news with #SteveBannon

Opinion: Top Dating Tips For the Future MAGA Faithful in D.C.
Opinion: Top Dating Tips For the Future MAGA Faithful in D.C.

Yahoo

time17 hours ago

  • Entertainment
  • Yahoo

Opinion: Top Dating Tips For the Future MAGA Faithful in D.C.

On a recent trip to Washington D.C., I had dinner back-to-back nights at a legendary Capitol Hill steakhouse. The place was packed with politicians, Hill staffers and K-Streeters, but I was amazed at how lonely the Gen-Z MAGA men and women looked: Staring at their phones, incapable of conversation and wholly unable to pick up a date. Yes, they're new to the D.C. scene but also because they had no moves. And that is where I can help! What follows is my advice for MAGA 'boys and, in some cases, gals' on how to connect and find romance—or at least a hookup. What makes me qualified to give dating and sex advice? It's been 30 years since I was a D.C. political consultant. And even longer since I had sex. But I live in Hollywood, and show business pickup lines are easily adapted to the Capitol. Case in point: Hollywood: I may have a part for you in my next movie. Come to my hotel room at 2 read the script. D.C.: I may have some district spending for you. Come to my office at 2 a.m. to read the bill. Or there's: Hollywood: Did I tell you that Steven Spielberg likes my script? D.C.: Did I tell you Steve Bannon liked my Project 2025 proposal on the best ways for bankers to foreclose on widows and orphans? See, it's perfect. So, here's some tip tips for all the power-hungry, love-lorn players out there. Like buying a house or getting a vasectomy, the three things that matter most when looking to lock down a love connection are location, location and location. You want to be at a spot where the action is, close to your office in the White House so that you can walk your new friend back for a private tour or, you know, Senate hearing room sex tape. The bar at The Willard is perfect, but also don't rule out The Mayflower—where you can take your new flame up to the Elliot Spitzer room for some 'socks on' action. When you see your 'target' across the room, remember these three basic rules: If you think Kristi Noem is smiling at you, it's just the Botox. 90% of the time a MAGA hat is worn to cover male pattern baldness. Always ask for two proofs of citizenship—you want to be the one to handcuff your date, after all, not ICE. Checked those boxes? Open the conversation. Some lines to consider: 'I'd like to storm you like the Capitol.' 'I want to do to you what the Big Beautiful Bill did to people on Medicaid.' 'Oh that? RFK Jr. told me it's just a cold sore.' Once your target is hooked—and of course they will be if you're spitting fire like the above—you need to move things along. You could talk about why the Ten Commandments should be posted in the bedroom, so you know which ones to break. You could keep things fun with an icebreaker game—like playing 'kiss, marry kill', but with 'depose, arrest, deport' categories. (First name: Rosie O'Donnell.) And make sure to use sexy euphemisms to pique their interest: 'I'm known as the majority whip,' say, or 'my package has stimulus.' At this point you have primed the pump, so to speak. Don't worry about picking up the check, you're surrounded by lobbyists. Rather, you just need to close the deal—and make it fast, because you never know when a Truth Social rant is going to upend the government and leave you pulling the wrong kind of all-nighter: 'Why don't we go somewhere it's totally empty so we can be alone? I've got tickets to a 2028 Ron DeSantis rally.' 'Into some role-play? Let me pretend to be Venezuelan and sneak across your southern border.' 'Trust me, it's just a cold sore.' So now you're back at your apartment. The deed has been done and you need to say something to ease that post-coital tension. Don't admit to losing your virginity at 27, even if you're convinced it was their first time at the rodeo too. Try these lines instead: For a woman: 'You're almost as good as President Trump.' For a man: 'You're almost as good as Lauren Boebert during the second act of Beetlejuice.' But let's be honest, no-one wants to remain either under the desk or in the same bed for more than 5 minutes with a one-night stand. I recommend any/all of these lines ahead of a graceful edit, leaving open the possibility of a sequel without making a commitment. MAGA is the party of family values and trad wives, after all, but there's no need to have a wedding registry just yet—unless you really need a crockpot. 'I have to go now and do some housework. ICE arrested my maid.' 'Wow, I'm more tired than Joe Biden walking up a flight of steps.' (Then fake a yawn, fake falling asleep and begin to snore.) 'Actually, it's not really just a cold sore.' I hope this has been enormously helpful—it sure should be. By following my advice, and using my lines, you future leaders of America will find out that you don't need to be a member of Congress to service a constituent, seal a backroom deal and press the flesh. Solve the daily Crossword

Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel

CNN

time20 hours ago

  • Politics
  • CNN

Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel

Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.

Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel

CNN

time20 hours ago

  • Politics
  • CNN

Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel

Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.

The Irish Times view on Trump and Epstein: a story which still has a way to run
The Irish Times view on Trump and Epstein: a story which still has a way to run

Irish Times

time20 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Irish Times

The Irish Times view on Trump and Epstein: a story which still has a way to run

Donald Trump is not yet out of hot water over his 15-year association with sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and the investigation files that he promised to release. He may be helped by his Maga base's pathological hatred for the 'mainstream media', notably Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. But as a peddler of conspiracy theories himself to damage his enemies, he can hardly complain when his supporters demand more details on this one. And many are certainly doing so. Trump's political enemies are happy to stoke the controversy. Some of this may be unfair, given the lack of evidence to date, but they will calculate that any link to Epstein will be damaging for the president, as it has been for so many others. The Journal's story last week of a lewd letter allegedly sent by Trump to Epstein has prompted the president to sue the paper for defamation and to banish it from the presidential press pool. 'The Murdochs' bizarre assault on the president galvanised his base because of both content and process,' former adviser and key Maga leader Steve Bannon observes. 'Now we are united as Trump goes on offence – against the Murdochs, the courts and the deep state.' Even Elon Musk, who had earlier this year claimed Trump was named in the FBI's files, said he did not believe the letter was real. 'It really doesn't sound like something Trump would say,' he said. READ MORE In response to weeks of uproar on social media at the administration's failure to release the files, Trump ordered his attorney general to seek a court order freeing up some of the secret grand jury testimony on Epstein. Law enforcement agencies have not accused Trump of any Epstein-related wrongdoing, although reports have emerged in recent days that 1996 efforts to call law enforcement attention to him had implicated Trump. The president's base, schooled in lurid conspiracy theory, is unlikely to accept his assurances 'that there's nothing to see here, please move on.' This one still has a way to run.

The ideology behind the ‘New America' is more dangerous than it looks
The ideology behind the ‘New America' is more dangerous than it looks

Russia Today

time3 days ago

  • Politics
  • Russia Today

The ideology behind the ‘New America' is more dangerous than it looks

For the past 500 years, the West has reigned as the world's dominant civilization. Though its grip has loosened in recent years, the West – especially the United States – remains the most powerful force in global politics and the international economy. This power, while capable of building plenty, also carries the potential to destroy a lot. Today, a new ideology is taking shape in the West, particularly in the US. Under the right conditions, it could prove as dangerous to humanity as fascism and Nazism were in the last century. The reelection of Donald Trump may mark a decisive turning point, transferring power to people and ideas that are, at best, deeply ambiguous. This 'New America' is not driven by a single worldview, but rather by a convergence of four ideological factions. At the center stands Trump himself and his allies – throwbacks to the era of great-power imperialism. Trump's inaugural speech to launch his second term left little doubt: He called for territorial expansion, industrial growth, and a resurgent military. America, he declared, is 'the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.' He spoke approvingly of President William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, both architects of American imperialism. The vision is unmistakable: American exceptionalism, enforced by military might and driven by the logic of conquest. It is the language of empire. Then there are the right-wing populists – figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, strategist Steve Bannon, and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their rallying cry is 'America First'. They champion traditional values, claim to speak for the working class, and disdain the liberal elite concentrated in coastal cities. They oppose globalism, support trade protectionism, and promote isolationism in foreign policy. This faction is not particularly new in American politics, but its influence has deepened, especially under Trump's patronage. A newer – and perhaps more unsettling – element of America's emerging ideology is represented by Silicon Valley billionaires. Elon Musk is the most visible figure, briefly heading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025. But the more influential actor may be Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and early internet pioneer who became an informal adviser to Trump. Andreessen's political turn followed his frustration with Biden-era regulations on crypto and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he published a manifesto called 'The Techno-Optimist', a document that preaches unrestrained technological acceleration. In his view, scientific innovation and free markets can solve all of humanity's problems – if only government gets out of the way. Andreessen quotes Nietzsche and invokes the image of the 'apex predator' – a new breed of technological superman who sits atop the food chain. He writes, 'We are not victims, we are conquerors… the strongest predator at the top of the food chain.' Such language might seem metaphorical, but it is revealing. Andreessen's list of intellectual inspirations includes Filippo Marinetti, the Futurist who helped lay the aesthetic groundwork for Italian fascism and died fighting the Red Army at Stalingrad. The most intellectually developed thinker of the techno-libertarian camp is Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and the data surveillance firm Palantir Technologies. Thiel is no longer a marginal figure – he is now arguably the second most important ideologue of the New America, after Trump himself. Thiel is also a master strategist. He personally mentored and funded Vance, now vice president and possibly Trump's heir apparent. At the same time, he backed Blake Masters in Arizona, although that bet didn't pay off. Thiel reads the Bible, quotes Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, and speaks openly about the limits of democracy. 'Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy,' he has said. He has compared modern America to Weimar Germany, arguing that liberalism is exhausted, and a new system must rise. Despite his libertarian leanings, Thiel's companies develop AI tools for the Pentagon and fund next-generation weapons systems through firms like Anduril. Thiel believes that America has entered a long decline – and that radical technological leaps are needed to reverse it. One of his pet projects is the 'Enhanced Games', a competition where doping and biohacking are allowed. Co-organized with Donald Trump Jr., the event reflects Thiel's obsession with transhumanism and human enhancement. In foreign policy, Thiel views China as America's primary enemy. He has called it a 'semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy' and pushed for complete economic decoupling. Interestingly, Thiel is far less hostile to Russia, which he sees as culturally closer to the West. In his view, pushing Moscow into Beijing's arms is a strategic mistake. The final group behind the New America are the theorists of the 'Dark Enlightenment', or neo-reactionary movement. These intellectual provocateurs reject the Enlightenment values that once defined the West. Nick Land, a British philosopher living in Shanghai, is among the founding thinkers of this school. He predicts the end of humanity as we know it and the rise of posthuman, techno-authoritarian systems governed by capital and machines. For Land, morality is irrelevant; what matters is efficiency, evolution, and raw power. Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), an American programmer, is another central figure. A friend of Thiel and an insider in Trump's intellectual circle, Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He imagines a future of sovereign city-states run like companies, where experimentation with laws and technologies is unrestricted. Yarvin is clear in his rejection of American global leadership. He believes the US should withdraw from Europe and let regional powers settle their own disputes. He speaks warmly of China, and his views on World War II are unorthodox to say the least – suggesting Hitler was motivated by strategic calculation rather than genocidal ambition. Many of these ideas may seem fringe. But fringe ideas have power – especially when they echo through the corridors of political and technological influence. Carl Schmitt's legal theories enabled Hitler to seize dictatorial powers in 1933. Today, the intellectual allies of Trump and Thiel are crafting their own narratives of 'emergency', 'decadence', and 'reawakening'. What's emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it. The liberal international order is no longer seen as sacred – even by the country that built it. The new American elite may be withdrawing troops from Europe, the Middle East, and Korea, but their ambitions have not shrunk. They are turning instead to subtler methods of control: AI, cyber dominance, ideological warfare, and technological superiority. Their goal is not a multipolar world, but a redesigned unipolar one – run not by diplomats and treaties, but by algorithms, monopolies, and machines. The threat to the world is not just political anymore. It is civilizational. The superhumans are on the article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store