Stay Ahead of the Curve: Latest Insights & Trending Topics

Tag: Atlantic

  • Touch Up Paint for Volkswagen – Atlantic Blue LC5B | Scratch and Chip Repair Kit – 0.84 Fl Oz (25ml)


    Price: $29.90
    (as of Jan 27,2025 21:18:14 UTC – Details)



    Advanced PAINT2FIX automotive touch-up paint system. You can get rid of scratches and stone marks in a short time and with a few easy steps. Paint2Fix guarantees an exact color match for your vehicle. Paint2Fix’s color formula is the permanent solution for your vehicle; It is not affected by water, rain and other weather conditions. You can cover the drawn areas easily and quickly. Paint2Fix allows you to cover your vehicle’s scratches and stone marks at a low cost. The patented solution will allow you to easily clean paint residues in the retouched area and correct application errors.

    Content of the Paint2fix touch up kit

    • Paint2Fix Touch Up Paint
    • 2 Fl Oz Patented Solution
    • 1 Fl Oz Carnauba Based Wax
    • 9 Micro Touch Up Brushes
    • Gloves for Application
    • Microfiber Cloth
    • Polytex Cloth
    • Detailed Instructions

    Paint2Fix touch-up paint for Acura, prevents rust and is easy to apply. No way to mistake, remove the touched up paint using the solution and try again.
    Finish the touch-up application in 5 minutes with basic steps. Top quality Paint2Fix touch up paint for Volkswagen Atlantic Blue LC5B
    Content of the PAINT2FIX touch up paint kit: PAINT2FIX touch up paint. 2 Fl Oz Patented Solution. 1 Fl Oz carnauba based wax. 7 micro paint brushes. Application gloves. Microfiber cloth. Polytex Cloth. Detailed Instructions. Since the volume of 0.84 Fl Oz and 1.35 Fl Oz paints fits in one jar, there is 1 jar of paint in the touch-up kit. Since the 2.53 Fl Oz volume of paint fits into two jars, there are two jars of paint in the touch-up paint kit.
    Paint2Fix touch-up paint is an innovative product designed to enable users to easily repair minor scratches and stone chips on their vehicles. This product allows you to achieve professional results, thanks to its high quality pigments and durable formula.
    Color Matching: Paint2Fix has an advanced color system that perfectly matches the original color of the vehicles. These paints, prepared according to the color codes of vehicle manufacturers, offer the right color for every brand and model. It is very important to purchase touch-up paint according to the vehicle’s color code. (For example, not every white color is the same tone, even if it is from the same brand)
    Easy Application: The product is very simple to use. Thanks to the micro retouch brushes included in the package, you can apply the paint precisely. This provides convenience for users of all levels.
    Fast Drying: Paint2Fix touch-up paint has a fast-drying formula. Thus, you can continue using the vehicle as soon as possible after the painting process.
    Durability: The paint is resistant to UV rays and weather conditions. In this way, it provides long-term protection and does not fade or crack over time.


    Are you tired of looking at those unsightly scratches and chips on your Volkswagen in Atlantic Blue LC5B? Look no further! Introducing our Touch Up Paint Scratch and Chip Repair Kit specifically designed for your Volkswagen in the beautiful Atlantic Blue LC5B color.

    This kit includes 0.84 Fl Oz (25ml) of touch up paint that perfectly matches your car’s color, making those imperfections disappear in no time. Easy to use and with professional results, this kit is a must-have for any Volkswagen owner looking to keep their car looking its best.

    Don’t let those scratches and chips ruin the appearance of your Volkswagen. Order your Touch Up Paint Scratch and Chip Repair Kit today and give your car the TLC it deserves!
    #Touch #Paint #Volkswagen #Atlantic #Blue #LC5B #Scratch #Chip #Repair #Kit #25ml,0.84 fl oz

  • Europe’s Elon Musk Problem – The Atlantic


    During an American election, a rich man can hand out $1 million checks to prospective voters. Companies and people can use secretly funded “dark money” nonprofits to donate unlimited money, anonymously, to super PACs, which can then spend it on advertising campaigns. Pod­casters, partisans, or anyone, really, can tell outrageous, incendiary lies about a candidate. They can boost those falsehoods through targeted online advertising. No special courts or election rules can stop the disinformation from spreading before voters see it. The court of public opinion, which over the past decade has seen and heard everything, no longer cares. U.S. elections are now a political Las Vegas: Anything goes.

    But that’s not the way elections are run in other countries. In Britain, political parties are, at least during the run-up to an election, limited to spending no more than £54,010 per candidate. In Germany, as in many other European countries, the state funds political parties, proportionate to their number of elected parliamentarians, so that politicians do not have to depend on, and become corrupted by, wealthy donors. In Poland, courts fast-track election-­related libel cases in the weeks before a vote in order to discourage people from lying.

    Nor is this unique to Europe. Many democracies have state or public media that are obligated, at least in principle, to give equal time to all sides. Many require political donations to be transparent, with the names of donors listed in an online registry. Many have limits on political advertising. Some countries also have rules about hate speech and indict people who break them.

    Countries apply these laws to create conditions for fair debate, to build trust in the system, and to inspire confidence in the winning candidates. Some democracies believe that transparency matters—­that voters should know who is funding their candidates, as well as who is paying for political messages on social media or anywhere else. In some places, these rules have a loftier goal: to prevent the rise of anti­democratic extremism of the kind that has engulfed democracies—­and especially European democracies—­­in the past.

    But for how much longer can democracies pursue these goals? We live in a world in which algorithms controlled by American and Chinese oligarchs choose the messages and images seen by millions of people; in which money can move through secret bank accounts with the help of crypto schemes; and in which this dark money can then boost anonymous social-media accounts with the aim of shaping public opinion. In such a world, how can any election rules be enforced? If you are Albania, or even the United Kingdom, do you still get to set the parameters of your public debate? Or are you now forced to be Las Vegas too?

    Although it’s easy to get distracted by the schoolyard nicknames and irresponsible pedophilia accusations that Elon Musk flings around, these are the real questions posed by his open, aggressive use of X to spread false information and promote extremist and anti-European politicians in the U.K., Germany, and elsewhere. The integrity of elections—­and the possibility of debate untainted by misinformation injected from abroad—is equally challenged by TikTok, the Chinese platform, and by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, whose subsidiaries include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. TikTok says the company does not accept any paid political advertising. Meta, which announced in January that it is abandoning fact-checking on its sites in the U.S., also says it will continue to comply with European laws. But even before Zucker­berg’s radical policy change, these promises were empty. Meta’s vaunted content curation and moderation have never been transparent. Nobody knew, and nobody knows, what exactly Facebook’s algorithm was promoting and why. Even an occasional user of these platforms encounters spammers, scammers, and opaque accounts running foreign influence operations. No guide to the algorithm, and no real choices about it, are available on Meta products, X, or TikTok.

    In truth, no one knows if any platforms really comply with political-funding rules either, because nobody outside the companies can fully monitor what happens online during an intense election campaign—and after the voting has ended, it’s too late. According to declassified Romanian-intelligence documents, someone allegedly spent more than $1 million on TikTok content in the 18 months before an election in support of a Romanian presidential candidate who declared that he himself had spent nothing at all. In a belated attempt to address this and other alleged discrepancies, a Romanian court canceled the first round of that election, a decision that itself damaged Romanian democracy.

    Not all of this is new. Surreptitious political-party funding was a feature of the Cold War, and the Russian government has continued this practice, sometimes by offering deals to foreign business­people close to pro-Russian politicians. Press moguls with international political ambitions are hardly a novelty. Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who has U.S. citizenship, has long played an outsize role in U.K. politics through his media companies. John Major, the former British prime minister and Conservative Party leader, has said that in 1997, Murdoch threatened to pull his newspapers’ support unless the prime minister pursued a more anti-­European policy. Major refused. Murdoch has said, “I have never asked a prime minister for anything,” but one of his Conservative-­leaning tabloids, The Sun, did endorse the Labour Party in the next election. Major lost.

    That incident now seems almost quaint. Even at the height of its influence, the print edition of The Sun sold 4 million copies a day. More to the point, it operated, and still does, within the constraints of U.K. rules and regulations, as do all broadcast and print media. Murdoch’s newspapers take British libel and hate-speech laws into consideration when they run stories. His business strategy is necessarily shaped by rules limiting what a single company can own. After his journalists were accused of hacking phones and bribing police in the early 2000s, Murdoch himself had to testify before an investigative commission, and he closed down one of his tabloids for good.

    McKay Coppins: Europe braces for Trump

    Social media not only has far greater reach—Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world—it also exists outside the legal system. Under the American law known as Section 230, passed nearly three decades ago, internet platforms are not treated as publishers in the U.S. In practice, neither Facebook nor X has the same legal responsibility for what appears on their platforms as do, say, The Wall Street Journal and CNN. And this, too, has consequences: Americans have created the information climate that other countries must accept, and this allows deceptive election practices to thrive. If countries don’t have their own laws, and until recently most did not, Section 230 effectively requires them to treat social-media companies as if they exist outside their legal systems too.

    Brazil broke with this pattern last year, when a judge demanded that Musk comply with Brazilian laws against spreading misinformation and political extremism, and forced X offline until he did. Several European countries, including the U.K., Germany, and France, have also passed laws designed to bring the platforms into compliance with their own legal systems, mandating fines for companies that violate hate-speech laws or host other illegal content. But these laws are controversial and hard to enforce. Besides, “illegal speech” is not necessarily the central problem. No laws prevented Musk from interviewing Alice Weidel, a leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on X, thereby providing her with a huge platform, available to no other political candidate, in the month before a national election. The interview, which included several glaringly false statements (among others, that Weidel was the “leading” candidate), was viewed 45 million times in 24 hours, a number far beyond the reach of any German public or private media.

    Only one institution on the planet is large enough and powerful enough to write and enforce laws that could make the tech companies change their policies. Partly for that reason, the European Union may soon become one of the Trump administration’s most prominent targets. In theory, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which took full effect last year, can be used to regulate, fine, and, in extreme circumstances, ban internet companies whose practices clash with European laws. Yet a primary intent of the act is not punitive, but rather to open up the platforms: to allow vetted researchers access to platform data, and to give citizens more transparency about what they hear and see. Freedom of speech also means the right to receive information, and at the moment social-media companies operate behind a curtain. We don’t know if they are promoting or suppressing certain points of view, curbing or encouraging orchestrated political campaigns, discouraging or provoking violent riots. Above all, we don’t know who is paying for misinformation to be spread online.

    In the past, the EU has not hesitated to try to apply European law to tech companies. Over the past decade, for example, Google has faced three fines totaling more than $8 billion for breaking antitrust law (though one of these fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2024).

    In November, the European Commission fined Meta more than $800 million for unfair trade practices. But for how much longer will the EU have this authority? In the fall, J. D. Vance issued an extraordinarily unsubtle threat, one that is frequently repeated in Europe. “If NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance,” Vance told an interviewer, “why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Mark Zuckerberg, echoing Vance’s misuse of the expression free speech to mean “freedom to conceal company practices from the public,” put it even more crudely. In a conversation with Joe Rogan in January, Zuckerberg said he feels “optimistic” that President Donald Trump will intervene to stop the EU from enforcing its own antitrust laws: “I think he just wants America to win.”

    Does America “winning” mean that European democracies, and maybe other democracies, lose? Some European politicians think it might. Robert Habeck, the German vice chancellor and a leader of that country’s Green Party, believes that Musk’s frenzies of political activity on X aren’t the random blurts of an addled mind, but rather are “logical and systematic.” In his New Year’s address, Habeck said that Musk is deliberately “strengthening those who are weakening Europe,” including the explicitly anti-European AfD. This, he believes, is because “a weak Europe is in the interest of those for whom regulation is an inappropriate limitation of their power.”

    Until recently, Russia was the most important state seeking to undermine European institutions. Vladimir Putin has long disliked the EU because it restricts Russian companies’ ability to intimidate and bribe European political leaders and companies, and because the EU is larger and more powerful than Russia, whereas European countries on their own are not. Now a group of American oligarchs also want to undermine European institutions, because they don’t want to be regulated—and they may have the American president on their side. Quite soon, the European Union, along with Great Britain and other democracies around the world, might find that they have to choose between their alliance with the United States and their ability to run their own elections and select their own leaders without the pressure of aggressive outside manipulation. Ironically, countries, such as Brazil, that don’t have the same deep military, economic, and cultural ties to the U.S. may find it easier to maintain the sovereignty of their political systems and the transparency of their information ecosystems than Europeans.

    A crunch point is imminent, when the European Commission finally concludes a year-long investigation into X. Tellingly, two people who have advised the commission on this investigation would talk with me only off the record, because the potential for reprisals against them and their organizations—­whether it be online trolling and harassment or lawsuits—­is too great. Still, both advisers said that the commission has the power to protect Europe’s sovereignty, and to force the platforms to be more transparent. “The commission should look at the raft of laws and rules it has available and see how they can be applied,” one of them told me, “always remembering that this is not about taking action against a person’s voice. This is the commission saying that everyone’s voice should be equal.”

    At least in theory, no country is obligated to become an electoral Las Vegas, as America has. Global democracies could demand greater transparency around the use of algorithms, both on social media and in the online-advertising market more broadly. They could offer consumers more control over what they see, and more information about what they don’t see. They could enforce their own campaign-funding laws. These changes could make the internet more open and fair, and therefore a better, safer place for the exercise of free speech. If the chances of success seem narrow, it’s not because of the lack of a viable legal framework—­rather it’s because, at the moment, cowardice is as viral as one of Musk’s tweets.

    This article appears in the March 2025 print edition with the headline “Can Europe Stop Elon Musk?”



    Europe’s Elon Musk Problem

    In recent years, the tech industry has been dominated by the likes of Elon Musk, the charismatic CEO of Tesla and SpaceX. However, while Musk’s innovative ideas and ambitious projects have captured the world’s attention, Europe seems to be struggling to keep up.

    In an article published by The Atlantic, the author explores Europe’s “Elon Musk problem” – the lack of a similarly visionary and influential figure in the tech industry. While Europe has produced its fair share of successful entrepreneurs and innovators, none seem to have the same level of impact and global reach as Musk.

    The article points out that Europe’s tech industry is often fragmented, with different countries focusing on their own niche markets rather than collaborating on a larger scale. This lack of cohesion may be hindering the region’s ability to compete with the likes of Silicon Valley.

    Furthermore, Europe’s regulatory environment is often seen as a barrier to innovation, with strict data protection laws and other regulations making it difficult for startups to thrive. In contrast, Musk has famously pushed boundaries and challenged traditional norms, often at the expense of regulatory compliance.

    Despite these challenges, the article suggests that Europe does have the potential to produce its own version of Elon Musk – a visionary leader who can drive the region’s tech industry forward. However, it will require a shift in mindset and a greater willingness to take risks and think big.

    As Europe grapples with its “Elon Musk problem,” it remains to be seen whether the region can rise to the challenge and produce its own tech titan. Only time will tell if Europe can compete on the global stage and truly make its mark in the world of innovation.

    Tags:

    1. Europe’s Elon Musk Problem
    2. The Atlantic article on Europe’s Elon Musk issue
    3. European tech industry and Elon Musk
    4. Challenges faced by Europe in competing with Elon Musk
    5. Analysis of Europe’s struggle to keep up with Musk’s innovation
    6. Impact of Elon Musk’s companies on Europe’s economy
    7. European perspective on Elon Musk’s dominance in tech
    8. Can Europe catch up to Elon Musk’s success?
    9. The Atlantic’s take on Europe’s challenges with Elon Musk
    10. How Europe can address the Elon Musk problem

    #Europes #Elon #Musk #Problem #Atlantic

  • North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic Prediction: Spread, Total Points, Moneyline Picks – Sunday, January 26, 2025


    The North Texas Mean Green (14-4, 5-1 AAC) are 8.5-point favorites as they attempt to continue a six-game home winning streak when they take on the Florida Atlantic Owls (10-9, 3-3 AAC) on Sunday, January 26, 2025 at UNT Coliseum. The matchup airs at 2:00 PM ET on ESPNU. The matchup has an over/under of 136.5.

    North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic Odds

  • North Texas odds to win: -395
  • Florida Atlantic odds to win: +310
  • Spread: North Texas (-8.5)
  • Total: 136.5

    • North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic Promo Codes

    Game Time and Information

  • Date: Sunday, January 26, 2025
  • Time: 2:00 PM ET
  • TV: ESPNU
  • Where: Denton, Texas
  • Venue: UNT Coliseum

    • Who Will Win North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic?

    North Texas and Florida Atlantic Betting Trends, Records Against the Spread

    When it has played as at least 8.5-point favorites this season, North Texas is 4-3 against the spread.

    Florida Atlantic has not yet covered the spread as an underdog of 8.5 points or more this season (0-1).

    The two teams average a combined 13.9 more points per game, 150.4, than this game’s over/under of 136.5 points.

    Opponents of these teams have averaged a combined 136.6 points per game, 0.1 more than the point total in this matchup.

    The average point total in North Texas’ games this year is 7.7 fewer points than the total of 136.5 in this matchup.

    The average total for Owls games this season is 21.7 more points than the point total of 136.5 in this outing.

    The Mean Green have a 9-7-0 record against the spread this season.

    So far this year, the Owls have put together a 6-11-1 record against the spread.

    North Texas Stats & Insights

    North Texas outscores opponents by 10.6 points per game (scoring 69.7 per game to rank 293rd in college basketball while giving up 59.1 per contest to rank fourth in college basketball) and has a +191 scoring differential overall.

    North Texas averages 29.4 rebounds per game (323rd in college basketball) while allowing 24.7 per contest to its opponents. It outrebounds opponents by 4.7 boards per game.

    The Mean Green connect on 7.3 three-pointers per game (226th in college basketball), while their opponents have made 6.4 on average.

    North Texas ranks 53rd in college basketball with 102.1 points scored per 100 possessions, and 56th in college basketball defensively with 86.6 points conceded per 100 possessions.

    Offensively, the Mean Green have performed better at home this season, posting 73.9 points per game, compared to 65.2 per game away from home.

    Florida Atlantic Stats & Insights

    Florida Atlantic has a +61 scoring differential, topping opponents by 3.2 points per game. It is putting up 80.7 points per game, 43rd in college basketball, and is giving up 77.5 per outing to rank 318th in college basketball.

    Florida Atlantic grabs 33.7 rebounds per game (116th in college basketball), compared to the 34.1 of its opponents.

    Florida Atlantic hits 8.7 three-pointers per game (95th in college basketball), while its opponents have made 9.1 on average.

    Florida Atlantic ranks 145th in college basketball with 97.3 points scored per 100 possessions, and 217th defensively with 93.4 points conceded per 100 possessions.

    At home, the Owls score 80.6 points per game. Away, they average 83.6.

    North Texas Key Players to Watch

    The scoring leader for the Mean Green this season is Atin Wright, who averages 13.8 points, 2.2 rebounds, and 0.7 assists per game.

    Moulaye Sissoko is North Texas’ leading rebounder, grabbing 5.8 per game, while Jasper Floyd is its best passer, averaging 3.9 assists in each contest.

    Wright leads the Mean Green in three-point shooting, knocking down an average of 2.7 shots per game from beyond the arc.

    Latrell Jossell and Brenen Lorient lead North Texas on the defensive end, with Jossell leading the team in steals averaging 1.5 per game and Lorient in blocks averaging 1.3 per contest.

    Florida Atlantic Key Players to Watch

    Tre Carroll is at the top of the Owls scoring leaderboard with 12.5 points per game. Carroll also collects 5.2 rebounds and averages 1.5 assists per game.

    Baba puts up a stat line of 7.1 rebounds, 10.9 points and 2.6 assists per game for Florida Atlantic to take the top rebound spot on the team. Leland Walker has the top spot for assists with 4.2 per game, adding 10.0 points and 2.8 rebounds per contest.

    KyKy Tandy is dependable from deep and leads the Owls with 2.3 made threes per game.

    Ken Evans (1.3 steals per game) is the steal leader for Florida Atlantic while Miller (1.7 blocks per game) is the block leader.

    North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic Prediction

  • Pick ATS: North Texas (-8.5)
  • Pick OU: Over (136.5)
  • Prediction:
    North Texas 77, Florida Atlantic 67

    • How to Bet on North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic

    And for more CBB game previews, NCAA basketball picks or even how to bet on college basketball check out the latest NCAAB lines on Betsperts.



North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic Prediction: Spread, Total Points, Moneyline Picks – Sunday, January 26, 2025

In this highly anticipated matchup between North Texas and Florida Atlantic, both teams will be looking to secure a crucial win in conference play. With the spread, total points, and moneyline picks on the line, fans can expect an intense battle on the court.

North Texas comes into this game with a strong record and will be looking to continue their winning streak. With a solid defense and efficient offense, they have the potential to cover the spread and come out on top. Florida Atlantic, on the other hand, has had a mixed season so far but has shown flashes of brilliance. They will need to bring their A-game to compete with North Texas.

As for the spread, North Texas is favored by a few points, indicating that they are the stronger team on paper. However, Florida Atlantic has the ability to keep it close and potentially pull off an upset. It will be interesting to see how the game unfolds and if either team can cover the spread.

In terms of total points, this game has the potential to be high-scoring. Both teams have shown the ability to put up points in bunches, so fans can expect an exciting offensive showcase. The over/under for total points is set at a relatively high number, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see both teams exceed that mark.

When it comes to the moneyline picks, North Texas is the favorite to win outright. However, Florida Atlantic has proven to be a tough opponent and could pull off a surprise victory. It will be a close game, and anything can happen in college basketball.

Overall, this matchup between North Texas and Florida Atlantic is sure to be a thrilling contest. With the spread, total points, and moneyline picks all up for grabs, fans can expect a competitive and entertaining game on Sunday, January 26, 2025.

Tags:

North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic prediction, North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic spread, North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic total points, North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic moneyline picks, North Texas vs. Florida Atlantic betting tips, college basketball predictions, Sunday January 26 2025, NCAA basketball picks, North Texas Mean Green, Florida Atlantic Owls, sports betting analysis.

#North #Texas #Florida #Atlantic #Prediction #Spread #Total #Points #Moneyline #Picks #Sunday #January

  • The Unknowable Tulsi Gabbard – The Atlantic


    Sign up for Trump’s Return, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump presidency.

    Long before Donald Trump rewarded Tulsi Gabbard’s loyalty with a nomination to be the next director of national intelligence, before her friendliness with Tucker Carlson, and before her association with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she was loyal to another charismatic leader. A man who remains mostly unknown outside Hawaii but is reputed to have a powerful hold over his followers.

    That leader is Chris Butler, the founder of an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement in Hinduism, called the Science of Identity Foundation. Butler’s followers know him as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, and Gabbard, who identifies as Hindu, has called him her “guru-dev,” or spiritual master. According to its website, the foundation promotes yoga meditation to achieve spiritual and physical enlightenment, but Butler, well known for his fervent and graphic sermons about the evils of gay sex, does not appear to tolerate dissent from his followers. Some former devotees have called the secretive group a cult.

    Other than raw ambition, Gabbard’s adherence to Butler’s foundation has been the only perceptible through line in her switchbacking, two-decade political career. First there was an astonishingly quick leap from enigmatic state lawmaker to national Democratic Party leader; then came Gabbard’s almost-as-quick falling-out with the party establishment; there followed an inscrutable congressional record, including a seemingly inexplicable visit with a Middle East dictator; after that was Gabbard’s stint as a Fox News media darling, and finally her rebirth as a MAGA Republican, nominated to be America’s next spymaster.

    While Gabbard awaits a confirmation hearing, even senators in Trump’s party seem concerned about her suitability. Maybe they should be: Democrats figured out the hard way that they couldn’t rely on Gabbard; Republicans may soon learn the same.

    To understand how Gabbard ended up in the middle of such a strange ideological Venn diagram, it helps to know about her early years. Born in American Samoa, Gabbard grew up in Hawaii, where she was homeschooled and spent time surfing in the blue waves off Oahu. Her father, Mike, is now a Democratic state senator, but he’s done a bit of his own party-flipping; during Gabbard’s childhood, Mike was an independent, and later switched to the Republican Party, after leading Hawaii’s movement against same-sex marriage. He launched a group called Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii and hosted a radio show titled Let’s Talk Straight Hawaii. In 1998, Mike Gabbard put out a TV ad featuring a teenage Tulsi and her siblings that likened marrying someone of the same sex to marrying your dog.

    The Gabbard family was—and, according to several Hawaii residents and people familiar with the group, still is—devoted to Butler and his foundation. “The belief system was [Butler’s] interpretation of the Hare Krishna belief system, plus Buddhism, Christianity, and whatever else,” Lalita Mann, a former disciple of Butler’s, told me. Fraternizing with outsiders was frowned upon, Mann said; complete obedience was expected: “To offend him would be offending God.” Gabbard’s own aunt once described the group as “the alt-right of the Hare Krishna movement.”

    Butler had an appetite for temporal as well as spiritual power. Gabbard, a smart, good-looking girl from a political family, always appealed to him, Mann and Anita Van Duyn, another defector from the group, told me. Butler described Gabbard as a stellar pupil of his teaching. In her teens, Gabbard reportedly attended a school run by Butler’s followers in the Philippines. “He always wanted someone to be high up in the federal government” to direct the culture toward godliness, Van Duyn told me. Trump’s team rejected this characterization. “This is a targeted hit on her faith, fomenting Hinduphobia,” Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the Trump transition, told me. “The repeated attacks that she has sustained from the media and Democrats about her faith and her loyalty to our country are not only false smears; they are bigoted as well.” (Gabbard herself did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

    The Science of Identity Foundation leader was not the only person to see Gabbard’s appeal. The people I interviewed described the surfer cum mixed-martial-arts aficionado as shy but warm. She has a rich, low voice, and always greets people with a friendly “Aloha.” Her demeanor helps explain how quickly she rocketed to political success from a young age. She chooses her words carefully, and listens intently, often seeming like the most mature person in a room, even when she is one of the youngest. “She cocks her head, and she pulls you in” to the “Tulsi hug,” one Hawaii Democrat told me. “It’s very mesmerizing.” Gabbard, in other words, has charisma. And she has always made it count.

    In 2002, soon after she married her first husband, Gabbard dropped out of community college and ran for a seat in the Hawaii state House. In that race, and in others that followed, a swarm of volunteers associated with Butler’s group would descend on the district to knock on doors and pass out yard signs, according to someone who worked with Gabbard’s campaign in those early days, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Back then, Gabbard shared her father’s views on same-sex marriage and opposed abortion rights, two positions that were—particularly in recent years—politically risky in solid-blue Hawaii. But she was clearly struggling to form her ideology, the former campaign colleague said, and determine a political identity of her own.

    After one term in office, Gabbard joined the Hawaii Army National Guard, and went to Iraq as part of a medical unit, the first of two Middle East deployments. After her return, she and her husband divorced. In 2010, she ran successfully for a seat on the Honolulu city council. “She was as ambitious as you could possibly be,” Gabbard’s campaign colleague told me. And she was respected. Gabbard was racking up experiences, fleshing out her political résumé. Congress was next for Gabbard, and everybody knew it.

    In the fall of 2011, something happened that shocked politicians in Hawaii. EMILY’s List, the national organization whose goal is to elect pro-abortion-rights women to Congress, announced that it was backing Gabbard. To political observers, it didn’t make sense. Gabbard had a D behind her name, but was she really a Democrat? Behind the scenes, EMILY’s List was wondering the same thing. Although her position on abortion had evolved in ways acceptable to the organization, Gabbard was still iffy on same-sex marriage. Her answers on the EMILY’s List application had made its leaders uneasy, one former staffer told me, and that staffer was asked to call Gabbard for clarification. During their conversation, Gabbard said she didn’t want the government involved in marriage. The staffer pointed out that the government was already involved in heterosexual marriage, so it wouldn’t be fair to deny the same access to gay couples. Gabbard seemed not to have considered this, the staffer told me, and after only a few minutes on the phone, Gabbard declared that her position had changed. Politicians typically do some finagling to secure the support of special-interest groups, but this was different.

    “I’ve never had another conversation like that,” said the staffer, who still works in Democratic politics but asked to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly. “She was willing to do or say whatever. It was like she had absolutely no moral compass.” I heard the same sentiment from numerous people who have worked with Gabbard, both in Hawaii and at the federal level.

    Gabbard’s leftward journey was well under way. Her second Middle East deployment, to Kuwait, had inspired a “gradual metamorphosis” on social issues, she told Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, adding, “I’m not my dad. I’m me.” By the time she got to Congress, in 2013, Democrats had embraced her like a long-lost friend. Gabbard was celebrated as the first Hindu member of Congress and was eagerly welcomed in the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star,” and House leaders gave her a seat on the prominent Armed Forces Committee. She was, to use a more contemporary comparison, AOC before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    “There was this initial huge fascination with Gabbard” inside the party, a former Democratic House staffer, who requested anonymity to speak about his time working closely with Gabbard, told me. President Barack Obama himself lobbied for Gabbard to get a vice chairmanship on the Democratic National Committee, its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told me. The Florida lawmaker hesitated at first. “I was warned early on that she was close to extremists in Hawaii,” Wasserman Schultz told me, referring to anti-gay activists. Still, she gave Gabbard the benefit of the doubt.

    Gabbard proved popular among the other freshmen. “She was funny, she was engaging,” a former House colleague and friend of Gabbard’s, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told me. She ran around with a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Representatives Beto O’Rourke of Texas, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma; some of them met for CrossFit in the mornings.

    But the congressional crush on Gabbard fizzled almost as quickly as it began. Wasserman Schultz told me that the DNC had a hard time getting Gabbard to show up for meetings or conference calls. When a House vote against employment discrimination came up, Gabbard was difficult to pin down, Wasserman Schultz said—even though, as a DNC vice chair, she should have been “the easiest ‘yes’ in the caucus.”

    Read: The thing that binds Gabbard, Gaetz, and Hegseth to Trump

    Gabbard seemed eager to stand out in a different way. She took to sitting on the Republican side of the House chamber. Despite her DNC perch, she voted with Republicans to condemn the Obama administration for not alerting Congress about a prisoner exchange with the Taliban in 2014, and the next year criticized the Democratic president’s reluctance to refer to Islamic State terrorists as “Islamic extremists.”

    The representative from Hawaii was not facing a tough reelection, so none of these positions made sense to her fellow Democrats. Some suggested that she was a rare independent thinker in Congress; others identified in her a less virtuous strain of opportunism. Gabbard had “masked herself as a progressive to gain power,” Wasserman Schultz told me. After all, voters in Hawaii almost never elect Republicans to Congress.

    Others pointed to deeper forces. “I think something happened around 2013,” Gabbard’s campaign colleague from Hawaii told me, pointing out that, at the time, several of her original congressional staffers resigned, and Gabbard replaced them with people affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation. In 2015, Gabbard married Abraham Williams, the son of her office manager, both of whom, the colleague told me, were involved in the group. The couple’s Oahu wedding was attended by several members of Congress, including then–House Whip Steny Hoyer, as well as a representative from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist party. It seemed as though Butler’s group had reeled her back in, the campaign colleague said. He remembers thinking, “I don’t know who the hell you are anymore.”

    During the 2016 Democratic primary, Gabbard resigned from the DNC and endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign for president because, she said, Hillary Clinton was too hawkish. Sanders-aligned progressives appreciated her support, especially because the Vermont senator had just been shellacked in South Carolina. On the trail, Gabbard spoke confidently about anti-interventionism, climate change, and Medicare for All. “I couldn’t think of an issue then where we had any degree of separation,” Larry Cohen, a union leader and the chair of the pro-Sanders progressive group Our Revolution, told me.

    Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard hold arms up in the air with an American flag behind them
    Senator Bernie Sanders with Gabbard at his campaign rally in Gettysburg ahead of the Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, April 2016 (Mark Wilson / Getty)

    But, in 2017, Gabbard made a move that stumped her new progressive friends, as well as most everyone else: She flew to Syria, in the middle of its civil war, and twice met with the now-deposed dictator Bashar al-Assad, who had by then already killed hundreds of his own people using chemical weapons, and who clung to power thanks to aid from Vladimir Putin. The original plan, according to a former staffer for Gabbard, had been to meet with everyday Syrians and “bear witness.” But as The Washington Post reported today, the trip’s actual itinerary deviated dramatically from the one that had been approved by the House Ethics Committee. The meetings with Assad had not been in the plan, and even Gabbard’s staffer, like others on her team, did not know about them until after they’d happened. “You fucked us,” the staffer, who also asked for anonymity to speak about confidential matters, remembers telling Gabbard later. “The reason you told us you were going on this trip will never come up again. It will only ever be about you meeting with Assad.”

    For D.C. institutionalists, Gabbard’s conversations with Assad broke a long-standing convention that members of Congress do not conduct freelance foreign policy. But many also saw the trip as an unforgivable swerve toward autocracy.

    Outside the Washington scene, Gabbard’s independence and charisma still counted. When Gabbard ran in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, she could still muster an enthusiastic if motley alliance of progressives, libertarians, and conservative Hindus. She also did well among the kind of people who are fond of saying that all politicians are corrupt and neither political party is good for America. “I’m voting for her. I decided. I like her. I met her in person. Fuck it,” Joe Rogan said on his podcast that year.

    Despite that glowing endorsement, Gabbard never scored above single digits in the contest, and dropped out of the race in March 2020. In the years that followed, she would pop up now and again with new and surprising takes. In December 2020, Gabbard introduced a bill to ban trans women and girls from playing women’s sports, plus two pieces of anti-abortion legislation. In 2021, she left Congress altogether. The next year, when Russia invaded Ukraine, she blamed President Joe Biden and NATO for ignoring “Russia’s legitimate security concerns.” Then she turned up as a featured speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

    At a late-summer conference in Michigan last year, Gabbard announced that she was supporting Donald Trump for president. She completed her political migration in October at a MAGA rally in North Carolina, when she said that she was joining the Republican Party. She praised Trump for transforming the GOP into “the party of the people and the party of peace.” Her message was that she hadn’t left the Democrats; they had left her. “People evolve on politics all the time,” the former House colleague and friend told me. “But that’s a long way from saying Hey, the party went too far to embracing Donald Trump.”

    Gabbard’s instincts are those of a “moth to a flame of power,” Wasserman Schultz told me. And Trump’s flame is burning brightly again. But in Gabbard’s dogged pursuit of power, or at least of proximity to power, others see the influence not of a new guru, but of the old one: Butler. “She’s his loyal servant,” Van Duyn, the Science of Identity Foundation defector, said, and Gabbard regards him as “possessing infallible authority.” Van Duyn also told me that she has sent letters to several Democratic lawmakers, asking them to vote against Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI because she fears that sensitive intelligence “can and will be communicated to her guru.”

    Each of the current and former Democratic lawmakers I spoke with for this story had concerns about the Gabbard-Butler relationship. “There are some very tough questions that need to be asked,” Representative Jill Tokuda, Democrat of Hawaii, told me. “Who’s really calling the shots when it comes to what Tulsi Gabbard believes?”

    Tulsi Gabbard is seen from behind wearing a white suit waving to a crowd
    Gabbard at the Trump campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, on October 27, 2024 (Michael M. Santiago / Getty)

    Butler, who is now in his late 70s and reportedly living in a beachfront home in Kailua, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement, Jeannie Bishop, the foundation’s president, disputed the accounts of people whom the group considers to be “propagating misconceptions,” and accused the media of “fomenting” Hinduphobia. (Butler’s foundation, along with a collection of 50 Hindu groups, sent out a press release last week blasting recent media coverage as “Hinduphobic.”)

    Tom Nichols: Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination is a national-security risk

    Regardless of whom her opportunism ultimately serves, political opportunity has come again for Gabbard. After she hitched her wagon to Trump, he chose her to be his spymaster in chief—a position for which she does not seem remotely qualified. The current director, Avril Haines, was confirmed after previously serving as deputy national security adviser, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and deputy counsel to the president for national-security affairs in the Office of White House Counsel. Gabbard has no similar background in intelligence or agency leadership. Henning, the Trump spokesperson, pointed to Gabbard’s endorsement from former CIA Director of Counterterrorism Bernard Hudson, who has commended Gabbard’s “independent thinking.”

    Gabbard’s Assad visit and her pro-Russian views also remain fresh in the minds of many in Congress. Nothing proves that Gabbard is a “Russian asset,” as Hillary Clinton once famously put it, but Moscow seems gleeful about her selection to lead the intelligence agency: “The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are trembling,” the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda crowed after her nomination was announced. Another Russian state outlet called Gabbard a “comrade.”

    Judging by the congressional hearings so far, traditional expertise and credentials may not matter much to the GOP lawmakers charged with confirming Trump’s picks. But the incoherence of Gabbard’s ideological evolution may yet count against her: Reliability could be the sticking point. Republicans should know, as well as Democrats, that “she’s ruthless in her pursuit of personal power,” the Hawaii campaign colleague told me. “Even if that means disappointing MAGA folks or Trump, it’s clear she’d do it in a heartbeat.”

    During her eight years in Congress, Gabbard was a fierce defender of privacy rights, something her supporters on both the right and the left long admired. In particular, she had opposed the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, legislation that permits some warrantless surveillance of American citizens. But after meeting with senators last week, Gabbard announced that the act’s surveillance capability “must be safeguarded.” The would-be director of national intelligence had had a change of heart.



    In a recent article published by The Atlantic, the enigmatic and controversial Tulsi Gabbard is explored in depth. Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, has often defied easy categorization and has been a polarizing figure in American politics.

    The article delves into Gabbard’s background as a military veteran, her unorthodox foreign policy views, and her complicated relationship with the Democratic Party establishment. Gabbard’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her meetings with controversial figures like Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad have raised eyebrows and led to accusations of being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.

    Despite her unorthodox views, Gabbard has garnered a passionate following among some progressives and anti-interventionist voices. Her unapologetic stance on issues like regime change wars and military intervention has resonated with some voters who are disillusioned with the current political establishment.

    However, Gabbard’s political future remains uncertain. With her decision not to seek re-election to Congress and her low polling numbers in the Democratic primary race, it’s unclear what lies ahead for the enigmatic Tulsi Gabbard.

    The Atlantic’s article offers a nuanced and comprehensive look at Gabbard, highlighting both her strengths and weaknesses as a political figure. Whether she will continue to be a prominent voice in American politics or fade into obscurity remains to be seen. But one thing is certain – Tulsi Gabbard will always remain a figure shrouded in mystery and controversy.

    Tags:

    Tulsi Gabbard, The Atlantic, political analysis, Democratic candidate, Hawaii Congresswoman, presidential campaign, American politics, Tulsi Gabbard controversy, progressive leader, 2020 election, foreign policy, military background

    #Unknowable #Tulsi #Gabbard #Atlantic

  • The Tech Oligarchy Arrives – The Atlantic


    On the day of Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration, a group of his top billionaire donors, including the casino magnate Miriam Adelson and the future Republican National Committee finance chair Todd Ricketts, hosted a small private party, away from the publicly advertised inaugural balls.

    It was the sort of event that carried no interest at the time for the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. He greeted Trump’s first presidency by publicly identifying his wife’s parents and his own ancestors with the immigrants targeted by Trump’s early executive orders. “These issues are personal for me,” Zuckerberg wrote in a public letter of concern a week after Trump took office.

    But this month, as the same donors made plans for Trump’s second inauguration, Zuckerberg successfully maneuvered to become a co-host of their black-tie event, scheduled for tonight. The party quickly became one of the most sought-after gatherings of the weekend, overwhelming organizers with RSVPs from people who had not received invitations.

    Even more striking: Zuckerberg sat in front of Trump’s incoming Cabinet in the Capitol Rotunda at his inauguration—at the personal invitation of Trump himself, according to two people briefed on the plans who, like some other sources interviewed for this story, requested anonymity to describe private conversations. (A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment.)

    Charlie Warzel: We’re all trying to find the guy who did this

    Zuckerberg was not alone. Trump’s inauguration events featured a Silicon Valley smorgasbord, with leaders from Apple, Google, and TikTok in attendance, as well as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk. Several of the tech moguls also joined a small prayer service this morning at St. John’s Episcopal Church. Later, they blended in with the Trump clan directly behind the incoming president as he officially assumed power just after noon, like honorary family members.

    The scene announced a remarkable new dynamic in Washington: Far more so than in his first term, the ultra-wealthy—and tech billionaires in particular—are embracing Trump. And the new president is happy to entertain their courtship, setting up the possibility that Trump’s second turn in the White House could be shaped by person-to-person transactions with business and tech executives—a new kind of American oligarchy.

    Eight years ago, Trump landed in Washington in a fit of defiance, denouncing in his inaugural address “the American carnage” wrought by “a small group in our nation’s capital.” Four years later, he left as an outcast, judged responsible for the U.S. Capitol riot and a haphazard attempt to undo the constitutional order. He returns this week with a clean sweep of swing states and the national popular vote, the loyal support of Republicans in Congress, and the financial backing of corporate donors who are expected to help the inaugural committee raise twice what it did in 2017. Organizers of the Women’s March, which stomped on Trump’s 2017 inauguration by sending hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets, settled for a series of unremarkable Saturday gatherings. The Democratic opposition, which treated Trump’s first term as an existential threat, now lacks an evident strategy or leader.

    Like nearly every entity that has tried and failed to bend Trump to its will—his party, his former rivals, his partners in Congress, and his former aides among them—the tech elites largely seem to have decided that they’re better off seeking Trump’s favor.

    Read: ‘If there’s one person who keeps their word, it’s Donald Trump’

    Just months ago, Trump released a coffee-table photo book that included a pointed rant about Zuckerberg’s $420 million donation in 2020 to fund local election offices during the coronavirus pandemic, an undertaking that Trump called “a true PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.” “We are watching him closely,” Trump wrote of Zuckerberg, “and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison.”

    But since Trump’s victory, Zuckerberg has worked to get himself in the new president’s good graces. The Meta CEO traveled to Mar-a-Lago; added a Trump pal to his corporate board; extolled the importance of “masculine energy” on Joe Rogan’s podcast; abandoned the Meta fact-checking program, which MAGA world had viewed as biased; and personally worked with Trump to try to resolve a 2021 civil lawsuit over Facebook’s decision to ban him from the platform, a case that legal experts once considered frivolous.

    Bezos, meanwhile, worried aloud in 2016 that Trump’s behavior “erodes our democracy around the edges” and spent his first term taking fire from the president for the aggressive reporting of The Washington Post, the newspaper that Bezos owns (and where, until recently, we both were reporters). Now Amazon, like Meta, has given $1 million to the 2025 inaugural committee, and the company recently announced it would release a documentary about, and produced by, the first lady, Melania Trump. Even Musk, who spent more than $250 million last year to elect Trump and now is one of his top advisers, called for the aging Trump to “sail into the sunset” as recently as 2022.

    “In the first term, everybody was fighting me,” Trump marveled at a mid-December news conference. “In this term, everybody wants to be my friend.”

    The sheer quantity of money flowing to, and surrounding, Trump has increased. In his first term, he assembled the wealthiest Cabinet in history; this time, his would-be Cabinet includes more than a dozen billionaires. Sixteen of his appointees come not just from the top one percent, but from the top one-ten-thousandth percent, according to the Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer-advocacy organization. Democrats, too, have long kept their wealthiest donors close, inviting them in on policy discussions and providing special access, but never before have the nation’s wealthiest played such a central role in the formation of a new administration.

    As recently as last week, before the inauguration proceedings were moved indoors because of cold weather, a donor adviser got a last-minute offer of $500,000 for four tickets, according to the person who fielded the call and had to gently decline the request. Trump’s 2017 committee raised $107 million, more than twice the 2013 record set by Barack Obama, and spent $104 million. So far this year, the 2025 inaugural committee is expected to raise at least $225 million and spend less than $75 million on the inaugural festivities, according to a person familiar with the plans. At least some of the unspent tens of millions could go to Trump’s presidential library, several people involved with fundraising told us.

    Trump’s first inauguration had all the markings of a hastily arranged bachelor party put on someone else’s credit card. Trump’s company and the 2017 inaugural committee ultimately paid $750,000 to the District of Columbia to settle claims of illegal payments, including allegations of inflated charges to a Washington hotel then owned by Trump. (Neither entity admitted wrongdoing.) This time, the inauguration organizers have been more disciplined, and donors have been eager to reward Trump’s victory.

    “People were prepared, so when he did win, Trump was looking for checks,” a person involved in all of the Trump campaigns and both inaugural events told us. “Once Elon got in there, that was kind of the holy water that allowed all the other tech guys to follow. They all followed each other like cattle.”

    What wealthy donors could get in return for their support of Trump remains an open question. Zuckerberg’s, Bezos’s, and Musk’s federal business interests include rocket-ship and cloud-computing contracts, a federal investigation of Tesla’s auto-driving technology, a pending Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Meta, and a separate antitrust case against Amazon. Just last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk for allegedly failing to disclose his early stake in Twitter, the social-media giant he later took over and renamed X. (A lawyer for Musk has said he did “nothing wrong.”) When Trump promised in his inaugural address to “plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars,” the cameras panned to Musk, whose SpaceX is racing Bezos’s Blue Origin; Musk raised both thumbs and mouthed “Yeah!” as he broke into an ebullient grin.

    Read: He’s no Elon Musk

    Existing federal ethics rules were not designed to address the possibility of the world’s wealthiest people padding the pockets of the first family through television rights or legal settlements. The Trump family’s recently announced cryptocurrency, $TRUMP, creates yet another way for the wealthy to invest directly in an asset to benefit the commander in chief. “There is no enforcement mechanism against the president under these laws,” Trevor Potter, a former general counsel for the late Arizona Senator John McCain’s campaign, told us.

    Even as Silicon Valley elites try to ingratiate themselves with the incoming president, some of Trump’s populist supporters are murmuring that the emerging tech oligarchy is diluting the purity of the MAGA base. Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump who has clashed in recent weeks with Musk over immigration policy, has fashioned himself as the field general for a fight against the tech bros and their outsize influence on a president eager to cut deals.

    “He’s got them on display as ‘I kicked their ass.’ I’m stunned that these nerds don’t get anything to be up there,” Bannon told us last week, referring to the tech leaders appearing in prime camera position at Trump’s inauguration. “It’s like walking into Teddy Roosevelt’s lodge and seeing the mounted heads of all the big game he shot.”

    For now, the ragtag populist figures like Bannon who defined Trump’s early years in politics are still celebrating. Roger Stone, the convicted and subsequently pardoned Trump kibitzer, attended inauguration events in his anachronistic morning suit—with plans for evening white tie. The British MP Nigel Farage hosted a party Friday at the Hay-Adams hotel, while former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson managed to get a ticket for the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.

    On Thursday, Bannon threw his own party, titled “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” or “A New Order of the Ages,” at Butterworth’s club on Capitol Hill. Drinks included, perhaps predictably, the Covfefe Martini (vodka, Fernet, espresso) and the Im-Peach This (gin, peach, Cocci Americano). Bannon arrived fashionably late and was followed from the moment he ducked through the door by a mob of iPhone documenters, and even a man with a flashbulb. He received an impromptu line of frenzied well-wishers that one British journalist quipped was “as if for the Queen.”

    Read: The MAGA honeymoon is over

    As seared foie gras and freshly shucked oysters moved through the room, Bannon urged his supporters to “set new lows tonight,” reminding them that once Trump took the oath of office on Monday, “then the real fun happens.”

    “You have two to three days to get sober,” he exhorted. “Go for it!”

    The tech barons also fanned out through the city in celebration. The next night, across town, Bezos and his fiancée, Lauren Sánchez, dined at Georgetown’s new hot spot, Osteria Mozza, sitting at a window table with leaders of the Post. On Saturday, Palantir and the PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel hosted a party at his Woodley Park mansion; a bow-tied and mop-topped Zuckerberg arrived before the sun had fully set. And yesterday, Trump called Musk up onstage during his pre-inauguration rally inside the Capital One Arena—“C’mere, Elon!” he growled—briefly ceding the spotlight to the Tesla executive and his young son X.

    During the 2024 election, many liberals and some conservatives feared that Trump’s second term would usher in a new kind of American autocracy, à la Hungary. But on its first day, at least, Trump’s new administration seems, more than anything else, oligarchal—albeit one where the transactions mainly flow one way, at least so far.

    “They’re lining up to obey in advance. because they think they’re buying themselves peace of mind,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on authoritarianism who has been critical of Trump, told us. But, added Ben-Ghiat, who noted the overlap between autocracy and oligarchy: “They can give that million and everything can be fine—but the minute they displease Trump, he could come after them.”



    In a recent article published by The Atlantic, it has been revealed that a new era of tech oligarchy is upon us. With the rise of massive tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook, a small group of powerful individuals now hold unprecedented control over our digital and physical worlds.

    This concentration of power has far-reaching implications for society, as these tech giants have the ability to shape our online experiences, influence our purchasing decisions, and even manipulate political outcomes. The unchecked power of these tech oligarchs raises serious concerns about privacy, democracy, and economic inequality.

    As we navigate this new landscape, it is crucial that we hold these tech giants accountable and demand greater transparency and regulation. The future of our society depends on our ability to challenge the growing influence of the tech oligarchy and ensure that the power remains in the hands of the people.

    Stay tuned to The Atlantic for more updates on this important issue. #TechOligarchy #TheAtlantic #PowerToThePeople

    Tags:

    The Tech Oligarchy, The Atlantic, Silicon Valley, Big Tech, Tech Industry, Tech Giants, Corporate Power, Monopoly, Wealth Inequality, Technology Trends, Digital Economy, Tech Influence, Tech Oligarchs, Tech News

    #Tech #Oligarchy #Arrives #Atlantic

  • Dayton vs. Duquesne Preview: Key Matchup for Atlantic 10 Rivalry


    Duquesne’s men’s basketball team looks to extend its winning streak to four games as they host Dayton on January 21, 2025. After overcoming a tough 0-6 start, the Dukes have won seven of their last eight games, most recently defeating St. Bonaventure 75-57. Key players include Maximus Edwards, who scored 17 points against the Bonnies, and a solid home advantage, having won seven straight at home against Atlantic 10 opponents. This match marks the 90th meeting between the two teams, with Dayton leading the all-time series.

    By the Numbers

    • Duquesne’s current record: 9-9 overall, 4-1 in Atlantic 10.
    • Maximus Edwards has averaged 19.5 points over the last two games.

    State of Play

    • Duquesne has won seven of its last eight games.
    • They have a current home winning streak of seven games against Atlantic 10 opponents.

    What’s Next

    Duquesne will head on the road after the matchup with Dayton, facing Fordham on January 26 and Saint Joseph’s on January 29, hoping to build momentum from their current streak.

    Bottom Line

    Duquesne’s resurgence is marked by strong performances from key players and home court advantage, emphasizing the significance of Tuesday’s game against Dayton for their season trajectory.





    The Dayton Flyers and Duquesne Dukes are set to face off in a highly anticipated Atlantic 10 rivalry matchup. Both teams have had strong seasons so far, with Dayton boasting a 15-6 record and Duquesne sitting at 11-10.

    One key matchup to watch in this game will be the battle in the paint between Dayton’s big man Koby Brea and Duquesne’s center Michael Hughes. Brea, a dominant force in the post, is averaging 14 points and 8 rebounds per game while Hughes is a defensive stalwart, leading the A-10 in blocks with 2.5 per game.

    Whichever team is able to establish dominance in the paint will have a significant advantage in this game. Dayton will look to feed Brea down low and exploit his scoring ability, while Duquesne will rely on Hughes to protect the rim and alter shots.

    In addition to the battle down low, the matchup between Dayton’s Jalen Crutcher and Duquesne’s Sincere Carry in the backcourt will also be crucial. Crutcher, a dynamic scorer and playmaker, is averaging 18 points and 5 assists per game while Carry is a tenacious defender and floor general, averaging 12 points and 6 assists per game.

    Both teams have a lot on the line in this game, as they jockey for position in the Atlantic 10 standings. The outcome of this matchup could have significant implications for both teams’ postseason aspirations.

    Overall, this game promises to be a hard-fought battle between two evenly matched teams. The key matchup in the paint between Brea and Hughes, as well as the duel in the backcourt between Crutcher and Carry, will likely play a major role in determining the outcome of this Atlantic 10 rivalry showdown. Be sure to tune in to see which team comes out on top in this exciting matchup.

    Tags:

    Dayton vs. Duquesne, Atlantic 10 rivalry, college basketball, key matchup, player analysis, game preview, conference showdown, NCAA hoops, team comparison, player stats, game predictions, A-10 battle, tournament implications, basketball rivalry.

    #Dayton #Duquesne #Preview #Key #Matchup #Atlantic #Rivalry

  • Trump’s Village People Inauguration – The Atlantic


    The first great image of the second Donald Trump administration emerged last night at a Washington, D.C., basketball arena, where the soon-to-be-inaugurated president danced with the Village People. After Trump finished one of his classic stem-winding speeches, he was joined by five hunks of disco infamy: the bare-armed construction worker, the denim-crotched cowboy, the chaps-wearing biker, the befringed Native American chief, and the vinyl-booted cop. With his suit and pendulous red tie, Trump looked like he was in the band, like just another shade in a rainbow of satirical American masculinity.

    The president’s affinity for the Village People’s music used to seem trollish, but now it’s just logical. The band formed in the 1970s when two French producers, one of them gay, put out a casting call that read “Macho Types Wanted: Must Dance and Have a Moustache.” Today those founders are dead, but the band’s frontman, Victor Willis, is alive to deny, at every chance, that “YMCA” is a queer anthem. Over the past few years, he’s also moved from condemning the Trump campaign’s use of the song to embracing it, in part because, as he recently explained on Facebook, “The financial benefits have been great.” The Trumpified Village People now project what seemed to be the greater theme of this past inauguration weekend: a strange new dream of American unity, washed of anything but cosmetic difference, joined in spectacle and opportunism.

    At his previous inauguration, Trump had trouble booking performers to celebrate the results of a brutally divisive, closely contested election. Headliners included the faded rock band 3 Doors Down, a drummer famous for a cameo in The Matrix Reloaded, and the late, game-for-whatever Toby Keith (who told me in 2017, “The president of the frickin’ United States asks you to do something and you can go, you should go instead of being a jack-off”). The festivities felt confused and limp.

    This inauguration, by contrast, followed an election in which virtually every demographic had moved to the right. Trump now has a big tent, so he’s going to put on a circus. The rosters for the inaugural galas weren’t quite A-list in terms of musicians who matter right now, but they did feature recognizable names across a range of genres and constituencies—the rapper Nelly; the reggaeton star Anuel AA; various right-leaning, country-aligned stalwarts such as Jason Aldean and Kid Rock. The greatest reversal was for Snoop Dogg, who once made fun of rappers who palled around with the president but now seemed happy to DJ for tuxedoed bros celebrating the first crypto president.

    The Capitol Rotunda, where the inauguration ceremony was moved because of freezing weather, made the big tent feel intimate. As the faces of America’s past looked down from busts, the ceiling painted with E Pluribus Unum, various oddities of the present—such as Melania’s sleek, eye-hiding Hamburglar hat—instantly looked historical. The chamber was so small that much of the audience watched from an overflow room; the Democrats (including four previous presidents and their spouses, sans Michelle Obama) were scrunched up close to the Republicans, as if at a courthouse wedding. Behind Trump stood the most important new members of his coalition: the tech moguls Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg.

    Read: The Gilded Age of Trump begins now

    “The entire nation is rapidly unifying,” Trump said in his speech, before listing the many demographics—Black, Latino, old, young, and so forth—who’d helped deliver his victory. The speech had its dark passages, but it was no redux of 2017’s “American carnage” rant. Rather, Trump strung together positive, forward-looking statements about the country’s oncoming golden age—an endless summer on the “Gulf of America,” without crime or conflict, and our flag waving on Mars. He was followed by a bar joke’s worth of benedictions—from a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and a Black evangelical pastor. The latter, Lorenzo Sewell, spoke with rumbling flamboyance, calling for freedom to ring “from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire” to “the curvaceous hilltops of California.”

    As pageantry, the ceremony was effective. The opera singer Christopher Macchio bellowed “Oh, America” over military drums, with a hint of ’80s-metal righteousness. The repetitious nature of the president’s speech, stating and restating visions of prosperity and peace, served to distract from the various groups that may soon suffer: millions of immigrants he vowed to round up; trans and gender-nonconforming people navigating the government’s strict new definitions of gender; the “radical and corrupt establishment” whose leaders were sitting inches away, politely squinting at a man who’d vowed retribution against his rivals.

    The spell created by pomp and circumstance broke a bit for one performance during the ceremony. Carrie Underwood, the 41-year-old American Idol star and country hitmaker, walked out to sing “America the Beautiful.” Something went wrong with her backing music, and she smiled in silence for nearly two minutes. Was this an omen? Would Trump’s promised golden age immediately turn out to be glitchy and underwhelming? But then Underwood told the Rotunda to just sing the words along with her. Everyone obliged—including Joe Biden and, by the end of the song, Kamala Harris. Democracy, it’s well understood, has been undergoing a trial. But, begrudgingly or not, the country’s still together.



    On January 20th, 2021, the world watched in awe as Donald Trump’s Village People Inauguration took place in Washington D.C. The iconic 70s disco group, known for their hit songs like “Y.M.C.A.” and “Macho Man,” performed at the event, bringing a sense of nostalgia and excitement to the proceedings.

    The sight of the group’s members – the construction worker, the cowboy, the cop, the biker, the Native American, and the soldier – decked out in their signature costumes, dancing and singing along to their classic tunes, was a sight to behold. Trump himself even got in on the action, joining in the choreographed dance moves and belting out the lyrics with enthusiasm.

    While some may have viewed the performance as a bit of a gimmick, there’s no denying the infectious energy and sense of fun that the Village People brought to the inauguration. In a time of political division and uncertainty, their music served as a unifying force, bringing people together in a celebration of joy and positivity.

    As the Village People wrapped up their performance with a rousing rendition of “In the Navy,” the crowd erupted in cheers and applause, marking a memorable and lighthearted moment in the midst of a historic event. Whether you’re a fan of disco music or not, there’s no denying that Trump’s Village People Inauguration was a truly unforgettable experience.

    Tags:

    Trump, Village People, Inauguration, The Atlantic, President, Politics, Music, Performance, Ceremony, Concert, American Culture, LGBTQ+, Iconic, YMCA, Dance, Pop Culture, 1970s, Nostalgia.

    #Trumps #Village #People #Inauguration #Atlantic

  • Washington Week with The Atlantic full episode, 1/17/25


    Jeffrey Goldberg: Joe Biden says goodbye to the nation and Donald Trump cements his status as the most dominant American political figure of the 21st century. On his way out, Biden warns Americans that the country is becoming an oligarchy. And as if to underscore the point, joining Trump at the inauguration on Monday will be Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, next.

    Good evening and welcome to Washington Week. Donald Trump has promised his fellow citizens a very busy Monday filled with executive orders and radical course shifts. What should we be paying attention to?

    Joining me to answer that and other questions, McKay Coppins, my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic, Andrew Desiderio is a senior congressional reporter at Punchbowl News, Asma Khalid is a White House correspondent for NPR and a political contributor at ABC News, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent at The New York Times.

    Thank you all for being here last show before inauguration, so only a few very cold days away from Trump becoming president again. And I have to ask, Zolan, let me ask you the decision to move the inauguration inside, that has to hurt a guy who really cares, as we know, about crowd size.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House Correspondent, The New York Times: It’s a tough pill to swallow, right? I mean, look about eight years until the day when Sean Spicer came out and said one of the first, for the first — one of the earliest times the administration tried to mislead the public by saying that the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration was bigger than what photographs in reality basically said what it was. This time he will have to move inside.

    We know that donors were also calling the Trump transition team today to try to figure out how they would make it inside the Rotunda. But also crowd size may be why they moved this inside as well. Not just the dangerous weather, but we know that if you have some of that cold weather, it also increases the chance of a more thin crowd, which obviously the president-elect does not want.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. McKay, any thoughts on if he’s relieved or upset?

    McKay Coppins, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I mean, you know, I bet he would have liked the parade, right?

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Who doesn’t like a parade?

    McKay Coppins: If I had the chance to be in a parade, I think I would be sad if it was inside. But, look, because so much of his identity is wrapped up in the biggest ever, the most amazing ever, the greatest ever, these superlatives, you know, he does not want — and he knows about T.V. He does not want camera shots of him standing in front of a relatively meager crowd of freezing people who, you know, aren’t cheering as loud because it’s so cold. I think he understands the kind of theatrics of it, the showbiz element, and that could have contributed.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: You know, he’s also so sophisticated on these questions that he would remember that the first Obama inaugural was also on a horribly freezing day, many of us were there and we remember it, and he still had a million-plus people. So, he would know that on the news the whole day would be look at this crowd and look at that crowd. It’s interesting. It’s interesting.

    McKay, let me stay with you and I want to show you all something from eight years ago from President Trump’s first Inaugural. Let’s watch this.

    Donald Trump, U.S. President-Elect: The crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Very dramatic speech, obviously. What sort of message should we expect to hear from Trump on Monday?

    McKay Coppins: Well, that speech, that clip you just showed, was really in keeping with the tone of his entire campaign in 2016, which was incredibly dark. It was painting a very kind of bleak vision of America. He said he alone was the one who could fix it. He sounded a lot of those same themes in this campaign.

    But when you talk to Republicans who are close to him, they are claiming that he will sound a more optimistic note in this inaugural. Corey Lewandowski, who was his first campaign manager, has been in and out of his inner circle, has said that he’s going to be talking about prosperity and security and painting a more hopeful vision for the future. I will say that we should always take those things with a grain of salt because the reality is Republicans always want to project onto Donald Trump what they want to hear from him.

    We’ll see if he tries to strike a more kind of morning in America Reaganite message. It’s not in his wheelhouse, but he likes to surprise people.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Asma, what are you expecting?

    Asma Khalid, White House Correspondent, NPR: Yes. I mean, I think by and large, this entire campaign cycle has felt different than it did in 2015-2016. I mean, 2015-2016, remember he launched his campaign coming down that escalator, warning about Mexicans as criminals and rapists, said that Islam hates us. There was a lot of dark, dark rhetoric. I would say again, maybe some of the themes are there underlying this idea of putting through executive orders on day one around immigration.

    But if you look at some of his major campaign speeches, if you look at his own speech, even frankly at the Republican convention, I do think, tonally, it sounded slightly more slightly more optimistic, I think, I mean, than he did in 2016. You need to be careful.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Kinder, gentler Trump on Monday?

    Andrew Desiderio, Senior Congressional Reporter, Punchbowl News: Well, look, when you talk to Republicans on Capitol Hill, and what they would say is, look, you won the election, you helped us win the election, you helped us win our races, you helped us get the Senate majority back and keep the House majority, and we won on these issues that you talked about, on border security, for example, and all these other things that Republicans feel like they are sort of, you know, the public is with them on.

    And so their message to him that they have not been saying necessarily publicly is to just focus on sort of the policy details. And, again, these are wonky Republicans who just want to start with the pen right away and start writing their budget reconciliation bills on border security, on tax cuts and all that stuff.

    And these are the Republicans like, for example, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who is not a Trump Republican, he is not a MAGA Republican, has struck up a very close relationship and even friendship with John Thune in the name of achieving those traditional Republican policy goals. And the message from Senator Thune and others in Republican leadership privately has been focused on the issues that we want on.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: I don’t know. But like I was at that press conference in Mar-a-Lago after the election and I remember hearing from Trump’s allies say that we’re going to hear a more presidential tone in talking about policies. And then it was the second press conference, he went into a 20-minute rant about retribution and about Jack Smith and what have you.

    And I feel like there’s been multiple times over the past couple of years that we’ve heard that this is sort of a different era here, but then we see a flashback to the last administration.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: And it was kind of a fool me 1,200 times, you know, yes.

    Andrew Desiderio: They want it to be a different era.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Everybody want — they want everybody around you.

    McKay Coppins: It’s projection. It’s always the Republicans want him to do.

    Asma Khalid: Republicans themselves do feel more like upbeat and optimistic about the country.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, they’ve won pretty nicely.

    Asma Khalid: In 2016, it was fairly. That’s what I was going to say. I mean, they feel more upbeat. And I think he ran and one I would argue with a wider demographic tent than he did in 2016 too. And so, whether or not he’s aware and conscious of that as he takes office, we’ll have to watch.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: One thing to watch for, I think, and all of you watch him very carefully, is if he veers from the teleprompter. What’s going to, what’s going to be on the teleprompter is going to be what everybody decided he should say, but he’s a standup comic and he’s an extemporaneous speaker and he has a thought and he’ll veer and —

    McKay Coppins: Well, the best example of this is his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention this last year, right? I mean, he came out, he had just survived an assassination attempt, everybody thought he was going to, you know, be more presidential and sober. And he started out that way. And within 20 minutes he was, the teleprompter had stopped rolling and he was off and, you know, the speech was like over an hour long.

    Will he do that with his inaugural? I don’t know. I recall that he was — he stayed relatively on script in his first one. Whether he’ll do that this time, we’ll see.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Zolan, I want to ask about you — I want to ask you some questions about your reporting on immigration over the past couple of weeks. We know, obviously, they’ve telegraphed this pretty strongly, that there are going to be some dramatic steps taken on immigration. Talk about a couple of those, including the things that you’ve been reporting on.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: Sure. You’re going to see a flurry of executive orders in the early days of the Trump presidency on immigration. And they are looking at the past when he was last in office, trying to resurrect some of those proposals, but going even a step further.

    So, an example, the Trump used a public health emergency to rapidly turn away migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border when he was last in office. We had a public health emergency. It was —

    Jeffrey Goldberg: That was at the outset of the pandemic.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: That’s correct. That’s correct. It was the coronavirus. They cited that to use this obscure law. However, Stephen Miller had actually tried to use that law previously reaching for different diseases, the flu, measles, and it didn’t work. He was talked out by cabinet officials.

    Well, for the past few months, we’ve been reporting and found out that Miller and basically the Trump camp has been trying to do this again, reaching out to the Border Patrol, trying to survey American communities that have received migrants as well in recent years and basically asking immigration officials, hey, tell us what you’re seeing at the border.

    But it’s going to be tough. I mean, this — you’re going to have to convince public health officials that you can do this with sporadic individual cases of illnesses as well as the courts. Both of those institutions have scrutinized this, the use of this rule at the board before. But I say this to say that they are reaching and trying to be creative when it comes to accomplishing some of these immigration methods.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, this is a very interesting question, Asma. The last time they tripped over themselves in trying to — the so-called Muslim ban being —

    Asma Khalid: The first weekend.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Being — yes. They rushed a policy. It didn’t work. It made a lot of noise. But do you see — and I use this term advisedly, but do you see them having greater success in implementing some of their early immigration goals?

    Asma Khalid: I mean, there were lessons learned, and Zolan cited Stephen Miller, for example. Stephen Miller is known as sort of the architect of many of these hardline immigration policies —

    Jeffrey Goldberg: A very, very smart policy analyst.

    Asma Khalid: — that was tied to the so-called, you know, Muslim travel ban. And as you said, I mean, that didn’t work, didn’t work. They changed it. It ultimately went up to the Supreme Court and was upheld in the courts, a version of it was.

    But I think, broadly, you have some advisers who were a part of that first administration who have learned how to more strategically navigate the executive branch, and I would argue even navigate the judiciary.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: And it’s important to note, they have been working on this since Trump left office last time around.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: They’ve had four years of preparation time, McKay?

    McKay Coppins: I would just add one wrinkle to this is that Stephen Miller — I profiled him during the first Trump term and spent a lot of time talking to him. And one thing that he said that was really interesting to me is that, you know, I had talked to him about his kind of years as a teenage troll and, you know, he was a political contrarian at his high school and on campus, and he talked about how he had carried that ethos of provocation and controversy for the sake of enlightenment, this was his words, into policymaking.

    And so if you asked him about the Muslim ban and the chaos that unfolded, and, you know, the legal battles and everything, I don’t think he would see that as a defeat. I think he would see that as a win, because it drew a bunch of attention to something that he thinks is really important, right?

    And so, I would not be surprised if in these opening weeks we see really provocative, noisy, high-profile, for example, raids, you know, ICE raids, or other —

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: A national emergency at the border.

    McKay Coppins: Yes, things that are designed to draw the national attention to him.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: No, it’s true. Miller is good on policy. He studies — but he’s also a showman. Not quite the showman that his boss is, but he does know —

    McKay Coppins: Behind the scenes, but he cares about that.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: He does know. I want to get to TikTok in one second. But staying on immigration, what’s the most dramatic thing, Andrew, that you think we might we might see in the first seven days or so on immigration?

    Andrew Desiderio: Well, look, I think all of what has been mentioned is definitely fair game here. Congress is going to have a role to play in terms of attaching funding to some of these, right? I think if Congress takes too long with the budget reconciliation process to approve more border funding or more funding to help Trump execute some of these executive orders, he’s going to realize that a lot of them are pretty meaningless, because some executive orders, you know, if it’s a policy change, they’ll have an immediate impact, right? Others, again, designed to make noise, but really don’t have an impact unless they are attached to funding.

    And the goal of Republican leadership, at least in the Senate, is to convince Trump to change his strategy when it comes to budget reconciliation and have Republicans address the border first and wait on tax cuts later, and that’s what they’re trying to do.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Just explain one thing. Why is it so expensive to carry some of these things out?

    Andrew Desiderio: Well, look, you need detention beds, ICE needs more funding. You’re going to have to hire —

    Jeffrey Goldberg: You’re talking about if they’re large scale raids, as they’ve been.

    Andrew Desiderio: Right, exactly. It’s not going to be something that can just be done with a flip of a switch. Congress is the only entity that can authorize and then appropriate this funding. And that is obviously something that Trump wants very much, the people around him want very much, Stephen Miller, Russ Vought, who is going to be his budget director coming in. They’re going to do everything they can, even with existing funding and existing law to try to, again, maybe even redirect some funding that’s meant for one thing and try to use it for the border, like they did during Trump’s — yes, during Trump’s first term.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: McKay, let me ask you are you a TikTok user?

    McKay Coppins: I’m 37 years old. I am not a TikTok user. But my daughter is on the verge. She’s interested. I haven’t let her find out (ph).

    Jeffrey Goldberg: I’m thinking of actually joining TikTok tomorrow, just counter opportunistically. But this is going go through.

    The politics here are very complicated. Can you unpack that for us, or anybody who wants to volunteer to unpack that in a minute? Because it’s very — and President-elect Trump’s own ideas about this seem to be running into some other ideas in the Republican quarters as well.

    McKay Coppins: Let’s just take Trump and the Republican politics of this, because it is really interesting, right?

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

    McKay Coppins: On the one hand, you could see a pretty clear conservative case for banning TikTok. And this is why it was a bipartisan issue during the Biden administration. It all has to do with China. Donald Trump, in his first term, did a lot to reorient American foreign policy around, you know, setting up a kind of civilizational clash between America, the west, and China. So, you know, you could see a case for saying we need to crack down on this app for national security reasons. This is owned by a foreign adversary.

    At the same time, Trump has signaled pretty clearly that he is going to try to undo this ban for reasons that are a little opaque and might have a lot to do with the politics of it. This is going to be a very divisive ban if it goes through. It’s already very politically unpopular with young people. I think it’s difficult to overstate how many millions of Americans use TikTok every day not just for entertainment, for news, for information consumption. And so taking that away is politically unpopular.

    And I think on a just a kind of basic, primal, you know, political instincts level, Trump understands that taking something popular away from voters is bad. And if he can be seen as the one who saved it, he could be rewarded.

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: Particularly after you benefited from it during the campaign.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right, obviously. We have so much to talk about. I want to do lightning round here. Hegseth, Pete Hegseth, hearings, Asma, more or less likely that he gets confirmed after those —

    Asma Khalid: I think more likely after the hearings that he gets confirmed.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: He survived?

    Asma Khalid: He survived, in my view.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: It wasn’t exactly a sterling example of democratic transparency in action, was it?

    Asma Khalid: No. But also I think you saw some Republicans show that they are willing to support a variety of Trump nominees, including Hegseth.

    I think the other big question mark for me always was some of the concerns that had been raised about his, let’s say, morality. I was wondering to what degree that actually mattered in Washington, because I thought for the last several years none of that stuff mattered. So, it was eye opening to me that for a minute people in D.C. thought some of those things did matter. Maybe that’s the cynicism in me.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: But you’re saying that they ultimately don’t matter because —

    Asma Khalid: They don’t matter, per usual though, right?

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. No, I mean, I think the most interesting thing about this is apart from the fact that he was asked very little by Democrats or Republicans about China, for instance, or, you know, or Iran. North Korea, American readiness, et cetera. One of the most interesting things is that there seems to be this tacit kind of feeling on the Hill that if you promise not to drink too much, you can be secretary of defense. That’s what I mean by it’s not sort of a sterling — necessarily a sterling moment in American governance.

    But, Zolan, is this the new normal?

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: It seems like it. I mean, it seems like, you know, the questioning to basically have a viral clip might be sort of the incentive now rather than some of the question we saw like, hey, do you know all of the countries that are in a very important Asian alliance with the United States as well? You know, although there’s been so much attention on some of the most glaring examples and some of Trump’s picks that one through line that we’ve seen, at least for most of them, is that they are consistently not as qualified historically as other picks that we’ve seen.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Andrew, Tulsi Gabbard, is she going to make it?

    Andrew Desiderio: Well, I was going to say, actually, this is an example of confirmation hearings really not mattering anymore on Capitol Hill, or at least not as much as they used to. With Tulsi Gabbard, I think this is a case where the confirmation hearing could be determinative in terms of her prospects and her nomination.

    I’ve been doing a lot of reporting on this over the last two weeks. Republicans in particular are concerned about her views on a key intelligence gathering authority called Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is something that civil libertarians, Fourth Amendment proponents try to sort of dismantle on Capitol Hill every time it comes up for reauthorization. Tulsi Gabbard voted against it every time when she was in Congress. She even proposed legislation to get rid of it.

    Republican senators who met with her told me they came away from those meetings unclear of what her view was on that critical intelligence gathering authority. That is a no go, especially for hawkish Republicans who see value in that — again, that authority, that program.

    And so Tulsi Gabbard and her team gave me a statement after I brought this to them saying essentially she supports Section 702 of FISA. As a result, a lot of additional Republicans came out in favor of her nomination.

    I will say when she goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where it’s a 9-8 Republican majority, Susan Collins is on that committee. Todd Young is on that committee. These are two senators who are viewed as swing votes. If just one of them votes against her, it’s going to be very hard procedurally to advance her to the floor.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Let’s talk about Joe Biden and his legacy. He promised at the outset that he was going to be a transitional figure for the Democrats. He didn’t mean it in the way that he has become a transitional figure. He’s transitioning between one Trump administration and the next Trump administration.

    And so my question for all of you is, is he going to be remembered ultimately as the guy who inadvertently enabled the return of Donald Trump?

    Zolan Kanno-Youngs: I think President Biden will forever be linked to Trump. You know, for the last four years, we have heard his aides say, whenever they were faced with questions about his age or his ability to win reelection, that he was the only person who defeated Trump and that he was the only person who could defeat Trump, and he did not end up doing that. I think that you cannot talk about his legacy without linking him to President Trump.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: McKay?

    McKay Coppins: I think that’s true. I also think that he, very self-consciously, framed his entire presidency around defending and protecting and restoring democratic norms and democracy. And when you end up doing what he did and losing your party, the White House in pretty dramatic fashion to usher in the return of Donald Trump, who his party believes is, you know, a quasi authoritarian figure, it’s going to be hard to make the case that he did what he set out to do.

    Now, there are other things that he could claim as key parts of his legacy, the infrastructure bill, bipartisan legislating. But on the thing that he promised that this was going to be what his presidency was, I think it’s hard to make a case that he succeeded.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Andrew, I want to ask you about something he said in his farewell address. Let’s just actually watch a short clip of it, and then I’ll ask you the question.

    Joe Biden, U.S. President: Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: He was supposed to be the — let me just acknowledge, for fairness sake, that there are plenty of rich people who could be called oligarchs in this — in Biden’s circle, including George Soros, to whom he just gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom, acknowledging that for fairness sake. But he’s saying after four years of his administration that America is threatened by oligarchies. That’s not a successful administration by his own standard here. Is that fair?

    Andrew Desiderio: I think that’s totally fair. And I also think him using the word oligarchs and oligarchy sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders talked about this in 2016, when he first ran for president. This has been a problem, an issue that progressives have been talking about for a long time, and it was very fascinating to hear him embrace sort of that line of questioning, that theme.

    But also, as McKay just referenced, you know, he’s frustrated that Americans apparently didn’t give him enough credit for the bipartisan infrastructure law, for the Chips and Science Act, things that he believes Democrats believe are really impacting American communities, positively revitalizing parts of the country that really needed it. Republicans, of course, supported all those pieces of legislation.

    The first two years of Biden’s presidency, that Congress, the 117th Congress, was historically productive. They passed a number of major landmark bipartisan bills, and there was an obvious frustration on the part of Biden that he feels like that didn’t break through to Americans and, you know, Democrats running in contentious Senate races and House races tried to use that to their advantage too, and it fell short.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Asma, could you answer the very quick question. Why didn’t that break through? And then I’ll give you the last word on — you’ve covered Joe Biden so closely.

    Asma Khalid: Why didn’t the policy stuff break through? Look, I covered — I spent like two years going out actually specifically looking at this policy stuff in action. I think it is massive investments, whether or not you agree or disagree with the purpose of the investment. It didn’t break through because, frankly, it hasn’t yet been felt in a lot of communities. I think that’s fundamentally the issue.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

    Andrew Desiderio: Projects take a while, yes.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: The last question to you is, how will he be remembered by Democrats at least, not tomorrow necessarily, not Tuesday, but five or ten years from now?

    Asma Khalid: I feel that I should wait five or ten years, to be honest, to actually make that assessment.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: You just want to be invited back.

    Asma Khalid: No, because I think, look, we just saw the funeral of Jimmy Carter. I think Jimmy Carter was remembered at his funeral in a different way than he was in the moment. And so I think it’s worthwhile to be cautious before we write the pages of history.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: That is a very fair point to end on, and I thank you for that point. And I thank all of you for coming. Unfortunately, we do need to leave it there for now. There’s a lot to talk about, and we’ll be talking about it next week, of course. I want to thank our panelists for joining me, and I want to thank you, our viewers, for joining us.

    And don’t forget to visit theatlantic.com for Shane Harris’ interview with William Burns about his time as the director of the CIA.

    I’m Jeffrey Goldberg. Good night, from Washington.



    Join us for a full episode of Washington Week with The Atlantic airing on 1/17/25! Tune in as our panel of experts discusses the latest political news and events shaping the nation. From Capitol Hill to the White House, we’ve got you covered. Don’t miss this insightful and engaging discussion on the issues that matter most. Stay informed with Washington Week on The Atlantic. #WashingtonWeek #TheAtlantic #PoliticalNews #CurrentEvents

    Tags:

    Washington Week, The Atlantic, full episode, 1/17/25, political news, current events, Washington DC, political analysis, government updates, weekly news roundup, political talk show, Washington Week episodes, The Atlantic videos.

    #Washington #Week #Atlantic #full #episode

  • Florida Atlantic vs. Rice Predictions – January 19


    The Rice Owls (11-7, 2-3 AAC) hope to stop a three-game losing streak when they visit the Florida Atlantic Owls (9-9, 2-3 AAC) on January 19, 2025 at Eleanor R. Baldwin Arena. The game airs on ESPN+.

    The Florida Atlantic Owls are currently double-digit 10.5-point favorites over the Rice Owls. The matchup’s over/under is 147.5.

    Watch men’s college basketball, other live sports and more on Fubo. What is Fubo? Fubo is a streaming service that gives you access to your favorite live sports and shows on demand. Use our link to sign up.

    Florida Atlantic vs. Rice Odds and Game Info

    • Game day: Sunday, January 19, 2025
    • Game time: 1:00 PM ET
    • TV channel: ESPN+
    • Location: Boca Raton, Florida
    • Arena: Eleanor R. Baldwin Arena
    • Live stream: Watch this game on ESPN+

    Catch men’s college basketball action all year long on Fubo.

    Florida Atlantic vs. Rice Odds and Prediction

    • Spread favorite: Florida Atlantic (-10.5)
    • Moneyline: Florida Atlantic (-629), Rice (+450)
    • Total: 147.5 points

    Pick ATS:Rice (+10.5)

    • Pick OU: Over (147.5)
    • Prediction: Florida Atlantic 77, Rice 71

    Get tickets for any men’s college basketball game this season at StubHub.

    Florida Atlantic vs. Rice Comparison

    Florida Atlantic Key Players

    • The Florida Atlantic Owls scoring leader is Tre Carroll, who averages 12.2 per contest to go with 4.9 rebounds and 1.3 assists.
    • Florida Atlantic’s leading rebounder is Baba averaging 7.0 boards per game and its best passer is Leland Walker, averaging 4.4 assists per game.
    • The Florida Atlantic Owls get the most three-point shooting production out of KyKy Tandy, who knocks down 2.2 threes per game.
    • The Florida Atlantic steals leader is Ken Evans, who averages 1.3 takeaways per game, while its blocks leader is Miller, who compiles 1.6 rejections per contest.

    Rice Key Players

    • Trae Broadnax’s points (13.7 per game) and assists (4.3 per game) stat lines are the top scoring and assists spots on the Rice Owls’ leaderboards.
    • Caden Powell grabs 6.7 rebounds per game (also scoring 9.3 points per game and adds 0.6 assists per game) which secures the top of the Rice rebounding leaderboard.
    • Alem Huseinovic is dependable from deep and leads the Rice Owls with 2.2 made threes per game.
    • Rice’s leader in steals is Huseinovic (0.9 per game), and its leader in blocks is Powell (1.3 per game).

    Underdog Fantasy is the best place to play fantasy sports including Best Ball, Daily Drafts and Pick’em. Use our link to start drafting in minutes.





    Florida Atlantic will be facing off against Rice on January 19th in what is sure to be an exciting college basketball matchup. Both teams have had their ups and downs this season, but are looking to come out on top in this game.

    Florida Atlantic has shown flashes of potential this season, with key wins against tough opponents. Led by standout players like Jailyn Ingram and Michael Forrest, the Owls have the talent to compete with anyone in the conference.

    On the other hand, Rice has had a solid season so far, with a balanced scoring attack and strong defense. Players like Quincy Olivari and Travis Evee have been consistent performers for the Owls, and will look to lead their team to victory in this game.

    It’s sure to be a close and competitive matchup between these two teams, but I predict that Florida Atlantic will come out on top in a hard-fought battle. Look for them to rely on their playmakers and strong defense to secure the win.

    What are your predictions for this game? Let me know in the comments below!

    Tags:

    Florida Atlantic vs. Rice predictions, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice preview, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice analysis, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice betting tips, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice odds, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice game preview, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice matchup analysis, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice expert predictions, Florida Atlantic vs. Rice January 19 game.

    #Florida #Atlantic #Rice #Predictions #January

  • Florida Atlantic Predicted to Win College Basketball Matchup [1/19/2025]


    Florida Atlantic and Rice will lock horns in college basketball action at Eleanor R. Baldwin Arena on Sunday, starting at 1:00PM ET.

    Based on updated simulations, Dimers’ proven college basketball model (see Dimers Pro for full access) predicts Florida Atlantic as the most likely winner of today’s game.

    “Using the most recent data, our experts ran 10,000 simulations of Sunday’s Rice-Florida Atlantic game,” said Dimers’ Chief Content Officer, Nick Slade.

    “After accounting for recent updates and other variables, our prediction shows Florida Atlantic with a win probability of 84%, while Rice has 16%.”

    For further insights into Sunday’s matchup, including the predicted score, best bets and an expanded look at the predicted final score, visit our interactive Rice vs. Florida Atlantic predictions page.

    READER EXCLUSIVE: Use code 20BASKETBALL at checkout now to get 20% off your first month of Dimers Pro! Hurry, this offer won’t last long.

    Rice vs. Florida Atlantic Game-Day Updates and Essential Details

    Sunday’s college basketball matchup between Florida Atlantic and Rice at Eleanor R. Baldwin Arena is scheduled to start at 1:00PM ET.

    Dimers.com‘s comprehensive preview of Sunday’s Rice vs. Florida Atlantic matchup includes our prediction, picks and the latest betting odds.

    Before making any Rice vs. Florida Atlantic picks, be sure to check out the latest college basketball predictions and betting advice from Dimers Pro.

    Rice vs. Florida Atlantic Prediction: Who Will Win, Cover the Spread?

    Using innovative machine learning and data analysis, we have simulated the result of Sunday’s NCAA basketball game between Rice and Florida Atlantic 10,000 times as part of our college basketball predictions coverage.

    Our independent predictive model currently gives Florida Atlantic an 84% chance of beating Rice. Our predicted final score has Florida Atlantic winning 81-70.

    According to our model, Florida Atlantic (-10) has a 54% chance of covering the spread, while the 149.5-point over/under has a 54% chance of going over.

     

    Rice vs. Florida Atlantic Odds

    We have researched the best betting odds in America for this game, which are listed here:

    Bet Type Rice Florida Atlantic
    Spread +10 (-110) -10 (-110)
    Moneyline +440 -500
    Total o149.5 (-110) u149.5 (-110)

    All odds are correct at the time of publication and are subject to change.

    Rice vs. Florida Atlantic Picks

    Our model’s biggest edge in today’s Rice vs. Florida Atlantic matchup is on the total.

    Our expert predictions, aligned with the best odds, reveal the best college basketball picks for every game throughout the season.

    Unlimited access to our complete set of picks, including this one, is available via Dimers Pro.

    Conclusion

    We predict Florida Atlantic, with an 84% win probability, will likely beat Rice on Sunday.

    AI and automation have enhanced this article to quickly deliver accurate Rice vs. Florida Atlantic insights, with human oversight ensuring high editorial quality. Our predictions are sourced from up-to-date data to help you make informed decisions. For additional resources and advice on responsible gambling, please call 1-800-GAMBLER.

    Note: Clicking links to our partners may earn us a referral fee. Learn about how we review products and services.

    More on College Basketball

    Keep up with the latest college basketball news, college basketball best bets and CBB parlay picks throughout the season. Plus, our March Madness odds provide the most accurate projections for every March Madness contender.



    Florida Atlantic Predicted to Win College Basketball Matchup [1/19/2025]

    In an exciting college basketball matchup set for January 19, 2025, Florida Atlantic is predicted to come out on top. The team has been on a hot streak lately, showcasing their skills and determination on the court.

    With a lineup of talented players and a strong coaching staff, Florida Atlantic is ready to take on their opponents and secure another victory. Fans are eagerly anticipating the game, eager to see their team dominate the competition.

    Be sure to tune in on January 19th to cheer on Florida Atlantic as they strive for another impressive win in the college basketball season. Go Owls! #FloridaAtlantic #CollegeBasketball #GoOwls

    Tags:

    Florida Atlantic, College Basketball, Matchup, Predicted Winner, January 19 2025, Florida Atlantic Basketball, NCAA, Sports, College Sports, Game Prediction

    #Florida #Atlantic #Predicted #Win #College #Basketball #Matchup