Liberal Pollster Nate Silver Dismisses Hype Around Kamala Harris, Says Trump Remains Likely Winner in November

The liberal media is going all in on Kamala Harris, mirroring the efforts by Democrats to make it seem like there is tremendous excitement over the addition of Harris to the 2024 race.

Liberal pollster Nate Silver is not buying it and says that Trump remains the favorite to win in November.

It’s a clear contrast from what we’re hearing almost everywhere else in media.

The New York Post reported:

Trump remains the favorite in 2024 presidential race despite Harris’ rise: Nate Silver

Even after Democrats dramatically moved to re-top their presidential ticket and got an apparent jolt of momentum, famed election analyst and statistical guru Nate Silver still deems former President Donald Trump the favorite.

His election forecast model gives Trump a 61.3% chance of prevailing in the Electoral College, while Vice President Kamala Harris is at 38.1%.

Silver previously pegged Trump with a 65.7% chance of victory over President Biden during his model rollout last month.

In his most recent assessment, Silver included a slew of polling averages that gave Trump slight advantages nationally and in most of the battleground states, albeit not in Wisconsin, where Harris was ahead…

FiveThirtyEight had been one of the rare election forecasts that projected Biden was more likely to emerge victorious in the 2024 presidential election.

Jazz Shaw of Hot Air commented on this:

So Nate Silver sees Donald Trump’s chance of victory having dropped from 65.7% to 61.3%. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has crept up from the mid-30s to 38.1%. That’s still a fairly healthy margin. It’s not that it’s impossible for this analysis to be wrong, but you have to dig quite a way back into history to find an example of Nate missing a call by anywhere near that much.

I see him being cited on CNN nearly as much as he is on Fox News. In that sense, Silver has become the gold standard of election analysis, if you’ll pardon the precious metals pun. He doesn’t base his forecasts on his own political preferences (whatever those may be), but on the hit-and-miss rates of the other pollsters that he tracks.

That last point is important. Silver is just calling this as he sees it, based on data.

We’ll soon know if he is right.

The post Liberal Pollster Nate Silver Dismisses Hype Around Kamala Harris, Says Trump Remains Likely Winner in November appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump Is Right About McKinley

Trump Is Right About McKinley

“The most underrated president” was a model of successful governance in a world in flux.

Donald Trump has weighed in on a presidential legacy, albeit not his own. In a wide-ranging July 16, 2024 interview with Bloomberg, Trump proclaimed William McKinley “the most underrated president.” 

Trump is right. McKinley, who guided the ship of state at the dawn of the 20th century, is the most underrated chief executive in our nation’s history. And in many respects his presidency can serve as a model for a United States that is once again undergoing seismic changes.

McKinley is largely forgotten today. Presidential historians often rank him in the middle of the pack. Such rankings are colored by a deep liberal bias—a February 2024 survey put FDR first and Trump dead last—but they do illustrate that McKinley is neither hailed for his greatness nor lamented for his failures. Rather, he’s just overlooked. 

Part of this is due to the man himself; even in his own lifetime McKinley was regarded as somewhat bland. McKinley’s lack of personal papers and, as one biographer noted, his “tendency to listen as much as talk” also contributed to his obscurity. But it is also the result of his premature death. McKinley was murdered by an anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, on September 6, 1901, a mere six months into his second term. Some presidential assassinations grant their victims a level of immortality. Lincoln and John F. Kennedy come to mind. But others consign the dead to oblivion. 

Indeed, for more than a century, McKinley has been overshadowed by his larger-than-life successor, Teddy Roosevelt. TR was young, dynamic, and image-conscious. He knew how to court the press and provide good copy for reporters. Roosevelt was 42 when he took office and seemed to embody the youthful nation that he led. He was also famously hyperactive and, at times, erratic. 

The stolid McKinley was Roosevelt’s opposite. He was unknowable. The wife of one of his rivals in Ohio politics, Joseph Foraker, once charged that McKinley was a man of “masks,” his inner thoughts and emotions well concealed. Roosevelt’s own daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, famously said that her father wanted to be the “the corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding, and the baby at every christening.” By contrast, the unassuming McKinley exuded the air of a man just happy to be invited. 

Roosevelt took the helm right as America became a world power. He was the perfect president for the new media age. TR’s exploits, from hunting exotic creatures to brokering peace between Russia and Japan, served as perfect fodder for press barons like William Randolph Hearst.

But McKinley was popular in his lifetime, and he built the edifice that TR stood on. His death prompted widespread mourning. McKinley was the only president between Ulysses Grant and Woodrow Wilson—a span of nearly forty years—to be elected to two terms. And his electoral victories over his Democratic opponent, the perennial candidate, William Jennings Bryan, were resounding. In fact, they reshaped the American landscape. 

McKinley’s 1896 victory over Bryan is widely regarded as one of a handful of political realignments in U.S. history. Modern Republican strategists like Kevin Phillips, who advised Richard Nixon, to Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s guru, have cited the 1896 realignment as a model—and for good reason. From 1896 until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election in 1932, Republicans occupied the executive branch for all but eight years. The sole Democratic occupant, Woodrow Wilson, only took office thanks to a split in the Republican party created by TR in 1912.

McKinley, Phillips noted, was the “political architect who ended the two-decade national stalemate” that had existed since 1876, “turning a weakened Civil War coalition to a new full-fledged industrial GOP majority,” thereby making him “the most important nineteenth-century Republican after Lincoln.” McKinley remade the GOP, and “he did so by beating, rather than submitting to, the Eastern machine forces.” And, as Phillips observes, McKinley did so by expanding the GOP to include a broader working-class constituency. “Not since Lincoln, who publicly upheld unions…had a Republican nominee so embraced labor.” 

McKinley famously embraced tariffs, but he also focused on jobs and employment—“the full dinner pail,” as it was called. By fighting for a conservative working-class party, McKinley was doing what Benjamin Disraeli had done three decades before in the United Kingdom. But while Disraeli is regarded as a seminal figure, McKinley is depicted as an unsophisticated Midwestern rube, his triumphs the fruit of the labor of others.

Indeed, historians have often presented McKinley as incidental to the realignment that he helped forge. They portray wealthy industrialists and key advisers like Mark Hanna as being more responsible for McKinley’s electoral accomplishments. The notion that McKinley was weak and the tool of greater men was pushed by his contemporary enemies and has endured for years afterward. McKinley, of course, wasn’t around to dispute the portrayal.

Indeed, one later historian, noting that events always seemed to go McKinley’s way despite his lack of a heavy hand, referred to the 25th president as a “tantalizing enigma.” McKinley, the former editor of The American Conservative Robert Merry observed, “never moved in a straight line, seldom declared where he wanted to take the country, [but] somehow moved people and events from the shadows. He rarely twisted arms in efforts at political persuasion, never raised his voice in political cajolery [and] didn’t visibly seek revenge.” Nonetheless, “he always seemed to outmaneuver his rivals and get his way.”

McKinley, Merry pointed out, was the “architect of the American century.”

As the historian Lewis Gould has observed, McKinley should be regarded as the first modern president. He significantly expanded, and reorganized, the White House staff, bringing it into the modern era. Dwight Eisenhower, a career military officer, was the first president to formally create the office of Chief of Staff. But the office has its origins in the McKinley administration, when the former Ohio governor chose George Cortelyou to be his private secretary. Prior presidents had secretaries, of course. But Cortelyou’s flair for organization and expansive powers were noteworthy. A man who was working as a post office clerk a mere decade before McKinley elevated him would eventually go on to become the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the Secretary of Treasury, and the head of the Republican National Committee.

As Phillips noted in his 2003 biography, McKinley was the first president to extensively use the telephone, develop systematized press operations, to have a news summary, and to make the White House a news center. The Spanish–American War would be the first conflict to be managed from a White House war room connected to military headquarters in Washington and the field by telephone and telegraph. Both in the 1896 campaign and afterward, McKinley used new media’s power in innovative ways. McKinley also traveled broadly. Prior to his assassination, he was planning trips that would have made him the first president to travel abroad—trips that he thought reflected America’s newfound power and status.

McKinley was unique in another respect. He was one of the few occupants of the Oval Office to be a successful wartime president. Despite later portrayals, McKinley wasn’t an avowed imperialist; he had qualms about the annexation of Hawaii and was hardly pushing for U.S. involvement in the conflict with Spain. Yet once he had decided on the use of force, he wanted it to be overwhelming. 

In foreign affairs, McKinley wasn’t a bully, as Bryan and other critics alleged, but he wasn’t a man for half-measures either. As he said in his inaugural address: “We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression. War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost every contingency.” McKinley, the last veteran of the U.S. Civil War to occupy the White House, once told the White House physician: “I have been through one war; I have seen the dead piled up; and I do not want to see another.”

The 25th president not only reshaped American domestic politics, but he also reoriented U.S. foreign policy. As Phillips notes, “he helped to shape and preview America’s early-twentieth-century alliances and hostilities: on one hand, entente with Britain and an off-and-on commitment to the territorial integrity of China, and on the other, mounting Caribbean and Pacific tensions with Germany and Japan.” In shoring up relations with Britain, McKinley helped set the stage for what would become the fabled and long-enduring “special relationship.” McKinley took office when the international system was in flux. Old empires, like Spain, the Qing dynasty in China, and the Ottoman Empire, were on their way out, while new powers, notably Germany and Japan, were rising. He presciently recognized the growing importance of what today is called the Indo-Pacific. McKinley helped reshape American foreign policy for a new era.

Given his deserved reputation as a fierce proponent of tariffs—Trump lauded him as the “tariff king”—it is unsurprising that McKinley viewed foreign affairs through the prism of markets and trade. McKinley pushed for trade reciprocity, prioritizing access for U.S. exports. McKinley was an advocate for both American manufacturing and the working man, viewing both as key to the nation’s health. For McKinley, military power was inseparable from economic power—a truism that American leaders today would do well to remember.

John Hay, a one time secretary to Abraham Lincoln who served as McKinley’s ambassador to Great Britain before becoming his, and then TR’s, secretary of state, had this to say: “In dealing with foreign powers he will rank with the greatest of our diplomatists. It was a world of which he had little special knowledge before coming to the presidency. But his marvelous adaptability was in nothing more remarkable than in the firm grasp he immediately displayed in international relations. In preparing for war and in the restoration of peace he was alike adroit, courteous and far-sighted.” High praise from someone who served, and intimately knew, both Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

Sometimes the man makes the moment, and sometimes the moment makes the man. McKinley can’t fairly be said to have done either. But the man was right for the moment. He changed both America itself, as well as America’s place in the world. And his presidency, with all its enduring successes, should serve as a model for his successors.

The post Trump Is Right About McKinley appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Ukrainian War Effort Is Going Nowhere Fast

The Ukrainian War Effort Is Going Nowhere Fast

The U.S. and Europe must wrap up their dangerous proxy war as soon as possible. 

(paparazzza/Shutterstock)

As the United States and its European allies continue to provide Ukraine with the wherewithal to kill Russian soldiers and strike ever deeper in Russian territory, the potential for retaliatory escalation creeps higher. Kiev is of course entitled to respond harshly to Moscow’s invasion. As it is doing so with Western weapons, however, Russia has increasing reason to treat NATO countries as formal belligerents, with potentially catastrophic results.

The New York Times reported that Russia’s Defense Minister Andrei Belousov recently called Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “to relay a warning, according to two U.S. officials and another official briefed on the call: The Russians had detected a Ukrainian covert operation in the works against Russia that they believed had the Americans’ blessing. Was the Pentagon aware of the plot, Mr. Belousov asked Mr. Austin, and its potential to ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington?”

Austin apparently denied U.S. responsibility, but he would do so whatever the truth. Belousov’s question demonstrated the increasing risk of Washington’s proxy war. Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s assurances carry little weight given its outsize role in the conflict. America’s presence in Ukraine was great at the start and has grown along with the conflict. Public claims of responsibility for killing Russian generals and sinking Russian ships confirmed Washington’s participation.

Moscow’s failure to retaliate led some observers to view Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as a paper tiger, though Austin reportedly “warned his Russian counterpart not to threaten U.S. troops in Europe amid rising tensions in Ukraine.” However, with its forces on the advance Moscow would be foolish to risk triggering full-scale allied intervention. Better to take a slower, more expensive win than gamble everything on a U.S. climbdown. In contrast, had Kiev come close to achieving the expansive objectives growing out of its early success—ousting the Russian leader, overthrowing the Russian regime, and even breaking up the Russian federation—it is doubtful Putin would have been so reticent in using his nation’s superior firepower. Those who assure us that he would never do so are the same people who were certain he would never invade Ukraine.

In the meantime, Kiev is suffering badly. Its manpower losses have been much greater than reported. A Ukrainian legislator admitted that his government “vastly downplayed the war’s true toll.” American estimates are more than double the number stated by President Volodymyr Zelensky, and they also are probably too low. Moreover, Kiev’s recruiting travails have been much noted, with even the medically unfit being conscripted, and the government facing increasing draft resistance. Also notable is Russia’s artillery and air superiority. And there is more. 

Writing of Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Guardian’s Luke Harding reports: 

Two and half years into Vladimir Putin’s full-scale onslaught, he acknowledges the Russians are much better resourced. They have more of everything: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, soldiers. Their original 100,000-strong invasion force has grown to 520,000, he said, with a goal by the end of 2024 of 690,000 men. The figures for Ukraine have not been made public. “When it comes to equipment, there is a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 in their favor,” he said. Since 2022 the number of Russian tanks has “doubled—from 1,700 to 3,500. Artillery systems have tripled, and armored personnel carriers gone up from 4,500 to 8,900. “The enemy has a significant advantage in force and resources.”

Even when Ukraine has been notably innovative, such as in drone warfare, Moscow has gained some significant advantages, admitted Ukraine’s Col. Vadym Sukharevsky, who heads his nation’s Unmanned Systems Forces. Reported the Economist

Initially it was Ukraine that got ahead, developing an army of cheap, small drones to counter Russia’s overwhelming artillery and missile advantage. That has since changed. Now, enemy drones outnumber Ukrainian ones six to one. But superior tactics and innovation still keep Ukraine competitive. Ukraine tends to be first in developing and adopting new technologies, driven by a policy of diversification. Russia’s advantage in mass production means it can adapt and scale up much faster.

Although none of this means Kiev cannot win, it continues to lose ground and its notable successes, such as against the Russian Black Sea fleet, do not retrieve land losses. Deeper strikes into Russia and increased attempts to isolate Crimea are likely to spark more aggressive retaliatory attacks rather than strategic retreats. With the failure of Western sanctions to break the Russian economy, Moscow remains better able to absorb the costs of continuing war. Absent direct allied entry into the war, Ukrainian victory remains a long shot.

Yet proposals for Washington and Brussels to adopt a peace strategy trigger frenzied wailing and gnashing of teeth in both capitals. President Joe Biden and congressional leaders continue to pledge their support for the war. In mid-July the administration announced the multilateral “Ukraine Compact,” through which it would “Support Ukraine’s immediate defense and security needs, including through the continued provision of security assistance and training, modern military equipment, and defense industrial and necessary economic support,” and more. Before that the president called Zelensky “to underscore the United States’ lasting commitment to supporting Ukraine.” 

In Europe assorted European Union and national governments sharply criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose nation holds the rotating 6-month presidency, for traveling to Moscow to talk peace. Reuters reported that Orban’s efforts “sparked fury among many EU governments and officials.” The European Parliament passed a resolution criticizing Orban for his “uncoordinated and surprising visit” and reaffirmed the “unwavering commitment of the EU to providing political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support for as long as it takes to secure Ukraine’s victory.” Unfortunately for Kiev, the legislators provided more verbiage than artillery shells.

In contrast, broader public opinion is becoming more skeptical of a potentially endless war. A new report from the European Council on Foreign Relations found an important divergence between Ukrainian and European attitudes toward the conflict: “Ukrainians want weapons in order to win, while most Europeans send weapons hoping this will help lead to an acceptable eventual settlement.” Continental skepticism toward the war is likely to continue rising as politics shifts rightward. Moreover, almost half of Ukrainians back peace negotiations with Moscow. While most still expect victory, the number prepared to make concessions for peace is increasing. According to the Times of London, “One in three people, or 32 per cent, now say that they would agree to cede territory to Moscow to bring about peace, according to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. The figure this time last year was 10 per cent.” If Russian advances and Ukrainian losses continue, this shift is likely to continue.

In principle, enhancing Ukrainian bargaining leverage is a sensible strategy. Nevertheless, since the invasion, Kiev’s position has steadily weakened, except for the relatively brief 2023 counteroffensive. Ukraine’s maximum strength was in early 2022, before Russian tanks rolled. Yet the U.S. would not even consider discussing Kiev’s prospective membership. Ukraine also was well-positioned during the Istanbul negotiations shortly after Moscow’s attack. At that point the former’s main concession for peace would have been a promise of neutrality. Alas, the Western allies, pushing their own objectives, most importantly weakening Russia, encouraged Kiev to reject this apparent opportunity to settle.

With every passing day Moscow’s forces are acquiring more territory while Ukraine’s military is weakening and its home front is suffering. No current plans, either aid from Europe or action by Kiev, appear likely to reverse the war’s course. To continue a fight in which Ukraine is the battlefield and Ukrainians are suffering most of the casualties and destruction in hope that allied Wunderwaffe, delivered in sufficient quantities and time, will lead to a miraculous victory, appears delusional. If the allies are not willing to risk World War III and enter the conflict—as they should not!—they should shift their priority to restoring peace.

That requires engaging Russia diplomatically and negotiating a new security structure that simultaneously preserves Ukraine’s independence and respects Moscow’s security interests. The U.S. and Europe should offer restoration of Russian assets and elimination of economic sanctions as inducements for an acceptable settlement. Territorial losses by Ukraine—of areas severed in 2014 as well as more recently conquered—look inevitable. Kiev could choose to fight on, of course, but the allies should make clear that it would be on its own. 

Russia’s invasion was unjust, though encouraged by reckless allied policy, but funding a perpetual war for the return of Ukraine’s lost lands is not in the West’s interest. Indeed, with the persistent risk of escalation atop the costs of ongoing combat, continued fighting is in no one’s interest, other than America’s and other nations’ major arms-makers. Ukraine’s former military commander, Valery Zaluzhny, inadvertently made the case for peace when he forecast a new world war: “Is humanity ready to calmly accept the next war in terms of the scale of suffering? This time the Third World War? Free and democratic countries and their governments need to wake up and think about how to protect your citizens and their countries.”

The Russo–Ukrainian conflict is a humanitarian disaster. It also risks unleashing global nuclear war. Belousov’s phone call should wake up slumbering officials in Washington. The U.S. is engaged in hostilities against the Russian Federation. The combat is indirect, but real, with Americans responsible for thousands of Russian deaths and mass destruction of materiel. The slope toward full-scale war grows ever more slippery. It is imperative to end the Ukraine imbroglio before it spreads.

The post The Ukrainian War Effort Is Going Nowhere Fast appeared first on The American Conservative.

Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices

Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices

The Biden-Harris administration’s childcare proposals disregard what Americans actually want.


Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images

“One of the most urgent things that parents and families need is affordable childcare,” Vice President Kamala Harris declared earlier this year. If this sounds like Obamacare for childcare, you’re not far off. And much like with left-wing healthcare proposals, Harris made a crucial omission. Parents and families don’t just need lower childcare prices—they also need their caregiving choices to be respected. On that front, the Biden-Harris administration has plenty of room for improvement.

Just look at how they’ve framed the “caregiving crisis” since the outbreak of Covid-19. Their “Build Back Better” agenda promoted extraordinary subsidies for professional center-based childcare, while offering no support to parents who prefer other arrangements, such as stay-at-home parenting, care provided by a relative (e.g., a grandparent), or care shared among neighbors, church members, etc. They’ve also consistently sought to increase degree requirements, pay, and benefits at childcare centers to draw more workers into that industry. This simultaneously raises costs for families that use center-based care, while pushing a one-size-fits-all “solution” that ignores families’ actual preferences and needs.

As the economic policy think tank American Compass reports, most Americans don’t want to rely on childcare centers. They prefer stay-at-home parenting or relative caregiving by close to 10 percentage points. And low-income and working-class Americans—those most in need of the government’s help—are the least favorable to center-based care. Virtually everyone agrees that support for families should increase, but what Democrats miss is that families also have a palpable desire for flexible support. 

Why won’t the left respond to this desire? The answer is a mixture of elite bias and bad economics. Of all Americans, only the upper class idealizes dual-income households and childcare centers—but it’s exactly that upper class which has captured the Democrat Party. Liberal policymakers are similarly influenced by their obsession with economic efficiency. When you measure everything by its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product, it’s easy to judge caring for children at home as a step down from spending that time at work. 

But conservatives are charting a better course. By increasing federal funding for childcare, we can show that we put families first. And by reforming that funding to give families more options, we can show working parents that their voices are heard. My Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices Act is a comprehensive bill designed to accomplish both these goals.

On the one hand, my bill would increase annual authorized funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $5.25 billion, allowing more families to receive vital assistance. On the other hand, it would ensure that funding is allocated in the form of childcare vouchers, which allow parents to pay relative caregivers just the same as they pay childcare centers. Married parents could also use these vouchers to support at-home parental care, as long as they work a combined total of 40 hours per week. In addition, my bill would protect faith-based childcare providers from unfair discrimination and prevent newly married couples from losing childcare benefits.

This is the kind of policy proposal America requires—one that is sensitive to families’ realities, and one that will not cost taxpayers a penny. My Respect Parents’ Child Care Choices Act would pay for itself by eliminating the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, a program that costs $5.3 billion per year, but ignores single-earner families and primarily benefits the upper class. 

I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to turn this bill into law. I call on Harris and the rest of the Biden administration, too. If they really believe childcare is “one of the most urgent things that parents and families need,” they should be open to increasing childcare funding in a manner consistent with Americans’ wants and needs. The only alternatives are blatant paternalism and hypocrisy.

The post Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices appeared first on The American Conservative.

Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank Says He is Already Hearing From Democrats Who Have ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ Over Kamala Harris and Lack of a Party Primary (VIDEO)

Kevin O’Leary, the professional investor and host of Shark Tank, appeared on the Jesse Watters show this week and claimed that he is already hearing about buyer’s remorse from some Democrats with regard to Kamala Harris.

He said that they are regretting the lack of an actual primary process. Who can blame them? The Democrats claim to be the party of democracy and yet Harris is being installed without a single vote.

He goes on to compare Harris to failed Canadian leader Justin Trudeau.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary is here. Kevin, when you see someone with staff turnover at 92% what does that tell you about them?

KEVIN O’LEARY: Well, I have to ask myself is that true because that’s an extraordinary number. You’re wiping out your entire staff, obviously a problem there, but this narrative going on with Kamala Harris now is very interesting. I look at it to the perspective of an investor. I’m going to give you some anecdotal data from this morning you might find interesting.

When we syndicate debt for real estate projects, we don’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican, so I deal with a lot of investors agnostic to politics and some of them are very big contributors to the Democratic Party.

I heard for the first time today, because we like to talk about politics mostly on policy, and what he said to me was some of us are having some buyer’s remorse. We wish we’d run a process because we got so much press in the first nine days of bringing somebody into the party and raised 200 million plus. It’s like a balloon underwater. It just wasn’t Biden, so they started contributing, but we gave up five weeks of fantastic social media in guessing who really should be the candidate. Now, I hadn’t heard that before.

It’s not that many. I’d guess 20% or something like that, but so that’s starting to crack a little bit, and there is precedence for what’s going on here. I ask everybody to look north to Canada. When a young Justin Trudeau swept in, nobody cared about his executional skills or what he’d ever done or anything. They just thought he was the it guy. Look at the country now.

Here’s the video:

NEW: Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary warns that America will turn into Canada if Kamala Harris is elected, says some of his Democrat donor friends are having “buyer’s remorse.”

O’Leary warned about what could happen when someone with no skills gets into power.

“I ask everybody to… pic.twitter.com/bCtU63ABgG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 31, 2024

Democrats might end up having a much greater sense of buyer’s remorse in November.

The post Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank Says He is Already Hearing From Democrats Who Have ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ Over Kamala Harris and Lack of a Party Primary (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former Paypal CEO Announces He is Switching Parties, Will Back Donald Trump in November

David Marcus, the former CEO of Paypal, has announced that he is switching parties to Republican and will back Donald Trump in November.

This makes Marcus the latest in a long line of high tech figures to back Trump. He has garnered a ton of support from Silicon Valley execs in this election cycle.

It’s just another way that this election has felt different than 2020.

FOX Business reports:

Former president of PayPal announces party switch, endorses Trump: ‘crossing the Rubicon’

Former president of PayPal David Marcus announced he has switched political parties and endorsed Donald Trump via X, the site formerly known as Twitter.

The tech entrepreneur, who recently headed up Messenger at Meta, announced he was “crossing the Rubicon and backing the Republican Party” as well as the campaign of former President Donald Trump.

In his lengthy post, Marcus cites an “eye-opening process of disenchantment, zero-basing lifelong beliefs, and rebuilding” in order to reach his ultimate conclusion.

“I am crossing the Rubicon and backing the Republican Party and President Trump. Many — including a former version of myself — get trapped in a mental framework that becomes their identity and prevents them from radically evolving their thinking with new facts and information. I finally broke free from it.”

“My journey has been a gradual political 180 from where I stood in every previous election. It has been an eye-opening process of disenchantment, zero-basing lifelong beliefs, and rebuilding from there,” wrote Marcus.

Here’s more from his long tweet:

It’s impossible to close this post without mentioning President Trump’s recent assassination attempt. The courage and resolve he displayed seconds after being hit by a bullet was awe-inspiring for his followers and detractors alike. This was a man, however imperfect, who, at that moment, incarnated the American spirit in the most vivid way, starting to bring a split nation together.

Some claim that reelecting President Trump will bring our democracy to its knees. However, the alternative — having unelected individuals with this much power and no accountability run our government coupled with four more years of bad policies at home and abroad — might present a more significant threat. Neither will likely change in a Harris administration and could potentially worsen.

I am crossing the Rubicon and backing the Republican Party and President Trump.

Many — including a former version of myself — get trapped in a mental framework that becomes their identity and prevents them from radically evolving their thinking with new facts and information. I…

— David Marcus (@davidmarcus) July 31, 2024

Good for him for thinking for himself.

The post Former Paypal CEO Announces He is Switching Parties, Will Back Donald Trump in November appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Google Hit with Backlash from All Sides Over ‘Soul Crushing’ Olympics Commercial

No matter their political leanings, most human beings bristle at the mere suggestion that machines might effectively replace them.

On social media over the weekend, viewers of the already repellent Olympic Games channeled their inner Luddite in visceral reactions towards a commercial for Google’s Gemini AI feature — a commercial that one user on the social media platform X described as “soul crushing.”

Indeed, Google’s Olympic advertisement struck at the heart of what it means to be human.

Ironically, the minute-long commercial began in one of the most charming ways imaginable. The voice of a proud father accompanied pictures and videos of a young girl who loves to run.

Moreover, in the innocent way that children do, the young girl idolizes American Olympic hurdler Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.

“She might even be the world’s number one Sydney fan,” the father said of his daughter.

Then, in a preview of its impending dark turn, the commercial showed Gemini AI helping the young girl look up proper running and hurdling techniques.

Of course, that part did not disturb viewers. But what came next most certainly did.

“She wants to show Sydney some love, and I’m pretty good with words, but this has to be just right,” the father said.

Ensuing sequences showed the father prompting Gemini AI to help his daughter write a fan letter to McLaughlin-Levrone.

Yikes.

Adverse reactions came swiftly, even from liberal sources broadly associated with an anti-human woke ideology.

For instance, on the social media platform Bluesky, NPR podcast host Linda Holmes panned the Google ad.

“This commercial showing somebody having a child use AI to write a fan letter to her hero SUCKS. Obviously there are special circumstances and people who need help, but as a general “look how cool, she didn’t even have to write anything herself!” story, it SUCKS. Who wants an AI-written fan letter??” Holmes wrote.

This commercial showing somebody having a child use AI to write a fan letter to her hero SUCKS. Obviously there are special circumstances and people who need help, but as a general “look how cool, she didn’t even have to write anything herself!” story, it SUCKS. Who wants an AI-written fan letter??

— Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes.bsky.social) Jul 27, 2024 at 8:48 AM

On X, Professor Shelly Palmer of Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications called it “one of the most disturbing commercials I’ve ever seen.”

In fact, Palmer added that the commercial depicts “exactly what we do not want anyone to do with AI. Ever.”

Have you seen Google’s “Dear Sydney” Olympic ad featuring a father using Gemini AI to help his young daughter write a fan letter to Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone? It is one of the most disturbing commercials I’ve ever seen. To be clear, I love the idea of a young aspiring athlete… pic.twitter.com/FFohdVBbut

— Shelly Palmer (@shellypalmer) July 29, 2024

Meanwhile, freelance writer Kaitlyn Arford described the Google ad as the worst thing about the games thus far.

“I think we can all agree that the big loser of the #Olympics is the Google Gemini AI ad where they think an AI-written letter is better than a sweet note from a young girl to her favorite athlete,” Arford posted.

I think we can all agree that the big loser of the #Olympics is the Google Gemini AI ad where they think an AI-written letter is better than a sweet note from a young girl to her favorite athlete.

— Kaitlyn Arford — Freelance Writer (@kaitarford) July 28, 2024

When ranking the Olympics’ worst moments, Arford might have overlooked the blasphemous opening ceremonies. Otherwise, one cannot argue with her objection.

Another social media user called the ad “one of the worst possible use cases for AI I can imagine.”

“Way to teach your kid they don’t need to have an original thought or a genuine interaction with another human,” the user added.

The Google Gemini letter writing commercial is one of the worst possible use cases for AI I can imagine.

Way to teach your kid they don’t need to have an original thought or a genuine interaction with another human.

— Sidney Pegula (@sidneypegula) July 28, 2024

Finally, another social media user compared the “soul crushing” ad to a recent Apple iPad commercial “where the message was supposed to be a sign of progress but instead kills those special ‘human’ moments together.”

The @Google Gemini commercial where a father prompts Gemini to draft a letter to Olympian Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone for his daughter isn’t as charming as intended IMO.

Instead of some beautiful commercial showing the journey where a father helps his daughter find her voice in… pic.twitter.com/BvRXxlS43y

— Michael R. (@ImpactForward) July 29, 2024

The Apple ad in question showed musical instruments, video games, books and even ancient busts being crushed by a giant press then disappearing amid the splattering of paint. Then, the press lifted to reveal a sleek new iPad.

The intended message, of course, was that Apple’s product combines all of those other tangible things into one device. Like the Google ad, however, it simply missed the mark.

According to the aptly named business-and-technology news outlet TechCrunch, the Apple ad sparked a similarly adverse reaction. And it did so for the same reason.

“What Apple seems to have forgotten is that it is the things in the real world — the very things Apple destroyed — that give the fake versions of those things value in the first place,” Devin Coldewey wrote for TechCrunch.

Indeed, people seldom take kindly to the idea that real things do not matter.

Nor do they react well to messages that even hint at the obsolescence of any human experience. Let that be a lesson to the technocratic, globalist tyrants at Google and elsewhere.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Google Hit with Backlash from All Sides Over ‘Soul Crushing’ Olympics Commercial appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

14 People Arrested in Human Trafficking Sting at Comic-Con Event

Fourteen people were arrested in a human trafficking sting during the annual Comic-Con event in San Diego.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the operation was conducted between July 25 and 27, and a total of 10 victims were rescued, including one child.

According to KTLA, undercover, state, and local agents posed as sex buyers in an attempt to identify trafficking victims and their traffickers.

In a statement, AG Rob Bonta stated, “Unfortunately, sex traffickers capitalize on large-scale events such as Comic-Con to exploit their victims for profit.”

“These arrests send a clear message to potential offenders that their criminal behavior will not be tolerated,” added Bonta.

#BREAKING: More than a dozen arrested in Comic-Con human trafficking sting https://t.co/qnxKZ818B5

— KTLA (@KTLA) July 31, 2024

Per The Hollywood Reporter:

Fourteen people were arrested and 10 victims were recovered in a human trafficking sting during Comic-Con over the weekend, authorities said.

The operation to recover victims of sex trafficking and target sex buyers using the San Diego convention was initiated from July 25-27, according to the California Department of Justice’s San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force.

“Unfortunately, sex traffickers capitalize on large-scale events such as Comic-Con to exploit their victims for profit,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta shared in a statement.

“These arrests send a clear message to potential offenders that their criminal behavior will not be tolerated. We are grateful to all our dedicated partners involved in the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force, whose collaboration has been invaluable. We take great pride in our office’s commitment to uplifting vulnerable Californians by offering them assistance and guidance when they need it.”

14 people were arrested, and 10 individuals were rescued in a human trafficking sting operation at San Diego Comic-Con pic.twitter.com/04UOSxX1QD

— Dexerto (@Dexerto) July 31, 2024

The post 14 People Arrested in Human Trafficking Sting at Comic-Con Event appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Britain’s Leftist Government Considers Banning The Patriotic English Defense League Under Terror Laws

The British government is considering proscribing the English Defence League (EDL) as a terrorist organization, the country’s deputy prime minister has confirmed.

In an interview after violent clashes outside a mosque in Southport, Angela Rayner indicated that the Home Secretary would be looking into the matter of proscribing the EDL as a terrorist organization.

“We have laws and we have proscribed groups and we do look at that and it is reviewed regularly,” Rayner told LBC.

Hard clashes in Southport outside the mosque. Patience seems to be running out. pic.twitter.com/eqASa8tRJ3

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) July 31, 2024

“So I’m sure that that will be something that the Home Secretary will be looking at as part of the normal course of what we do and the intelligence that we have.”

“But I think the bigger issue is about taking on the minority of people that have got thuggish behaviour, that actually that’s not our British values.”

The clashes took place after an unnamed 17-year-old went on a stabbing spree in which three children have died and many more have suffered serious injuries.

Police have so far not confirmed a motive for the crime, although they do not believe it is terror related.

The English Defense League was founded by the activist Tommy Robinson back in 2009 to combat the growing Islamization of British society. However, he is no longer involved with the organization.

Over the weekend, Robinson was himself detained under Britain’s anti-terrorism laws after he held a massive rally in Trafalgar Square, where he also held a screening of his latest film Silenced.

EMERGENCY ADMIN POST – PLEASE SHARE FAR AND WIDE!!!!

We can confirm that Tommy Robinson has been detained by Police using powers afforded to them under the Terrorism Act 2000.

That’s right, you read that correctly, Tommy is being held by Police using counter terrorism… pic.twitter.com/i3nagtBbXY

— Tommy Robinson (@TRobinsonNewEra) July 28, 2024

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, has already been repeatedly imprisoned by the British government on charges of challenging their mass immigration agenda.

Sadly, with the recent election victory of the leftist Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer, the persecution of British patriots is only like to get worse.

 

The post Britain’s Leftist Government Considers Banning The Patriotic English Defense League Under Terror Laws appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Kamala Harris Mocked After She Suddenly Acquires a New Accent During Atlanta Rally: ‘Transparently Fake’

The Democratic Party’s most fervent supporters have already proven that they care nothing about opportunism or dishonesty. Feed them platitudes about identity, and they will vote blue no matter who.

With the thinking portion of the electorate, however, Republicans have a real opportunity. In fact, as of Wednesday, they have exactly 97 days to showcase Vice President Kamala Harris as often as possible.

Happily, a pair of videos that showed Harris speaking in a “transparently fake” accent at a rally in Atlanta, Georgia, on Tuesday has gone viral on the social media platform X.

Greg Price of the State Freedom Caucus Network posted the videos side-by-side. As of Wednesday morning, the post had more than 2.7 million views.

In the first video, recorded one week ago, Harris sat on the set of “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Looking into the camera, the vice president enunciated her words and used a measured tone, as if speaking to children.

“We are all in this together, and your vote is your power,” Harris said, nodding her head for emphasis — all with no trace of an accent.

At the Atlanta rally, however, the vice president suddenly morphed into legendary actress Hattie McDaniel’s “Mammy” character from “Gone with the Wind.”

“You all helped us win in 2020. And we gonna do it again in 2024,” Harris said in a forced southern accent. Each “20” in the year “2020” came with an unmistakable drawl. And the “4” in “2024” sounded much closer to “fo” than “four.”

What an insulting performance.

“Here is Kamala Harris, who was born in California to Jamaican and Indian college professors, talking to drag queens in Los Angeles a week ago vs. black people in Atlanta tonight. Fakest human being that has ever lived,” Price posted.

Here is Kamala Harris, who was born in California to Jamaican and Indian college professors, talking to drag queens in Los Angeles a week ago vs. black people in Atlanta tonight.

Fakest human being that has ever lived. pic.twitter.com/qE4NoB8ibN

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 31, 2024

Price credited the journalist Bonchie — a contributor at RedState who has 75,000 followers on X — with calling attention to Harris’ shifting accent.

“Compare how Kamala Harris sounds talking to drag queens in LA vs. black people in Atlanta. Is anyone really dumb enough to buy this?” Bonchie posted.

h/t to Bonchiehttps://t.co/PWAyiJvzBA

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 31, 2024

Meanwhile, Clay Travis of Outkick also noticed Harris’ condescending performance, which the word “pandering” does not come close to describing.

“Kamala Harris went to speak in Atlanta and now has a Southern accent. LSU coach Brian Kelly is jealous. But in all seriousness, why do people do this? It’s just so transparently fake,” Travis wrote.

Kamala Harris went to speak in Atlanta and now has a Southern accent. LSU coach Brian Kelly is jealous. But in all seriousness, why do people do this? It’s just so transparently fake. pic.twitter.com/xIXt29SexL

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) July 31, 2024

In short, the contrast between the two presidential candidates involves basic authenticity.

On one hand, former President Donald Trump has remained consistent. Everywhere he has appeared in public for the last nine years, he has sounded like a New York City real estate developer who loves America and wants to restore its former greatness, only this time with peace and prosperity for all Americans. He has railed against open borders, idiotic trade deals, endless wars and a corrupt establishment. He has never changed.

Harris, on the other hand, consults political expedience when determining not only her accent but her policy positions. In fact, she has already tried to backpedal from every crazy California progressive idea she espoused during her wildly unsuccessful run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The only question now is whether Republicans have enough time to penetrate the establishment media’s pro-Harris fog, reach the thinking portion of the electorate and expose the vice president as the maniacal leftist and repellent phony she has proven to be.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Kamala Harris Mocked After She Suddenly Acquires a New Accent During Atlanta Rally: ‘Transparently Fake’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.