Elon Musk Exhaustingly Resurrects His Weird Feud With Mark Zuckerberg

Elon Musk just declared he’d fight Mark Zuckerberg “any place, any time, any rules.” Déjà vu much?

While Musk was at Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a guest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an ABC News reporter asked him if he was still considering fighting the Meta CEO.

Last year, the two tech billionaires floated the idea of a televised fight after Musk tweeted that he would be “up for a cage fight” against Zuckerberg. “I have this great move that I call ‘The Walrus,’ where I just lie on top of my opponent & do nothing,” said Musk at the time.

Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is trained in Brazilian jiujitsu.

The cage fight served as a strange proxy for the feuding tech bosses’ social media companies and additionally distracted from Musk’s billion-dollar losses that year across his portfolio.

After going back and forth for more than a month, determining location and hyping up the event in August, Zuckerberg suddenly said it was “time to move on” from the cage fight idea.

Zuckerberg still seems over the fight idea. “Are we really doing this again?” he wrote Wednesday on Threads, Meta’s response to X (formerly Twitter), in response to a post about Musk’s comment.

Zuckerberg’s disinterested tone is probably representative of how most Americans feel about the fight.

Recently, Musk and Zuckerberg have both spent their free time sucking up to presidential candidate Donald Trump. Musk reportedly pledged to donate $45 million a month to Trump’s campaign, a promise he is now trying to walk back. Zuckerberg said he thought Trump was “badass” when he raised his fist after a bullet grazed his ear.

With these tech billionaires meddling in politics, it begs the question: Can you really fight if you’re on the same team?

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued a heartfelt apology Thursday after going “over the line” into divisive politics and simmering culture wars.

“I’ve wanted to make sure that I set the record straight,” he said during a press conference Thursday. “So, I do owe an apology … to Diet Mountain Dew.”

Beshear solemnly pulled out a plastic bottle of the bright green zero-sugar soda.

“Ale8One is definitely the soft drink of Kentucky, but I don’t believe the government should be making your decisions,” Beshear said.

“So, if you enjoy Diet Mountain Dew, uh, you be you. We want to support you. And to Diet Mountain Dew, very sorry. Didn’t mean to say negative things about you. Just remember, I am from here, just like everybody else that’s speaking out.”

Beshear’s trolling comes just days after Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance joked during a rally Monday that Democrats would think it was “racist” that he’d been drinking Diet Mountain Dew. It was an absurd idea that made him laugh really hard, and made plenty of Americans laugh really hard at him.

On Monday, Beshear had robustly condemned Vance’s comment, calling it “weird.”

“Who drinks Diet Mountain Dew?” the Kentucky governor asked on CNN, noting that Vance “ain’t from here.”

Beshear, a popular Democratic leader in an otherwise red state, is in the process of being vetted as a possible running mate, according to the Courier-Journal. In the past week, Beshear has repeatedly gone after Vance for being a “phony,” and seems to be subtly hinting at the Republican’s stance on abortion in his slight about the government “making your decisions” for you.

Meanwhile, Vance has been linked to plenty of ideas that are way more divisive than liking diet soda, but like his running mate Donald Trump, he’s proving to be prone to gaffes as well.

In his appearance on Fox and Friends Thursday morning, Donald Trump proposed that protesters who vandalize the American flag should face jail time.

In light of flag burning that occurred at protests against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress Wednesday, Trump said, “I think you should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag.” His remarks echo those he made as president-elect in 2016 and again amid protests against police brutality in 2020.

Trump went on, “Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.”

Many online were quick to point out that the sainted conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would be among such “stupid people.” Scalia detested flag burning but opposed state coercion against it, joining the majority opinion when the court struck down anti–flag burning laws in 1989 and 1990.

Justifying his idea on Fox, Trump lamented that protesters who burn the flag project a weak image of America to the world, saying, “Putin and President Xi of China, all over the world they’re watching this—Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies.… That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.”

Indeed, such protest would be unthinkable in authoritarian countries like Russia and China, where flag desecration is punishable by imprisonment. But Trump would do well to consider that emulating these countries’ restrictions on symbolic speech, to quote an opinion Scalia joined, would undermine “the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”

Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has found himself yet again in hot water, after it was uncovered that he promoted a book decrying progressives as “unhuman,” written by a far-right conspiracy theorist.

Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) was written by the Pizzagate guy, Jack Posobiec, and ghostwriter Joshua Lisec, with a foreword by the recently imprisoned MAGA movement architect Steve Bannon.

The book supposedly tracks the opponents of conservatism throughout history and endorses a modern-day McCarthyism to root out the “radicals” from American institutions. “They don’t believe what they say. They don’t care about winning debates. They don’t even want equality. They just want an excuse to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you,” Posobiec and Lisec wrote.

Vance provided a glowing promotional blurb about the book, which is included on the website of right-wing publisher Skyhorse Publishing, Mother Jones reported Thursday.

“In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people,” wrote Vance. “In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Vance’s endorsement of the book demonstrates just how plugged-in the Ohio Republican is to the extremist, conspiratorial faction of his party.

In addition to run-of-the-mill conservative takes such as election denialism, a conspiracy about big-money backers to Democratic movements, and January 6 apologia, Unhumans veers into the ridiculous when discussing the beliefs of conservatives’ progressive enemies.

“On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful,” Posobiec and Lisec claimed.

When comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the French Revolution, they wrote: “There is no way to reason with those who manipulate the have-nots en masse to loot and to shoot. They simply hate those who are good-looking and successful.”

Of course, their far-right screed has dark implications. After Trump was indicted in May on 34 criminal charges, Posobiec advocated for violent revolt against progressives. “Take the path of the hunter, and with one singular voice, we are going to make them the prey,” he said.

Since accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention last week, Vance has been consistently embroiled in controversy over his past statements, including his blatantly sexist comment about “childless cat ladies” and humiliating rumors about having sex with a couch.

Beneath it all, Vance is still part of the intellectual “new right” movement, influenced by pronatalism, techno-authoritarianism, and conservative economic populism. Evidently, his reading list also includes extremist, conspiratorial material—if he even bothered to read it, before lending his name to it. Either way, Vance gave Posobiec, and all of his dangerous and ridiculous ideas, a boost.

On Fox News Thursday morning, Donald Trump had a weird instruction for his supporters: they don’t have to vote.

“My instruction: We don’t need the votes, I have so many votes,” Trump said on Fox & Friends before going on a rant about how much support he has in Florida.

Trump’s message was preceded by talking about how his campaign had lawyers at “every poll booth,” suggesting that he thinks that he can legally get the election outcome he wants. He said something similar in October, too, when he told supporters at a New Hampshire rally, “You don’t have to vote, don’t worry about voting. The voting—we got plenty of votes.”

At that time, Trump also told his supporters to “get out there and watch those voters!” If he’s using the same words now, it could mean that he wants to encourage voter intimidation at the polls. It would go with the new Republican Party platform he’s pushed, which makes veiled threats to “secure our elections.”

It’s another example of how Trump and MAGA are attempting to undermine faith in the coming election. Trump lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, so he might be making a preemptive strike at the legitimacy of the results should he lose the popular vote a third time. Still, it’s not clear why he’s telling his supporters not to vote at all. Perhaps it’s another example of the former president and convicted felon’s cognitive decline.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has chosen cruelty, emboldened by the conservative Supreme Court.  

Following the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision on Grants Pass v. Johnson in June, which essentially criminalized homelessness, Newsom issued an executive order Thursday for the removal of homeless encampments throughout his state. 

Newsom urged local governments to destroy the encampments, where tens of thousands of unsheltered Californians live, “with urgency and dignity.”

“We are done,” said Newsom. “It’s time to move with urgency to clean up these sites.”

California accounts for nearly one-third of all people experiencing homelessness in the country, and 49 percent of unsheltered people, or those sleeping without a roof over their head, per federal data.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, cities and localities were supposed to provide an offer to shelter, and have available shelter beds, before clearing homeless encampments. Now an offer to shelter is not necessary before cops and bulldozers roll in. 

According to a January 2023 point-in-time count, which often undercounts the number of homeless people, California had approximately 180,000 homeless individuals and roughly 70,000 beds available, meaning that 110,000 people had nowhere to go. 

In Thursday’s press release, Newsom directed agencies to follow the “blueprint” set by the California Department of Transportation’s, or Caltrans, existing encampment policy, which has “resolved more than 11,000 encampments” since 2021. Newsom claims that Caltrans will store personal property cleared during the encampment for a limited period of time. But a recent investigation from Type Investigations shows that, in reality, it is nearly impossible for homeless people to recover their stolen belongings. 

Meanwhile, private contractors can make millions of dollars clearing a single camp. 

This executive order is exactly what homeless advocates and unhoused people feared would happen following the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

It’s not clear if all localities will follow Newsom’s order. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for instance, has shown hesitancy to further criminalize the homeless following the Grants Pass decision. 

“This ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail,” she said. 

Meanwhile, San Francisco Mayor London Breed cheered on the ruling, saying the city planned to be “very aggressive and assertive in moving encampments.” Similarly (and horrifyingly), the Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris warned, “I’m warming up the bulldozer.” 

Some Republicans are starting to seriously regret Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.

It’s been only one week since Vance was nominated at the Republican National Convention, and already his own party members are expressing severe doubts about Trump’s pick. The former president’s allies have acknowledged that nominating Vance was the product of Trump’s absolute certainty that he would be able to defeat Joe Biden in November. While Vance wouldn’t do much for swing voters or independents, he would likely shore up support among Trump’s base.

But ever since Biden passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s new presumptive nominee, Republicans have begun to sour on Vance.

“The road got a lot harder. He was the only pick that wasn’t the safe pick. And I think everyone has now realized that,” one House Republican told Axios Thursday, under the condition of anonymity.

Another House Republican told Axios that Vance “doesn’t add much.”

“And now with Kamala at the top, the capacity to have expanded the map a little bit ... would have been much more beneficial,” the GOP lawmaker said.

It’s not just Republican lawmakers who are feeling buyer’s remorse. A CNN poll found that Vance was the least liked vice presidential nominee for a nonincumbent following his party’s convention since 1980.

Since being nominated last week, Vance has marred the Trump ticket with his awkward jokes about diet soda, sexist comments about “childless cat ladies,” and humiliating rumors about having sex with a couch. Vance has been so embroiled in gaffes, he hasn’t even really gotten to expound on any of his “new right” ideas, such as his phony brand of conservative economic populism, or creepy pronatalism, or terrifying techo-authoritarianism.

Trump’s campaign, however, released a statement doubling down on the former president’s increasingly unpopular pick.

“President Trump is thrilled with the choice he made with Senator Vance, and they are the perfect team to take back the White House,” said campaign spokesman Steven Cheung, according to Axios.

After Donald Trump’s bizarre attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris in a phone interview on Fox News Thursday morning, her campaign fired back with a blistering response of its own.

The Harris campaign sent out an email minutes later with the subject line “Statement on a 78-year-old criminal’s Fox News appearance,” wondering “is Donald Trump ok?” They called out Trump for “lying and making threats,” praising abortion bans while criticizing mail-in-voting, and being “old and quite weird.”

The email also notes, “If anyone wants an alternative, Kamala Harris is offering one.”

It’s a quick and snarky response that is sure to land well with Democrats and younger voters. Harris already scored points against Trump when she kicked off her campaign Monday, highlighting her history as a prosecutor against Trump’s legally questionable record. These biting criticisms of Trump seem to have set off his meltdown Thursday.

In the Fox News appearance the email referred to, Trump was not happy about Harris’s Monday speech, calling it “disgusting.”

“They say, ‘Sir, be nice. You just got hit with a bullet. Maybe he’s changed. Be nice,’ and I’d love to be nice, but I’m dealing against real garbage when you hear that,” Trump said. He went on to connect Harris’s criticism to the many legal cases against him.

“When you hear that they’ve weaponized the justice system against me, they’ve indicted me four times. They’ve pushed other lawsuits on. To me, it’s never happened in this country,” Trump ranted. “This is like a third-world country, what they’ve done, a banana republic. Every single court case that I have is pushed on by them.”

If this is how Trump will respond to future attacks from the Harris campaign, it probably won’t do anything beyond the MAGA base. Trump’s complaints about the cases against him didn’t land earlier this year, and they probably won’t pick up steam by including Harris.

The Trump campaign has already resorted to making racist attacks against Harris by calling her a “DEI candidate” and claiming she was soft on crime as a prosecutor. Meanwhile, he keeps making things worse for himself. At a rally Wednesday, he confused Harris with his old opponent Nikki Haley. If Harris can keep landing attacks like this, and Trump keeps making bizarre gaffes, the Democrats could go into Election Day with all of the momentum.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday that it is not clear whether Donald Trump was struck by a bullet during the assassination attempt against him earlier this month.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Wray testified about the agency’s investigation into the attempted assassination, expressing uncertainty about the nature of the injury Trump suffered to his ear.

At one point, Republican Representative Kevin Kiley asked, “How close did the assassin’s bullet come to killing President Trump?” Wray responded that he didn’t know the actual distance, but “my understanding is that either [the bullet] or some shrapnel is what grazed his ear.”

Later in the hearing, Wray replied to a question from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan about where the eight bullets fired by Thomas Crooks went. “With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” Wray again said. However, in affirming that the FBI “accounted for” all of the shots, he added, “I don’t know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else.”

Over the weekend, Trump told a Michigan crowd, “I took a bullet for democracy.” The same day, Axios reported on a memo, written by Trump’s former White House physician and shared by his campaign, that stated the bullet struck Trump’s ear, coming “less than a quarter of an inch from entering [Trump’s] head” and “produc[ing] a 2 cm wide wound.”

While Wray revealed, among other information, that Crooks researched the killing of JFK and flew a drone over the site prior to his attempt on Trump’s life, his remarks about the basic facts surrounding the former president’s injury show that uncertainty still looms over our understanding of the event.

Wray told the committee, “There’s a whole lot of work underway and still a lot of work to do, and our understanding of what happened and why will continue to evolve.”

J.D. Vance is getting slammed for once calling Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris, “childless cat ladies,” and all this newfound attention should probably worry him.

During an interview on Fox News’s now-canceled Tucker Carlson Tonight in July 2021, Vance took aim at Democratic politicians.

“We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too,” Vance said.

“And it’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”

To be clear, Vance is not objecting to actual childlessness. What he’s essentially saying is that only people who reproduce have a stake in America. While this statement was from years ago, this idea is still deeply embedded in his current campaign, which is built on pronatalism and his own phony brand of economic populism, which places the biological nuclear family at the center.

The clip’s resurfacing has led to an intense online firestorm that has attracted the attention of one high-profile critic, as well as a mob that Vance should truly fear.

Actress Jennifer Aniston took to Instagram to post the clip of Vance’s “childless cat lady” remark, with her own scathing criticism.

“I truly can’t believe this is coming from a potential VP of The United States,” Aniston, who rarely makes political statements, wrote. “All I can say is … Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”

Aniston has been open about her struggles to get pregnant, including by trying IVF, but how she has no regrets that it didn’t pan out for her.

In June, Vance voted against legislation that would codify access to in vitro fertilization, a strange position for someone who purports to think of procreation as the barrier to entry for civic engagement.

Meanwhile, Vance has angered one group that should strike fear into the heart of any man: fans of pop singer and monocultural icon Taylor Swift, known as the Swifties.

Their beloved icon has proudly touted her cat lady status in the past, and so now, the internet is anticipating his imminent destruction at the hands of her devoted fans.

While the deafening far-right noise around Swift has died down a bit since the Super Bowl, she still has the ability to enrage conservatives and amass support around any issue of her choosing. Should she choose to direct her ire against Vance, or voice support for Harris to spite him, one can only imagine the intensity of the backlash that will follow.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who is in contention to be Harris’s vice presidential pick, may have summed it up the best: There are some lines you just don’t cross on the internet.

“My God, they went after ‘cat people,’ good luck with that! Turn on the internet and see what cat people do when you go after ’em,” he said Wednesday night.