Latest news with #TheAtlantic
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Chuck Todd claims Biden's team set him up on purpose to fail at debate
Chuck Todd says he'll never be able to shake the belief that former President Joe Biden's team purposefully set him up to fail against Donald Trump during last summer's campaign-altering presidential debate. During the latest episode of "The Chuck Toddcast," the ex-NBC anchor told The Atlantic's Mark Leibovich that he's sure that Biden's inner circle scheduled the first presidential debate last year in June so that the former president would look bad and the party would ditch him in time to run his replacement. "Look, I will go to my grave believing that the debate was intentional for that," the host said. Biden's disastrous performance in last summer's presidential debate is widely seen as the death knell for the former president's re-election campaign. Less than a month after the spectacle, where Biden looked weak and cognitively challenged, he announced his withdrawal from the campaign and endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him as the nominee. Biden's cognitive decline has been under more scrutiny in recent months as CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson's newly published book, "Original Sin", alleged that members of Biden's White House engaged in a cover-up of the president's condition. In the clip flagged by The Daily Caller, Leibovich prompted Todd's declaration by bringing up a previous conversation they had about some members of Biden's inner circle using the debate as an opportunity to punch through the cover-up and show the world that Biden was unfit for office. The journalist mentioned "the idea that there were actually people within the White House, within the Biden campaign who thought it would be a good thing to create some kind of daylight for the world to see what they were dealing with on a day-to-day basis." Todd followed up by saying that no matter what Biden's former senior adviser Anita Dunn and campaign co-chair Jen O'Malley Dillon say, he thinks they were trying to expose his frailties. "Anita Dunn and Jen O'Malley Dillon will deny it till they're blue in the face, and if I were in their shoes and I did it, I'd deny it until I was blue in my face, OK?" Todd said. "Of course, you'd deny that," Leibovich agreed. Todd added, "It's like whoever the hell helped Reagan delay the hostage release, OK? It's never going to be admitted. It's too convenient," referring to the January 1981 release of American hostages held by Iran, after Jimmy Carter had already lost his re-election effort to Reagan. Going back to the alleged plot to expose Biden, Todd continued, "There was no other reason. This idea, 'Well, we needed to shake up the race.' In late June? Who shakes up a race in late June?" "They knew when the nomination was going to be and they knew they needed to deal with this with an opportunity to make a change if it was necessary," Todd added. "I will always believe this." Reps for the former president did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
International Business Times
6 hours ago
- International Business Times
Meet the Futurist Re-Engineering Tech Intimacy for the 2030s and Rewriting the Code of Love in a Lonely Age
In the middle of a recent TED conference futurist Cathy Hackl captivated audiences with an experiment that explored the blurry intersection of human emotion and artificial intelligence. Known for her pioneering work at Magic Leap, where she helped launch the virtual human Mica and introduced C-level executives to embodied AI for the first time, Hackl has long been at the forefront of human-computer interaction. Her latest experiments take that vision even further, probing how we might use AI not just to assist us, but to understand and evolve our most human experiences: connection, heartbreak, and love. Her TED journey began with a matchmaking experiment using AI, an unconventional but compelling approach that earned her an invitation to the main stage. But Hackl isn't done. In her next experiment, she'll spend a week "dating" four different AIs, allowing them to compete for her attention and even advise her on who to choose and how to end things. It's part social study, part tech demo, and part emotional audit. Recently, she also turned to AI vibe-coding tools to help navigate the emotional fallout of a breakup, effectively gamifying grief and reframing romantic recovery. All of this is in service of a bigger idea: The Tech Intimacy Scale, Hackl's soon-to-launch framework designed to help people measure and improve their digital relationships. As we shift from the attention economy to what she calls the "intimacy economy," Hackl believes that the future of tech is not about replacing human connection, but enhancing it. From low-intimacy interactions like swiping on dating apps to high-intimacy tools like immersive storytelling in augmented and virtual reality, the scale assesses not just how we use technology, but how it makes us feel. Her goal is not to vilify technology, but to encourage a more thoughtful, emotionally intelligent design and use of it. Just as Brené Brown brought the language of vulnerability and shame to the forefront of emotional literacy, Hackl is crafting a new vocabulary to measure and guide intimacy in digital environments. Brown's groundbreaking work helped people see the power of vulnerability in forging trust and belonging, Hackl takes this further by exploring how technology can either amplify or diminish those vulnerable moments. Similarly, Scott Galloway has repeatedly emphasized how macroeconomic and demographic shifts have eroded traditional relationship structures, especially among young men. In his books and interviews, Galloway points to declining male participation in romantic relationships as both a symptom and cause of broader social detachment. Hackl's ideas provide a complementary lens, while Galloway diagnoses the problem, Hackl begins to architect solutions, imagining digital ecosystems that foster emotional intelligence and nuanced human interaction through immersive tech, gamification, and AI-powered connection tools. Derek Thompson, writing in The Atlantic, has expertly unpacked the "loneliness epidemic" and its correlation to technology, noting how social platforms create an illusion of community while often leaving users feeling more isolated. Hackl acknowledges this dissonance and instead seeks to reverse the trend by advocating for intentional, emotionally aware technology that prioritizes genuine connection. Where Thompson cautions about technology's unintended consequences, Hackl outlines a roadmap for repurposing those same tools to rebuild social capital and emotional resonance. Mel Robbins, known for her practical advice and behavioral triggers like the "5 Second Rule," focuses on motivating individuals to take action in their personal and professional lives. Hackl's approach similarly invites users to be proactive, but in their digital relationships, urging individuals not to passively consume connection through endless swipes, but to "play more," engage authentically, and use immersive storytelling to build emotional presence. Robbins encourages behavior change in daily life; Hackl extends that to the virtual spaces where people increasingly spend their time. What makes Hackl's work particularly timely is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. She is both reflecting on and contributing to a wider movement toward intentional living, vulnerability, and connection. Hackl is building a framework that acknowledges our loneliness crisis without resigning to it. Instead, she invites creators, developers, and users to take part in a more emotionally intelligent technological future one that, like the work of Brown, Galloway, Thompson, and Robbins, reminds us that connection is both a need and a skill, whether offline or on. Technology isn't the enemy of intimacy. When used with awareness and intention, it can be its greatest ally.
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump has been an iPhone fan, and why it is a headache for his security team
President Donald Trump 's unprecedented accessibility through his personal iPhone has become a defining feature of his presidency, but security experts continue to worry about the potential vulnerabilities his device creates. Unlike any modern predecessor, Trump maintains constant contact with CEOs, celebrities, lawmakers, and journalists who bypass the White House switchboard entirely to reach him directly on his iPhone. During a May executive order signing ceremony, Trump's phone rang twice with the "Reflection" ringtone, prompting him to quip, "It's only a congressman." Security concerns persist despite presidential protocol According to The Atlantic, past advisors have repeatedly warned Trump that his habit of keeping his personal device leaves him vulnerable to hacking. It remains unclear what security modifications have been made to address these concerns, though the president is rarely seen without his phone. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The device has evolved significantly since Trump's flip-phone days in 2005. Initially using both Android and Apple devices during his 2016 campaign, Trump eventually became a dedicated iPhone user. Photos from his January 2025 inauguration reveal he's upgraded to a newer model featuring Apple's "Dynamic Island" cutout, indicating at least an iPhone 14 Pro. Personal touch comes with professional risks Trump's accessibility often depends on timing, with callers attempting to reach him during motorcade rides or when leaving the Oval Office. The president's phone frequently interrupts official business, and photographers have captured his customized lockscreen featuring an image of himself. This unprecedented level of presidential accessibility through personal technology represents a significant departure from traditional security protocols. While President Obama maintained a BlackBerry in office, he couldn't receive incoming calls, a restriction Trump has notably avoided despite ongoing security warnings from his team. AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Daily Mail
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ted Cruz-Tucker Carlson spat escalates
Texas Senator Ted Cruz dug into the archives to get back at political commentator Tucker Carlson after the former Fox News host embarrassed him over his lack of knowledge on Iran . The two engaged in a tense debate over the US's support for Israel against Iran, with Cruz now questioning whether Carlson's anger at the prospect of President Trump joining the conflict. The Texas senator found an article from The Atlantic in 2012 with the headline, 'Tucker Carlson: "Iran Deserves to Be Annihilated,"' and captioned the post, 'Wonder what changed? [thinking emoji].' Cruz's pointed post came after Carlson questioned his unequivocal support for Israel during an interview on The Tucker Carlson Network. Carlson managed to embarrass Cruz when he grilled the Texas lawmaker about the population size and ethnic makeup of Iran, with Cruz unable to answer. The Atlantic article, written by Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, used a quote from Carlson that stated, 'I do think, I'm sure I'm the lone voice in saying this, that Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they're lunatics. I think they're evil.' Goldberg slammed Carlson in the article for using war-mongering rhetoric and 'inhuman' language that 'sets back America's interests.' Carlson then issued a statement explaining that he was 'tongue-tied' when he made the controversial remarks, noting that he was 'actually on the opposite side' and hoped that former President Barack Obama wouldn't attack Iran. 'I think attacking could be a disaster for the US and am worried that Obama will do it, for fear of seeming weak before an election,' Carlson said. He added that he believed the Iranian government was 'awful' and deserved 'to be crushed,' but after the war in Iraq, the US should refrain from attacking the Middle East. Goldberg also included an emailed response from Carlson after the article was published that read, 'I was arguing that an attack on Iran might cause a massive spike in energy prices that could tank our economy.' 'In other words, slow down -- just the opposite of what you claim I said. Watch the [expletive] tape." New York Magazine also published a criticism of Carlson after his comments, arguing he was calling for genocide in Iran. The interview that sparked the initial controversy was from a now-canceled Fox News program called Red Eye. Commentator Andrew Levy sarcastically asked Carlson if the US was the only country that was allowed to make 'preemptive strikes.' Carlson laughed and responded, 'I know you're sort of kidding, but I agree with that.' He added that he believed the US was the only country with the moral authority to launch preemptive strikes. Carlson has since been vocal against US intervention in the region. He pushed Cruz in an interview, exposing the Texas senator for not knowing the population of Iran. 'You don't know the population of the people you're trying to topple?' Carlson fired back in response. 'How could you not know that?' he added. 'It's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.' Carlson also pressed Cruz on a Bible verse when the senator said that his support for Israel is because 'Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.' Carlson was stunned by Cruz's answer and asked a follow-up about where in the Bible he saw the verse. 'You're quoting a Bible phrase you don't have context for, you don't know where in the Bible it is... that's your theology?' Carlson pressed. Cruz also came under fire for telling Carlson that the US was involved in 'carrying out military strikes,' a departure from the stance the White House held. 'You're breaking news here,' Carlson responded. 'The US government last night denied... on behalf of Trump, that we're acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.' Cruz then clarified that Israel, not the US, is bombing Iran, but that America supports Israel. The Texas senator has defended his beliefs since the fiery interview, slamming Carlson on his own podcast as 'bat crap crazy' on foreign policy. 'He's gone off the rails. He is suddenly a hardcore isolationist,' Cruz said. Allegations then swirled that Carlson's views shifted after taking money from the Qatar government, which the co-founder of his network, Neil Patel, denied in a statement posted on X. reached out to The Tucker Carlson Network for comment on Cruz's recent X post, but didn't immediately hear back.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ted vs Tucker spat escalates as Texas senator digs up decades-old article to embarrass his TV nemesis
Texas Senator Ted Cruz dug into the archives to get back at political commentator Tucker Carlson after the former Fox News host embarrassed him over his lack of knowledge on Iran. The two engaged in a tense debate over the US's support for Israel against Iran, with Cruz now questioning whether Carlson's anger at the prospect of President Trump joining the conflict. The Texas senator found an article from The Atlantic in 2012 with the headline, 'Tucker Carlson: "Iran Deserves to Be Annihilated,"' and captioned the post, 'Wonder what changed? [thinking emoji].' Cruz's pointed post came after Carlson questioned his unequivocal support for Israel during an interview on The Tucker Carlson Network. Carlson managed to embarrass Cruz when he grilled the Texas lawmaker about the population size and ethnic makeup of Iran, with Cruz unable to answer. The Atlantic article, written by Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, used a quote from Carlson that stated, 'I do think, I'm sure I'm the lone voice in saying this, that Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they're lunatics. I think they're evil.' Goldberg slammed Carlson in the article for using war-mongering rhetoric and 'inhuman' language that 'sets back America's interests.' Carlson then issued a statement explaining that he was 'tongue-tied' when he made the controversial remarks, noting that he was 'actually on the opposite side' and hoped that former President Barack Obama wouldn't attack Iran. 'I think attacking could be a disaster for the US and am worried that Obama will do it, for fear of seeming weak before an election,' Carlson said. The article was a response to a quote Carlson said on Fox News that stated 'Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they're lunatics. I think they're evil' He added that he believed the Iranian government was 'awful' and deserved 'to be crushed,' but after the war in Iraq, the US should refrain from attacking the Middle East. Goldberg also included an emailed response from Carlson after the article was published that read, 'I was arguing that an attack on Iran might cause a massive spike in energy prices that could tank our economy.' 'In other words, slow down -- just the opposite of what you claim I said. Watch the f***ing tape." New York Magazine also published a criticism of Carlson after his comments, arguing he was calling for genocide in Iran. The interview that sparked the initial controversy was from a now-canceled Fox News program called Red Eye. Commentator Andrew Levy sarcastically asked Carlson if the US was the only country that was allowed to make 'preemptive strikes.' Carlson laughed and responded, 'I know you're sort of kidding, but I agree with that.' He added that he believed the US was the only country with the moral authority to launch preemptive strikes. Carlson has since been vocal against US intervention in the region. He pushed Cruz in an interview, exposing the Texas senator for not knowing the population of Iran. 'You don't know the population of the people you're trying to topple?' Carlson fired back in response. 'How could you not know that?' he added. 'It's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.' Carlson also pressed Cruz on a Bible verse when the senator said that his support for Israel is because 'Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.' Carlson was stunned by Cruz's answer and asked a follow-up about where in the Bible he saw the verse. 'You're quoting a Bible phrase you don't have context for, you don't know where in the Bible it is... that's your theology?' Carlson pressed. Cruz also came under fire for telling Carlson that the US was involved in 'carrying out military strikes,' a departure from the stance the White House held. 'You're breaking news here,' Carlson responded. 'The US government last night denied... on behalf of Trump, that we're acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.' Cruz then clarified that Israel, not the US, is bombing Iran, but that America supports Israel. The Texas senator has defended his beliefs since the fiery interview, slamming Carlson on his own podcast as 'bat crap crazy' on foreign policy. 'He's gone off the rails. He is suddenly a hardcore isolationist,' Cruz said. Allegations then swirled that Carlson's views shifted after taking money from the Qatar government, which the co-founder of his network, Neil Patel, denied in a statement posted on X.
