On Sunday afternoon, MSNBC host Alex Witt and contributor Molly Jong-Fast fretted over the Donald Trump administration conducting an airstrike on a Venezuelan boat believed to be hauling drugs. Jong-Fast went on to dismiss President Trump's efforts to fight anti-Semitism in higher education and claimed that he was targeting Chicago crime against the wishes of the state's Democratic leaders because it is "Obama's city." Speaking with Jong-Fast, the MSNBC host brought up Vice President J.D. Vance responding to complaints about the strike against the Venezuelan boat: So let's add to this, Molly, that exchange on X by Vice President J.D. Vance who called killing cartel members "the highest and best use of our military," saying he doesn't give a S blank what people call a U.S. strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean. He said that after someone posted, "Hey, killing citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime." Witt then kvetched: Trump's response to Chicago, Vance's response here -- they do have an air of hostility. Can you explain that? And what do you think of Mark (Leibovitch)'s assessment that we're all just kind of becoming numb to this -- this unprecedented tenor that we get from our highest leaders in the land? It never happened before the Trump era.     "Trump is not going into these blue cities and blue states because he wants to fight crime or because his administration -- by the way, the administration doesn't have the same message that he does," The MSNBC contributor asserted. Adding: "Or they wanted illegal immigration both -- you know you're in trouble when they can't even go down the same story. ... This is about these sort of moves towards authoritarianism, and I think it's really important because when you look at what Trump is doing with the universities, it's the same thing. It's not about anti-Semitism -- they're not trying to stop anti-Semitism. They're trying to control thought -- they're trying to control money, they're trying to control admissions. They're trying to, you know, put in a sort of authoritarian playbook." Jong-Fast continued: So I think it's really important that we just call a spade a spade here. And I do think, you know, there's, this is not a coincidence he's going into Chicago. He's targeting Pritzger. He sees that Pritzger is a very strong governor -- he sees that this is a blue -- this is Obama's city, you know. But I do think what -- the one thing that sort of makes me feel better about this is it clearly is illegal. We saw it was illegal in Los Angeles. ... But I do think it's important when we see what's happening here to be really clear-eyed and to know what it is and that these are authoritarian leanings, and he would even say it. And this is not about crime or immigration or any other number of things. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC's Alex Witt Reports September 7, 2025 2:12 p.m. Eastern ALEX WITT: So let's add to this, Molly, that exchange on X by Vice President J.D. Vance who called killing cartel members "the highest and best use of our military," saying he doesn't give a S blank what people call a U.S. strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean. He said that after someone posted, "Hey, killing citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime." Trump's response to Chicago, Vance's response here -- they do have an air of hostility. Can you explain that? And what do you think of Mark (Leibovitch)'s assessment that we're all just kind of becoming numb to this -- this unprecedented tenor that we get from our highest leaders in the land? It never happened before the Trump era. MOLLY JONG-FAST, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I mean, I don't think that we're -- I mean, certainly to survive, you know, we have to be thoughtful about the things that get us upset, but, you know, there were marches yesterday in the District of Columbia -- there are huge marches in Chicago. People are, I think, reading this for what it is. The thing I would caution is, Trump is not going into these blue cities and blue states because he wants to fight crime or because his administration -- by the way, the administration doesn't have the same message that he does, right? Or they wanted illegal immigration both -- you know you're in trouble when they can't even go down the same story. But, either way, that's not what this is about, right? This is about these sort of moves towards authoritarianism, and I think it's really important because when you look at what Trump is doing with the universities, it's the same thing. It's not about anti=Semitism -- they're not trying to stop anti-Semitism. They're trying to control thought -- they're trying to control money, they're trying to control admissions. They're trying to, you know, put in a sort of authoritarian playbook. So I think it's really important that we just call a spade a spade here. And I do think, you know, there's, this is not a coincidence he's going into Chicago. He's targeting Pritzger. He sees that Pritzger is a very strong governor -- he sees that this is a blue -- this is Obama's city, you know. But I do think what -- the one thing that sort of makes me feel better about this is it clearly is illegal. We saw it was illegal in Los Angeles. And, you know, he's going to try this in Chicago -- District of Columbia obviously is different because it doesn't have the same federalist system, particularly, protecting it. But I do think it's important when we see what's happening here to be really clear-eyed and to know what it is and that these are authoritarian leanings, and he would even say it. And this is not about crime or immigration or any other number of things. WITT: Yeah, I'm glad for that assessment there. 

I matched with Jane on OkCupid. Not Tinder (which is for hookups). Not Hinge (which is for hookups with intellectuals). But OkCupid, which is — in the online dating world — a kind of normie land.That’s where the more ordinary, more boring singles go to meet people they can do boring things with (meet for coffee, etc.).'You don’t have to live like this. You can just have coffee with a person.'Jane was above average in looks. She had a job. She liked stuff I liked. She didn’t have pictures of herself doing sexy poses on a yacht. Or sneering and holding up her middle finger to the camera.She seemed nice. Like genuinely nice. And normal. Possibly sane. That’s a serious win in the online dating realm.The fine art of small talkWe texted back and forth on the OkCupid app, chatting, getting to know each other.When our conversation reached a natural lull, I proposed a coffee date for later that week. I suggested a quiet café in the city. She said yes.For the next couple of days, I daydreamed about our meeting. I felt like even if we didn’t fall in love, it would still be nice to have coffee with a relaxed, easygoing person.This is often the best part of dating: those moments of happy anticipation, of feeling pleasantly excited about a date.A surprise message!But then, on the night before our date, I got a new message from Jane. I thought she was going to cancel. That happens a lot. People get cold feet.Before I even opened her message, I considered how I might convince her to go through with our meeting. I often got cold feet myself before internet dates. Everybody did.I would remind her it was just coffee, just a half-hour of her time. And the café was nice. You could look out the window. Why not? You only live once ...I opened her message. It wasn’t cold feet. She was writing because we hadn’t discussed our “values” in our previous messaging. Shared values were important to her in a relationship, she said. She wanted to confirm that we were “on the same page” in that regard.RELATED: Breaking up with the division industrial complex: A romantic comedy’s case for connection Bridge Entertainment LabsHow to respond?I was surprised by this message. This didn’t sound like the person I had been texting with before. She hadn’t mentioned her values in our previous conversation. She didn’t put them in her profile. That’s why I liked her!I hadn’t put my values in my profile either. Like what kind of values was she even talking about? Did she mean things like being an honest and upstanding guy? I try to do that.Or did “values” just mean political positions? Like on immigration reform, or abortion, or mail-in ballots?This was a tricky situation. I would have to think about it.Boys vs. girls The problem was, I’m a guy. When I think of “values,” I think of things like being “good on your word.” Like if you say you’re going to help your buddy move, you help him move. Even if it’s raining.Or like when you’re a kid and you get in a fight. You don’t try to really hurt the other guy. Once somebody wins, you let up. You act in an honorable way.Which is different from the qualities women value: compassion. Empathy. Helping people who can’t help themselves. These are also excellent characteristics for a person to have. But they are a little more female-coded.But what if Jane was thinking of specific things, like she hates Trump and insists that I hate him too? That doesn’t seem fair.The truth is that men and women approach politics differently. In the past, that was considered a good thing. That was the yin and yang of heterosexual relationships.I thought back to past girlfriends. Had we always agreed about politics? Of course not. Had it caused problems in the relationships? Not really. In some ways, it made them stronger.Beware the friend groupI still had to respond to Jane. What should I say? I went back through our original text conversation. There she was: nice, agreeable Jane. Just like I remembered.So why the sudden need to clarify our values?I concluded this was probably her friends. Or maybe her co-workers. Or maybe her therapist. Jane had told somebody about our date and they were advising her not to meet me until she had questioned me about my political orientation.The responseI didn’t know what to write back. I started texting different things but then deleted them. And then I felt sad. Sad for her. Sad for myself. An invisible wall of toxic politics was being forced between us, blocking us from the simple pleasure of meeting up.I finally texted: “I try not to discuss politics on the first date.” And then I said something like: “You don’t have to live like this. You can just have coffee with a person.”She didn’t respond right away. Maybe she was thinking about it. I hoped she was.But then the next morning we were unmatched. She had disappeared. Maybe she had blocked me? Then I felt even more sad. And I felt bad for her.What could have beenBut I still think about Jane. What if she had been the one? In another time, a less political era, we might have met for coffee, gone for a walk, made a connection.She would put up with my male perspective. I would put up with her female perspective. Like men and women have been doing throughout human history.Who knows what might have happened?

The 1989 album includes the classic songs “Pretending,” “Bad Love,” and “Before You Accuse Me,” and features many guest performances. The post New Eric Clapton ‘Journeyman: Deluxe Edition’ Includes Prev. Unreleased Tracks appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Zohran Mamdani Explains Why the Rich Won't Want to Flee Higher NYC Taxes If He Becomes Mayor

'So NOT Just Innocent Fisherman': DataRepublican's Deep Dive on Drug Boat U.S. Struck a DAMNING Must-Read

Morning Minute: I Hear Tell We're Seizing and Pouncing Again

On a months-long Mars mission, medical risks are magnified. Can artificial intelligence could provide the lifeline astronauts will need? We explain all.

On a months-long Mars mission, medical risks are magnified. Can artificial intelligence could provide the lifeline astronauts will need? We explain all.

Howard Stern, the popular radio host who gave a massive boost to the nascent satellite radio business when he signed a blockbuster, multimillion dollar contract for SiriusXM almost two decades ago, has returned to the airwaves after trolling listeners with a gag.Stern, 71,...

President Donald Trump is putting the "scandal" of former President Joe Biden's autopen executive actions up among the "biggest, ever."